The key to stable governance: happy people

 

The key to stable governance is happy people

 

Yesterday, I reported on an attack on an innocent German woman by an angry “refugee,” showing how German women now have real reason to fear riding on commuter trains, given the large numbers of Muslim men now riding along with them. Every German knows that Merkel is to blame for the mass immigration that brought these men to Germany.

Thus, today we read in the German press that the AdF, a popular and growing anti-Merkel and anti-immigration party, is making major strides in the state of Mecklenburg-Pomerania, once part of communist East Germany. Those of us who have travelled in the “East Zone” and in the Soviet Union can more easily see what is going on today in East-West geopolitics. (BTW, I suspect that if I had been unable to speak the languages spoken there, I never would have grasped these things. I say that with all the humility possible — under the circumstances). Some can even see the systemic errors of their entire Establishment and the sheeple who support it.

A few days ago I saw a simply pitiful post by a pseudo-intellectual Neocon apologist at AIM (Cliff Kincaid’s site) stating that Putin was using “Marxist dialectics” in his politics. He was trying to rebut a post of mine and said “you don’t understand Marxian dialectics.”

No, my dears, that is wrong on two counts. First off, Putin does not use Marxian dialectics. Russia is well past that childish phase, which we are still mired down in here in the West. Secondly, I do know enough about Marxian dialectics and Putin to be absolutely certain of that. In an interview, Putin was once asked what his ideology was and he said he didn’t have one, and that he merely faces each problem as it comes up and works hard to solve it. His managerial style makes it clear that he was telling the truth. But Westerners are trained by their keepers never to pay a bit of attention to what Putin says or does, insisting that he – the only world leader who tells the truth – is lying. And of course, he speaks Russian (gasp!). This attitude is part of our government training and can best be described as Neocon – the new Nazism. All their lives, most Westerners have seen politicians deceiving, lying and betraying and have been conditioned to believe that such is the human condition. It is not. It is the Marxian dialectic at work ramming radical Enlightenment ideology (typified by Voltaire’s writings as opposed to those of the more moderate branch of the Enlightenment) down our throats. Politicians are absolutely convinced that they are morally superior to the little people because they are imbued with a fatally flawed ideology that originated over 300 years ago but is still thought of as the undisputed superior way that must be enforced by superior beings.

The shocking fact is that the only region still using the Marxian dialect is the woefully failing West, and that would be all major countries in the West, which are puppets that basically just follow, zombie-like, Washington’s dictates (no, my dears, the UN does not control the US, as many have been taught to dutifully believe. It is the other way around).

The Marxian dialectic is a method of persuasion by stealth and deception that was refined, for example, into the Delphi technique in the US. Although it is only a technique and could theoretically be employed for good, its aim for well over a century has been to overcome logic and reason so that people will accept things that they would not accept spontaneously. That would be, by definition, unpleasant things. The Bible calls this putting good for evil and evil for good. (All of this was concisely put into perspective back in 2009 by Cassandra Goldman, here.)

Despite what you are being taught by Neoconservatives of both political parties (Hillary is the arch-Neocon), nothing like this failed dialectic-based philosophy is being written about and studied in today’s Russia by major Kremlin decision makers, who have adopted a unique principle of their own, namely, a common sense technique of governance that can be boiled down to: avoid giving the people pain and make them as happy as possible. The decision makers stumbled across this technique because ordinary Russians, initially deceived by the dialectic fol-de-rol described above, were so profoundly unhappy that they spontaneously rebelled against it. (While in Cracow in the early 70s, I lived with a family where the daughter was a physician. I asked her how much a doctor makes in Poland and she said it was the equivalent of $30/mo, a salary impossible to live on. When I asked how she got by, she laughed and said “by selling doctor’s excuses”). At some point, vast numbers of workers throughout the Soviet Union and its satellite states had stopped going to their jobs, and it became impossible to discipline them because they were too numerous. (Note that the West is on the cusp of such a quiet revolution. Brexit is the best example but more are on the way. This is because the pain has become unbearable for many, like our German lady correspondent in the commuter train full of mean Muslims).

The simple fact. which most Americans are trained not to notice or believe, is that Soviet decision makers had found the limits of authoritarianism and were forced to find a new way.

The fact that Putin has had around 80% popularity for years is a clear sign that he is succeeding in making people happy.

