traditions, to turn our back on our place and duty in the world—to, in effect, live off the interest and call it Humanism, or One-Worldism, or re-distribution of wealth, is an act of folly like that of any thoughtless and weak (not to say ungrateful) inheritor of wealth.
But the Liberal West must hide from itself its dysfunction, noting only those trends and occurrences indicative not only and not even primarily of the success of its theories49 but of their
To defend the practice of the irrational consumes any organism’s energy and, as with the Reverend Sharpton’s cry of “exploitation,” blinds the irrational to better uses of his time and power. What is to prevent African Americans from either opening their own hair salons, or, like the Asian Americans, casting about for a need to fill and filling it (as Reverend Sharpton has)? Nothing.50 And those who do so are rewarded according to the rules of the free market: “Give me something I want or need and I will pay you for it.” Mr. Rock’s film, in fact, contains a striking instance of a successful Black-owned business, Dudley’s Hair Care & Cosmetics, which produces and distributes a vast amount of hair, skin, and makeup products to the African American community.
To defend the irrational or inconsistent becomes, in the dysfunctional organization, the
Here is an example. President Obama, in a speech in July 2010, declared that the Government should be ready to support Green Business—that if anyone wanted to create these jobs, the Government would be there to help.
What was the help? He was offering rebates. But what are rebates but tax cuts?
To suggest that giving back (to approved entities)
If, as President Obama announced perceptively, cutting taxes creates jobs (as it does; as anyone not blinded by theory knows: when taxes are raised, businesses close), then why not cut
This inconsistency is ignored only by those who benefit from it (the administration), and the confused (Liberals).
Why not, O Liberals, vote to cause the Government to keep its filthy hands off the possessions of its citizens, and let those citizens and their country thrive?
It’s not the largess of Government which is required (the money existed
To whom is this, in his sober moments, other than evident?
To defend and continue the practice the irrational, and thus necessarily destructive, consumes energy and time which cannot be expended on production, innovation,
The lie may be that Daddy is not abusing little Susie, or it may be that increased taxes, Government intervention, and One-Worldism somehow bring stability to our country, and bring to its citizens not only health and prosperity, but Salvation (called, in 2008, “Change”).
The dysfunctional State and the dysfunctional Family have in common an emergency tool for dealing with, defusing, or indicting outbreaks of reason. The sick family employs the mechanism of the Designated Criminal. It is this person who is always doing something wrong, which is to say contrary to his family’s interests and destructive of its peace. His thoughts, behavior, attitude, and loyalty may always be called into question; and he is punished, mocked, marginalized, or ignored, as circumstances warrant, which responses in themselves unite and strengthen the threatened organism. How is this Designated Criminal selected, he whose actions and demeanor are all that stands between his family and Happiness? He is chosen by his health. He is invariably the most clearheaded member of the household.
He may be designated because he is passive, or weak, but more usually, because he is not.
For the more clearheaded, healthy, and strong the child is, the more likely he is not only to question, but to rebel against unreason, thus increasing his utility as a recipient of scorn, his condign punishments standing in support of the original proposition of his perfidy.
It is no great leap to discern, in the Family of Nations, this same mechanism—denial and coalescence around a lie.52 No reader need waste reflection in identifying the cause of the West’s woes—the Designated Criminal State—it is done for us constantly by the United Nations.
23
GREED
Greed is a sin. It is mentioned in the Ten Commandments, where it is called covetousness, which is to say the wish for that which another possesses. As such it is allied to envy and resentment.
But there is a nonsinful wish for more, and it is called ambition.
How is the sin of covetousness to be differentiated from a legitimate desire for gain?
The Torah cautions us not to go astray after the evidence of our eyes and our hearts “which we are whoring after”—a good harsh word to describe covetousness. Should we go astray, that which was a sin may fall from the moral world into the judicial realm—sin may become crime and, as such, the legitimate concern of the community. The community must protect itself not from ambition, neither from covetousness, but from crimes committed in their pursuit. And the criminal act, as opposed to the merely distasteful or, indeed, immoral, must be clearly delineated, or else there can be no justice. A democratic system and civilization punishes those who take that which does not belong to them according to law.
There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)
The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.
