Saturday, May 20, 2017

A new 'autism' theory: Terrestrials and Aerials

Autism. ADHD, in hyperactive, inattentive, and mixed. Synesthesia.


Imagine for a moment that there is a world with two main tribes of sentient beings. They're both the same kind of creature underneath in that they can interact and even breed. There's one main difference between them. The Aerials can fly. The Terrestrials cannot.

Now that's actually not a huge difference on the face of it, but it does result in the development of two different societies. The Aerials don't bother much with roads or sea travel. Why would they? They can fly. The Terrestrials have roads, bridges, ships. If you asked who was more technologically advanced, you'd say the Terrestrials. But the reason the Aerials haven't built as much infrastructure is because their living conditions don't require it. They aren't stupider than the Terrestrials. On the other hand, the Aerials have conventions that Terrestrials don't understand, like "I can come to your party if the winds are favorable." Why would it matter what the winds are doing? It doesn't, to the Terrestrial. The Aerial has to fly down from his home, so for him it does matter. On the other hand, you have a bunch of Terrestrials fully expecting an Aerial to use the ferryboat to get from one side of the river to the other, because 'that's how it is done'. The Aerial is pacing on the deck, frustrated at the slowness of the boat, and not understanding why he can't just spread his wings and glide across. Of course, if he tries to take off right then and there, he's going to rock the boat and make all the Terrestrials uncomfortable.

Now imagine that the Aerials are a small percentage of the population, and the majority are Terrestrials. You are more likely to have rules in place regarding airspace, schools judging you on how well you can swim (something Aerials don't tend to learn, because they were learning to fly instead), and a culture that regards flight as capricious and self-centered.

We could apply the same theory to humankind. The Terrestrials are what autism and ADHD groups call "neurotypical". They are the solid, organized, regimented people who build society by virtue of being in the majority. They have social rules and understandings, which they are practically born able to intuit. They can tell you what the social conventions are, from birthday parties to condolences, and how to perform your part in it properly. The Aerials are people who are wired differently. Terrestrials have struggled for centuries to define Aerials. Just recently, more people who used to be called ADHD are considered to have some form of autism. The term "aspergers" has also merged back into "autism" and spawned another term, "high-functioning". In other times and places they have been "eccentric", "insane but harmless", "shamans" or "witches", dreamers, "highly sensitive individuals", "Age of Aquarians", and so on.

I'd like to insert a disclaimer. I am not saying that "autism doesn't exist" or that it is not a problem. I am aware that there are Aerials who are nonverbal, who can't fight their way outside of their own heads, who engage in violent fits in response to bright lights and whatnot. On the other side, you need only read from the website to understand that there are neurotypicals on the extremist side as well. They just demonstrate it differently. However, there is an enormous struggle in the world of psychology and psychiatry to define and deal with the "high functioning" who do not respond to medication (or who can live fairly well without it), with the ones who are not called 'autistic' and then called 'autistic', and then 'aspergers', and then 'not aspergers'... How to differentiate them from the neurotypicals who have learned to be delicate in order to mimic a diagnosis, how to understand ADHD, what to do with a kid who seems very intelligent, but just can't apply it the way Terrestrials do. That's what I would like the term "Aerial" to do for me and others like me.

I also would like to take a moment to explain what "Terrestrials" and "Aerials" is not about. It's not about who is boring and who is artistic. It isn't about who is smart and who is stupid. It isn't about who has a stereotypical interest in engines and who prefers to work with people. It isn't even about fantasy versus reality, although Aerials tend to create fantasy and enjoy it, while Terrestrials may or may not enjoy it at all. For instance, I would say that Batman is an Aerial and Superman is a Terrestrial. Luke Skywalker is an Aerial and Leia is either Terrestrial or a mix. The main character of action-adventure stories is often a Terrestrial. Detectives may be either; Holmes was definitely an Aerial.

Now it gets interesting.

Being that we live in a Terrestrial society, we tend to judge things in terms of Terrestrial thinking. That's natural. In doing so, however, one of the big things that we say about Aerials is that they are socially inept. They don't follow social cues. They don't know how to interact with people the way the people expect to be interacted with. They ask weird questions, reveal more of themselves than they should in some areas, hide parts of themselves they shouldn't in other areas. At least, that's how the Aerial looks from the Terrestrial point of view.

