Radical Rules….For Radical Rulers
Having tossed about the term Radical for a while, but not yet truly grasping the meaning of the term, one day I asked myself, what exactly is a radical? Then, resorting to the age old form of knowledge once referred to as a dictionary hopefully, one would imagine, there, is where correct diction and terminology related thereto is found. However, much to my chagrin, it seems the newer dictionary, namely Oxford Americans definitions definition, are so ambiguous that one could sit in pontification staring aimlessly off in space, mesmerized by this masterful literary quagmire. And to make matters worse, without resolution. Yet, conversely the Webster’s Collage Dictionary written in April of 1999 was clear, concise and directly to the point. In fact I was stymied by what I found in the word radicals definition or, more pointedly, it’s true meaning, took me aback. But, though unrelated to the subject, how and more importantly, why were the dictionary definitions changed? Though, this is a subject, in and of itself.
Oxymoronically, it seems the word radical is, in short, political fundamentalism. Or, in other words, one who goes to the root of where all things begin. Argo, political radicals are simply fundamentalists, of whom, believe in their roots. Radical conservative roots are lodged in a Constitutional Republic, commonly referred to as America. Whereas, liberalisms roots lie in what? I’m not sure what liberalism believes in; if anything. So then, what can we say, those religious fundamentalists of whom, are rooted in faith of our Constitutional Republic, or, in a higher power as described in the scriptures are radicals, then so be it.
The question is, then also are agnostics of whom, believe in nothing, or anything whatsoever radicals? Of course, these radicals are rooted in nothing, or anything, sound irrational or illogical or just plain stupid? It was meant to. This is the philosophical madness known as liberalism. At the same token, if anyone can recall our history these agnostic elitists’ liberals were, the educated epistemologists of their time, or so we were told. And, as philosophical existentialists they naturally did, one would imagine, comprehend the theory that all of humanity, according to their eidetic, are free agents responsible for their actions. Guess not. Did we miss class that day? Hmmm.
In this essay I argue several positions from different angles, kindly bear with me. When writing, I often paint a picture of political gloom and doom, and rightly so, mainly because, the short range outlook for this Constitutional Republic of the people is, to say the least, bleak. The dragon of liberalism has worked its magic through attrition. Though the long range outlook may, too few paying attention, seem disastrous, however, my mystical senses say, the game is far from over. With some provisos that is, the least of which is a populous willing to bring the fighting of this war of ideals to the enemy. And by all means, stop sitting in silence. And two, get off their fat ass, of which the former I don’t do, and the latter I have not.
Alinsky,
“Actions and articulations are one, as silence is surrender.”
First off, radical conservative fundamental roots are derived from faith in a Devine creator, namely God. Like St Tomas Aquinas, the French philosopher Jacques Maritain held that there was no conflict between faith and true reason, that religious beliefs was open to rational discussion, and that the existence of God and certain fundamental religious beliefs could be philosophically demonstrated. Religious beliefs, then, was not an attitude or a matter of private preferences; it was a matter of “truth.” So to me, much like Maritain, one must choose between “the true God or radical, irrationality.” My words exactly, save two; illogical and stupid. This I’m sure the reader will be delighted in, this concludes my philosophical and or mystical views.
Secondly, aside from the philosophical order there is the psychological. So I digress once again too my argument that a military strong America is the only answer to having a safe America. And this, just so happens to be, the one, and, the only constitutional requirement of the federal government. And that is, our security. But it would seem, this President is more intent upon acquiescence to aggression then steadfastness. Which then, leads me to a simplistic question, what is the reason, and why?
As I have pointed out in other articles the utmost significances in determining the strength of a leader is quintessentially, a person’s character. Because, as one could imagine, this human trait we call personal character implicitly denotes how he or she will react to a given set or circumstances. And let’s face it, Obama is a philanthropist, his words reek with surrender, and appeasement, which is nothing short of fear. How do I know this? It is obvious to those who have the ears to hear. Let me explain in psychological terms that anyone can comprehend, it’s not rocket science. And by the way, the word psychology is derived from the Greek word meaning sprit. Not mind, as we are led to believe.
The truth be told, each and every one of us is equipped with an intrinsic reference point, that at some point in our lives we chose, which, becomes our true nature or personality that we project to everyone. This reference point is either one of two, “self – referral” which is faith related. The other nature is, in Obama’s case, called “object – referral.” In object – referral one is always influenced by objects outside the Self, which includes situations, circumstances, people, and things. In his case Obama is constantly seeking the approval of others. Hence, the bowing to our adversaries. In this Presidents thinking, his actions and also his behavior are always in anticipation of a response; it is therefore based in fear, fear of being disliked.
Persons who use object – referral feel an intense need to control things, also the need for approval, and the need for external power. In object – referral, the internal reference point is the Ego. The ego, however, is not who we really are because the ego is our self – image; our social mask if you will, the ego is the role we are playing so to speak. The reason I bring this point up is, our social mask thrives on approval and as previously mentioned, that is why Obama bows to world leaders. Because in his ego based mind he needs their approval to sustain his massive Ego which, in part, is derived from the title and power he holds as President of the United States. But, Ego based power is false power, as he will soon experience, lasting only as long as the title is there. Once his title is gone, so then is his power. And, may I say, in Obama’s case, what many of us are thinking, the sooner, the better. So, what does all this psychological clap trap mean? Indulge me for just a moment longer while I explain further.
Albert Pine the great patriot put it this way;
“Whatever we do for ourselves dies with us, whatever we do for others remains immortal.”
General George S. Patten Jr. admitted, to some degree, his defeat of the feared “Desert Fox” a German Field Marshal by the name of Erwin Johannes Eugene Rommel an officer, and truly a gentleman, in part, was due to the fact Patten was clever enough to read Rommel’s book before engaging in the battle with this most formidable foe, a battle some say changed the course of the North African campaign. For one to succeed find a person whom you admire and mimic that person. Like Patten I have read Saul Alinsky’s book, I now know his tactics and understand how to win the war, and, that is utilizing; Radical Rules for Radical Rulers.
Too conclude;
“Alinsky’s techniques and teachings influenced generations of community and labor organizers, including the church-based group hiring a young Barack Obama to work on Chicago’s South Side in the 1980’s.” Now a Radical Ruler.
Chicago Sun-Times
