Monsters Among Us

For thousands of years, humanity has strived toward the basic principle of Natural Law: Each person has a right to their life, liberty, & property. That is Natural Law, in a nutshell. The most basic recognition of this Law is the right to life. You are a sovereign human being, & you have a sacred right to live. Your life is not subject to the whims of other people, who might wish you harm, for whatever reason. No one, regardless of how smart, rich, or powerful they are has the right to take away your basic right to live. We have developed Law & Justice as a deterrence to those who would harm us, & use our collective strength to defend the weak from the strong. There has always been evil in humanity. There are those among us who only wish to kill & destroy. They do it for profit, for fun, or some other twisted, antisocial reason. Responsible, thinking people have opposed them for millennia, promoting Natural Law & the sanctity of human life.

But now, the monsters have ascended to positions of power. They have systematically distorted Law to their own agendas, twisting justice into injustice, & attacking the very core of Law. They redefine life, morality, & try to obscure their evil deeds by moral relativism. Lately, we have seen the face of evil in the planned parenthood videos. Horrible people glibly chat about killing babies, picking over their bones like hyenas. Callously indifferent to the suffering & murder of these innocents, the monsters only joke about the money they will make off of the organs from these murdered children. These are criminals.. vicious animals who only kill & destroy.

But they are not alone. They have co-conspirators in their treachery. For over 50 yrs their propagandists have carried the water for them, enabling them through the distortion of Law, the perversion of Justice, & the corruption of morality. They have done it all through public funds. No civilized, thinking person would contribute money to promote or defend these inhumane practices, so they tap into the public treasury, infiltrating positions of influence to promote their agenda. All the major institutions.. govt, media, academia, entertainment.. ALL of them have been complicit with the destruction of the family & the murder of innocent life. Hitler is condemned for killing millions of jews. We have multiplied his crimes, & made a public institution of it.

It is quite simple. The womb is a place for a new human to grow & develop, depending on the birth mother for nutrients & protection. This amazing phenomena is plainly obvious, but many disagree about it's significance. Some seem to think that because the womb is providing these services, the owner of the womb has to right to terminate the life of the 'boarder'. My contention is that the mammalian status of the nurturer does not give them the right to terminate the new human's existence, for any reason but self defense. Being a mammal is fraught with inconveniences, but also has percs. We have to live with our specie-ial make up. That is the way we procreate.

We all agree about the dependency of the unborn child but there is disagreement about the correlation of the new human's rights in this dependency. Some seem to think that because the host mother is the sole provider of nutrition & protection, she should have the right to terminate the life of the new human developing inside her. I maintain that the new human has rights, which should NOT be negated for the convenience or 'choice' of the host mother. The child is still COMPLETELY dependent, before & after birth. The only difference is the birth mother is the only one who can do it before birth. Why should that simple fact nullify the new human's right to life? Why is he unprotected as a person one minute before birth, but is a protected person 1 minute after birth?

Civilized, enlightened societies try to protect the weak from the strong, & our degeneration as a society reflects our values of human life. I have fully embraced the decline of our culture, & accept the indicators of our decline. This is one of many, & spells the end of civilization in America, as it has in other post moral societies. Killing unborn babies is now acceptable, & has become mainstream. I fought it for many years, in the 70s & into the 80s, but the barbarism of America continues to grow, as other indicators also illustrate. I see abortion as a dehumanizing criminal act, racist in its origins in America, & part of the socially engineered destruction of the family. I have hoped for a return to morality & civility, but i do not see it, or expect it anymore. We are a lost society, with no moral anchor for our culture. Like others before us, we will fade into the anonymity of history. But it is very sad that a once moral people, who valued freedom, built a working system of self rule, & extolled the virtues of human liberty, are now complicit with the destroyers of life & liberty.

