22 May 2010

Of free-floating angst

Yet more commentary.  As always, yesterday was the last day for complaints.


I do get letters, every so often (though rarely) and one correspondent had some worries about the victory of Rand Paul and how it seemed to him that the Tea Partiers were being self-destructive because they did not concentrate on foreign policy (ex. Iran's race for nukes) and President Obama's bending into a pretzel to try and satisfy Islamists.  Of the greatest worry was that the Tea Party was becoming nativist, isolationist, populist and lbertarian.


Basically that foreign policy was getting short-shrift by Tea Partiers, allowing threats abroad to multiply (which they are as seen by Iran and Syria, along with NoKo) while concentrating too much at home (which the Tea Partiers are also doing).  This there was a 'drift' to the fringe, leading to 'chasing after shadows'.

It was an e-mail of free-floating angst directed at the list of people the individual corresponds with.  I'm not a great believer in spreading free-floating angst around as it isn't productive, saps energy and willpower, and generally leads to frittering away of time worrying when one should be doing things.  Thus I'm not spreading my worries around as I've already done research in them in the past three years or so, which I've posted about, and have decided that since others are now discovering some of the things I've looked into, I can take time making sure I have disaster preparedness down pat.  Thus shopping, making sure I have the proper firearms and ammo, learning sewing to make goods that can't be readily bought (and that is a great way to spend time, even as an unskilled novice!) all give me not only the rational satisfaction of doing necessary things, but the emotional satisfaction that comes with doing them wisely.

I have already named my fears, know them, recognize them, and now address them within my limited capabilities of skills, funds and time.  As I have lots of time, I do things that can ensure it is relatively well spent when I am not in a formless gray gauze of lethargy given my physical condition.  Thus I don't read as much, which used to be a prime pleasure for me, and now get pleasure and satisfaction working with cloth, needles, thread, snaps, webbing, grommets, and firearms.  Putting together an easy maintenance canned food rotation system was simple, although time consuming while cost was moderate.  I post links to places I've shopped or purchased from on my side-bar so others can find good deals, too.

Here is the amount of time I have worried about Rand Paul: 0 minutes, 0.01 seconds.

I figure the good folks of Kentucky can figure out how to deal with him or not as they choose.  I trust them to choose representatives wisely, no matter what sort of people they have voted in over the past decades and century or so.  They actually seem to be figuring out that the Nation is having problems, unlike, say, California, New York, Michigan and a few other choice places going down the tubes faster than you can say 'over-taxed'.

If I were worried about the Tea Partiers ignoring foreign threats, I mean actually worried with free-floating angst, then I would do something concrete about it.  Thus my response to the correspondent was as follows with all spelling errors left intact along with syntax problems and logic dysfunctions:

There is, unfortunately, no easy answer to this.

Then this is not an easy problem we have gotten ourselves into, as a nation.

Thus the difficult way to go is the one that addresses the problem directly and the points need to be made thusly:

We must not stand by our friends and allies because it is cost effective.  It isn't.

We must not stand by our friends and allies because it is 'smart' to do so.  It actually is 'smart' but not in the modern form of internationalism, and it is that form which is a cancer upon us.

We must not stand by our friends and allies because it will save lives.  It won't and will cost us dearly to do so.

We must stand by our friends and allies as they are OUR friends and allies and trust us to help them and work with us to make our Nations safer togther, which is something we cannot do alone in this world.  As individuals we do not shun our friends when we hit hard times and we cannot, indeed, MUST NOT do so as a Nation.  That is the path to ruin for individuals, for families and for Nations.

The error we have made with this current Administration and our friends and allies cannot be addressed by worrying about the fringe or extremists but by addressing the heart of what it means to be an American and to have a Nation that is honorable so that you can have a reflection of YOUR honor writ large.  That message must be made clearly and without any exception: that what we do as a Nation reflects upon each and every one of us as individuals.

This message cannot be couched in the 20th century terms that have been debased by socialism/progressivism/liberalism.  That is the path to moral quandary and being led into verbal fights over the meanings of words... when the absolute meaning can be made crystal clear: together we are stronger with our friends and can address the vicissitudes of a harsh world brought upon us.  That goes from our personal life to the international arena without losing one bit of meaning between those scales as they are exactly the same thing.  Our Nation's honor is our own.  There is a high cost to one's honor and carrying through in helping one's friends in this world.  And it makes you a better person to suffer those losses just as it makes us a better Nation to help our suffering friends and allies once we have helped them over the suffering.  We protect them just as we protected our beloved friends.

