Who Ought to be Running America?

Communityby FJ Rocca7/15/15
Traditional social values are under attack by several so-called “communities” on whose behalf “activists” do various things to offend the rest of us. On behalf of the “LGBT community” several people were recently photographed at the white house flipping the bird to the camera whilst standing beneath the portrait of Ronald Reagan. Others performed a derogatory mock crucifixion, while still others spit in the face of a Catholic Priest. In Baltimore in April members of the “Black Community” rioted, burned down stores and other buildings, attacked and insulted police and looted in protest (looted in protest?) against police, who were ordered by another member of the Black Community, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake, to stand down and give the thugs “room to destroy” as a matter of self-expression. On university campuses white students are told to “check your privilege” and are subjected to other indignities out of a sense of Political Correctness, again done in representation of some “community” or other. Done with malice, these acts of impotent rage are meant to be a demonstration of unity within the “community” and to give the impression of purpose, power, and righteousness. But this impression is a fragile lie constructed on flimsy but deliberate misconceptions.

First, the term “community” as used in this context is Orwellian Newspeak for “collective” or “mass.” In reality, a community is, by definition, a group of individuals who come together for some purpose, while retaining their identity as individuals. The collective is a false concept deliberately created by Marxist Progressive Liberals to make people forget they are individuals and make them think they are just specs in a mass. Thus, the lie of the Community erases individual rights replacing them with mass interest. Masses are easily led like herds of buffalo while individuals who think cannot. In fact, the communities themselves are non-existent, because people are not collectives, no matter how hard the Progressive Liberals try to assert it as fact. Each person always exercises his individual nature through personal action, even within the same group. Not every Gay person approves of mock crucifixions as a way to demonstrate the validity of their lifestyle choice and not every black person steals, kills or riots as a matter of self-expression! That impression is a byproduct of Progressive Liberals’ intent to create the illusion the community is unanimous in its purpose. Even when large numbers of people agree they rarely act in concert on their own. To act as a mob, people must become a mob.

This is where their community “leaders” come in. These leaders create causes that will inflame and motivate individuals to join in collective action. In both cases above, that cause is collective oppression. Under the banner of victimization, Community leaders pose as fighters against it. Without the false concept of Community, these leaders would have a difficult time rousing the rabble to destructive action. We are not talking here about legitimate protests against unfairness or in favor of something beneficial such as civil rights. In both cases, the argument is to increase special interests and not to redress actual grievances. In fact, no large scale oppression continues against black people, who achieved social equity long ago, despite Al Sharpton and his ilk, who continue to deny it for their own purposes. Vast opportunities are available in today’s society to every individual who works hard to take advantage of them. Moreover, apart from hate crimes, which are infrequent, homosexuals and others in the LGBT community are not persecuted as a mass.

The angry actions of small groups of people, are intended to give the impression that they are so fierce as to be feared. While rioting, destroying buildings and assaulting cops may seem frightening on the surface. In fact, it is not a frequent occurrence. And, if police are enabled to do their job, riots can be put down quickly and easily with a minimum show of force. Stephanie Rawlings Blake, whether intending to do so or not, enabled the impression that vast numbers of black people were so discontented they reacted in vast numbers against their oppressors. In fact, the rioters were no more than a few hundred and most did not engage in any serious destruction, but merely in nuisance behavior. And while giving the finger to Ronald Regan’s memory, parodying crucifixion, and spitting on a priest may offend, it does not constitute a show of force. Not that actions have no consequences. Suing a baker or pizza parlor owner for refusing service can cause great harm to their businesses and finances. And, while burning down a CVS and a senior citizens’ center are evil actions, buildings can be rebuilt. Society at large shrugs at such antics.

If strength in numbers is the prevailing rule, both LGBT and black “communities” lose. Facts always foreshorten misrepresentations of strength. According to demographic population studies reported by NHIS in July, 2014, only 1.6 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent considered themselves bisexual, a total of 2.3%. Rabble rousers like Al Sharpton would like us to believe that the community he supposedly represents is larger than it really is but the total population of black Americans is under 13%. It is safe to conclude that the rest of the 320 million US inhabitants, a whopping 97.7% are “straight” and that non-blacks outnumber blacks by almost eight to one.

The point of all this is simple if one cares to examine it. While grievances exist and can be redressed, it is individuals acting as individuals who can challenge and change society best. Notwithstanding the effectiveness of the original union movement in the US, which did have its effect by collective bargaining in various industries, the numbers of the aggrieved were large enough to resonate with American society at large. Now, even among American workers, who enjoy the highest standard of living in human history, the union movement has lost favor and is dying out, because Americans recognize that collective bargaining is no longer necessary in a truly free society in which corporations provide excellent wages and benefits. There is a lesson in this. Among people who self-identify as LGBT, as well as people of African-American descent, individual personal achievement is universally recognized, in the arts, in sports, the professions, and government. There is no need to be seen as Communities, if they are already celebrated as individuals. The mantra for everyone should be: Step forward and show society your individual strengths. You can only be rewarded for proving your achievements.