We cannot escape the bloodguilt of the innocent, murdered for profit & convenience by evil monsters among us. But our complicity & silence will not be overlooked. The cry of innocent blood calls out from the land, & we can only hang our heads in shame, holding out bloodstained hands. How can a moral people stand idly by while millions of innocents are murdered? Do you think our feigned helplessness will atone for our crimes? No, we have been complicit by our silence, by our taxes, by our turning a blind eye toward the evil in our midst. If we cannot or will not fight the monsters among us, how can we escape the judgment of God? Sodom & Gomorrah were amateurs. Dachau & Auschwitz were wannabes, compared to the human destruction from the American abortion industry. Pol Pot, Stalin, & Mao were rank amateurs. We in America have made murder into a respectable profession. It is big business, yet still subsidized by the taxpayers. This only confirms our own guilt in this bloody war on the unborn.

Where is the indignation over this injustice? Where are the defenders of human life? Why are those charged with providing justice for our nation complicit with the murderers & criminals among us?

America. Once a champion of natural law, & the sanctity of human life, now has fallen to the dredges of humanity, complicit with the unjust murder of millions of innocent people. This is not my America. This is not my heritage, to kill & destroy life. How can a civilized, thinking people fall to such depravity? How can we think that there will be no repercussions from the universe over this crime against life?

Destruction of Production

When i was growing up, most men worked. Most of the moms stayed at home, raising the family & managing the household. Teenagers got jobs, when they were old enough. I started working for 50c/hr in a horse stable, mucking stalls at 14. Then, i got a better paying job at 65c/hr at a farmer's produce stand. But the holy grail for the kids where i lived was construction work. Those guys made big bucks. They made $2/hr & more! They drove hot cars, & had hot girls riding with them. My best friend growing up worked with his dad in construction, as a laborer. We didn't get allowances, or a lot of gadgets for birthdays or holidays. We got clothes, & usually one item that was 'fun'. I got a 22 single shot rifle for christmas at 16, & plinked happily away, even though i had to buy my own ammo.. at 50c/box. My buddy had a nice hunting shotgun, & if i wanted to go bird hunting with him, i'd need one too. It took a long time to save up $35 to buy a 16 ga pump from a neighbor, & i could not afford to shoot it much, since i had to buy my shells, too.

I had a bicycle.. one i had cobbled together from broken ones, & it had bad brakes. But i rode it everywhere. At 16, i put together a functional car from broken volkswagen beetles that my dad had acquired for that purpose. One was a mangled mess, but with a good engine. The other had a decent body, but a blown engine. Combined, they made a functional car.. my car, & it enabled me to get a higher paying job to buy gas & other stuff. It was a union job.. $1.60/hr as a dept store stocker. But now, i was flush with cash. I drove all over town with my buddies, & the road was my new home. Mobility was like a drug, & i was addicted. Sometimes we took my car, but it wasn't very powerful or big, so my buddy's impala was better.

But to finance this high rolling lifestyle, i had to work. I had to save my money, manage it, & spend it wisely, or i'd be stuck at home. Gas was cheap, but so were the wages. I'd buy a coke every now & then or a burger, but not much. Eventually i scrimped & saved, & at 17, bought a new car.. really, almost new. ..only a couple of years old, for $1000. That was a TON of money, but this car was nice. A fiat convertible, with less power than my beetle, but was a cream puff & fit my upwardly mobile, flamboyant personality. I had to work full time in the summers to pay for it, making payments to my dad, who financed it at reasonable interest. It was only a 2 seater, so i could only carry one buddy, or a girl at a time. But with this new symbol of status & prestige, my confidence soared. I bought a motorcycle, too, & continued my cruising ways. I kept this car through college, where i credit it to sweeping the girl of my dreams off her feet. She rode with me a few times, dazzled by my confidence, prosperity, & dreams of the future... at least, that's what i thought.

So what does this trip down memory lane have to do with production? That is the point of this article, isn't it?

Yes. The point is cultural changes, & not for the better. Young people in middle America, where i lived, were expected to work & earn their own way. There was no expectation of a free ride. Sure, some rich kids were spoiled & given everything, but they were not respected. Young men had an expectation of working at fruitful labor.. doing something useful for society. Building, farming, manufacturing.. these were the productive, high paying jobs for working class people. College kids went into engineering, medicine, or some other profession. Very few of my peers wanted to be actors or sports heroes, or rock stars, or politicians, or govt workers, or welfare queens. USEFUL PRODUCTION was the expectation, & all the people could see the benefit, not only for the kid working, but for everyone. My folks wanted me to be a lawyer.. they were in real estate, & saw the need of jurisprudence in their industry, & had to pay hefty sums for those services. They also thought that i liked to argue, & was eloquent enough to succeed as a counselor (who, me?). I went to college, continuing my education. But i wanted to do something. I wanted to be outside, & create something useful. So i dropped out of college, & went into construction, still a high paying job for a working stiff. I'm a retired home builder, now, and i do not regret my choice. I am sure i would have been a successful lawyer, but the climate i grew up in.. with farming, construction, & production, elevated as esteemed avocations, put me on that path. I also found out after studying genealogy, that many of my ancestors were in the building trades, so it could have been in my blood, too.

But the cultural influences on me, as a young man, where productive work was esteemed, embedded in my psyche. I have seen those influence waning, over the years. Sales, huckstering, political maneuvering, flash, & celebrity worship has taken over as the cultural admiration point. I watched Gilligan's island & star trek, but did not expect or want to be an actor. I listened to Crosby, Stills, & Nash, & the Beatles, but did not expect or want to be a rock star. But now the dreams of young people seem to be in NON or even counter productive 'work'. Easy living, not hard work is respected & admired. Partying & free stuff are expected as a right. Oh, there were deadbeats in my generation. I knew of many who wanted to just drink & smoke pot, drifting along doing as little as possible to survive. They were early riders on the govt gravy train, which enabled them to pursue uselessness as a career.

I see the corrupting influences of easy living, the 'get rich quick' philosophy of life, & the Great Fiction, that says govt can enable you to live off of everybody else, as taking over as the new cultural norm. The result of this philosophy is decline for the nation. No culture can sustain an increasing number of dependents & moochers. The explosion of govt & the welfare state is destroying the productivity of America. Instead of useful, productive work, people want easy street. Instead of building & growing, we elevate mooching & looting. This philosophy is deadly for a culture, & has caused the collapse of many societies in the past. When a work ethic is disdained, production will continue to decline until supplies dwindle to nothing. Printing money & living on borrowed fiat currency, without a vibrant, productive society to pay for it, only makes the bubble worse, when it pops.

I may not live to see the bubble pop. I can only hope that there will be a cultural awakening, to reverse this trend. But the signs are all there, for those who can see. If we do not return to a productive, strong work ethic value system, we will collapse under our own weight of uselessness & privilege.

Enlightenment & Reformation

The 'Enlightenment' is sometimes portrayed as a victory over religion.. a secular great awakening where superstition was cast off, & replaced with science & reason. But that is somewhat revisionist, imo. It was the natural consequence of the growing knowledge base, that found its roots in the new christian world view.. one of order, Natural Law, & discovery. The status quo opposed advances & inquiry, as they do now, but the quest for understanding of the world had begun, & most of the early scientists in that time were deeply religious. It was the reformation that opened the door for this movement, by bringing the written word, which was critical to build the knowledge base. Scientific inquiry had a common language, which was the language of religion. Latin brought an increased exposure to the thinking & research of others, & many unknowns were explained. The knowledge of new things brought an increased desire to know more, & a systematic methodology was born.

I don't see these 'eras' as independent of each other. The reformation became the renaissance, which sparked the 'scientific revolution', which spawned the enlightenment. Many of these labels are attempts to revise history, in order to avoid any aspects that don't fit within the desired agenda that the teacher wishes to portray. The times overlap, too. Copernicus, often credited for the beginning of the scientific revolution, was a contemporary of Luther. The reformation is sometimes pegged as 'starting' with Luther's (b. 1483) 95 theses, in 1517. Copernicus was born in 1473, & made his startling discoveries & rash claims that shocked the status quo during the same time that the reformation was happening. These were connected, ideologically & temporally. IOW, the same mindset that brought scientific inquiry also brought religious freedom, & along with that, a longing for human freedom. The table was set for a feast of enlightened human thought, culminating in the American Experiment, where religious freedom, open inquiry, tolerance, & govt as servant rocked the monarchist world, & ushered in a new ideology of human freedom & open inquiry.

