Natural Law and Scopes

The Scopes Monkey Trial was not only a challenge between evolution and creationism by having its base in the anti evolution laws that were migrating their way into law in the southeastern parts of the United States. But, also a challenge for states rights and the defense of individual liberty. Even though this trial that took place in the eastern Tennessee town of Dayton in 1925. It still provokes the debate of science, religion, public education and the policies of today's government with it's secular progressive tilt away from natural law to relativism and the post modernist.

Regardless of ones stand on the scientific truth at the moment or theory of man's evolution from primate in to a complex being with the ability to create and expose ideas from a realm of theory and ideas. These ideas spawned a continuel play on modern thought and their possible effects on mankind, and its unintended consequences. Absolutism meets a relative reality. In the halls of a matrix of possibilities, there lies a gambit and a gauntlet, morality and ethics. Based on the long standing empirical historical evidence toward the guidance of natural law. The price of secularism as a quasi religion riding the coat tails of dialectical conceptual relativism has descended upon our modern world.

Even though Clarence Darrow made it a point to belittle William Jennings Bryan during this trial pushed through by the ACLU with the literary help of east coast newspapers, and the prosecution's exploitation of one teacher named John Scopes. Scopes insisted on teaching Darwinian evolution and thus breaking the anti evolution law of Tennessee at the time. Even though it was a misdemeanor with a possible moderate fine, it turned into the modern foundation of the 20th centuries continuous attack on person liberty and the natural rights of man held as inalienable put forth in our constitution.

Planning to put Bryan in the hot seat, Darrow put the burden of proof on Bryan as to the science of the bible. William Jennings Bryan, at one time was considered a friend of the progressive movement, a populist in America in the latter part of the 19th century. He had a friend in the press, secular education, angry at Wall Street. he even defended the common man and he was known as the commoner thought the trial.

As Bryan, an outstanding stump speaker and fiery orator opted the challenge the Copernican explanation of the universe, he took the populist tone of the fundamentalist Christian in 1925, especially in the south. The 1920's at that time in America was where the theory of the evolution of man was taking hold in secular academia and most public schools. With the discovery of a small piece of a human skull in Piltdown Common in Sussex, the English geologist Charles Dawson set in motion a possible link or missing link to the evolution of mankind. Ironically, the fragment was located only 30 mile from Charles Darwin's country home. The discovery took place in 1909, the 50th anniversary of Darwin's Evolution of species. Of course, science and the press took off with the evidence that would once and for all kill the debate of the origin of man.

Here the debate arrives in 1925 in a court room in Dayton, TN. After all the hoopla, the trial begins, after the discovery and presenting each sides witnesses. The moment is at hand with Darrow directing his questions at Bryan on the witness stand. Firing questions at Bryan the exchange begins. Darrow's angle attempts to pick apart Mr. Bryan's defense of the time frame of the creation of the universe in 6 days...while resting on the seventh or sabbath. Darrow as today's modernest directed his scepticism at the so called miracles in the bible, thus undermining fundamentalism directly by ridiculing such so called literal evidence as simplistic and easily scientifically debunked.

Clarence Darrow then unleashed a flurry of attacks on Bryan's attempted rationalization of of certain biblical passages challenged by Mr. Darrow. The questioning went into the realm of the actual time frame in the creation of universe via the fiat of god. Why did god stop the earth instead of the sun, was the sun created on the fourth day, there was four periods without sun and so on. Bryan did the best he could in answering the questions based on his understanding of biblical periods describing the creation of the universe. Finally, Bryan settled for his belief in these biblical events, even if he could not explain it...he would still except it as truth.

After the trial the defense took the case as a victory for evolutionary science and the prosecution a win for the court upholding the original charge. The unintended consequences of the secular progressives was the birth of the modern christian movement. It's roots expanded over the centuries, adopted from Judaism in which our laws, morals, ethics and the concept of the individual and the personal relationship with god. For you wheel of life Sophisto's outside the rings of such time tested ethos, as the struggle of good and evil as not just an interpretation, but a reality outside of Nietzsche's boundaries...is god dead?

The Scopes Monkey trial gives us a unique introspective and historical insight to the struggle between liberty as conjoined in natural law and the law of relativism's. Coffee house verbal revolution in 18th century Britain, pales to the birth of the secular movement, the French Revolution....Hegel never had it so good. Far from Hume, Smith and the others of the Scottish enlightenment...the Sophistos find their truth in agrarian fields of dreams, friends of all that is nature, population reduction, market statism, economic equality ad nauseum. Where does it end...it does not, the use of language, the nudging of liberty from the individual to the collective, state control of quid pro quo ...The post modernist Sophist's Sophisto's cavalier defense of their relativism as a world view, lies in the misinterpretation of Einstein's theory of relativity, as a gateway to their version of a bookend reality.

Mao was right!

As chairman Mao proudly explained; “a revolution is not a dinner party”, and it surely isn’t, just ask the French. During the election-process Chairman O pulled out his proverbial guillotine and went Robespierre on everything that assembled common sense. Our behavior, as related to climate, healthcare and war against our enemies, both home and abroad, was subjected to a Jacobine treatment a la Terreur. The invisible hand of Smith was supposed to lose its grip on healthcare in favor of the iron fist of Stalin, our Chairmans global empeacement tour was suposed to hit its crecendo by raised gas taxes and lowered industrial production and our enemies home and abroad were saved by a Nobel price and a ban on guns and a global peace effort. The sophistoes where celebrating in coffe shops and libraries all over the country. The only thing standing between the Potchemkin-sized changes proposed by our Chairman and our liberties was us, the proverbial les enragés, strait out of the reign of terror! One after another the sophisto bricks nonsensical Freudianism fell and crumbled like the Berlin wall.
The sophisto revolution started with Chairman O making promise after promise of free healthcare for all and peace to all mankind. O made no mention of tax hikes, sub-standard treatment and overfilled hospitals financed by 5 year plans and tremendous lending from his brothers in the east. Ironically, the politburo, fueled by pure sophisto arrogance, lost the orcas seat and suddenly a monkey wrench of reality was thrown into the doomsday device of socialist-healthcare machinery. Sophisto style dictatorship of the unemployed proletariat was thwarted by good old American democracy.
Second on the list was a global appeasement tour starting with kisses, hugs and bows to sultans and kings in the Far East, culmination with a Nobel peace prize and a global warming conference in Copenhagen of Hamlets Denmark. Much like Shakespeare’s play, the trip to Denmark turned in to a tragedy of Orwellian proportions for Chairman O and his sophisto minions. The sophisto onslaught was massive; the “academic” community agreed that the evil capitalism and freedom of choice was to blame for the massive climate changes once discovered by noted scientist Al Gore. The sophisto offensive took a page out of Comrade Stalins book and even suggested that denial of the teachings of Rev.Gore cold be classified as a mental disorder. Following in the footstep of Rev.Gore, Chairman O was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by a handful of drunken Scandinavian university sophisotes. One can only imagine the self-loving smirk they had on their faces when they crawled home from the French-red-wine-binge at the local bar that night. However, common sense once again prevailed! Global warming was debunked as a fraud, the communist climate agreements caved in to free market common sense and Rev.Gore was nowhere to be found. The Peace Price wasn’t even legitimized in its home country and the ceremony was largely ignored by the common man.
The third nail on Chairman O’s revolutionary trident was to give peace to our enemies, home and abroad. Terrorists were supposed to liberated and treated with hugs and kisses instead of good old torture. In communist USA we have no enemies! Guns were to be taken away and leave to common man dependent on the government for protection, in communist USA we are all brothers! Luckily common sense and outrage prevailed! Our enemies are still given what they deserve and gun sales are soaring all over the nation.
It turns out that public outcries in the shape of tea-parties are leading a revolution of their own! Chairman Mao was right about a revolution not being a dinner party! The peoples revolution is a tea-party!

Father Christmas

Father Christmas gimme your money, make me some and make it for free. Please be nice, every time you think of me and think of me twice. Father Christmas; take from them all, all from which they have made for me. Father Christmas, leave me alone, now go and find a new place to roam. Father Christmas, I think that this time, I’ll just blame someone else for my crime. Father Christmas, how can you be, when Pelosi is still in front of me? Father Christmas, what do I see right in front of me, how is it that you can be, if you are not gender free. Father Christmas, pass it on, give it to me and I still want it for free. Father Christmas, working hard is just not the life for me. Father Christmas; please send to me, a post modernist for under our tree, I want as far as I can see. Father Christmas, blind me not, as I want my very own Pol Pot. Father Christmas, please send me a star, make it red, as I want my very own Czar. Father Christmas, hide my thoughts, as it may not be the time to think for free. Father Christmas, where is all the glee, are my thoughts really there just for me.