If we can't do that we are worthless as a Nation and a people.

Do not run after the whispy fringe.

Go to the source and speak of the problem AND the solution.  Do not mince words.  Do not blunt or soften the blow.  Tell us we are on the path to becoming worthless to ourselves as individuals and a Nation, and will soon be pitiful creatures without honor, without hope and without a way out as our friends shun us for betrayal.

That is how you address isolationism.  It works for individuals and Nations, and is one of the hardest messages anyone can deliver.

But then, I am a simple man.

If you cannot speak of what it is that worries you, then you are in deep, deep, deep trouble.

Define your fears, enumerate their problems, outline their extent and then name them for all to hear and then offer the remedy to them.  The remedy is often self-evident because you have defined the problem, the solution comes to you self-defined.  I am a great believer in calling things as they are and doing my best to remain civil at all costs so I do not turn into a degenerating animal like those who would attack civil folks seeking civil discourse.

I vanquish my angst as quickly as I can and I do not, ever, spread it.

I have previously defined the broad outline of the confluence of politics, terrorism and organized crime on a global scale influencing decisions being made by 'pragmatic' and 'liberal' ideologues who think they ask for utopia while what they say is for enslavement of people and Nations to be liquidated and ruled by that horrendous leaders that have no good will towards any.  No matter what they say, it is what they do that tells their tale, and when I have problems placing myself less than four hops from some of the most notorious people on the planet, then I know they are getting far too close to me for comfort and that the civil society that should be stopping them is not doing so.

I uphold the Law of Nations from the lowest to the highest scale as it is one of the very few things mankind does universally, no matter the race, creed, culture, geography or time period.  Save those seeking Empire, of course.  We do very well until Empires appear, and then things tend to get very repressive, degenerate and lethal simultaneously and we look to the era before an Empire as a 'Golden Age'.  If you begin to think of the era before the 'Progressive' as a 'Golden Age' then that is self-defining the path of Empire trying to oppress us all, in all Nations, and remove civilization by creation of civil society to those who rule and those who are ruled.

That isn't 'nativist' as I do not want that for any of the people's of this planet.

I am no 'isolationist' but see that if we don't get our domestic house in order, and mend fences with our friends and allies, then we will fall into tyranny and be a help to no one.  Thus fixing things at home so we can extend the hand of friendship abroad comes first, and that also means withdrawing that hand from tyrants, despots, dictators, and would-be Empire builders of all sorts.

This is not 'populist' but an actual expression of the Law of Nations coming through us as human beings seeking to create our own, separate society and a Nation to uphold who and what we are as a people.  Those who attack Nation States with anti-assimilation ideology are trying to rip out the heart of civil society and destroy all societies by inflaming differences within societies between those that bring their old grievances WITH THEM and will not let them go.  I support the population to HAVE a common culture and uphold it so that we may come to terms with it in a civil fashion and seek greater harmony as a people and ensure that other cultures do not bring their baggage of distress and distrust with them.

As for libertarian?  I believe that my honor is tightly bound to that of my Nation and that it is necessary for all citizens to uphold their Nation, support it and then live under the fruits of liberty and prosperity that its protection provides.  You don't get that when 'civil liberties' removes the common function between all citizens to be free of the dangers of others from abroad.  They, too, have civil liberties within their Nations that they decide for themselves and it is different than OUR conception of civil liberties.  Our honor requires us to uphold ours, even when it is gonzo nuts to any single individual, and then address problems in a civil manner and NOT try to force your ideology or morals down the throats of others via law.  As we vest the negative liberty of punishment and withholding those who can harm society to government, that makes government the LAST place you want to go to CHANGE society in a POSITIVE manner: you do that by addressing and engaging your fellow citizens, not by trying to over-rule their laws that uphold their view of society as that is the last and least method to do that.  If that is the venue you are stuck with, then it is also your last chance to make a case for your views.  Winning in that venue does not necessarily make your views good or even right for the rest of society...and is, at best, a point to demonstrate that the values we hold as given in the law have limits to them.  I don't hear libertarians speaking like this, where honor comes first and dedicating yourself to being part of a more perfect Union is something that must be done by each individual to uphold our common values and society.

I do my best to speak plainly, openly, and succinctly on these things and usually fail at a few of those at a time because I do not have the soul of brevity within me.

If you have angst, deal with it by naming it properly.

Because only you can do that for yourself.

And once you know what to do, and do it, you will have the pleasure of working in accord with your reason, your wisdom and your emotions, and none will betray you when they work in concert with each other.

No comments: