Did you ever wake in the morning, and think
you’d just been through a time warp?
Well this morning I did. It was if I’d missed the last couple of days, and yesterday should have been the 1st of this month; then things would have made more sense!
Do you find yourself in complete awe of some things? I do, one is the idea of evolution. Now I know, I’ve heard all of the cliques that anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is an idiot—after all it’s just fact. Can’t help it though; never did accept the idea that is something doesn’t have at least one example of proof—I’d accept a theory, without some example. Guess it’s just my cynical nature.
When you don’t accept evolution, and you hear someone talking about “social Darwinism” you can see the problem that it creates! If the hypotheses of Darwin you reject; lacking any proof or example, how can you then take this unproven theory—transfer it to a different arena—the political spectrum—and then say it has some validity? You know, it’s too bad I didn’t do the drugs in my youth as these who are making these statements did; perhaps then I’d also understand.
Looking up this social Darwinism I’m not sure I still understand it; seeking to apply the principles of Darwinian evolution to sociology and politics. Then in awe, the identification of the political part said; it especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves.
See it’s here my lack of evolving became evident. Could anyone really make this argument? If so, what is the identifier of who is unable to support themselves? And who made the test? And what were the conditions of the sample set that took the test? And who decided what a passing grade was? And if the government intervened—which…like Keynesian fiscal and monetary policy, created macro-economic theory…how can possibly measure what the results would have been without the intervened action?
It was if I was creating more questions; making it more difficult to understand—all because the definition lacked any real evidence of its reasoning. It was here I realized, I’d been spared my lack of evolution by the United States in election policy showing me the example that evolution works in all things. Just imagine if you will; our first president…George Washington. Now from what we know of this man—it is beyond evaluation about his belief and wonder of this nation. He stood for America; who else ever could have made a statement—“let’s see what will happen with this experiment of a nation of liberty?”
Now of course, we’ve evolved right? Now we have a president who says, this nation is the cause of everything that’s wrong with this world. Apparently we’ve quit evolving—perhaps reached the apex of just how horrible we are. Then I began to question my own evaluation. Perhaps I misunderstood Darwinism? Perhaps it’s not that we evolve to the better—perhaps Darwinism is we reach the bottom of the pit; get as bad as man can possibly be? All of a sudden, Walla, here is the proof—if that is the hypothesis.
Naw, that’s too much of a stretch—“I think” mankind, under this hypothesis of evolution is supposed to be improving, not going backward.
Then I remembered our president is a critical theorist; could this help explain the concept of social Darwinism? Let’s review the definition—critical theorist maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed. Believing that science, like other forms of knowledge, has been used as an instrument of oppression, they caution against a blind faith in scientific progress, arguing that scientific knowledge must not be pursued as an end in itself without reference to the goal of human emancipation.
Ah, ha—I think we have it. Now it’s as clear as mud. Isn’t it so simple when you begin learning how to look at something? Now as a critical theorist, we refute, in fact we reject any scientific knowledge, and proof, and verifiable facts. It’s science without work. Like being a liberal in the world politics; you could always tell the difference between liberal and conservative because of the only things missing as an ingredient for the liberal: thought and reason.
Let’s think about what is it we call science. Now for all of those who took public education and we believed that that science is in room 212 taught by so-and-so; you have my empathy. I also had to endure that environment. Resulting in the fact science was the last thing in the world I ever wanted to know anything about. Because of the instruction there seem to be one thing they never wanted to apply; thinking. Thankfully there were many people who seem to think that this indoctrination of rote equaled education, I was always envious of them. It’s not who I am, if I can’t reason and think my way into the subject; it has no value. When I was exposed to science when I had to understand, contemplate, and be able to explain how things interact; then science became a world of wonder. With one great caveat, the more you know, the more you realize you know so little.
Science has some very simple foundations. We all know that we just don’t think about. We take something we believe to be true, conduct some type of experiment, and have a result. Then we do the same experiment again, and we confirm we are going to get the same results. Now if we can repeat this over and over, then we accept this as a hypothesis with proof. Here’s the caveat of science if someone conducts your experiment and reaches a different result, has a different outcome, it repudiates your hypothesis. So what happens, your experiment if it can be repeated isn’t allowed as approved hypothesis. The one before is declared void.
