Profile photo of

That’s the point – labels are misleading, and one of the directions one can be led into is arguing over the legitimacy of a particular ideology or even if it’s a legitimate topic to pursue. I really don’t like using the term “communism” anymore, because it hasn’t ever existed anyway – it’s a theoretical concept. What is important about it is, however, the means by which certain persons or groups have sought to bring it about. The same was true of Hitler’s appealing to national pride and the Aryan Race. It was the means by which they all attempted to bring about their supposed goals that became the problem.

I don’t believe any of the stated goals of today’s leaders. Heal the environment? Save the trees and spotted owl? Eliminate poverty? Live as one, valuing everybody? All pure bovine, equine, and canine excrement. They don’t give a darn about any of that stuff. Those are all means to an end: money and power, and ultimately entire domination. It has been so throughout history.

So what term do I prefer? Just another one that brings ridicule either because it’s sometimes associated with things spiritual, or else because it just sounds so absurd. Still, my preferred terms are ultimate evil or fundamental evil (they both mean essentially the same thing to me). The people behind last night’s attacks in Paris, the people that kidnapped Coptic Christians from Egypt and assassinated them in Libya, the people that murdered over 3000 people on 9/11, people like Pol Pot, Adoph Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, President Andrew Jackson (ask a Native American if you don’t understand that one), etc. – those are ultimately and/or fundamentally evil people. Forget the grand and glorious goals to which they pointed in order to rally the people behind them – look at the means they employed, and the slaughter of masses of innocent human beings. It’s all about money and power and domination. It’s NOT about “fringe groups in every country.” And in general, society has been brainwashed sufficiently through centuries of the process that they cannot “see it.” They wouldn’t really even know what they were rebelling against if they did rise up, and the first person to come along that seemed to credibly promise them peace, security and freedom, would be followed through whatever means that new leader took them. Rinse, wash, repeat.

The closest we’ve ever come in human history to an ideal system, on a large scale, arguably began in 29 May 1790 when Rhode Island became the 13th state to ratify the Constitution (recognizing that other dates are sometimes argued, especially considering that an election occurred in early 1789 to select the first President under the new Constitution). Ben Franklin’s answer to Mrs. Powel, when she asked what it was they had produced, was short and to the point: “A republic, if you can keep it.” We never have, and the rest of the world hasn’t ever come as close.

Human beings, if we believe our own Declaration of Independence, were automatically born with certain “unalienable rights.” In other words, we were given our agency, or personal choice, from the beginning. True maturity combined with decency, leads to an adult that is able to exercise his/her rights without denying someone else theirs. So it’s a question of agency: we either have it or we do not. And those that would take our agency from us, regardless of who we are or where we live, are fundamentally evil. Those are who we’re dealing with, and why. And that’s just my dollar-two-ninety-eight, adjusted down to 2¢ through the evils of currency manipulation.