Paradocracy

When a people have succumbed to tyranny, the punishment doled out assumes a certain quality, a kind of official capacity, business as usual.   Not only do the ‘officials’ come to view their egos as one of their leading qualifications, one of the basic job requirements, they come to view their hostility as one of the  primary  requirements, one of the most reliable tools on their belts, their preferred tool for any task. Indeed, that general hostility, the heavy hand of government, has become part of the very archetype of the ‘professional law enforcement officer’, business as usual for that institution maintaining a monopoly over the initiation of force and coercion; that institution specializing in torment, torture, intimidation and trauma, often to the point of permanent bodily damage and occasionally to the point of death, all in pursuit of social paralysis (or assuring the public’s obedience) in the name of ‘official business’. Indeed, the ‘officials’ and the ‘enforce...

It is vital that a people invoke the Highest Authority to affirm and safeguard their rights; that they reject any effort at the same by any institution or chief executive who seeks to substantiate oneself on the basis of some 'justification' beyond reproach, beyond mere mortals  —  a 'justification' amounting to (or delivering) the kinds of men who believe themselves superior and unaccountable to their contemporaries who lack of substance and thus require the remedies administered through the edicts and dictates of institutions or individuals claiming authority over them.  For this reason, it is especially important that any governing body, especially that which asserts and maintains that monopoly over the powers of force and coercion, be prohibited from staking any claim beyond the terrestrial, beyond the provable, beyond that which can reasonably be restrained and held to account. For this reason, it is essential that the people, in defense of the individual, retain t...

While traveling, I am often struck by the interesting social dynamics and peculiarities present at such places as airports . Whether it be the manner in which queues form, the way that people negotiate for space, or the inconsistencies in the enforcement of TSA policies over the years, there is much to be learned about humanity through simple observations at the airport. One of those lessons is available to us at baggage claim, where a process offers some interesting parallels to our relationship with government. Of course, with the promises of baggage claim being far less ambitious, and with airlines having a slightly greater interest in customer satisfaction, baggage claim generally tends to deliver on its basic promise; government, on the other hand, generally betrays its basic promises in favor of much more ambitious agendas. And where it betrays its promises and the very premise of “just government” (i.e. “the consent of the governed”), the individual has little to no recourse for...

While proverbs, Biblical or otherwise, tend to represent general truths that have and come with exceptions (which the Bible actually acknowledges), I do find many such proverbs troubling, such as the proverb which asserts that it is wiser or more prudent to remain silent and thought wise than to voice a thought and be known a fool.  This proverb, I believe, properly encourages carefulness with thoughts, words and actions, but if taken to the extreme, it can easily stifle dialogue that might turn constructive while actively running the risk of exposing one’s own (and others’) mistakes, foolishness and misjudgments.  I also find fault with the proverb which asserts or implies that the quietest man is (or often is) the wisest in the room.  Where this may occasionally be true, it seems in most cases that the quietest person in the room is the one with the least to contribute, or in other cases the one too socially inept to engage, too afraid of rejection, too arrogant to trou...

One of the reasons that we must deal directly with history, not just through raw data, academic abstractions and generalizations but through the physical testimonies of the real people who actually experienced it, is that we must necessarily appreciate the personal and often the anecdotal to see how they square with expectations, to see whether and to what extent the data and the academic profiles (published in texts) account for essential nuances and accurately represent the truth in its knowable totality.  We must admit information that might dispute or contradict the conceptions of the present day, where the analyses (or revisions) are naturally always taking place: conceptions inevitably altering (and reflecting) our perspectives on (and attitudes toward) history; conceptions constantly evolving, not always for the better and not always for the benefit of the truth; and conceptions always limited by the prevailing or preferred theories, models, and indeed subjective prejudices ...

A very strong (if not impenetrable) argument might be made that members of the LGBTQIA+ community are suffering from illness or, scientifically speaking, some kind of disorder — the latter being true by definition for the fact that each lifestyle represents not only an obvious departure from the natural course of the species, a course necessary for its very survival, but a lifestyle that would have never been possible if not for others specifically rejecting them in favor of procreation and pair bonding. While this is not necessarily a criticism of any individual’s personal preferences, it is to show that our species has survived, and will continue to survive, through that same kind of rejection; there is no other option.  And while that language may seem harsh to those with deviant sexual preferences, the ‘rejection’ is not a rejection of the sexual deviant as a person but squarely the rejection of any claim which seeks to normalize a set of sexual preferences which cannot be univ...

Allow me to elaborate on what I view as infecting society: that political attitude of indifference or apathy, or the idea that all political matters should be satirized or lampooned as a source of humor or the butt of a joke, and that only select political matters are sacred, so sacred that they shouldn’t be contested, and that detractors should be silenced or killed as ‘bigots’ who represent the defense of the former culture since infected; that those willing to withstand the insults and the assaults, those willing to stand resolute, to remain curious, to speak seriously, those willing to abstain from applause when the crowd is applauding and to refuse to laugh when everyone else is laughing, those willing to go to whatever lengths to defend that which is worth defending, should be met by a collective sigh or a countenance of reproach, a comment quickly typed or a trigger instantly pulled. That is the infection.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, people all around the world were placing their trust in “the science”, believing the unbelievable and the unproven for a variety of reasons not specifically related to “science” at all. For instance, people worldwide bought into mandates around masking, experimental treatments, and the “six-feet rule” for “social distancing” — ideas promulgated at the time under the banner of “the science” but ultimately unsubstantiated by “science” and even later admitted arbitrary by the individual responsible for the “six-feet” rule.  For most people, this was a matter of ill-placed confidence in their mainstream media outlets (which ultimately galvanized support by politicizing the issues), but even more so a case of people fearing what they didn’t (and still don’t) understand, placing their trust in the appointed “experts” and going along with the plan — especially when that plan made them the “good guys” aligned with “the science” against their political enemies ...