History is never compartmentalized, and the most fascinating parts of history are those where human thought & the 'evolution' of social mores & other concepts that directly affect the common man are awakened. It is also necessary to understand the times, & not view historical events through the assumptions & filters of modern day mindsets. There was no 'separation of church & state', or distinction between 'science' & 'religion'. The 'scientists' of the day were also the 'religious'. They were monks, bureaucrats, nobles, & usually upper class. Poor folks didn't have time for such nonsense. That was a luxury for the well to do.

And just what did the printing press have to do with all this? Well, Gutenberg invented it ~ 1440.. right before Copernicus & Luther were born. Coincidence? Not in my opinion. I see a direct cause & effect from both the printing press, the reformation, the renaissance, the scientific revolution, & just about all advances in humanity onward. It brought the knowledge base to others, who could build upon what others had learned. It is said that we can see farther, because we stand on the shoulders of giants. The printing press was the enabler of our knowledge base.. it made it possible.

So do we celebrate knowledge, science, & the holy art of inquiry? Not anymore. Now, we are moving back to the dark ages, memorizing dogma, mandating science, & crushing open inquiry. We are in a time of Anti-Science, where truth is relative, along with morality, & Govt is worshiped as the Provider & Maker of All Things. The current mindset is destroying the foundations of Western Civilization, moving us backwards, towards worship of Man, Position, & Imperial decree.

I am hopeful that the curiosity of Man overcomes the desire & ability to control, but it is a battle. It always has been, & always will be. Anti human, anti freedom, & anti science forces are constantly oppressing us & dragging us back to a stifling atmosphere, where free inquiry is squashed. One need only see the trends from China & Russia, & other collectivist experiments, where science & inquiry were almost completely shut down. Will the west follow the progressive left to a new 'cultural revolution'? Will all science & knowledge that is not 'party approved' be forbidden & destroyed? It could happen. The seeds of statist control are already sprouted & growing.

Freedom is on the line. Freedom to think. Freedom to speak. Freedom to live & do what we want. It has taken us 2000+ years to arrive at the level of freedom we have. Will we let anti freedom liars & destroyers kill what our forebears took generations to achieve?

The Rise & Fall of Western Civilization

Well, this is a very dramatic sounding title, & has the look & feel of being way too long & boring. I'll try to keep it short, but i can't make any promises about boring...  :)    I will just present the outline.. each part could have a paragraph or more detailing & expounding on it, but i'll leave it simpler for now, for the overview. 

Dictionary definition of Civilization:

a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained

b: refinement of thought, manners, or taste

Civilization is more than technology. It is an evolution of social, technical, & spiritual development, advancing a societal interdependency, built on an ever growing knowledge base. Huts give way to houses. Caves are replaced by castles. Lawlessness is punished & order established. Force is still the basic tool of compliance, but it is a collective action, not just the possession of the strong. Specialization builds interdependency. Not all farm, or build, or make clothes or wagons. Not all manage animals or process meat. A currency is born to provide a medium of exchange. Knowledge is acquired, & built upon, providing an advance of technology, efficiency, & efficacy.

The roots of Western Civilization's rise.

1. Roman Empire.

     a. Man as a god, not an animal

     b. Law, order, administration

     c. Art, music, architecture

2. Growth of Christendom & the Catholic Church

     a. Man as a created being, in the image of God

     b. Superstition replaced by orderly God & glimpses of Natural Law

     c. Growth of literacy, records, & a knowledge base

3. Reformation

     a. Natural Law over imperial decree

     b. Growth of reason, scientific explanations & analysis

     c. Concept of human freedom

4. Renaissance & explosion of technology

     a. Further building on knowledge base

     b. more departure from superstition

     c. freedom of thought & expression

5. Birth of America

     a. The equality of man

     b. Govt as servant, not master

     c. Self rule

     d. Individual Liberty as goal

     e. The State exists to secure the individual's rights

6. Western Imperialism

     a. Human power seen as proof of supremacy

     b. Manifest Destiny, or 'white man's burden'

     c. Dispersal of literacy, history, the knowledge base, the scientific method, & the religious/philosophical basis

     d. The global expansion of Natural Law & moral absolutes

7. WW2

     a. The pinnacle of western civilization.

     b. the battle for freedom, human dignity, & Natural Law over imperial rule, genocide, & oppression

     c. the explosion of constitutional law  & democracy throughout the world

The roots of decline.

