Converting to Imperialism

Okay, so first fascist, now imperialist. I guess I am wading into dangerous territory, but I can do that on this blog because it is only a few of my acquaintances who are reading this blog anyway. My point today is based on inner-peace, not world peace (or as I once saw on a bumper sticker, 'whirled peas.') This is somewhat of a shameless plug for Christianity (not Christianity's definition but a Mormon's definition) but have you ever noticed that the only recorded periods in history of true world peace revolve around Jesus Christ? Granted, it may be that the only source for these occurences are in the Bible and Book of Mormon, but non-Christians throughout history have known how to write too, haven't they? Truth be told, it is probably the fault of the Knights Templar (throw Christians and Freemasons under the bus) that there are no records of world peace from non-Christian sources because they destroyed them all. Anyway, my point is that world peace is only possible through inner-peace of all in a society and the only time I know of when that has occurred coincides with a good old fashioned come to Jesus party (quite literally.) So, without said party, world peace is a waste of time. Personally I would rather have, and can have inner-peace by hosting my own little party.

So how does this all tie in to Imperialism. Let us use the epitome of peace and love and look to nature! I am reminded of a Tom and Jerry cartoon clip where a dog is hypnotized into thinking he is a gazelle. He wanders around throughout the whole show and states quite emphatically to passersby that "[He is] a gazelle!" Allow me to throw out there, I don't want to be the gazelle in nature. Do you ever watch national geographic? I would rather be the lion. Being the gazelle sucks. And what is more, I would much rather be the dominant lion. You know, the one that doesn't get torn to shreds because he is a pansy and wants to do the nasty with one of the hot pieces of lion tail. Or, for that matter, the tough lion that doesn't get wallopped when, as a leader of his own pride, he treads on another lion's territory. Yeah, that lion. But it is so humane (or would it be lionane) to tear other lions and gazelles to shreds. Look how peaceful and balanced nature is! And yes, that is exactly my point. Nature is balanced, and that can not exclude mankind.

This harsh and cruel world favors the brave and the tough. In this sense I am going to call King Arthur a pansy soicalist because he fought against the creed of 'might makes right.' You see, world peace is not simply the lack of war. World peace can only be attained through all members of society reaching an inner-peace and improving to his or her own fullest potential. Quite honestly, to paraphrase my uncle, I have met too many of my fellow human beings and frankly, I am not too optimistic about reaching this worldwide nirvana anytime soon. I believe his quote is (stolen from someone else, I believe): Losing faith in mankind one person at a time. You see, you have oil and I need oil. You are a bunch of pansies with spears and slings and I can just shoot you. It does me no good to teach you how to produce oil because you are still walking or taking a camel and, last I checked, neither required oil. Therefore, I move in, kick your tail all over the sandy desert and take your oil, just like the lion and gazelle. Now that is balance for you! The circle of life right? I use up all of my oil (which doesn't take long because we really care about interrupting caribou sex), move in to your country wipe you out to use your oil and in the process return the precious carbon deposits back to the earth to turn back into more oil! I don't see what is wrong with that!

Okay, so I admit that is a little bit extreme, but you can use the same argument about terrorism. We know where the terrorists are or how to get them to gather in different locations (Irag.) So, since most of us as Americans do want to live long and full lives (in whatever manner you deem appropriate) let us remove the threat that has treaded upon our territory and kick a pansy lion's keister before he finds himself some nice American lion tail (figuratively--you can figure out the analogy yourself.) I guess my point is number one, I don't have a problem with war. It is a part of nature, including man, and always will be as long as that inner-peace can not be reached en masse. Second, you can be at peace even without world peace. And third, I don't think it does us any good to send aid to impoverished places in the world. They just don't get it. We didn't evolve because we were given technology, we evolved because we earned our technology. You must yearn for it to learn it, and learn it to earn it. Kind of catchy, I just made that up on the spot here. Yearn to learn and learn to earn. Okay that really does actually kind of suck, but oh well, it makes my point. Might really does make right and Robin Hood, not King Arthur had it right all along. I used to love King Arthur and hate Robin Hood because I saw Robin Hood as a socialist S.O.B. what with all of his redistribution of wealth and all. But I guess really he worked hard, made a good income and then turned his earnings toward charity, which is really as it should be!

Apology

I want to apologize to my friend, Greg for misrepresenting his side of the argument. Please refer to his comment on 'Get Your Big Government Outta My Way' to get his actual opinion. I think his point must have been misunderestimated by me. I am not worried about offending him, he is certainly thick-skinned and open to debate--I just want to make sure my reader (singular on purpose) knows his point.

Converting to Fascism

I only just recently began to understand Fascism. Oddly enough, it is because of a political survey on Facebook that I am beginning to understand it. The survey, called 'Political Compass' is a two dimensional survey that rates your moral and fiscal ideals. On the x-axis is where you rank fiscally. The far right relies on capitalism and the far left on communism. To the right is smaller government and to the left, larger.

The y-axis rates your moral ideals. I think the y-axis differs from the x-axis because with the x-axis, right is less government and left is more whereas, with the y-axis, up and down are both bigger government and to the center is less government. The reason I say that is because to the North is Fascism and to the South Anarchy. It seems odd that I would claim that Anarchy means larger government, but I think that Facebook improperly labeled that part of the compass. The difference is that, with the fiscal axis, as you develop more legislation, by nature you move away from capitalism. Capitalism is a ruling force in and of itself which requires the absence of governement and legislation to function at its best. However, with the moral axis, you have three choices: you legislate for, you legislate against, or you leave people alone to govern their own morals. The classic example right now is that of gay marriage. Left alone, the issue is purely a moral issue to be decided by individuals, families and churches. The moment government insists on ruling for or against the issue, you can no longer just be accepting of others moral decisions. You are forced to make a stand one way or another, or let others choose for you. Thus 'conversion to fascism.'

An analogy that makes sense to me is that of a home. Inside your home you are safe and secure with your beliefs and morals. When your home catches fire, you are no longer safe and sound staying inside the home, you must choose to escape or fall victim to the flames by staying inside. Friends, our homes are on fire! Every moral issue is being challenged today. If it hasn't yet been challenged, it soon will. If you stay in your home, you run the risk of being subjected to the morals of others (burned by the fire.) However, if you choose to stand up for your morals, you are no longer safe and secure inside the four walls of your home, able to adhere to your own moral ideals without the intrusion of others. You no longer can be considered accepting, or even tolerant of others ideals, because someone threw you an ultimatum and you chose. I am not afraid to leave the burning home and stand proud, exposed to the world, wearing the colorful and flamboyant frock of my morals. I was and still am accepting of you and your morals, though I may not approve, but you pitted me against you by demanding the choice. You started my home on fire and so now, instead of standing next to you with my arm around you in friendship, I stand toe to toe with you and, at best, extend a hand of friendship to you. Burn down my home, and I will become a goose-stepping Fascist, without thought of offending. Leave my home alone and we can stand side by side.

Chances are, if the analogy here is too deep for you, you are one of the pigs burning down my home! I want to note here, though, that if you do burn down my home, and I end up standing on the same side of the issue with you, my disdain for you is equal to that which I have for the minions of Hell! Burn in peace, dear friend, for your hypocrisy and intolerance will earn you an eternity of damnation, and believe me, I refuse to be on your side for that.

In case you didn't pick up on the point, I choose to be against gay marriage. Not because I am intolerant, but because you could not be satisfied with me just being accepting of your moral beliefs. You want to cram your immoral and heinous lifestyle down my throat, and yes, I will not only refuse to swallow, but also I will beat you down with all of my resources! I finally understand the L.D.S. church's stand against gay marriage.