Father Christmas, watch out for progress, with all of its ghost’s clamoring while Lenin boasts. Father Christmas, where is Herr Hegel, when you need him the most, please, please send him he‘ll make a good host. Father Christmas, I want my very own manifesto, complete with Engels and Uncle Karl‘s crescendo. Father Christmas, see that I am safe, and please save me from all systemic risk. Father Christmas, hide the sugar plums, oh silly me, I actually thought that they were really FDA free. Father Christmas; hide me from Pigou, before he betrays us once and for all. Father Christmas, give to our Keynesians, any luxury for under their tree and please do say that they are from me. Father Christmas, how can it be, I want my Mao sitting right next to me. Father Christmas, please send a card to the aristocracy in DC, fill it with glee then pass it to me. Father Christmas; send me a tome, that won‘t confuse me like a Mia Angelo poem. Father Christmas; give me a German for under my tree, how about a Kant and Nietzsche for me. Father Christmas, please do remind me, that the collective is really never for free. Father Christmas, what else can you do, how about a Sophisto smarter than you.

Father Christmas, is it true, that they really care for me as much as you? Father Christmas, when will they send me a check, so I can get out from under this wreck? Father Christmas, I am in a bind, falling further and lagging behind. Father Christmas, save me from gain, please stop me from working insane. Father Christmas; give me my very own world, one that only I can see it for free. Father Christmas, who needs an objective reality, when I can just subtract it from Nietzsche. Father Christmas, why do I bemoan, I do still have property of my own. Father Christmas, give it to all and please protect me from all that Gaul. Father Christmas, take my will, leave me no freedom that I can spill. Father Christmas, as you can see, the list is too long to be just for me. Father Christmas; please take from me, all that I earn individually, give collectively to all for free.

Father Christmas, please Von Bismarck me, give me my own cult of personality. Father Christmas, I am feeling down, can I speak to Woodrow Wilson if he is still in town. Father Christmas, bequeath to me, my very own progressive Hegelian tree. Father Christmas, send me anarchy and I promise to share it with Trotsky, you just wait and see. Father Christmas, do I need to rely on just me, why can’t I have it all for free? Father Christmas, send it all, just give it to me, one and all. Father Christmas; help me to forget, all that is history without any regret. Father Christmas; please do not lock me out, I need a window for Darwin to see out. Father Christmas, where is our exceptionalism, is it the time for a progressive reality. Father Christmas, please send from the mount, a man of intellectual purity and FDR’s clout. Father Christmas, take my self sufficiency and mix it sufficiently all the way out. Father Christmas, as you can see, the holiday is just too much for me. Father Christmas, so much to see, please give good tidings to Stalin for me…

Limited Risk

Common Genius, the American experiment in rational radicalism in the self interest by and for the rights of man with all its’ caveats. Not before or since has there been a unique and constitutionally bonded government; as originally proclaimed, that contains check and balances within the Federal government. Thomas Paine in Dissertations on first principles of government wrote, “It is all times necessary…until right ideas confirm themselves by habit, that we frequently refresh our patriotism by reference to first principles. It is by tracing things back to their original origins that we learn to understand them, and it is by keeping that line and that origin in view that we never forget them.”

Value your freedom and its’ virtues; the American Revolution did not create a template for limited risk and fairness to all. What the sophistos behind the blackboard seem to dismiss is the common thread between opportunity and the citizen. By embracing the principles of the Scottish enlightenment the founders responded to the tyranny of the then current government proxy from Britain. Born from Smith’s Classical model of economics were four standards, thrift, hard work, enlightened self-interest and benevolence toward fellow citizens…you know, virtues. Secondly; government should limit its activities to administer justice, enforce private property rights, engage in certain public works and to defend the nation against aggression and not turn its aggression upon the citizens and to work the public over by institutionalizing risk.

How about free trade, lower taxes, minimal bureaucracy and constitutional restraint. Adam Smith defended the ideas that natural liberty and a self regulating system of competitive free enterprise and limited government would eventual free the world of mercantilism and the heavy handed intervention by the state. Now you statists do realize your heroes of the state with the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Castro ad nauseam, reflects the vacuum of the sophistos’ reality.

To take liberty with in its’ frame work of optimism and to reduce it to a principle of precautionary logic is systematically reducing risk to a method of control and limitation of the natural risk of capitalism. Limitations on risk compound the reason for liberty…devaluing constitutional establishment of the origins of the principle of liberty does not reform the limits of the value of risk. To create a governmental opiate by seducing its’ citizens into a vagabond of the statist derivative in regulating the individuals’ magnum opus, reclaims a path to tyranny and limitless relativism. Mans’ freedom to self-realize without interference from the post modernist leaves one inherently important risk, the rights of man are seldom won by relenting but by the consecration of the will to be free from limited risk of utopian failures.

Slaughter House Sophisto

When does Mao become an example of a political philosophy that one can rely on for inspiration and how does Mother Theresa’s sacrifice in championing the poor, become a political philosophy. The new trumpeter of young minds, his dictator at large Mr. Benito Obama’s own hand picked pickled piper of post modern ideological excess. None other than Anita Dunn…in the truest sense of a sophisto of the highest order, she proclaims that when she is in need of a philosophical pick me up, she reaches for Mr. Slaughter house sophisto himself, the one, the only chairman of the board! Mao Ze Dong, the Chinese `Che, the keeper of liberty, the propaganda polemist himself, the Socrates of sacrifice.

Anita the Dunn made reference in her analogy to Mao’s persistence in removing Chiang Kai Shek, resident imperialist in thanks to the US government the ultimate working class crusher… Sarcasm for you sophistos of Maoist leanings. What did Mao have that he was needed to rescue the peasants? He had Mao as his main interest…now Crusher Shek was no daisy at all. Combining alliances, armies and a centralizing power grab from the resident warlords of the time, a daunting task at that. Even though Chiang Kia Shek had ties to Stalin, he used the alliance with the CCP or the Chinese Communist Party and the Soviets in order to move toward Chinese unification. This comradeship was more cherished by the CCP and the USSR more than General Shek himself.

Perhaps Comrade Dunn was implying that Shek-akahn, Bukharin and the leaders of the CCP plotted with the imperialists, capitalists…not a political ideology…from allowing the peasant uprising in the name of Marxism and egalitarian principles. Taking control of the means of production by first destroying the machinery…sound familiar Obamamanians? Mmm…Mr. Mao or a freer democratic government of Taiwan? Let me think about that one…She implies that Mao the leader of the peasant uprising, a man of peace most always play Janus, was kept from having their emancipation moment. She also implies through some fine sophisto speak that Adolph Shek began a degeneration spiral from the top down…sounds familiar…thereby crushing the middle class that the chairman of the board relied on to push Shek’s armies north and finally to Formosa.

March with Mao; give away the Obama game plan…use the peasants as the objective of your strategy. Promise a political fairness to the middle class, revoke the individual with the state, have your agrarian platform. Bemoan the soullessness of Capitalism, the carnage of the unknowing simpletons that litter their minds with emptiness only waiting for the minimalist to reduce common sense to Pavlovian propaganda.

Far from the statist relying on faith, a moral code, sacrifice, squalor and selflessness, Mother Theresa asks of no one, expects of no one gave a hand of comfort devoid of control and self interest. Her life was an individual composition and a choice of her own free a will free from external factors as the sole source of life guidance. Her manner and deeds were her philosophy…this concept confuses the sophisto as there is nothing to destroy, free from the means of production, far from the self fulfilling creation of their intellectual evolution. This nun was as distant as Einstein’s theory of relativity is to the post modernist relavitivism of the concept of existence less the slaughter house that was the People’s Republic of Mao.

Up Against the Wall

Up against the wall mother fu.ker! It was the call for the radicals inside the halls of education, thus setting the tone for the modern radical; relying on reveille and radicalism to replace liberty with a counter-measure of diversion. The template for change was born, a new age of education and social response. A new beatnik, a world citizen, a cosmic Marxist…a civil rights liberator and an artful diversionary; a diversionary culture clash and its rage fueled by self loathing and dialectic muses from the 19th century Ecotopian Darwinians of the soft sciences. From Ricardo’s Equivalence to Bentham’s, (ad- verecundiam,) Fallacy of Artful Diversion; in order to divert and rely on an incomplete argument, to convey, that every mode of the opposition is completely hopeless…

Take Marx for instance, and the fallacy of confusion; begging the question, in order to speak of conduct, behavior, intention or motive of your argument without a neutral under liner for this or that man. An insightful sophisto would extract this dictum from that spectrum of its meaning, in order to reply eureka! I must have been blind to my existential essence of myself, as so pre-elevated, even in my slumber to not have known that it is. My man (eulogistic) to reverie, (dyslogistic) your man I have contempt.

Self interest; the sophistos know no other, than the utilitarian fallacy that every political measure is proposed to deliver the greatest benefit to the greatest number in mass. Self regarding interest is paramount far and above that of social interest. Here in lies the fallacy of the Marxist, the collective interest is the self interest of the few whom select the interest at the expense of the collective. There are a few examples in small circles of self interest as in war, combat to be precise, that one may sacrifice their self interest for the collective, but on a grand scale, not a chance.

Self interest is the catalyst for survival, liberty is the platform for freedom and natural rights are essential for the individual. The fallacy of creative understanding and its effects on morality and ethics; the more abstract the concept the higher probability that it is a fallacy. Gun control saves lives, fallacy, to regulate self preservation in order to preserve a theory based on an abstract concept, that an armed citizen is a dangerous problem, is a governmental fallacy without statistical merit, it is a political fallacy.

In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Cruickshank, in 1876, in an attempt to politicize a case stemming from a violation of the 1870 Force Act. In here lies the political fallacy. Today’s regulatory antagonists use this as a diversion of the historical events of the 1873 Colfax Parish, Louisiana uprising of the freedmen, a reference specifically of black freedmen. By injecting race or the bias of, into the argument, in that the freedmen that were armed and exercising their first amendment right, were unlawfully gun downed in a hail of gunfire by white separatists exercising their second amendment rights, thus to lawfully end the perceived insurrection. It was argued that the use of force by the defendants, in that it was a lawful exercise of their constitutional rights to use the second amendment in order to lawfully put down an insurrection was justified. The court ruled on several issues; that the first amendment was not intended to limit the states powers of regulating their own citizens and that the second amendment has no other use other than to limit the powers of the federal government.

Yet, this is another example of exercising an ideology based on a statist platform, in the attempt to dismiss certain aspects of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, as nothing more than an obstacle to a progressive and ever an expanding of the Platonic epistemological theories to government.

Dialectical regulation at the expense of our contracts is another political fallacy, by expanding the commerce clause, in order to promote regulatory fascism and set the bench mark for today’s Congress, and to revisit the New Deal’s punitive statist judicial parlors of the National Recovery Act of 1933. Hugh S. Johnson was a prominent author of the NRA; for you sophistos, it is not the National Rifle Association. Johnson a former general; he used the model of Italian fascism to draw on as a popular progressive. The right police statist for the job; an example is the Schechter Poultry case in NY, that led to the conviction of 8 for conspiring to sell an unfit chicken and two uninspected ones. Finally, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the act was unconstitutional and exceeded Congress’s enforcement of the Commerce Clause and in turn it granted too much executive power.

Radical wistfulness, with its artful diversions, in so anointing students in the science of intellect; socializing change and replacing common sense with the collective individual fallacy. Trading empirical evidence for the mad hatters of the classrooms, the champions of Mao, the defenders of Marx, clanging for Che’ and the to the sophisto drinkers of socially responsible free trade coffee. When is enough good enough, when liberty and freedom are secondary to revolution; as the relative realists take notes on supplemental adjuncts to the Constitution?

Up against the wall can be heard in today’s executive office; in it’s dealings with the banks that received TARP funds and the auto industry’s acceptance of government loans. The rational of such a promotion of political self interests for the benefit in the social interest, is nothing short of collectivism re-appropriated. Following the Hegelian world of mankind’s evolution to perfection and Marx’s of controlling the means of production, by first dismantling and destroying its machinery. It is a journey plagued with empirical evidence that points to the contrary. As Herbert Spencer so eloquently stated in his essay; From Freedom and Bondage, “for as fast as the regime of contract is discarded, the regime of status is of necessity adopted. As fast as voluntary cooperation is abandoned, compulsory cooperation must be substituted. Some kind of organization of labor must have; and if is not that which arises by agreement under free cooperation, it must be that which is imposed by authority.”

Tea Party

The aroma of Hegel’s huckleberry, President Obama extends the tea leaf of his Alma Mata, King George III. In an effort to sail into the future on the existential express, the White House merchant of change is summoning the ghost of Jacob Marley’s merchantilian England. Once again, the torch bearer of Saul Alinsky, the south side shuffle changes the notes on an old tune. In crisis act accordingly, put existence before essence, absolute relativity before Don Quixote’s horse.

Do you put the water before the tea or the tea before the water? William James stated, “The truth of a statement lies in its practical consequences.” Epistemological pragmatism, perhaps, maybe, but when does choosing ones truth based on what it will accomplish in practice, relate to empiricism. What are you talking about, as some might say, what does this all mean, in a pragmatic existential way? It is assumed that Keynesian economic patterns, empirically speaking, are looked at as a solution for the neoclassic pragmatic verification system, that all solutions are the same for any and all economic uncertainties.

Remember Irving Fisher, the Greenspan of the 1920s, he likened market forces as the changing velocity in monetary policy could indeed be a factor in producing artificial highs and lows in the markets. He wrote of these possibilities in his work entitled, “The purchasing power of money,” in 1911. Enjoying his ride to prosperity, he boldly predicted in 1929, that the stock market had reached a permanent perch upon the shoulders of Zeus, so to speak. Instead, the market tumbled from Olympus, taking what is known today, as a deflationary spiral. Fisher did compose a theory on debt-deflation in 1933 and wrote an article about it in Econometrica, essentially adding to the then debate on the empirical need for the gold standard for currency.

Fisher, led the way for Keynes to insert some of his ideas into Keynes’s format for government intervention in to the markets of the 1930s, in doing so; this laid the foundation for today’s monetary economic practices. Let us for a moment, return to how epistemology is homogenized into the political policies of the economic reigns of capitalism. Kant stated in his critique on reason, that reason has two components, the analytic and synthetic. Making statements based on reason in of its existence, is analytic and basing reason with a sensory objectiveness of the world around us, would be synthetic in nature.

In complete compliance with the ideas of the thinker; that timed his walks to the rhythm of his neighbor’s clocks. It would seem to believe, that the economic risk takers have based their plan on a theory, that more control of monetary policy, is above the law. Natural law, collectively the experts in cause and effect, will indeed cause an effect by trying to implement a plan in Kant’s words, a priori or an analytical statement, a plan is a plan a perfect plan based on the plan. Instead of a posteriori or synthetic statement, that in the course of eighty years, history has observed that confusing the natural risks inherent in the markets, and instilling government policies that reduce the natural arc of the laffer curve, tend to stifle the flow of capital into longer Keynesian curves.

Politicizing economics in order to benefit the middle class and thereby tending to the basic monetary needs of the masses, more overly the American public is a recipe for Hegel’s huckleberry. So soothing in its allure, draped in fairness and sprinkled with utopian aftertastes. Disguised as optimism and hope, it fills the empty glass of change, packaged as progress, it is chained to Marley’s woes and Marx’s ramblings of a new proletariat on the shining hills of collective individualism.

Progress; there is no stinking progress in such a collective consensus, it is more like Plato’s Republic, where such discussion of what to do with the masses whom are ignorant and wanting, is not a concern of the elitist thinker of soft science. Inequality is the voice of the town crier, renouncing individual responsibility and self reliance for the dream of “designer babies” a generation or two away from compliance and order.

It is now tea time, a time for a sip along the Left Bank, so relax and float down stream ever changing and dialectical. Change instead of initiative, lay down your liberty for peace, and give up your individualism for the clanging of conformity, trade morality for relevance, cast away common sense for Alice’s wonderland and drink the wine of a Teutonic Twit, cloaked in progress and hope for all. Long live the king, the saint of deliverance, the piranha of Platonic platitudes. Here lies George III, as it is time for tea, just George and me.