FJ Rocca was born the day after Pearl Harbor in the same hometown as Johnny Appleseed. He is a trained classical musician, a published illustrator and a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. His website is candiddiscourse.com. • (1655 views)

Share
FJ Rocca

About FJ Rocca

FJ Rocca was born the day after Pearl Harbor in the same hometown as Johnny Appleseed. He is a trained classical musician, a published illustrator and a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. His website is candiddiscourse.com.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Who Ought to be Running America?

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Cultural Marxism (Leftism, Progressivism, liberalism…whatever you want to call it) is an alternative religion to Christianity and Judaism. I can’t speak for the particulars of Judaism, but Christianity certainly believes in a Devil. And it believes in Utopia (heaven). Both also believe in repentance for one’s sins (whether environmental or Ten-Commandments-based). Both have an original sin. As Michael Crichton writes in Environmentalism is a Religion:

    There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

    Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

    I, too, don’t want to talk anyone out of Jesus Christ. But we must always bear in mind that famous quote attributed to Chesterton: “When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.” And that “anything” for the Left is a variety of really goofy stuff. (A single Creator of all that is I don’t find goofy but ultimately plausible.)

    But it occurs to me that the thread that holds all these disparate “communities” together is a belief in an earthly utopia based, in large part, on its lack of being realized upon the original sin of white capitalist culture. These disparate groups all gain their mojo from this powerful organizing force. It’s both the devil that drives them (us) as well and their naive kumbaya beliefs in an earthly utopia.

    And it is a standard PhD-level conservative belief that because this earthly utopia is forever out of reach — like the pot of gold underneath the end of the rainbow — that the devil aspect of it tends to enlarge. Grievance, anger, and hatred become the real organizing principles of the Left. Despite all the kumbaya rhetoric, they are ultimately and inevitably drawn to destroying civilization just for the sheer delight in lashing out at their Devil.

    That is how I read all these “communities.” Remember, these “communities” are not the traditional American private associations intent on building character, expressing charity, or serving as an uplifting resource (the Boy Scouts, Lion’s Club, Rotary, Salvation Army, etc.). These “communities” are thoroughly grievance based, energized by the belief that their kumbaya utopia is possible if only the devil of white traditional capitalist culture is slayed.

    Anyone who understands this also understands why Obama is going out of his way to make sure that Iran has a nuke. Israel is part of the (generally speaking) white Christian (Judeo-Christian) oppressor culture that must be destroyed. Yes, that’s right. These groups and peoples are not simply misguided. They have darker motives.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    These groups and peoples are not simply misguided. They have darker motives.

    There are, no doubt, certain people who are compelled to wallow in filth and resent others not so inclined. Instead of trying to lift themselves out they want to drag others into the pit with them. The Left has an inordinately large number of such persons.

    We don’t have the aphorism, “Misery loves company”, for nothing.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      These groups and peoples are not simply misguided. They have darker motives.

      There’s another aspect to this, Mr. Kung, and it relates to this article and the one by Dana on education.

      I was listening to Michael Medved the other day, and he was talking about Hillary. She gave a speech filled with nanny state stuff. And Michael said something like, “You can tell she’s still aspiring to be the world’s Kindergarten teacher.”

      One of the things I think is undeniably true is that children in public schools need less coddling. We treat them now as if they were these overly fragile creatures. And kids pick up on that and take advantage of it. Oh, they can smell weakness like sharks can smell blood. If you don’t create dumbed-down ones with this coddling (as Dana attests to) you might well create “little monsters” out of them.

      Why do we find it so hard to find that “just right” balance? We neither need absolute cold disciplinarians nor do we need milquetoast coddlers. I guess one of the problems is that we don’t have many good role models to look at. I mean, I took a look at that video that Rosalys posted that other day. It shows a Catholic priest almost complete emasculated by feminism. This is not even up to the level of that old softy (relatively speaking) Father Chuck O’Malley of “Going My Way” fame. And, oddly (but it fits the overall paradigm of the emasculation of men), Ann Coulter steps in playing the adult or the man’s role, if you will.

      That’s not to say that women are automatically given to being to touchy-feely and foreign to discipline. God knows I can point to some of my lady teachers in grade school who were anything but softies. And, for example, it used to be that Catholic nuns were stout believers in not taking crap off of their charges, although I think those days have changed.