1. Marxism

     a. No Natural Law, no god, no moral absolutes

     b. Man as an animal to be controlled

     c. Collective might makes right

     d. Elevation of the State as the means to control & engineer others

     e. Promotion of collective ideals: redistribution, no private property 

2. Darwinism

     a. Man is insignificant.. an evolving animal with no higher purpose

     b. No natural law, no moral absolutes, survival is the only function of man

3. Eugenics & social engineering

     a. Superior humans should enhance their survival, & eliminate inferior ones

     b. The State is the means to control & engineer humans

4. Progressive ideology of control & elite rule

     a. Social engineering to solve problems

     b. Redistribution & collectivist ideals

     c. Empower State to control others

     d. elite ruling class

     e. Science by decree

5. Islamic Caliphate

     a. Kept in check in previous centuries

     b. Goal of world domination, not peaceful coexistence

     c. Empower State to control others

     d. elite ruling class

     e. Truth by mandate, Science by decree

The roots of decline have been operating in the world for over 100 yrs, & are weakening the foundations of western civilization. Dark ages practices are being revived, & the concepts of Law over mandate are set aside for the ruler's convenience. Its basis is a fundamental difference in the view of Man & the Universe. As long as these ideals remain the social status quo, we can expect further erosion of western civilization. Tearing something down does not take as long as building it. It took about 2000 yrs of building & moving TOWARD the ideals of Natural Law, the Dignity of Man, Accountability, & a Higher Purpose. It could all come down in a generation, as the ussr & china have illustrated.

The ominous sign is the direction. Pre WW2 there was oppression & inhumanities to man, but the DIRECTION the world headed was TOWARD freedom.  Slavery ended in the west.  Individual freedom was growing, even in monarchies or other totalitarian systems.  WW2 was, imo, the pinnacle of that direction. Since then, we have slowly been heading AWAY from human freedom, & toward statist control. Rights are devolving, & the individual is considered no more than an animal to be managed by a ruling elite, who want these same animals to work & support them. Civilization is now going downhill.. not in technology, but in human freedom.

This is my analysis of western civilization. I see these things in the signs of the times, as well as the repetition of history.

Roots: Racism for Dummies

Racism has been a major part of human interaction for all of human history. Ever since the first differences among us were noted, they have been used as indicators of something ominous. Those differences were & are the justification for wars, genocide, slavery, & countless other examples of man's inhumanity to man.

As Western civilization expanded in Europe, the roots of racism were found in the institutions of the day: The Religious hierarchy & the ruling class. The belief that God burdened the white race with 'managing' the heathen was the majority opinion. It was called 'Manifest Destiny' in America. Most of the institutions taught & believed that God created all things. But they believed in a hierarchy, with the 'civilized' white man at the top. That was the justification of European imperialism for centuries, as they sought to bring order to the world, through their world view. Christianity had brought order & Law to Europe, & the ruling elite saw themselves as tools of God bringing structure, order, & enlightenment to inferior societies. 'Might makes right' has always been the final arbiter of truth in human disputes, & the European conquests proved to them that they were right.

Slavery was not always about race. It was (and still is, in some places) a normal part of human existence. Both Plato & Aristotle saw slavery as a natural part of human culture. Some early Christian theologians saw slavery as a necessary evil.

And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Aristotle

The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow -- that which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offense. Augustine

But as the influence of Christianity, & especially reformation theology grew, slavery became a great evil in mankind. Even in the American declaration of independence, the roots of human equality & dignity were laid out as a basis for the new nation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The new nation was unable to implement these revolutionary concepts completely, due to the old vestiges of imperialism & human domination that was still the status quo of the day. But the debate raged on, & within a fairly short time, a national civil war was fought to settle the issue.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. ~Abraham Lincoln

But the abolition of slavery was not about racism. Lincoln was a racist, by today's standards. He did not believe in the 'equality of man' that some of the abolitionists preached.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.. ~Abraham Lincoln

Abolitionists held to the more 'enlightened' view, but they were a minority.
"The slave-holder's rule contradicts this fundamental truth of God's word, that 'God has made of one blood all the nations of men,' and if of one blood, they are of equal blood." ~Jonathan Blanchard

Ultimately, the minority opinion of the abolitionists became the mainstream view. Human equality was an act of the Creator. All men are equal, stated the philosophical standard of the day: The Bible. That & reformation theology brought this sense of enlightened civilization. Of course, not everyone acted upon the teachings, & many of the old vestiges of the 'white man's burden' carried over into the 20th century.

But then a new ideology began to gain momentum, based on the writings of a naturalist. It was not really new, but it provided a logical sounding basis for the intelligentsia to escape the shackles of morality that the concept of a Creator brought. Darwin's 'Origin of Species' brought a new possibility to the view of origins. Perhaps man was not created in the image of God, but was an accident of nature, & was merely evolving along with all the other animals. This was the basis for a great many ideologies, that saw social engineering as a tool for the advanced ruling elite. There was an actual justification now, to BE the elite. They were further along on the evolutionary scale, & felt a duty to promote the 'best' traits for humanity. That was the basis for National Socialism in Germany, which was one expression of the eugenics movement. This movement was very popular early in the 20th century, & was mandated into policy in many western nations. It was an attempt to build a better Man, through controlled breeding. Its goal was the concept of a perfect, evolving man, who could be engineered by the ruling elite.

'The term eugenics and its modern field of study were first formulated by Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin. Galton published his observations and conclusions in his book Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development.' (wikipedia)

But the major institutions of the day, at least in America, were not immediately impressed by this new 'theory'. There was a gradual embracing of this concept of origins, illustrated by the 'Scopes Monkey trial' of 1925, when a public school teacher was put on trial for teaching something contrary to the status quo: evolution From this point, evolution grew to become the mainstream view of origins, until today it is almost universally taught as fact in every human institution.

Unfortunately, along with this new found liberty from a pesky God, the unruly companion of this ideology is a naturalistic view of man as merely an evolving animal. If superior animals can eat, domesticate, & own inferior animals, where does one draw the line? Perhaps some people are also inferior. Perhaps those 'less advanced' should not be afforded the same rights & privileges as the superior specimens.

I see 2 examples of this ideology today.
1. Overt white supremacists.
2. Liberal welfare state proponents.

The rest of the western world is functioning in a post christian moral memory. Their morality no longer has a basis in their beliefs, but they keep going out of habit.

The white supremacists see the 'lower' races as inferior, & not as advanced on the evolutionary scale. The liberal nanny staters see the 'lower' races as inferior, too, & unable to cope in the world without their assistance. They have built a 'democratic plantation'.. a gulag of welfare dependency, where the soft bigotry of low expectations dominates their view of the inferior classes. They see themselves as champions of the downtrodden, in much the same way the ruling elite in times past saw themselves as bringing civilization & enlightenment to the heathen, as part of the 'white mans' burden'. They do not build human dignity, self respect, or equality, but grievance & division. They trap people in the same ideology that the white supremacists have for their basis, which is the spring from which their world view originates: Darwinian evolution. They either reject God completely, or minimize Him as a distant, uninvolved Watcher, with evolution as the real god.. the 'system' that actually formed us. Every American institution indoctrinates the citizens into this world view from an early age. The further you advance in the education system, the more intense the indoctrination, but it is hammered hard early on. Evolution has become the new religion, flavoring our world views, & providing the basis for our policies, justice systems, & culture. What about the 'subjects' of this indoctrinated world view? Just as the morals of the nation are being torn down, so has crime, lies, hatred, & racism increased. It is a logical consequence to the root ideology.

The core ideology is the basis from which the rest of a world view emanates. The dignity of man, equality, morality, & natural rights are based in the concept of a Divine Creator, attributing those conditions to mankind. The view of man as an animal; insignificant, immoral, & pointless comes from the naturalistic view. He has no soul, no purpose, & is merely an accident of nature. Those who gain power rule by their own authority, & mandate whatever rules they wish.. they do not answer to a Higher Power. 

America was founded in the first world view.. that we are endowed by our CREATOR with unalienable rights.. that ALL men are CREATED equal. But as the basis has been undermined, so have the moral outworkings. We are in a post christian culture, driven by naturalistic views, with only the memory & slowing momentum of morality providing the ever dwindling stability that the nation of self rule once had. Unless there is an awakening, all vestiges of morality will be completely forgotten, all basis lost, we will be unable to live among ourselves, & we will require (and deserve) despotism.

Heredity! Environment!

The beliefs about origins of man are at the root of ideology about race.  There are those who claim that behavioral differences in humans are based on genetics.  Others say they are all learned.  The only 'evidence' for differences in people is in cultural studies, where a false dichotomy is made in the cause & effect. One of the most basic tools of science is this:
'Correlation does not imply causation'.
Some correlate violence in black inner city ghettos to race, when it is culture. Mexican barrios have the same tendency toward crime & violence, as well as Pakistanis in London, Turks in Germany, & Vietnamese in San Diego. The common denominator is NOT RACE. It is culture. It is nanny state policies that create a breeding ground of irresponsible, fatherless thugs. THAT is the source of the violence, not race. Hard working, family centered black people live as responsible citizens in every nation of the world. They are not any more prone to violence or stupidity than any other race. The premise that this kind of behavior is genetic is based on false assumptions, junk science, & superstition.

ANY HUMANS, if you put them in state run ghettos, where values are broken down, & there is no accountability or responsibility for the people act the exact same way.

ANY HUMANS, if they are raised with core values of family, work ethic, & civilized socialization tend to be productive members of society. These obvious facts point to the exact cause of the problems: The welfare state. The source of the problem is cultural.

There is no 'gene' that promotes violence. People have been asserting that for a century or more. Humans are naturally violent, brutal beasts. Civilization, Law, morality, and religion are the means that we as a species have managed ourselves, so we can live among each other in relative peace. We have esteemed reason over brute force, even if we use brute force to impose our reason.

For this debate to go any further, we would have to dig deeper to the core differences in the views on origins, or the evolution of human behavior.. whether it is inherent or learned. It is the age old Pygmalion story.. 'My Fair Lady'.. 'Hoi Polloi'.  Is it heredity, or environment?  There is some of each in every human behavioral action, but there is not a difference, genetically, to make these kinds of  race centered conclusions. It is very ironic to me, that those who are the most fixed upon race have at their core beliefs the same opinion about human evolution. Both the liberal academian & the Aryan supremacist believe that humans have evolved from lower life forms, & are still evolving.  Both the black race baiters & the white supremacists agree, in their basic ideology about origins. That was the source of the eugenics movement, as well as the Nazi ideology. This ideology is at the root of the modern progressivism, as well.

To summarize: The central support for the claim of genetic differences is flawed science. There is NO evidence for a genetic tendency to violence. That is a learned, or cultural factor. Civilization, morality, & religion are the central factors in taming the human animal. ANYWHERE those factors are esteemed & valued by a society, a stable, healthy society is built. Anywhere these factors are scorned, the society suffers. Antisocial behaviors are learned, as well as civilized ones. If there is a natural tendency of man, it is to violence & brutality. That seems to be our core nature, that civilization tames.

I see little hope for a resolution of such basic differences in worldviews. With the indoctrination of junk science so rampant in our culture, it is no wonder that our view of man is so dark & hopeless. Generations of breeders in the ghetto are taught that they are mere beasts, accidents of nature, with no purpose for their existence. They are bred for crime, by the plantation owners, & have no basis for any sense of human dignity or equality. They are treated as progressive pets, & kept in the liberal zoos of inner city squalor. Rich, preppy whites are taught the same thing, except that they can see themselves as superior.. morally, intellectually, & culturally. But don't fool yourselves.. the same root ideology that is destroying the inner cities is at work destroying the whole nation. Morality, civilization, & religion are being smashed in favor of the naturalistic view of man as a cosmic accident, with no purpose or meaning for his life.

All of this has its root in origins. It makes a world of difference what you believe.

The Ultimate Answer to Life

In a fictional novel of the last century, pan-dimensional mice created a supercomputer, called Deep Thought. They asked it The Question:
'What is the ultimate answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything?'
The computer said it would think about it.. for 7 1/2 Million years, then finally returned The Answer:

42

This is the absurdist's view of philosophy. It is funny as a bit of self deprecating humor directed at philosophers who take themselves too seriously. but it implies there is NO answer, really, & that life has no meaning or purpose.

But other philosophers throughout the millennia have approached the subject with more reverence. They have boiled down the Fundamental Questions of Life into 4 basic queries: Origins, Meaning, Morality, Destiny.  These are The Big Ones. How, Why, What, & When. They are questions of matter, purpose, law, & time.

HOW did i (and everybody else) get here?
WHY are we here? Is there a purpose to our existence?
WHAT do we do? Are there rules for our existence?
WHEN we die, what happens? Is there a soul?

..there are four fundamental questions of life.. They boil down to this; origin, meaning, morality and destiny. 'How did I come into being? What brings life meaning? How do I know right from wrong? Where am I headed after I die?' ~Ravi Zacharias

Some philosophers have felt it necessary to prove we exist, first, before the other questions can be tackled. Descartes was one of those with his 'cogito ergo sum' conclusion. 'I think, therefore i am'. But since he settled the matter of our existence, we can now get on to the more basic task of answering the fundamental questions.

Personally, while i think '42' is a fine answer, it does a bit of a disservice to the philosophical community. It is ridiculing the question as irrelevant, which it certainly is not. Every human being that thinks has pondered these questions, or variations of them, at some point in their life, even if they avoid them most of the time.

I see 2 basic options for Origins:
1. All matter & life was created by an unknown being or beings: Supernatural Design.
2. All matter & life happened by accident, via an unknown natural processes: Natural Accident.

We try to use science & logic to decide which of these is the more likely, or what the evidence suggests, but nothing really works. Science cannot answer this. We cannot see or define any natural process that could have done it, so we are left ONLY with belief in either theory. Neither are subject to the scientific method.. they can't be repeated or observed. Oh, i know that there are many people who believe very strongly in a particular theory.  They claim science & truth. They dogmatically assert that a divine Being created everything from nothing, or they dogmatically assert that everything arranged itself by accident, through unknown processes. But neither has any provable evidence. Both theories are logically impossible. LIFE is impossible. The entire universe is impossible, yet here we are.

The naturalists like to ridicule the supernaturalists for believing in a 'sky fairy' or other unseen beings as the source of all things. But the naturalist's theory is equally absurd. Someone once summarized their hypothesis like this:
'The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.' 

Of the fundamental questions listed, Origins is the MOST BASIC of the questions, & the answer to this one affects all the others.

IF we are here by an accident of nature:
1. There is no purpose to our existence. 'Why' is meaningless.
2. There are no rules. Morality & law are inventions of our own minds.
3. There is no destiny. You die & cease to exist. As you were for eternity past, so you will be for eternity future.

IF we are here by Supernatural Design:
1. There might be a purpose. Why would such a Being do this?
2. There might be rules, from the Creator's view. Perhaps there are consequences to our words & deeds.
3. There might be life after death. We may have souls, & live beyond what we see here.

As you can see, there are completely different answers to the other fundamental questions, depending on the answer to the very first one: How.

That is why a person's view of Origins is the foundation upon which their entire world view is built upon. Most people are content to have a disjointed, hodge podge of irrational thought, faulty assumptions, and wrong answers to base their philosophy of life upon. But that is because the MOST BASIC QUESTION, our origins, is unknown by any of our natural senses. We have to start with a belief, & go from there.  There are other factors: mental, emotional, or spiritual that are not part of our natural sensory perceptions that figure in.

There is no empirical answer to our origins. There are no natural laws, or scientific explanations that can even make a decent guess as to HOW we came about. We are here. Descartes settled that for us. But HOW we came about remains a mystery, unanswerable by human reason & senses. If there is an answer to this question, reason & science cannot answer it.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. ~Albert Einstein