The fact that Congressional approval is always below 10% in the US is a sign that Americans are deeply unhappy, and we all know we are. The only reason presidents have a higher popularity than this is because they have succeeded in convincing the gullible public that they are working hard to overcome the bad influence in congress, in Wall Street, and in whichever is the opposition party, and that prosperity (eg, recovery) is just around the corner.

There is no name for this new political philosophy discovered by the Russians because it is based on reason, logic and common sense so it’s been around forever. But Western pols shun it because it is not pseudo-intellectual enough for them (they can’t bear the thought that they are not far superior to the masses in terms of intellect and morality). Meanwhile, the elitist West is busy poring over philosophy books, writing new Libertarian, rightwing, Neocon and liberal tripe to find the solution that is right in front of our noses.

So why is Mecklenburg looking to the AdF party? Because, surprise, this party actually wants to give the people what they want, without any underhanded tricks. And the people there have lived under communism so they are not as easily fooled as the brainwashed sheeple in the rest of Germany.

Many Americans believe that is also what Trump wants to do, and that would seem to be the case a priori, although it is not always easy to tell what Trump is thinking or if he is thinking what he is saying. (But unlike Neocon Hillary, he certainly does not seem, by all appearances, to want more war, especially with Russia).

I got the story about Mecklenburg turning against Merkel from the German-language site of Der Spiegel.

Now while the Soviets and the rest of the East bloc were forced, by much pain and suffering, to admit that the old Marxist experiment could not work, the West is still a babe in the woods whose “leaders” believe explicitly in the Marxian-dialectic technique, not necessarily as a method of persuading the masses, but as an end in itself, namely persuading them that everything they hate is good and common sense cannot be trusted.

Most of us are so brainwashed – not only by the Left but also by the Russia-hating (racist) Neocons and nominal “conservatives,” who approach problems in a purely legalistic way (like the Pharisees in Jesus’ day)  – that we can’t see the obvious, namely, that the only lasting and authentic value that will enable a political body to govern in the long term is happiness of the people. If the people are happy with what the governing body is doing, that body can maintain its power over them indefinitely. If not, that power is fleeting and doomed to pass away sooner or later.

So how have we allowed ourselves to be so grossly misled? There are many facets to the process by which we are deceived, but one very important factor is that our “leaders” – on both sides of the imaginary aisle – are telling us or suggesting to us that Russia and Putin are the ones who are deceiving us and that whatever they are doing is wrong or evil, and therefore, we must do the opposite. Pretty convincing if one is a dimwit.

Incredibly, we keep falling for this malarkey, keep doing the wrong thing and pursuing failed policies, and like lemmings, are literally committing mass suicide, all the while thinking that a politician on the “other” side – be it left, libertarian, middle, vegetarian or right – will save us.

What we fail to realize is that we desperately need to be saved from ourselves – ie, from our brainwashed selves. And hence, we must be our own saviors.

To accomplish this, we must simply open our eyes and see again, using the common sense we have been taught to eschew. Common sense that the God we are supposed to not believe in, gave us.

 

Hegelian dialectic and its influence in the West:

https://alettertothetimes.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/the-hegelian-dialectic-the-delphi-technique-and-moral-relativism/

 

 

 

Greece: No denouement, just more misery on the way

Don Hank

The news of Greece’s poll results, widely construed as a decision not to immediately exit the euro, is all over the foreign cable news programs, and Brussels is shouting for joy. They fail to see what’s coming! The markets responded favorably for a little over an hour, than plunged again when people woke up to reality: Endless bailouts for Greece until Germany and the others go bust.

To give you some perspective, here are some figures on the contributions of the various member countries to the EU, and hence to the bailouts:

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=7925

Briefly, at the time of that report, Belgium’s Flanders paid top euro per capita, 282.6 euros per Flemish person, for a total of 1 billion 780 thousand euros.

But it is widely believed that Belgium will soon need a bailout of its own. That’s a double whammy for the EU. Not only would it lose the net contribution from Belgium but it would also have to take more from the remaining countries that are just barely above water to pay the Belgians. A net loss instead of the current net contribution.

Italy contributed 2 billion 938 million at the time of that writing, or about 49.7 euros per capita.

But Italy will eventually need a bailout, despite the phony optimism of Super Mario Monti.

That is another loss of a contributor, which becomes a net liability for the EU.

Spain will also need another bailout, and so will Greece.

And the more needy countries line up at the trough and stop being net contributors, the harder it will be for those few economically sound nations to pull their weight. Further, Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the German powerhouse, is demanding — and will eventually get — full-scale “green” energy to replace all of the traditional cheap nuclear and fossil fuel plants that have so far made Germany the no. 2 exporter in the world. Once this transformation is complete, Germany too will line up at the trough, but the trough will be empty by then.

It may seem as if the EU has spun out of control. But the founders of the EU were men imbued with the socialist vision. Their idea from the start was that the rich nations should pull the weight of the poor, ignoring the vast difference in work ethic between them that drives some to work while others consume the fruits of their labor. This is socialism in drag, since in traditional socialism, there is roughly a wealth transfer of rich individuals to poor individuals, while in the more sophisticated version, the transfer is from rich nations to poor nations. You’d think Europe would have noticed, after all these years of being duped, that the EU is just a sophisticated version of the Soviet Union, but it is as if someone had taped their eyes shut. As time goes on it becomes increasingly clear that this transfer was never intended to be temporary. It has been a de facto systemic state of wealth transfer, always propped up with a new crisis and hence a new pretext to prolong the outright daylight robbery.

Thus, as long as the EU’s power masters can continue to strike fear in the hearts of the serfs who do their bidding, they will continue to steal the wealth of the rich nations, whose workers work longer hours with less pay, and send it to the “poor” nations, whose workers work less, retire earlier and demand — and get — more of everything. Meanwhile, the only win-win group is the bankers. Italy, for example, recently paid a handsome 7% for its credit. Good money for folks who sit like vultures at a carrion feast.

Socialism hasn’t changed one iota in its gross unfairness to the productive. But it has changed its guise and has trained its propaganda machines full tilt against the working men and women of nations unfortunate enough to be “rich,” warning that if their plan is not followed, there will be chaos, tanks in the streets, starvation, rioting, war, etc. So keep your noses to the grindstone. Arbeit macht frei.

Yet, these dread social phenomena are precisely what the EU and its policies are leading to. But they are the unintended consequences, and as stealthy and crafty as the EU power masters are, they have no good moves left for this end game, because the final outcome belongs to God, not to them.

Just as the populace didn’t see their machinations, the power masters didn’t see Him at work.

Don Hank

European Court imposes immorality on Russia

The European court, which has played the part of God to packed houses in continental political theaters for decades, is now trying to assert the same role in Russia, demanding that this sovereign nation yield its sense of moral rectitude to the decadent West’s political correctness — and specifically, demanding that Russia allow “gay” parades and even pay a fine for past infractions of “human rights” in refusing to allow such parades.

Meanwhile Russia has always maintained that homosexuality spreads disease, is unnatural and offends the morals of Russians. 

While the sheeplike European nations have invariably fallen into line behind the unelected officials of the EU, I somehow can’t see Russia bowing to this pressure from the Western know-it-alls.  If they do, these snotty elites will have achieved what Napoleon, and later Hitler, were unable to do when they sent their armies into Russia: make her bow to the wishes of an arbitrary and godless foreign Empire.

Many Christians and the politically incorrect are — secretly or openly — hoping Russia stands her ground and refuses to cede her sovereignty to the arrogant European Court. Most probably think the Russians will flout the decision just to flex their muscles and show us who is boss.

That would certainly be one good reason for them to hold their ground. After all, like China, the other non-western super power, Russia has never shown the least bit of sympathy for the nebulous notion of “interdependence” that is the philosophical foundation for global elitism.  However, Russian history provides clues to an even more deeply rooted motive.

From the 1860s on, there was a smoldering social revolt gaining ground in Russia as the ideas of the “enlightenment” began trickling in, primarily from France, carried back by young aristocrats who had been to Paris and other European capitals and had been infected with the libertinism reigning among young university students there. The ostensible premises for change were political but were served up on a platter garnished liberally with heady promises of sexual freedom irresistible to young Russians of all social strata.

Thus from about the 1860s, Russia was shepherded into a European style socio-political revolutionary mindset that paved the way for the actual revolution in 1917.

But as with all revolutions, unexpected consequences set in. In retrospect, the revolutionaries should have seen it coming. Older Russians, even those sympathetic to the revolution, always had a disdain for the French and their moral depravity, as evidenced in the works of authors like Tolstoy and Turgenev.

Very shortly after the revolution, this titillating sexual apéritif that had provided a kind of euphorigenic drug, numbing the masses to the otherwise less-palatable realities (the blood baths and internecine warfare that led to the murder of thousands, including the czar and his family), was quickly swept away, supplanted by a rigid totalitarianism intolerant of the young idealists and their romantic notions of free love and Parisian-like communes. Anyone nourishing hopes of restoring the cherished libertinism was crushed. Some went to prison, others were murdered, others simply disappeared.

The fiery young poet Mayakovsky committed suicide. Others did the same as it dawned on them that the paradise they had longed for was turning into a sexually repressed hell, at least by their jaded standards.

Now, in terms of mores and sexual libertinism, Europe is approximately where Russia was then. So which way will Russia go this time, you ask?

It is clear that ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the government was in no way sympathetic to the “gay” culture that had tried to carve inroads into its cities. The Muscovite mayor consistently refused permits for gay parades and when the “grassroots homosexuals” defied the bans, he bashed heads.

If we consider that Russian strong man Putin comes from the old-regime’s KGB, it will be no surprise if Russia decides either to ignore this decision by the European Court or even to drop out of the European Convention of Human Rights.

If that should happen, then we can put this Russian intransigence together with China’s refusal to upgrade its Renminbi and glimpse a picture of a West crumbling under the weight of its greed, arrogance, lust for power and loss of common sense and Christian values that once gave it moral authority over the rest of the world.

The West that once gained the upper hand over the Evil Empire, is quickly going bankrupt both economically and morally. As things turn out this time, it is not too big to fail either way no matter how many nations get together and bleat in unison.

Because bears aren’t afraid of sheep.

copyright© Don Hank, M.A. in Russian Studies

Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/russia-the-teacher-we-ignore/15.htm

Is “gay marriage” a historical imperative?

by Don Hank

According to expert testimony before the House in 1963, the 26th of the “Current Communist Goals” was:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

My recent response to the court decision by a homosexual judge in California supposedly making any ban on “gay marriage” unconstitutional received a deluge of of responses, including some expressing gay rage at my refusal to accept the use of the word “marriage” appied to same-sex relationships. (Check out the comments section under the article “Same-sex marriage? There’s no such thing”).

Some suggested I was a Nazi, others a bigot, still others a hater. It was the same old Gramscian tactics that the Left has used for over 100 years, showing an almost complete lack of reflection and no palpable originality.

In the last comment, a poster, who calls himself a “Christian” and apparently wants to pass as a “conservative,” said:

“Of course, the rest of society has moved on [emphasis added], and we pretty much look at them [anyone opposing ‘gay marriage’] with a mixture of pity and revulsion, but hey, it is their right.”

So the work of a single judge activist is proof that “society has moved on”?

In fact the people of California, arguably the most liberal state in the nation, voted for Proposition 8, which makes “gay marriage” illegal. So what is going on?

Let me try to explain.

This activist is portraying “gay” marriage as a historical imperative.

Hegel’s concept of the historical imperative found its first application in communism by the founders of that ideology. It is an example of the Left’s inversion of all things. If you are an ordinary person, you look at history objectively in logical chronological sequence, from past to present. Not the Leftist. He sees history’s starting point in the future utopia that he imagines. For him, all recorded history must meet one criterion: It must show unequivocally that all of history is marching toward a great egalitarian revolution, where all are equal. It is inevitable and the history books must be revised to reflect this “fact.” “Gay marriage” is an important stepping stone in the quest for this revolutionary “equality” or “social justice.”

But do utopians really ever bring about equality and social justice?

The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, all reflect the opposite. There, the leaders pursued lifestyles of great opulence, living in palaces and feasting daily as the masses either starved or lived hand to mouth. In the Ukraine, under Stalin, for example, at least 10 million were killed, mostly by starvation. Still more were starved to death in China under Mao.

The closer any country comes to the dreamed-of “Utopia,” the further from equality it gets.

Of course, the above examples are restricted to the hardline communists, who, thanks to the unlimited power they enjoyed, had no need to use victim groups to get votes. But the same principle applies to soft Marxism of the kind that prevails in Europe and the US, where interest groups (like homosexuals) are seen as crucial to acquiring power. You need only look at Michelle Obama’s taxpayer-funded trip to Spain or Nancy Pelosi’s fabulously expensive taxpayer-funded airliner to see that the Western world is destined for an impoverishment of the middle class that may rival — or even exceed — that of hardline communist nations. You will get even poorer and the politically well-placed will get wealthy beyond measure. Our world financial and economic crises are a result of wealth distribution under “soft” Marxism. Yet our elites continue to borrow for ineffective Keynesian “stimulus” programs that transfer the wealth of the middle class to rich bankers, and will continue to do so as long as we close our eyes to the unconstitutionality of this plundering of our resources. (The elites confuse us by reminding that the “conservative” G.W. Bush also promoted such practices as lending to the insolvent and “stimulus” programs. Recruiting false conservatives into the Marxist game plays a key role in the subterfuge. “Conservative” Prime Minister David Cameron is playing this role in the UK, where he promised voters to hold a referendum on EU membership and then reneged on that promise. And in case you missed it, the “conservative”Ann Coulter has recently taken her place in the ranks of the cultural Marxist campaign, promoting “gay marriage,” thereby ensuring her place in a leftward-evolving GOP).

In other words, the “historical imperative” that the above-quoted homosexual activist alludes to, and his disdain for counter-revolutionary traditionalists like me (regarding conservatives with “pity and revulsion”), are a sign of a great inequality that is to come, one that is cynically expected to be a utopia.

Let me further clarify: The homosexual agenda we see proceeding apace before us is not, on the surface, the kind of economic Marxism we saw (or see) in Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. It is something more subtle and insidious but with the same intent – namely, Fabian Marxism, which is a stealth revolution that is intended to eventually usher in economic Marxism later on once power is consolidated in the hands of the Left. Now if this “historical imperative” – the inevitability of the Marxist revolution – were possible, then the question is: why did it not happen a long time ago?

The first known Utopian screed appeared almost 2,500 years ago. It was written by none less than Plato. The first Utopian experiment was in 4th Century Persia and it failed ignominiously for the same reason all such experiments fail: no one wanted to work.

There were utopian movements from the 13th Century on in the Dark Ages and on through the Renaissance and beyond. They played crucial roles in the great wars of the time. All of them failed.

The French Revolution touted égalité, among other things. It follows that today’s France is very accepting of same-sex “marriage.” Yet today, there is scarcely a more economically skewed society, with government employees receiving vastly  more income and perks than workers in the private economy. And, of course, as in all “egalitarian” Utopias, there is a vanishing trend in work performed by this privileged class, while the less-fortunate private-economy workers earn less and less in terms of real wages, corrected for cost of living.

It is quite possible that eventually, the masses will be dumbed-down and propagandized to the point of no return, relinquishing the little freedom that remains, and learn to accept the unacceptable. A quick look at the sociocultural reality of Europe is a glimpse of our future, barring unforeseen circumstances.

But if past revolutions are a viable indicator, then the activists themselves will be the main recipients of the unintended consequences of their own actions.

Already, the first “gay” divorces have been examples of wealth redistribution, with the richer of the 2 being forced to relinquish a significant proportion of their income and property to the other.

It is to be expected that some of these “beneficiaries” of the homosexual revolution will eventually look back longingly at the days of traditional marriage and its defenders.

I for one will be looking at them not with revulsion, but with pity.

One Liberty Guarantees the Rest: Original Sin, the Government, and the Right to Bear Arms

By Anthony Horvath

(For a spirited discussion of issues related to this topic, see this forum entry at sntjohnny.com)

With yet another school shooting, this time in NIU, along with the so-called ‘meat cleaver’ killer in New York, we can take a few minutes again to revisit the question of the nature of man. Those who read my blog or my forum know that I firmly believe that the right to bear arms is extremely important. Incidents like the NIU event don’t even surprise us anymore. However, it hit a little close to home for me because I have former students who attend there and have friends who know people there.

Naturally, pundits and candidates moved quickly to capitalize on the event. Hillary Clinton informed the nation that she once shot a duck while hunting and so “she is a supporter of the second amendment.” As if the right to bear arms meant only the right to hunt! Democrats tend to think of the 2nd Amendment in those terms while conservatives tend to think of the 2nd Amendment in terms of a right to self-defense.

In this article I wish to point out that the 2nd Amendment encompasses both of those emphases but is really concerned with something else. It is not about a right to defend ourselves against criminals but rather a right to defend ourselves if it is the government itself that is criminal.

Many states with conceal and carry laws still forbid the carrying of weapons at schools and churches and government buildings. With shootings at schools, churches, and government buildings continuing, one begins to suspect that laws do not stop madmen but only keep honest men and women from fighting back.

I didn’t use to think this way. I have come to this perspective through two twin routes that I believe that Christians in particular should reflect but should be considered by any thinking individual. Gun legislation is not the only thing affected by these twin strands.

In the first place, we need not go far to understand that the root problem is that people themselves are dangerous. Christians call this the doctrine of ‘original sin’ and it is the only doctrine that can be empirically demonstrated. If you understand that people are not intrinsically good but rather incline bad, then you will construct policies that reflect that reality. For most legislators, however, the idea that people might want to do something just because they are evil doesn’t seem to occur.

As I came to grips with the reality of ‘original sin’ I realized that many of my liberal ideas just had to go. It isn’t even that the ideas were bad or immoral. Simply put, if they had been carried out it would be a recipe for disaster. Abuse is inevitable. My ideas presume the best intentions all the time mixed with sincere, honest, and intelligent people carrying them out. This assumption is not justified.

Let us take a minute to tend to the second strand which might not be as objectionable because of its religious implications but still takes us to the same place.

One of the first things I discovered as I began grappling with the facts of history is that the biggest killer of all is not the mugger or rapist or even the serial killer. The biggest killer, hands down, is government. There is a terrific website which helps lay this out and I thoroughly recommend it: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

At that web page you will see documented the atrocities of the last century as well as back into recorded history. Naïve atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins worry their little heads about the dangers of religion, but it is clear as you look at the facts that religion is just one of many pretexts by which power hungry men assert themselves over other men. For example, in the Crusades, over three centuries the site says that 1,000,000 died. That figure isn’t just wholesale slaughter, but includes famine and disease, and includes also the deaths of the Crusaders themselves at the hands of their foes. By contrast, in the 20th century… so just one century, not three, China created 75,000,000 dead bodies. The USSR created 61,000,000.

That is the last century, friends. According to the Democide site, there were 262,000,000 people who died either directly or indirectly but still as the result of Government. Rwanda’s genocide occurred in recent memory and within reach of the International community to have done something about it, but it was tribal concerns that drove the slaughter, not ‘religion.’

No, we must come to grips with the fact that throughout history throughout the whole world, the biggest threat to man is not merely Man but Man in Charge.

The need for checks and balances is obvious. However, if you can’t count on the men and women in government to always act in the interest of the people and that even in many cases they will pursue their own interests, even resorting to murder if necessary, what kind of ‘check’ might possibly exist on people of power?

An armed populace is the only thing an armed government could possibly fear when ‘best intentions’ and ‘sincerity’ is lacking. We talk about having the right to defend ourselves when confronted with gunmen in our schools, malls, and councils, and certainly there is a place for that. However, no gunman is as dangerous as the institution of Government itself.

Here a common protest is that it simply is not realistic to presume that in our day and age, in our civilization, the calamities we bore witness to throughout the world could ever possibly happen here in the United States. Perhaps not today. However, the right to bear arms is the right that ensures we keep all of our other rights. It is the liberty that actualizes all other liberties. If this liberty is diminished, and the country changes in twenty years, it will be too late to reclaim it. At least, too late without first paying our own price of tens of millions dead.

We operate on the assumption that all will continue on as it has been continuing on. However, as the riots in LA show – or even as riots after the win of a professional sports team! – civilization is only skin deep. What’s more, the influx of illegal immigrants to the south is not coming ideologically neutral. Many are coming with the ideologies that expressly led to some of the atrocities of the last century. In forty years, it won’t just be the ethnic make-up of the country at risk, but potentially also the ideological one.

It is an uncomfortable thought to consider that we might want our government to be worried about its own citizens. We might think to ourselves that we don’t want our police officers, for example, to be concerned that someone might fight back. After all, we have courts, right? History shows us that there exists a thing called a mock trial. Granted, we are far off from such things in our country right now. To keep them far off for the foreseeable future, it is important that our government has a healthy fear of those it rules.

That brings us full circle. Why should power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely? What is it about Man that makes this so? What is the best explanation? If it is, as I have said because man is inclined towards wickedness, then we might wonder if there is something to the claim that we need a savior. Jesus does not promise utopia. He doesn’t even encourage the pursuit of one. However, perhaps when we grapple with utopian ideals we’ll come to see that man is hopelessly sick and needs a Doctor and that Doctor cannot be Government.

Anthony Horvath is the author of Fidelis and the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries.  (For a spirited discussion of issues related to this topic, see this forum entry at sntjohnny.com)