      Both men and women have become emasculated. We now are required to act all “sensitive” and “touchy-feely.” And the idea of talking reality to people, and holding them to high standards, is all but forgotten. It’s as if public schools are no longer about educating yutes. It’s about an extended Kindergarten. And many, if not most, of these new “community” groups are based on a type of never-grow-up juvenile philosophy. Reality doesn’t tend to enter into the equation. This can be a bad habit picked up early-on.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I took a look at that video that Rosalys posted that other day. It shows a Catholic priest almost complete emasculated by feminism.

        This ass-hole priest is either a phony, which is what I believe, or an idiot. (Not out of the realm of possibility) Firstly, I believe he is mainly interested in ratings. Since women make up the largest percentage of daytime viewers, especially for programs such as his, I smell a promoter.

        He replies to Ann’s points by ignoring what she says and talks in generalities. Then he switches tactics and tries to make it look as if Ann does not acknowledge that some single mothers are able to raise a healthy family. I couldn’t go past about 5 minutes, but during this time he made no case for keeping sex to the marriage bed.

        He is trying to present a milder version of “Cross Fire”. And the fact that he uses the corny line about “getting hot under the collar”, is further proof, if needed, that the man is about ratings.

        This is a man of the cloth? If a Catholic Priest (I assume he is not Episcopalian) can’t condemn illegitimacy, much less sex out of marriage, then what use is he? Of course, if he is Episcopalian, I expect his homosexual partner to wade into the discussion.

        Money makes the world go round, the world go round, the world go round.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Yes. Good point. No doubt he’s wedded to his demographic instead of, well, to his God.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            When an Indianapolis church put up billboards arguing that Jesus was actually pro-homosexual (using various twisted Bible verses), one critic noted that some people, when faced with the contradiction between their behavior and what the Bible calls for, try to change their behavior. Others try to change their Bible.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              When an Indianapolis church put up billboards arguing that Jesus was actually pro-homosexual (using various twisted Bible verses),

              I have come to the conclusion that such people cannot and should not be engaged by sane people. They must be called what they are, liars and perverters of fact and truth. To do otherwise, gives them credibility which they do no deserve and confuses those who are not paying attention.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I think Jesus was pro-Redemption. But who knows where he stood on individual issues? I won’t stuff words into his mouth trying to make a modern case for this or for that. But none of the great moral leaders throughout history (that I can remember) ever said a man sticking his penis up another man’s ass was a morally worthy act. Instead, words such as “abomination” were more frequently used.

              And there’s good reason for that. It’s a perversion of what those body parts are meant for. Maybe it’s right not to outlaw it. Maybe that’s progress. But never anywhere should it be promoted as just another lifestyle choice. Indeed, we should have great compassion for those whose masculinity is broken. The answer then lies in fixing it, not indulging the brokenness.

              Again, this requires wise adults..a commodity that we are short of in this day and age.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                But none of the great moral leaders throughout history (that I can remember) ever said a man sticking his penis up another man’s ass was a morally worthy act. Instead, words such as “abomination” were more frequently used

                Maybe those old farts knew something was not healthy when they saw it. I believe we need to give the ancients more credit for good sense than we actually do.

                Do you think that they may have figured out some connection between screwing goats and health? Maybe they figured out that pregnant woman without husbands were at a disadvantage in this world. Maybe they had a hint that the rectum and anus have a completely different function than the vagina. And that perhaps one should not stick one’s appendages into places which void a product which is less than salubrious.

                Do you think maybe they figured this stuff out?

                Many years back I had a discussion with a friend in the pharmaceutical business. He had come to the conclusion that it was likely that a large number of AIDS sufferers already had some type of lesions or venereal disease before they contracted HIV. A few years after this, some data came out that pretty much confirmed this.

                So is there any wonder that people who participate in clearly abnormal and unhealthy sexual practices and are known to be highly promiscuous should contract something nasty?

                Sexual mores have developed over centuries of experience and are there for a reason. They are pragmatic and work pretty well in a society.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    There is a lesson in this

    I draw another lesson. That is that the majority of people in this country have become so lethargic and ignorant as to allow their values and rights to be trampled by a anti-scientific group of deviants who happen to be overly represented in the media. They and their comrades have come up with the idea of hate-crimes as a way to proscribe freedom of speech and criminalize thought. I ask how many crimes are committed out of love?

    Among people who self-identify as LGBT, as well as people of African-American descent, individual personal achievement is universally recognized, in the arts, in sports, the professions, and government. There is no need to be seen as Communities, if they are already celebrated as individuals. The mantra for everyone should be: Step forward and show society your individual strengths. You can only be rewarded for proving your achievements.