In this area, I have a bit of a unique perspective. Usually, being that Aerials are rare, you will find one of two in a Terrestrial family. Both "Aerial' and 'Terrestrial' are, however, in part genetic. One classic stereotype (which has become a stereotype because it is often true) is that of a black sheep uncle and the nephew or niece who resembles him. That would be a key example of Aerial genetics within a majority Terrestrial family. In my family, however, we have an oddly strong concentration of Aerials. My father's side is strongly Aerial. My mother's is mostly Aerial within the recent generations, and mixed in some family lines as you start to move up a hundred years or more. My parents, my siblings, and I are all Aerials. In my husband's case, however, his Terrestrial father married an Aerial, and at least my husband (and perhaps his sister) is an Aerial. We have three children; all of them are unquestionably Aerials.

With all these Aerials, especially as my side tends to be close-knit and like to live near each other, I am slowly realizing that there is an Aerial social environment with intuited and unspoken rules, conventions, and practices. It is different than a Terrestrial social environment. I do not think it will emerge unless you have enough Aerials in one place. Once you do, however, you will find that they, like Terrestrials, will have ways to give offense, ways to avoid offense, things you are 'expected' to 'know' to do, and all of the other markers of any social environment. A Terrestrial in a group of Aerials who are no longer struggling to associate with each other the way they have been taught by Terrestrials will find himself just as puzzled, just as insecure, just as unable to intuit social graces as an Aerial at a Terrestrial party. Visit a family gathering of the sort that I grew up in, and you will find people asking each other favors that you're "not supposed to ask" and discussing topics that you're "not supposed to discuss" (according to Terrestrial norms), and yet simply intuiting which topics to avoid (which a Terrestrial might "clumsily" attempt) and at which point you simply do not push. A social group of Aerials understand why, to go back to my original fictional analogy, one Aerial cannot come or must return home early "because the winds aren't right".

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Who is rich?

Trump's new declared tax plan has sent out ripples of reaction throughout the media, mainstream and not. Some say that he goes too far. Many say he does not go far enough. Everyone seems to have a different opinion on the specifics of the plan. Memorably, several scattered sources have claimed that the mortgage interest deduction currently causes rich people who pay the AMT to buy larger homes (and people being able to afford larger homes is a problem, for some reason). Others have claimed that some lower-middle class families may pay as much as $100 per year in additional taxes as a result of this "horrible and regressive" plan. (They were notably silent when Obamacare premiums rose by an average of about 25% this year.)

I have seen a theme repeated, though, among rank-and-file commenters on various news sources, that troubles me, because it is linked to a problematic underlying philosophy. They say that this plan is all well and good, but this tweak or that tweak needs to be made to ensure that the rich pay their fair share. Usually in debunking this argument, conservatives and libertarians lean on words like "pay" (does the government have the right to take the money?), "fair" (a higher percentage of their income? A higher percentage of the taxes?), or "share" (What do people owe society as tribute for the shame of being wealthy?). I would like to focus, instead, on the word "Rich".

Terry Pratchett was an economic and political genius, and we are all sadder for his loss. In one of his early books, Guards Guards, he described the mindset of a group of laborers coming together under the leadership of a man who hoped to rule the city by terrorizing it with a dragon that he needed their help to summon.

The Supreme Grand Master listened to this with a slightly lightheaded feeling. It was as if he’d known that there were such things as avalanches, but had never dreamed when he dropped the little snowball on top of the mountain that it could lead to such astonishing results. He was hardly having to egg them on at all.
“I bet a king’d have something to say about landlords,” said Brother Plasterer.
“And he’d outlaw people with showy coaches,” said Brother Watchtower. “Probably bought with stolen money, too, I reckon.”
“I think,” said the Supreme Grand Master, tweaking things a little, “that a wise king would only, as it were, outlaw showy coaches for the undeserving.”
There was a thoughtful pause in the conversation as the assembled Brethren mentally divided the universe into the deserving and the undeserving, and put themselves on the appropriate side.
 This little mental exercise is undergone by each and every person who argues that "the rich" need to pay "their fair share". They celebrate tax cuts for "the middle class", of course, people making only [insert their own income here], but the "really rich people" need to continue to pay more. The definition of "really rich people" differs wildly by example, but it always represents a margin north of the commenter's own income.

If there's one takeaway I'd like my readers to get from this post, it is this, and I'll put it in boldface so that it sticks out despite being probably about halfway through my 'essay' by the time I'm done: You do not want someone else deciding what constitutes "wealth" for the purpose of government confiscation and redistribution of wealth.

This is actually a lesson that I first tried to give people when Obama was running for office in 2008, and many moderates took his speeches about how "the rich need to pay their share" and "we need to have a global mindset" in this exact same way: they mentally divided the universe into the deserving and the undeserving, and put themselves on the appropriate side. All the while, I was trying to pound away, to get people to listen and understand that, on a global perspective, even the poorest people who aren't even on welfare, even the homeless people on the street with no ID, no income, and no government social programs, are wealthy.

When the working-class started seeing their costs rise and their benefits decrease under Obama, I already knew it was coming. They fussed and fretted and felt betrayed, but I had already anticipated this move. The universe had been divided by the people with the power to make the changes, and these folks were not on the side where they expected to be.

The people now talking about the "rich paying their fair share" are mostly speaking against the total removal of the AMT. Don't remove it completely, they say. Just shift it up a bit. A bit further. You know, far enough so that I'm not "rich" anymore. What they miss is that this was the original intent and purpose of the AMT, which at first only targeted about 155 families, but which now reaches well into the middle class.

So let me remind 'my people'... 'ah, my people'... that the average American household in poverty has a large enough home that it would be considered 'wealthy' in most of Western Europe. You could halve the food stamp allotment to the poorest families and they'd still have more to eat than most people in the world. In fact, even in the country with the highest median income per household in the world (Norway, according to Gallup), that income is less than $52K/year... and some people claiming both that we need to keep the AMT and they shouldn't be paying it were claiming a household income in the $70-150K range.

Ditch the AMT. What with the removal of all these tax breaks, Trump would be practically enacting it on everyone anyways. Let the rich have their break. You have your break. Don't be so eager to define whether someone else has "too much" money, "too big" house, "too many" vacations, "too fancy" clothing.

Rest assured that someone else is doing it to you.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

The FCC's Gated Community

How would you like to live in a gated community?

I've heard they tend to be safer. In a regular neighborhood, anybody is allowed to walk the public streets. They might look at you. They might see your front yard. They might be slovenly, or sing loudly and drunkenly. Of course, you are perfectly able and allowed to lock your door. If they go onto your lawn, they are trespassing and you can call the police. If they break into your house, it is a crime and they can be prosecuted. But there's nothing to stop them from walking the street.

In a gated community, they can't get in. The gate guard has a list of requirements that anybody has to meet before entering. You have to buzz your way in and have him unlock the gate for you. Why doesn't everyone live in a gated community? It's so much safer, isn't it?

Thing is, as people who have left gated communities can tell you, giving someone the authority to prevent people on the street from entering also means giving someone the authority to determine who you can have access to from within the community. If they decide that your own mother looks too much like a redneck, you can only meet with her by leaving the safety of the gate behind. Furthermore, you alone cannot decide who will meet this criteria, when and how often the criteria will change, and how much you will have to pay for it. Hopefully, you have a system in which you at least have to have a majority of the community agree.

Now suppose you were living quietly in your neighborhood when, one morning, the most prominent neighbor decides that it will be a gated community. By lunchtime, the gates are up, and at suppertime, someone goes door to door handing you a pamphlet letting you know who will now be allowed onto your street for your safety. From now on, your neighbor can decide, at any time, who can enter and who cannot. Of course, this means that your neighbor can decide that his stinky party friends can enter and roister until dawn, but yours cannot. There is no guarantee that there will be no parties, or that nobody who enters will break into your house. You can only hope that your prominent neighbor is good-natured and good-willed... as well as all of his descendants, for as long as your family lives there.

When the FCC declared the Internet to be under its command, it basically did just that. The FCC is the government body that decides which radio stations are allowed to broadcast based on whether their content serves "the public interest". The FCC is the government body that decides which television shows are allowed to run during "family hour", and the reason why Die Hard is now linked with the phrase "melon farmer". The FCC created and enforced the Ma Bell monopoly, in which one corporation was allowed to provide all telephone services in the country. That only changed in the mid-90's and, even then, only under the FCC's careful control.

The Republican ruling that is making people scream that you now have no internet privacy left at all merely returns the role of internet safety to the FTC. It does the equivalent of taking down the gated community which was established by your neighbor acting alone. Yes, you may have slovenly people allowed to walk the street again. Yes, your front garden still may be seen from the road. Yes, you can still put up your own fences and lock your own doors. None of that has changed.

But now, your neighbor can't decide that your mother can't enter his gated community.

If you really want to live in a gated community, the answer is to go find one, not to get the government to force everybody to live in one.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Ilvermorny: An American Adjustment

So now in the Harry Potter world we have an North American school of wizardry. Rowling's tale is an interesting one, and sets up for what is basically meant as a Bostonian version of Hogwarts. Unfortunately, the houses and their descriptions are vastly oversimplified, and there is no suite of seven books explaining various members of each house in depth to give us something to go by when deciding which House works well with each Harry Potter World fan.

The test is unhelpful, as it is with Hogwarts. The simplified notion of "Sneaky Slytherin", "Brave Gryffindor", "Smart Ravenclaw", and "Helpless Hufflepuff" sorted me into Gryffindor, when I must confess that only my aims could be possibly called Gryffindorian in that they are not evil. It took reading the books and thinking about the ramifications of each house to reluctantly conclude that I am Slytherin.

Unfortunately, there is no such material for the Ilvermorny houses. We appear to have "body, mind, spirit, and heart", wrapped around four descriptions of American Indian legends so surface and uninvolved as to be practically useless. The Pottermore site misplaced me, this time in Thunderbird, and I set out to develop my own understanding of what each house truly means.


Simplified as "wizards of the spirit", Thunderbirds are said to be adventurers. It is no wonder that people think this correlates to Gryffindor. I would say, however, after reading up on the original mythical beast, that Thunderbirds are purpose-seekers. They are not 'adventurers' in the sense of enjoying trips out and back again with loot or knowledge, but 'wanderers' in the sense of flitting from place to place, seeking something that they will never find, and discovering many fine and useful things along the way, which may be discarded for others to more fully appreciate.

These folk are not setting out in bravery and determination to fulfill a specific quest. They are harkening to Thoreau's "Simplify", filling a backpack with all that they need, and setting out for a dream that they are not even sure exists.

Thunderbird attracts not only explorers/adventurers, but also idealists, dreamers, and wanderers. I would expect to find more Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws here and fewer Gryffindors; very few Slytherins.

Horned Serpent

Of course, the relation to Slytherin and the snake is obvious, as is the relation to Ravenclaw in the simplistic description of the Horned Serpent as attracting "wizards of the mind". The old tales of this creature, however, show a rather different side to the wisdom-seeker. There is nothing particularly sneaky or prone to booklearning about the Horned Serpent. It is connected not only to written and remembered knowledge, but also to insight and divination. Headmaster Dumbledore seemed to place little interest or effort into teaching Divination at Hogwarts, but the Horned Serpent seems in American Indian folklore to place a very high value upon it.

Horned Serpent students are likely not so much interested in "knowledge" as in "truth", deep delvers, less concerned about the physical world, seeking the rare treasures. I would expect to find Ravenclaws in either Horned Serpent or Thunderbird depending on whether their search for knowledge is deep or wide. Horned Serpent no doubt attracts some Slytherins, but generally more for the search for power rather than cunning or manipulation. I would be more surprised to see Hufflepuffs or Gryffindors here.


Supposedly this house represents "the heart" and favors "healers". However, it was founded based, not on the actual Pukwudgie, but on the idealized stories of one particular member who acted rather contrary to type. The "historical" mythical pukwudgie isn't exactly Wizarding House Material. Still, we can work out a synthesis that gives us a good solid option for North American young wizards.

The Pukwudgie William decided for unknown reasons to devote himself fully to a particular young woman, the founder of the school, so naturally she would think to cast him in a softened light. This has resulted in a description of 'loyalty' and 'earthiness' that makes this seem like a lock for Hufflepuff. The beings themselves, however, are very unlike Hufflepuff. They are tricksters, dangerous, even evil at times, stealers of babies and livestock, not unlike the British creature known as the Brownie. They use cunning to provoke mischief, and are loyal only under unusual circumstances.

Hence I would see a Pukwudgie student to be openly anti-authoritarian, defiant, independent, willing to experiment and less interested in the kind of idealistic wisdom and morality of the Thunderbird or the Horned Serpent. I picture Pukwudgie House as performing the same service for Ilvermorny as the pranksters do for MIT when they turn the dome into R2D2 or disassemble cars and reassemble them inside offices. I would imagine that they learn by trying. It is likely that many Gryffindors can be found here, along with some Ravenclaws and a fair number of Slytherins.

If there are healers favored here, it is because they are better loved in a House where accidents are far more likely to occur.


Supposedly this house "favors the body and warriors". That sounds very much like a lock for Gryffindor. Again, the lore apart from the world of Harry Potter suggests a very different kind of House. It suggests more of an exercise gym than a place of magic, a world of jocks and sword-wielding maniacs, looking to fight. The original mythical Wampus was a panther-cat creature into which a woman disguised herself in order to participate illicitly in a man's world. Some tales say that she listened in on the hunters and was locked into that shape as punishment; others say that she transformed in order to fight a terrible creature that threatened her family. As such, the better word would not be "body", but "real world" (as opposed to divination or spiritual journey) and the better word would be "hunter" rather than "warrior".

The hunter is secretive and sly, but noble and pragmatic. Wampus students would value cunning, trading of information, and seeking knowledge and insight insofar as it helps them reach their goals, rather than seeking either for its own sake. The Wampus is intuitive, rational, and careful, not apt to overplay its hand, not apt to bluff, and most dangerous when cornered or threatened. Warriors they might be, in the service of others, in the taking of territory and protection of their own rather than a drive for conquest or search for knowledge. Slytherins likely flock here, as do Gryffindors who secretly think that they might be Slytherin, plus a few stray Hufflepuffs that lean heavier on the "home base" than the "simple loyalty" aspect of their house.

Simple versions:

Thunderbird: House of wanderers, explorers, dreamers, idealists.

Horned Serpent: House of wisdom-seekers, divinators, and lovers of the esoteric.

Pukwudgie: House of the stubborn, the anti-authoritarians, the pranksters, the experimenters.

Wampus: House of the hunters, the goal-seekers, the protectors, the intuitives.

Based on this, I believe that the test result of "Thunderbird" was wrong, and I belong instead, if I belong anywhere in Ilvermorny, in Wampus.

Saturday, June 4, 2016

Grow Up Before Supporting Sanders

I'm addressing this one to Sanders supporters, and I'm about to make a lot of you very angry with me.

You like to tell me that Sanders isn't in favor of "socialism", he's just a "social Democrat", which is completely different. You point to a bunch of European countries (which are currently moving away from socialism - oh, sorry, 'social democracy' - because it doesn't work), and tell me how much better life is in those places. The tip of the top always seems to be the same claim... "They're happier in these countries." The people are more content. You seem to believe that the reason that these people are more content is because they are getting exactly what you expect Sanders to provide to you: Government-streamlined resources, quick, easy, and 'free', with a stream of gold emanating from the rich and being distributed 'fairly' to you. (But remember, that isn't socialism! It's Social Democracy!)

You are young. I am not just trying to insult you by saying that. Statistics show a lot of younger people in favor of Sanders. You haven't learned history and culture in the way the older folk did. You haven't had much chance to get out and about in it for yourself. When you look at Europe, you don't understand what it is, what its people are, what its people have been for thousands of years before the word "Social Democrat" existed. You've been doubly encouraged, in the school system, to not learn about the European-descent men who created this country. How could you possibly know what Europe is like, what Europeans are, and what makes them content?

I'll give you a hint. It isn't Sanders' stance on the issues.

Europeans are slow. This isn't an insult either. They are slow, calm, and patient. They plod through each day. They don't mind that it takes a while to travel somewhere. They don't mind that the lines are long. They will stop and 'shoot the breeze' while you're waiting behind them in line, freaking out over your own tight schedule. This may be slightly less true in some cities, in some countries, but it is markedly true in the rural areas. An old European farmer won't mind that it takes him four hours to plow his field the old way. He doesn't see much reason to buy the newfangled equipment, because the old one works fine for him.

Europeans do for themselves. They will bicycle distances that you find obscenely long, in a daily commute. Increasingly, as hospitals have longer wait times and less equipment, Europeans will take care of the 'smaller' things themselves. An American will head to the emergency room with a cut that needs stitches; the European will get a friend or family member to stitch it up themselves. Here's the kicker, the part that you guys do not and possibly cannot understand: They are content to do so. They don't expect much from others. They don't expect much from their government. They don't expect much from life. And yet they carve out little lives for themselves and they are content.

Their housing units are much smaller. Their conveniences are fewer. Their possessions are less. And yet they are content.

This is why these countries are full of happier people than in the U.S. It isn't because of 'Social Democracy' or 'Democratic Socialism' or whatever you hope to call it. It's in spite of the government, in spite of the policies that leave them with less and take them much longer to get what little they can receive. Their inner contentedness helps them weather the delays, the bureaucracy, the stupid crazy hoops they have to jump through for everything. They are willing to lose an entire day to one single government program, to business that we expect to be able to complete in less than an hour.

Now I'm not insulting Europeans, and I'm not praising them either. We are young, quick, impatient, and creative. This is a good thing! This is the reason why so many improvements, so many inventions come out of this country. We see the farmer plowing for four hours and say, "If you did this, you could have it done in two." We demand instant food, instant medical care, instant government response, instant withdrawals, instant gratification... we don't want to wait. This is true of Americans in general, but it is even more true of the demographic that tends to make up Sanders supporters.

You aren't interested in giving up your car when you live eight miles away from your workplace and ten miles from the grocery store. You want a 2,500sqft house for your family. You want a four-year education for your kids. You want free healthcare. Did you know that your contented European counterpart has a bicycle, a 1200sqft domicile (probably an apartment or what we would call a 'condo', but with smaller yards and no amenities), and even the poorest among them have to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket before they can access healthcare through the system? You want your son to get a bachelor's in English Literature. If he's in Holland, however, and he doesn't score highly enough in his 10th grade (by U.S. standards) exams, the government will not give him more than a two-year (highschool diploma) or possibly four-year (associate's degree) education.

Oh yeah, and your counterpart has no bathtub, and his kitchen looks like it hasn't been renovated since the 1970's.

Would you be content with that?

Alright, so maybe you've read all of this and say, "I still am a Sanders supporter! I still think that I can be content with all of this!" Alright, then, prove it. I'm being honest here. No matter who gets into office, this will benefit you. Take command of your own healthcare. Do not expect anybody else to do it for you. Forget the gym membership. You can't afford it. Bicycle to work. Eat foods that are not pre-prepared. Learn how to cook rice, lentils, beans, 'boiled dinner', and other such meals. Take an apple as a snack instead of a candy bar. Slow down. Take tea every afternoon. Formal tea, or, at least, as formal as you can bear it. You cannot be looking at any of your electronic devices while you're doing it. Be content with 10-year-old televisions. When you buy online, never, ever pay more for second-day or same-day shipping.

Downsize your life. Downsize your expectations. Take longer. Care less. Don't think you'll be the one who gets famous, the one who gets rich, the one who even gets what he wishes out of life.

Learn to be content without government aid.

Then you'll be ready to live happy under a Social Democrat.

Of course, even then, you'll be happier to live under a conservative government; you won't get less, but you'll pay less for it.

But that's up to you.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Corporatism, Communism, and Christianity

I have to say it - we're in a bad place right now, as a country.

With a stagnant economy and hurting families on every side, the Democrats are heading towards nominating a socialist/fascist for the Presidency, and the Republicans have nominated a corporatist. With the Libertarians nominating a classless fellow, basically a liberal who wants to legalize pot, we haven't got a conservative running in the race.

So I think it's time to take a look and ask ourselves how this race and its result might impact those of us who are Christians.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that socialists are unhappy with Christianity. A socialist, at his or her root, believes that we can replace God with Government and do a much better job of taking care of everybody 'equally well'. Of course, we all know that it will fail, and we know why. A socialist government can't do God's job because they lack intricate knowledge of each and every person and the ability to tailor each person's life experience to his or her personality, ability, and greater benefit. A socialist government can't do God's job because they are as sin-stained as the rest of us... they have a sin-flawed notion of what is good, what is healthy, what is pure, and what is beneficial for us. Of course, in every socialist country, the government has been openly hostile towards Christians. This is true even in the "softer" countries dealing in "democratic socialism", in which Christians may be permitted to live in peace as long as they don't make any sort of decisions outside of their own homes regarding their faith when such a decision would conflict with the Absolute Power of the government. To a socialist, God is a competitor, and one that must be squashed (or, at least, the attempt made) by any means necessary.

In the history of corporatism, however, Christianity is tortured into a different role. Historically speaking, the greatest Christian-committed atrocities have occurred when a corporatist government cherry-picks and uses Christian principles in order to serve the government first, rather than the corporation. While the socialist tries to kill God, the corporatist merely tries to enslave Him and make Him do the government's bidding. The socialist insists that Christians abandon their religion, while the corporatist goes back to the age-old tribal method of trying to convince us that he bears the will of the gods (or, in this case, God) and we must obey him as we obey our Lord. The corporatist will pretend to be doing the will of God, usually by cherry-picking the parts of God's laws that he thinks will give him greater control over the people, and forcing them upon everybody by law.

Which is a greater threat to us? Robber barons are generally safer than moral busybodies, as C.S. Lewis pointed out in one of his most famous quotes. A robber baron (the corporatist) merely wants your wealth, while the moral busybody (the socialist) wants your heart, mind, and soul. We would think that it is better for us, certainly safer for us, to have someone who might use the government to persecute our enemies rather than a government keen on persecuting us. And yet... one of the strongest complaints that atheists have against us is derived from every instance in which a government tried to use the surface appearance of Christianity in order to implement its own goals, especially goals which are actually counter to the actual teachings of Christ. Caught in the quandary of socialism vs. corporatism, I have to ask... is it actually better for us to face open persecution, under which Christians have often been purified and Christianity has spread strongly (nothing exposes fakery and uncovers reality like difficulty), than a twisted form of 'Christianity', which might lead millions of people to Hell even as they are sure that they are headed for eternal paradise?

I do not have a good answer to this question at this time.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

The real civil war in America

Democrats like to taunt Republicans by claiming that there are all these "racist old white men" in the party. Their claim is based in part in truth, in that there was an influx of old Southerners back in the 1960's who fled the Democrat Party over the civil rights movement. However, this is only the very surface of the story, and held at an angle that gives people a very misleading impression of what actually happened.

This is what actually happened.

McCarthy, previously vilified by history as having started the "Red Scare" and "being wrong", is increasingly being justified in retrospect. Though many of the people he targeted in his investigations were not specifically planning open treason against the government, they were card-carrying Communists who were bent on a much longer game plan. Communism did spread from its birthplace into America and lay dormant through the World Wars. In the 1960's, it finally did make itself visible.

History books talk about the "Civil Rights Era" and the "Civil Rights Laws". There were actually two Civil Rights Eras, each pushed by radically different people, for radically different purposes, with radically different results.

The first was the work of the Republicans. Old South Democrat racists, seeing their power slipping further and further as businesses saw no reason to refuse blacks (their money was as green as everyone else's, after all) and blacks themselves were rising quickly through the economic ranks, set out to make state laws prohibiting the free market from treating people of all races equally. This, like the American Civil War itself, was a desperate holding action against the natural, corrective power of our country the way it was created by our Founders. Blacks were on their way up. Within another generation, they would be indistinguishable from the rest of the country, from the Germans and Irish and all those other cultures which had started out on the bottom of the heap. The Republicans in the Federal Government correctly sought to strike down the artificial barriers being placed against blacks by the state governments.

The second was the work of the newly-infiltrated Democrat Party, and it was not actually about race at all. Like Modern Feminism, which came out of the same era and the same birthplace as Socialism (which is meant to be the transitional stage to Communism), this new Democrat Party was merely seizing upon the grievances of a minority in hopes of imposing government control on the majority. Their goal was not to remove artificial barriers that were oppressing a people, but to change the function of the government from one that keeps the playing field level to one that rewards 'winners' and 'losers' according to government policy. (If you want to know who sets the policy and how, I strongly recommend the entire Francis Schaeffer "How Should We Then Live?" series, made up of ten half-hour episodes.)

They sought, not to remove government barriers to one race, but to impose government barriers upon another race. The Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action (once more correctly called Reverse Discrimination) came from two different sources; from two different sides of this new civil war.

What is this new civil war about? It isn't about gay wedding cakes and transgender bathrooms. It isn't about birth control and 'Equal Pay'. It's about what President Obama so neatly explained as "negative rights" versus "positive rights". Is it more important that the government be allowed to pick winners and losers according to government judgment? Or is it more important that the government be restrained by the people? Some mistakenly believe (I have addressed this before and may do so again) that the fight is Corporatism vs. Fascism. It doesn't have to be. A government focused on "negative rights" does not have the power to support either path. As I've said before:

Capitalism - the system in which the government is empowered to prevent companies from using lawlessness to stifle competition, and the government is constitutionally fettered to prevent companies from using laws to stifle competition.

The Republican Civil Rights provided a shining example of "negative rights": the government shall not be permitted to force one race below another. The Democrat Civil Rights provided a shining example of "positive rights": the government shall have the power to elevate one race above the other.

What prompted all of this? The North Carolina Bathroom Bill, actually. Talk about going far afield, right? The Charlotte ordinance that the bill is meant to strike down is an artificial barrier set up by the government in order to have the government choose 'winners' and 'losers'. It embodies the "positive rights" that Obama loves: the government has the right to tell you what it can/must do for/to you. What it states, in short, is that no private business or organization has the right to bar anybody of either gender from a gender-separated space. In short, by the law, a battered woman's shelter must permit a man to enter the ladies' shower room, sit down, and watch them shower naked, if that's what he wants to do. He cannot be told to leave just because he is fully and unapologetically male.

The much-derided "bathroom bill", on the other hand, embodies "negative rights". It says that the government does not have the right to force a private business to let somebody into a gender-separated changing/showering/bathroom/etc. space, unless said person can show, if challenged, documentation that he or she is of the declared gender. (Your gender is on your driver's license and your birth certificate, and post-op transgender/transsexual people can have it officially changed.) Now this is not a requirement upon the business; nobody has to ask, nobody has to check, and nobody has to try to bar anybody from entering a bathroom. The choice is theirs. If they choose to tell a given person, "You look like a man, so you can't go in there," the person who is challenged can display that document and must be permitted to enter.

Under the "bathroom bill", the battered woman's shelter can bar anyone with  functional male genitalia from entering the shower. However, the Walmart can set up a DADT policy in which people who are obviously transgender and "passing" are allowed in, and any liberal fruitcake hippie shop can choose to let men and women freely intermix in one big, 'happy' locker room. And people can choose to frequent the places of which they approve and avoid the places which make them uncomfortable.

Along with the freedom to choose comes the ability to react quickly and fluidly to unexpected situations. The most religiously gender-separated facility can choose to let a desperate pregnant woman into the men's room, or to let an elderly man assisting his disabled wife into the ladies' room. When the government makes the decision, however, the leering middle-aged man cannot be removed even if a sexual abuse survivor needs to use the facility... because such reasonable decisions made by private people in the course of day-to-day business are now against the law.

The real two sides of this civil war are no longer to be found between the Democrats and the Republicans, because there are people who are only Republican because they disagree with the decisions coming from up high, not with the notion of centralized power. If the Democrats decided to set government policy throwing homosexuals in jail for engaging privately in government-forbidden sex acts, or to mandate that all public meetings must start with a prayer led by a confirmed member of their favorite Christian sub-denomination, there are "Republicans" who would quite happily jump ship again. The real civil war is between them and those who say, simply, "The government cannot have this power," and hold to it even when people are not forbidden from doing things that they personally find abhorrent.