An example we had currently is the hypothesis that an experiment was conducted where the neutrino’s speed was measured to be faster than the speed of light. Most of you probably paid little attention to this. As an old neutrino freak this is very interesting to me. As neutrinos always fascinated me and that we know they exist with the characteristics of mass but we’ve never been able to identify them. I guess is something like finding “a thinking liberal.” Why this is important is in the world of nuclear physics, universal physics, and many of the unproven hypotheses of Einstein are based on using the speed of light is a constant. So for we take the universal constant of the speed of light, and find it is not a positive proven constant, but perhaps there is another constant, which is faster, thus a new constant, then all of the reasoning based on the factor (c-the speed of light) will have to be revalued.
So what happened? They kept conducting experiments, checking their instrumentation, and re-conducted the experiment. Resulting in a found their means of measuring the speed did not calculate for some characteristics–such as the earth being round– and their measuring points were external, in space, to the movement of the neutrino. It’s much more complex than this but that’s the basic idea.
So what happened? The neutrino is no faster than light; verified by experiment.
Let’s first explore Darwin. What did he do? He went to the Galapagos Islands; and with only observation, made a hypothesis that the species on the island were not individual species; but were variations of species that adopted. Now ask yourself, were there any scientific proofs of this fact? Of course there were not. The reason there were not is that in the recorded history of fossils on this planet the last 700 million years for multi celled life; we have yet to find one example of the species transformation. What we find is that the first known example of the species is identical to the last known example of that same species; there are no changes!
It always fascinates me that people will accept this fact someone’s hypothesis without one known example. I’ve heard many different ways to identify this; the simplest, the willing suspension of disbelief. For we have to remove reason to just accept something that somebody states is fact.
So why would a critical theorist refused to deal with examples or fact? Pretty simple to figure out isn’t it? If you have no examples of your ideology ever been successful, you have nothing that is a positive presentation so therefore dismiss all presentations as follows. This is the logic of a lunatic, the thinking of someone who’s irrational, and one who refuses to have any literacy and history, philosophy, or even attempting to understand the journey of Man.
So can we relate the present political situation and the idea, the ideals, that responsible fiscal management is social Darwinism? We can, if we do not take into account the history of all governments, the total spectrum of man’s existence on the earth, and the conclusions resulting when nations refuse fiscal management!
Let’s conduct a scientific experiment. We’ll use communism, socialism, monarchies, dictatorships, or any authoritarian control where all power is invested in those in charge. What has been their success rate? Who can’t answer this question? There has never been a successful society based on the principles of central planning determined to provide an equalitarian environment where all share a level of misery equally.
So why would the president talk to the population the electorate in this nation with this wording? I believe that’s also simple, he’s counting on your ignorance to not reason what he’s saying. What he’s trying to say is it’s woe on those who need assistance that the big bad Republicans are making a fiscal bill; the budget, that addresses the problems were facing. The retort, let’s ignore the facts of the monetary situation; let’s talk about the insanity of social programs that are bankrupting this nation, and how to address them. Now let’s talk about by cutting those programs we are attacking the poor, the underprivileged, and those that can’t make it on their own.
Have you ever heard such a crock of shit in your life?
Here’s another little piece of wonder that came out today. Government payouts — including Social Security, [I always have a bit of problem with this social security thing; if the damn government would not have monetized the funds; we’d have solvency] Medicare and unemployment checks — account for more than one-third of total wages and salaries in the United States. The Department of Agriculture reports that 43.6 million Americans are on food stamps.
The United States has effectively become a welfare Nation, with more Americans than ever before opting to completely drop out of the workforce and live on the public dole. The percentage of the Nation’s populace relying on social welfare as a primary source of income has risen from 21 percent to 35 percent in little more than a decade. In 1960, only 10 percent of Americans depended on welfare programs to survive.
You see when I went to Vietnam in the mid-60’s returning to the United States in January of 70. I remember the first question I asked; what happened to my country. I landed in a place that was more foreign to me that the jungles of Southeast Asia I was just returning from. A nation that bore no resemblance to the world I left.
I today have my own new mantra. It’s simple really and I think everyone will understand; I love America, and I want to go back!