    The above mentioned groups have been, to a large degree, united and maintained through grievance. As regards the “gay mafia”, clearly a very small group of dedicated malcontents has been able to defeat the vastly larger group of traditionalists who were happy with the way things were. So given the demonstrable political success they have had as a group, I believe it is very unlikely this grievance group will go away.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      They and their comrades have come up with the idea of hate-crimes as a way to proscribe freedom of speech and criminalize thought. I ask how many crimes are committed out of love?

      That relates, Mr. Kung, to an article I linked to recently that discussed the difference between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian.” It is a totalitarian impulse whereby it’s not just enough to win, you have to force the other side to adopt your beliefs.

      This is Orwellian, which is a subject rightly brought up by FJ in his article. This is not any type of “liberal” society. I think there are a lot of hippies and other ne’er-do-wells out there who have not caught onto this fact, this change from what (they at least believed) was a “liberal,” accepting, and open society they always had as an ideal. There’s nothing accepting about having homosexuality rammed down your throat. This current crop of Democrats, Progressives, Leftists, etc., is not your father’s Oldsmobile. Hell, they aren’t even his Harley.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The homosexual militants were small in numbers, but their Cause was accepted as avant-garde liberalism, and thus was propagated by the intelligentsia and the news and entertainment media as well as the activists. This enabled them to deceive the well-meaning but ill-informed public (including, most importantly, “Justice” Kennedy).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The sexual revolution is a central aspect to the homosexual movement. It set the stage for it and made it inevitable, for if I’m out there doing god-knows-what, I’m in no position to tell some other schlub what he can or can’t do…basically a libertarian paradise.

        However, if one understands that sex is a mere component of something larger (marriage, children, a stable life, a productive life) then there’s no need to defend the degradation of it by basically sanctioning any sort of perverted activity.

        Can we engage the culture war and talk this back? Can we take the ground back? Can we convince kids that, yes, sex is indeed powerful, but it ought to be disciplined?

        That would, of course, require a world of adults. And, frankly, we have a shortage of those these days.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Leftists have always lied about their goals. First they ask only for toleration. Then they demand acceptance. Finally, they force participation.

          Sounds like the old Bob Hope joke.

    • FJ Rocca says:

      You’ve hit the nail on the head with the words “lethargic” and “ignorant” but I’d add “intimidated” because of Policical Correctness. We have to exercise courage in the face of the banshee screech that replaces reasonable argument on the Left. They have no rational capacity left (it’s filled with garbage slogans) so they resort to threats and calling vile names. I’m willing to take the screams. We have to shout the truth!

      • Timothy Lane says:

        It’s not just the vicious verbal attacks and boycotts. This week the Wisconsin Supreme Court finally shut down the Milwaukee County persecutor’s “John Doe” inquisition of local conservative groups. But they underwent a terrible ordeal, and no one has been punished in any way for it. So the Left is unchastened, and every conservative knows they can still face the Liberal Inquisition at any time.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          The Left is happy wither way, just a little more happy if they actually win a judgment in their favor.

          The process is the punishment.

          Using the legal system in order to impose their will is something autocratic governments have perfected over the years. It is a very useful technique. There is triple effect of 1) avoiding the open use of force, which might upset the masses 2) appearing to be fair and law-abiding 3) bankrupting your opposition.

          Of course, the use of force is implicit in all such cases.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Maybe they figured out that pregnant woman without husbands were at a disadvantage in this world.

    Oddly, given the direction this is all going, Mr. Kung, one of the prime Catholic teachings is that sexuality is a good, but only in the context of marriage, and it’s something that has to be tamed.

    This idea, of course, has been turned into a big joke. But what have we really gained from making a joke of it? We look like such dizzy, prissy, sissy juveniles…no better than those monkeys I talked about in a cage at the old Tacoma B&I Circus Store who, out of boredom, jammed sticks up their urethra.

    Given the explosion of abortion, of divorce, of single-parents families, of abused or neglected children, of the bizarre 57 flavors of gender, I’d say we gained very little for the bragging rights of saying how supposedly “hip” we are by being able to stick it where we want, when we want.

    We may be laughed at for suggesting that sex ought to between a man and a woman, preferably between those who are married (a position that Dennis Prager doesn’t even agree with). But we see the alternative to having all but no standards. This is better, sexual anarchy?

    Maybe the idea of being a lady or being a gentlemen was a very good goal. Now we’re a bunch of tattooed heathens.

    Sexual mores have developed over centuries of experience and are there for a reason. They are pragmatic and work pretty well in a society.

    Yes, I do think so.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Liberals reflexively reject traditions. This includes traditional ethics and morality (which can be very convenient for them). Then, too, liberals are narcissistic — operating on the principle of “if it feels good, do it.” They’re very good at using sophistry to justify their actions, but in reality it’s all done for their sakes, both as individuals and as the Collective.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Jeffrey Lord has an article bearing on the general subject at hand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *