What Do We Mean by “God?”

There is a lot of controversy about “God.” People from different religions maintain that their view of “God” is the correct one. People get into arguments about “God,” families break up over differing views of “God,” people get into wars over whose “God” is the true one. People have mystical experiences concerning “God” – some of which seem inexpressible and others of which wind up generating thousands of pages of commentary. Some say there is no “God.” There is so much conflict concerning “God,” but how often do we take the time to figure out what each other actually mean by this term, and what we actually believe “God” signifies? Just what do we mean when we talk about “God?” Does “God” have any significance in the modern world, in a scientific Universe? What is important to remember when discussing ”God?”

This is a very difficult topic to approach, for it is involves an attempt to use words to describe something that doesn't fit in a word - like Love. It is also a very loaded topic for many. It can also be hard to be sure people are talking about the same understanding when discussing, arguing about, or fighting over this term, this concept, this idea that seemingly transcends definition. One time, when I was looking up the definition of the word "God" on my computer's dictionary... It defined "God" as a "soul," a "soul" as a "spirit," and a "spirit" as a "God" - not too helpful!

There are a variety of approaches to and beliefs concerning what this "God-Soul-Sprit" may be... Many agree that this is a designator for a “Creator” – a “Creative Source” of the universe. But views on just what this "Creator" may be differ. Some think that there is only one “Creator,” only one "God" - others think that there two or more; or that the "Creator" is more like a principle - for example the Tao, or Yin and Yang. Some believe there is a "God" and "Goddess" and yet others believe that there is a whole pantheon of deities, as in the case of Hinduism. In some beliefs there is one "God" but it has many differing aspects, as in the 99 names of "God" in Islam, or the 72 names of "God" in Judaism. In Christianity, in the Lord’s Prayer, “God” is referred to as a “Father,” implying an individual being that has a personality that is familiar to us, is recognizable – and one that looks after those in “His Kingdom.”

However it does not necessarily follow that a "Creator" is the same thing as its creation or that it even sticks around to find out what happens to its Creation. Perhaps the "Creator" changes, leaves, or dies? What if it “runs into” its creation or even becomes it? Some believe that this “Creator” is personified - a self conscious individual - and others don't feel that is a requirement. After all, the "Creative Source" may be whatever blew up in the "Big Bang" - creating the universe but destroying itself in the process - and not even any type of personified identity at all, as modern science may suggest.

Some maintain that this “Creative Source” is “All” - that it is everything that exists - the good, the bad, the ugly, and the beautiful. Many feel that it is All-loving, All-knowing, All-seeing, All-powerful, eternal, and immediately present everywhere all the time. Yet such aspects of being are the extreme extensions of things we are not… We don’t know or observe much, we aren’t very powerful, don’t live long, and we have limited mobility: so the reasoning goes, the “Creative Source” must be the infinite extension of our limited capacities. Yet not all believe that the "Creative Source" has to be such anthropomorphized projections of those things we are not. Is the “Creative Source” a being, or just a concept? Is it an actual person or a formless presence that floats around and holds things together? Does it have a personality? Is it a generic organizing dynamic like an impersonal force or governing principle? Some may say that it is easier to describe what the “Creative Source” is not than what it is - but what if it is everything?

If we say that “God is All,” then we are adopting an Islamic conception of deity. Allah does everything, is within everything, everywhere. In Judaism and Christianity it is suggested that there is a distinction between the Creator and its Creation. Gnostics maintain that the ultimate "God" is a "Godhead" beyond anything we can imagine and that the "Creator God" is a lesser deity. Animists believe that the whole universe is filled with "Gods" that are each "Creative Sources" in their own rights.

Perhaps a modern philosophical approach to the topic of a "Creative Source" might be to look at this issue through the lens of ontology - the study of being. If we do this we can ask, “What is common to all beings – what is shared by all independently existing, unique identities in the universe? What is common to all of them throughout all of time and space (so far as we are aware) since the ‘Creation’?”

One thing that all entities - we have so far observed - have in common is that they are systems composed of other systems and parts of other systems. Each identity is a whole-part-system-relation. For example, an electron is a whole identity (an electron), a collection of parts (quarks), a part of a larger system (an atom), and a relation between these (a negative charge). On yet a vastly differing scale, as a human, I am a whole identity (a living human being), a collection of parts (organs), a part of larger systems (family, community, or humanity), and a relation between all these (a personality). This type of arrangement of beings in a universe appears wherever one looks, on every scale, and seemingly at every point in time (at least up until now).

When taking a systems view of being, we risk getting lost in a hall of mirrors. Is everything just a part of a part of a part of a part of something else? If so, then how does anything exist as its own being, as a distinct entity? This seeming problem of beings seamlessly interconnected and yet individually distinct may be addressed through the amazing principle of “synergy” – the whole is more than the sum of its parts. How do a few things in special combinations produce more than their sum? How can several things working together produce more than each of their individual efforts added up? This principle truly is magical, although it appears to apply to all systems, everywhere we look.

Each of these "whole-part-system-relations" has a synergizing combination of such relations - a way of interconnecting and functioning from which a collection of parts combine to synergistically emerge as a novel identity. This is true at every scale of the universe and applies to every existent thing we have observed so far. So we can say that the principle of synergy too is something that all beings everywhere throughout all of time (at least since the “Creation”) share in common – that is, that each “whole” is more than the sum of its parts.

It would appear that any ontological approach to the nature of the "Creative Source" of our arising – if it actually is, if it “be” -would involve aspects of identity - of being - such as system, relation, combination, and synergy - as well as holism (wholes) and composition (of parts). Now, whether such things are differing aspects of that source, are distinct altogether from it, or are all somehow combined (or unified) in a dynamic, creative, thought - form are issues that may be pondered until “the end of time."

So where can we go with this? Well, I might suggest that whatever we think or say about the "Creative Source" may reveal more about us than the nature of "God." Nonetheless there are ways to approach this topic that involve recognition of commonalities of beings that are shared throughout the "Creation."

Since all beings share similar features of being, it suggests that these are essential qualities of being in and of itself, which would be shared with any “Creative Source” that actually exists. These similar features are manifestations of, or aspects of, the implicate order or inherent structure of existence. Is this implicate order of ‘synergetic system’ the “Creative Source” or is it a manifestation thereof, or both? This may be a point for discussion, but if we have any relation to this “Creative Source” then might it not be through the very organization of being itself? If so, then everything shares essential aspects that are similar to the “Creative Source.”

When people throughout history have had religious, mystical, or spiritual experiences of the “divine,” each has done so uniquely. Since our impression of, experiences with, and cognition of our "Creative Source" will be entirely subjective and relative to the individual involved (we are not separate, but we are individually distinct) - albeit with some similarities… at least enough to vaguely discuss the topic - then the attitudinal relation of the individual to this concept becomes paramount. Regardless of which beliefs we hold about the "Creative Source," how we feel about it, the "Creation," ourselves, and each other become critically important, because our attitudes drive our behavior.

One of the key understandings regarding all this is that the idea of "God" is a human one, it is not a term which can truly designate what it is supposed to mean. It is a definition-defying term and as Walt Whitman suggested, perhaps humanity’s most advanced concept. Nonetheless, although our conception of "God" is a marker for all those concepts we lump together and consider the source of "Creation," (or even an infinite extension of all of those qualities that we are not) it is unlikely that we will ever come to truly know that mystery as it is unto itself. Unless we are "it," we will not, as Kant suggested, know the "thing in itself." But then again – we share an essential aspect of the organization of being and yet are individuals – so we are that, but also not just that…..

There is a question as to whether any “God” actually exists outside of our conception thereof. Perhaps there is some “Creative Source” – or perhaps not; although it flies in the face of common sense that a whole Universe of “somethings” could be created out of nothing, by nothing, and without any organizational aspect. For as Karl Stern says:

"If we present, for the sake of argument, the theory of evolution in a most scientific formulation, we have to say something like this: "At a certain moment of time the temperature of the Earth was such that it became most favorable for the aggregation of carbon atoms and oxygen with the nitrogen-hydrogen combination, and that from random occurrences of large clusters, molecules occurred which were most favoraby structured for the coming about of life, and from that point it went on through vast stretches of time, until through processes of natural selection a being finally occurred which is capable of choosing love over hate and justice over injustice, of writing poetry like that of Dante, composing music like that of Mozart, and making drawings like those of Leonardo." Of course, such a view of cosmogenesis is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such a view has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking." - Karl Stern, The Flight from Woman, Chapter 12 New York, 1965

So what is more outlandish, an instinctive understanding that there is a “Creative Source” or the belief that – and it is only a belief – the universe manifested out of nothing?

Many people around the world throughout history claim to have had mystical experiences in which they felt they had some experience of “God.” Even if one disagrees as to whether any of our notions of “God” or a “Creative Source” are merely products of our imagination this in no way invalidates the fact of these experiences nor does it invalidate the fact that our brains’ can produce such experiences.

There appears to be a connection between the temporal lobes in the brain and the experience of mystical states. It may be suggested that religious art, architecture, principles, esoteric formulae, rituals, chants, music, potions, etc. are all various formula that have been designed by people as spiritual technologies to catapult themselves into mystical states. Whether it is the call of the muezzin, meditation, ingesting mind altering substances, enjoying nature, dancing, singing, practicing a ritual - or many other activities; all such things are technologies that worked as means to reach a mystical experience for someone, somewhere, at sometime. However, following the recipes handed down to us historically exactly may not always work when translated over the course of millennia by people of different lifestyles, languages, and cultures - and who have different interpretations of the meanings of key ideas, terms, and symbols.

That being said, it is important to note that all cultures have these practices to get us outside of normal, mechanical, sleepy, automatic, daily life impressions and thereby help us to transcend the limited ego reacting to temporal stimuli and experience being in a larger context of awareness and connectivity with the rest of the universe. These experiences do occur to people and although differing from individual to individual, religion to religion, and culture to culture, the experience of the transcendent, the mystical, “God,” or the “Divine” have many similar aspects. The sense of experiencing a shamanic oneness with nature, the rapture of divine bliss, the access to higher knowledge, and the manifestation of unusual abilities all seem to be related to accessing parts of the brain not used in negotiating the check-out counter, parking a car, or making dinner.

Now here's a clincher: even if mystical experiences and our conception of “God” are only products of our minds, the larger issue looming is the question, "how is it that we have these capacities for experiencing the universe in a mystical fashion hard-wired into the very structure of our brains?" Mystics and anthropologists may answer this question differently, but the fact that we do is proof that spiritual aspects of the universe are objectively present within the physical composition of our beings....

The key point of all this is that without incorporating the mystical functions of the mind through whichever spiritual practice works for the individual today, in the here and now, one is not using one's whole brain. It is less important whether what we are experiencing (when we access these parts of the mind) is actually objective or not – whether the content of the experience is “out there" or "in here" - than whether we actually experience the use of these functions.

Perhaps what matters concerning our various understandings about “God” is our own relation to it and how it affects our subsequent behavior. What is more important – whether the individual is actually communing with a “God” out there in the actual universe or whether the person is having a significant experience of transcendence? It is likely that there is some form of “Creative Source” to existence, and as such we have a direct relation to that through the very structure of our own being. Yet even more significant than the question about what that is, may be the question – “what does a person do with their experience, how does it affect their life?” For this reason, what Meister Eckhart has to say about this has great relevance today, even though his words come from ~700 years ago:

"You may call God love, you may call God goodness. But the best name for God is compassion."

Many spiritual people might agree with this – be they Hindu, Jewish, Taoist, Buddhist, Christian, or Moslem. It is clear that Eckhart grasped that if the understanding of compassion is not central to the notion of "God" then the results of the exploration of this topic can become horrific. He understood that how we act based upon our conscience and understanding is more important that what we may think “God” to be at the time. Perhaps what we each believe when we say the term “God” is different from one individual to another, changes throughout culture and time, maybe even evolves through the course of one’s life. Isn’t it therefore more important how we act as a result of our beliefs about the “God” than what we think it means at that moment?

Copyright 2010, B.E. Foley

Conservative Policies Set to Destroy Millions of American Lives

The Conservatives have again held up the extension of unemployment benefits for the unemployed. This will immediately result in 1.7 million people being cut off of their only source of income. A total of 2.5 – 3 million people may be cut off during the month of July. There is something to remember here – and that is that these aren’t just numbers. We are talking about real flesh and blood human beings.

The people receiving unemployment compensation benefits are not people who have done something wrong, for which they should be punished, they are the victims of a bad economy. And these numbers hide an even larger issue. These are not just single individuals who will be affected by this villainous assault – each one of these people is a member of a family, and this means that children are involved. What we are really talking about is having 3 million American families lose a significant means of support this month.

How are these millions of families going to feed themselves, and especially their children? How are they going to get any food to eat? Are they supposed to starve and die? Will the supermarkets be giving away groceries, or are Conservatives mobilizing to open soup kitchens to help feed their fellow Americans?

Are we really a great nation if our people are left to go hungry? I don't use this phrase lightly - but of all the things I have heard called "Anti-American," certainly starving millions of Americans qualifies! It’s not about flag waving, supporting wars, or saying the Pledge of Allegiance that determines whether one is a patriotic American. What matters is how we treat our fellow citizens. It is clear that the Conservatives are endorsing policies that harm, and could even destroy the lives of millions of other Americans. This is "Anti-American" in the most visceral sense. How can a Conservative look a hungry child in the face and say we can't afford to provide unemployment compensation for their families so they can survive?

Have the faces of our hungry children become the faces of a 3rd World country?

If we can't afford to extend unemployment compensation to millions of our fellow citizens, we certainly can't afford any foreign wars, Wall Street bailouts, or tax loopholes for big businesses! Shouldn’t we be taking care of our own people? The Conservatives are always willing to spend more money on wars, but if you are an American citizen, you are on your own.

If we really wish for our country to get back on its feet financially is it really a good idea to deny so many families the means they need to keep their children fed and a house over their heads? Wouldn’t it be better if all of our citizens, and especially the unemployed, could provide food and shelter to their families? Wouldn’t that do more to help stimulate the economy than putting these families out on the street?

As a consequence of this Conservative blockage of the extension of unemployment benefits, how many more homes will go into foreclosure? How many more families will be broken up? How many more people will become homeless? How many more people will end it all in their desperation? The Conservatives in the US Senate will have American blood on their hands if even one person dies as a result of their refusal to extend unemployment benefits.

How can these selfish, hypocritically self-righteous Conservatives sleep at night, knowing that they are personally responsible for increasing the misery of millions, taking food out of the mouths of children, and taking shelter away from families, pushing them out onto the street? How can they eat dinner knowing what they have done? How can they even look at themselves in the mirror with even a shred of self respect? What a disgrace – trashing the lives of American families in the name of deficit reduction!

"An Attack on Rush is an Attack on America!"

NO. Rush is an attack on America.

When criticizing Rush Limbaugh, I was told by someone that “an attack on Rush is an attack on America." Nothing could be further from the truth. The ideas and policies advanced by Rush Limbaugh and his supporters in the Tea and Republican Parties are lethal to the American way of life. They are policies that would destroy much of the progress this nation has made over the last 100 years. The "Conservative" ideology of Limbaugh would have us roll back the gains of the New Deal and the Great Society. It is a mean, selfish ideology that would have everyone fend for themselves and have an economy and society governed by "Caveat Emptor” - let the buyer beware.

They would eliminate as much government regulation as possible, resulting in many more environmental disasters and many more injuries resulting from lax or absent product and workplace safety regulation. These folks would like to turn our country into a patchwork quilt of states all having their own versions of Civil Rights and regulatory environments. There would be an end to equal protection under the law, for each state would have its own standards of what is acceptable. Limbaugh and the other “Conservative” ideologues are a direct threat to the Middle Class, the poor, small business, and the concept of a fair, just, equitable society. They are a clear and present danger to America as we know it!

The "Conservative" ideology of Limbaugh and his cabal of political swindlers does not support a political belief system that moves us towards love and wisdom. That is Progressive Liberalism - certainly not Conservatism. Liberal may be defined as: Generous, Free, Tolerant, Not Bigoted, Freethinking, and Favoring Progressive Reforms that Improve the Welfare of Humanity. The current “Conservative” ideology is in opposition to these values. There is something fundamentally "off" about belief systems that base their ideological foundations on world views that support public policies and values that are essentially greedy, oppressive, intolerant, bigoted, mind-controlling, and that oppose progressive reforms that improve the conditions of humanity. Such so-called "Conservatism" isn't a philosophy, it is a spiritual illness based upon a lack of love, wisdom, and conscience. Whatever happened to taking care of the least among us? Letting people die from lack of adequate food, shelter, and health care (in the richest country in the world) isn't very compassionate, now is it?

It is as if Limbaugh and his cronies are spouting a political belief system taken out of the world view of Ebenezer Scrooge:

"Portly Gentleman: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time.

Ebenezer: Why? Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Portly Gentleman: Many can't go there; and many would rather die.

Ebenezer: If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Here we have exactly what “Conservative” social policies do - they destroy the lives to the least among us. “Conservatives” have opposed Progressive legislation from time immemorial. The standard and quality of life enjoyed by most of us in the U.S. was not brought about by the good wishes of the Republican Party or the political ideas of Rush Limbaugh! Rather, it has emerged as a result of the concerted efforts of generations of Liberals and Progressives, fighting for Children’s Rights, Women’s Rights, Voting Rights, Worker Rights, Consumer Rights, Equal Rights, Civil Rights, and Environmental Conservation.

Liberals and “Conservatives” have supported different political parties over the years. At the time of Abolition, the Progressives were in the Republican Party. But no more, as is clear from everything they say and do now. Today's “Conservatives” would have opposed Abolition, as the modern Tea Party ideology closely reflects what were positions of the Confederate political world view. Likewise the National Parks system founded by Teddy Roosevelt is something that would be opposed by today's Tea Party. They believe that nature is put here for us to pillage and poison as we wish - why save it? They do not believe that Global Warming is a fact, or that pollution is a serious environmental and public health issue.

Limbaugh and other leaders in the Tea Party are drawing from the hymnbook of the John Birch society - the leader of which called President Eisenhower a Communist! The old Republican Party that had Progressives is long gone. The Republican Party appears to have become a party of "Conservative" extremists and religious zealots. None of the other people in the Republican Party or "Conservative" camp challenge the radical Right Wing views of Limbaugh, so consequently we must assume that they all agree with him. Limbaugh and the New Right call themselves “Conservative” and embrace the traditions of that movement – historically opposing anything which might improve the welfare of society if it costs them anything, for they really don’t want to pay any taxes at all to contribute to the society in which they live. Limbaugh and the "Conservatives" on the New Right have hijacked the Republican Party and are trying to do the same to our country.

“Conservatives” have opposed everything from child labor laws, to occupational health and safety standards, consumer product safety legislation, the weekend, the 40 hour work week, minimum wage, health care reform, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Civil Rights, Equal Rights... the list goes on and on and on.

What have the “Conservatives” done for us lately - other than tax cuts for the rich and a war based on lies to the American public?

It is likely that most “Conservatives” are merely uninformed citizens who hear rhetoric about freedom, promises of tax cuts, and slogans like "don't tread on me," - and such things have great appeal. Many come from family traditions of voting Republican. But the Republican Party has changed over the years. Things like God and Country, the Flag, white picket fences, and a sentimentalized "Father Knows Best" mythology (in white suburbs, of course), are all icons that appeal to many Americans. People who respond to this type of Americana but who are not familiar with American history and the sacrifices whole generations made to improve the living conditions of everyday citizens are manipulated by cynics like Limbaugh and the leaders of the Tea and Republican Parties. Unfortunately many of these economically Middle and Lower Middle Class people wind up suffering from Conservative policies. How many of them would like it if the “Conservatives” actually succeeded in eliminating the Department of Education, Fair Housing laws, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, and Food Stamps?

Other followers of the Regressive thinking of Rush Limbaugh and the Tea and Republican Parties are those who are intolerant and socially myopic. Some are merely selfish. But some are the kinds of zealots that wind up in social manifestations like terrorist militias, religious Inquisitions, and the kind of folks who are agitating for death penalties for gay people in Uganda. Others are selfish big business fat cats like the Robber Barons of the 19th Century (who will take voting supporters from any ideology), or the industrialists who built their wealth on the backs of men, women, and children who worked 12+ hour days in Dickensian sweatshops or like the plantation owners whose lives, wealth, and society were supported by slave labor. Still others are like the people in the old South who looked the other way regarding slavery and then fought to defend it as an institution while reading their Bibles. Most are not truly mean, but some are – and their leaders like Limbaugh certainly are, as evidenced by their positions on issues!

What many seem to not understand is that the "Culture War" that the "Conservatives” want to inflict on the rest of us is not just some abstraction to be debated theoretically. There are real world consequences to which policies are ultimately brought to govern society. Whether it is the abolition of slavery, women's rights, equal rights, Civil Rights, or Gay rights - the malevolent amongst the "Conservatives" - like Limbaugh - whip their flock up into a lather to resist the uplift of our fellow citizens. They are socially dangerous, and MUST be resisted. It is our patriotic duty as Americans to resist the dismantling of our way of life at the hands of these extremists and religious zealots.

Study your history - those who consider themselves "Conservatives" are often co-opted by the unscrupulous who organize their legions by calling for social stability, flag waving, and preaching about God and Country. People who are poorly educated and selfish or greedy and who like "order" get easily swayed by the truly intolerant. Then the social disruptions begin and real people suffer. This has happened throughout history, in many different countries. We MUST NOT repeat Right Wing experiments with the dismantling of Progressive, civil society in 21st Century America!

Never mind that many of the people who call themselves "Conservatives" are often sorry after the violations of rights, destruction of the society through neglect of the well being of its citizens, and massive economic dislocations from fraud and corruption. Never mind that they often wind up enjoying the benefits of those very things they resisted - like Social Security and Medicare. What the people who support Conservatism seem to miss is that when the "Conservative" political forces win, others die. I am not exaggerating. Without occupational health and safety standards, people die. Without Welfare and Food Stamps, people die. Without industrial regulation, people die. Without product safety regulations, people die. Without Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, people die. Without extending health care coverage to the uninsured, people die. When “Conservative” policies take over running societies, the lives of real people are destroyed. When such forces raise their head they must be resisted - it seems like every generation must face down the forces of greed, bigotry, cruelty, and oppression.

To not attack Rush is a dereliction of duty. To let Rush and his fellow “Conservative” ring leaders get away with advancing his ideology of fear, hate, and bigotry and its regressive social policies is to abandon the American Way and everything generations of Americans have fought and paid for so dearly. We must not be complacent, nor silent, or inactive in strongly repudiating this assault on America and our values! It is our patriotic duty as Americans to resist Rush Limbaugh and the rest of his band of anti-social ideological extremists!

Copyright 2010, B.E. Foley

There are Very Real Differences Between the Democrats and the Republicans

Some supporters of the Tea Party are trying to fool people into believing that they need "to reject the phony paradigm of left and right in politics" and that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. We must beware of falling into their trap of blurring the distinctions between the political parties and attempts at whitewashing the history of the Right while papering over the contributions of Democrats to our way of life. Don't be fooled, this is just part of a propaganda effort to brainwash the American public, recruit people to Tea Party movement, and then channel members into voting for Republicans in the Fall!

The following was posted in an article on the web site “Prisonplanet.com:”

"As regular readers of this website and listeners to the Alex Jones show will understand, we urge people to reject the phony paradigm of left and right in politics – we expose the ongoing agenda that is ever present, no matter which party is in government. We show how both parties are controlled under the same system of elitist oppression. In short – for eight long years under Bush we were labeled radical left wing lunatics – overnight that changed and we are now described as dangerous right wing racists."

-by Steve Watson, in an article titled: Rise Of The New Right” MSNBC Documentary Cites Alex Jones, Rand Paul As “Extremists” - Friday, May 28th, 2010

Such a statement reveals either a gross ignorance of American history or an attempt to distort history in the attempt to manipulate the public. We need to set the record straight. First of all, ardent Tea Party supporters like Rand Paul and David Duke have never been considered "Left Wing!" The author of this article, Steve Watson, claims that Chris Matthews of MSNBC is a Marxist and that Alex Jones and Rand Paul are not extremists. This is incorrect at best. As far as Chris Matthews is concerned, he comes across as a staunch Democrat, and a well paid one at that. He does not seem to be a hammer and sickle waving Marxist – his suits are too expensive! And as to whether Rand Paul is an extremist - well, in answering this, one must consider that he doesn’t support the application of Civil Rights to private business. This would allow for segregated bars and restaurants, returning us to the days of the whites only lunch counters at Woolworth’s. Is this an extremist viewpoint? Many would think so! This is not exactly a mainstream idea; unless we are to believe that this is what a majority of people in the New Right actually support. Alex Jones? Well, this fellow runs a hard Right Wing conspiracy theory website. He believes that the government is trying to take away peoples guns, and that secret elements are conspiring within the government to take away people’s rights. Fans of his website include members of Stormfront and the National Alliance - Right Wing, Neo–Nazi, White Power extremists - like police shooter Richard Andrew Poplawski. Extremist? It would be hard to believe otherwise.

This site – “prisonplanet” - and its authors are apologists for the Tea Party, not some disinterested group of reasonable non-partisan scholars. Don't be fooled by such rhetoric! Here come more lies from the "New Right" – it seems like their movement is cynically embracing the “Big Lie” policy: if you tell a big enough lie and repeat it often enough, the people will believe you.

These anti-government, anti-regulation, anti Civil Rights, anti-federal government supporters of the New Right are extremists. They are supported by and associate with people who hold views far outside the mainstream of American politics. These people hate government in any form and think that it is the enemy. What they are really saying is that they don’t like Democracy, for if you get rid of government of the people, by the people, and for the people; what is the result? You get the end of the United States as a federal representative republic. At least in a government established and run by Democratic principles, we can un-elect officials we don't like. We can't do that in the case of the boards of directors of corporations, and not in the case of the people who run international conglomerates - like BP!

Distortions of history and twisting of truth are apparently parts of the attempt by the New Right to undo the legacies of the New Deal, the Great Society - and the Civil Rights, Equal Rights, and Gay Rights movements. The New Right is actively working to take over elected offices at all levels of government from school boards to the U.S. Congress and the Presidency itself so that they can dismember the government and turn this country into a patchwork quilt of differing rights, standards, and regulations on a state by state basis. If they could achieve that, they believe that they could set up their own private fiefdoms beyond the oversight of the federal government, and without "Justice for All."

The New Right, as embodied by those in the Tea and Republican Parties, would like to confuse the American public as to the differences between Democrats and Republicans, the Right and the Left, and what the differences are between the meanings of the terms Liberal and Conservative. They would like nothing better to work around the tarnished brand of the Republican Party – ruined by the legacy of the Bush administration. To do this they have concocted a strategy whereby they create a “movement” (i.e. the Tea Party) that attempts to market itself as distinct from the Republican Party. This combined with professional twisters of truth and history editorializing daily on the airwaves – such as Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity – provides what is supposed to appear as a grassroots upwelling that is independent of the baggage of the Republican Party. In actuality, the Tea Party and the Right Wing commentators are just shills for garnering Republican votes.

In the United States we have developed a two party system. This is not a perfect way of representing issues, but it works much better than a one party system or a hundred party system. There is no real reason why we couldn't have more than two parties. It just seems that third, fourth, and fifth parties fizzle in this country. Sometimes a “third party” candidate wins an election, but this seems to be more the result of personality politics, and the movements dissolve shortly after their standard bearers are out of office. Some countries, such as Italy have more parties than one would want to count! This has made for truly broken government. It remains to be seen whether any truly viable alternatives to the Democratic and Republican Parties will be established in the U.S. For now, we deal with a two party system. Although it has its downsides, nonetheless, many progressive developments have come from activism within the Democratic Party – although these are constantly opposed by the Republicans. The Democratic Party, for all its shortcomings, has historically been the party of progress, and the Republican Party has been the party of “NO!”

The key thing is that there are very real and deep policy differences between the Democrats and Republicans and they have historically taken quite different paths. The Democrats have traditionally been the party of the working families of this country and the Republicans have been traditionally the party of business - and increasingly that of "Conservative Values" - a combination of Evangelical Christianity and anti-government activists. Unfortunately it is true that our two major parties are awash in money and that big business contributes to both of them. But this is where any similarity ends.

Let’s make no mistake - there are very important and serious distinctions between the parties, as is quite clear by their positions on issues. It was the Democrats who enacted Civil Rights legislation. The Republicans opposed Civil Rights. It was the Democrats who fought for Equal Rights, while the Republicans opposed equal pay for equal work. Recently, it has been the Democrats who have fought for Universal Health care and financial regulation of the markets – without ANY help from the Republicans. When it comes to environmental protection, it has been the Democrats who have fought to preserve our national treasures and endangered species while the Republicans support oil drilling in nature preserves, and oppose saving endangered species when that creates difficulties for their ability to make money.

When it comes to working conditions and the rights of workers, the Republicans have been on the wrong side of history on every vote. The Democrats have struggled hard in the face of Republican opposition to enact child labor laws barring children from working long hours in Dickensian conditions. The Democrats fought for the 40 hour work week and the weekend, both of which were opposed by the Republicans. It was the Democrats who worked hard and fought for the Minimum Wage, Workers Compensation, and Unemployment Compensation. The Republicans opposed all of the above. It was the Democrats who brought us Occupational Health and Safety standards, improving working conditions for workers so that they didn’t have to risk their lives in dangerous and toxic environments. If left to the Republicans, people would still be living in company towns, be working 16 hour days in horrible conditions, receive no compensation if injured or laid off, be paid a pittance above slave labor wages, and have their children working long days in horrid conditions to make ends meet. The Republican motto might just as well have been, “let the worker beware” – as well as the buyer.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats lobbied for and enacted product safety legislation; and yes this too was opposed by the Republicans. Every time you safely plug in your toaster, take medicine, drive your car, give your child a toy, or operate mechanical equipment you can thank a Democrat, not a Republican.

The Democrats brought American society the benefits of Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and Food Stamps, all again opposed by the Republicans. Just imagine the misery of millions of Americans without these progressive improvements for our society – not to mention the crime rate caused by millions of desperate people without recourse! Without such programs there would be much more poverty and many more deaths. By opposing policies that help people, are Republicans suggesting that their favorite phrase, "Lift yourselves up by your bootstraps" is code for getting rid of the poor, or policies to, as Scrooge said, "decrease the surplus population?"

The Republicans claim they support individual rights, but oppose reproductive rights (including birth control and family planning), oppose equal rights, oppose gay rights, and brought us the drug war, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands dead around the world and the mass incarceration of millions of minorities in this country. The results of this failed war on our own citizens has cost us over a trillion dollars but has been a long term human rights disaster for the individuals, families, and communities involved. It would seem that the Republican Party is not the party of individual rights at all. If there is any “conspiracy” to deny the American public their rights, it is the Republican Party itself, not Liberals, Democrats, or others!

The Republicans, under George Bush, took us into a war in Iraq under false pretenses, and have given us the longest war in American history. What is the great legacy of the Republican Party to the well-being and progress of our nation? What can be pointed to as the great accomplishments of the Republican Party and their Conservative “philosophy”- financial market de-regulation, government regulators who really work for industry, and tax cuts for the rich? The legacy of the Republican Party is a long history of opposing the rights of the people, a huge economic collapse, and a seemingly endless war. Their positions on issues have been and are regressive and are total disasters for the American public!

If left to the mercies of the Republicans, one can only wonder what kind of country we would be living in… some kind of autocratic slave state full of misery, pollution, discrimination, and corporate townships run by political cronies. It is hard to believe that, given the “legacy” of the Republican Party, any American - with a rational mind or loving heart, and who is aware of the historical reasons why we enjoy the quality of life that we do - would vote Republican! The Republicans have fought tooth and nail to oppose every single one of the above noted progressive improvements in the lives of Americans. Many people are not aware of how actually regressive and opposed to the well being of the everyday person the Republican party has been and still is.... it’s time to call them on it, and not be fooled again!

Copyright 2010, B.E. Foley

Killing Yourself to Live – Fossil Fuels, Man Made Disasters, and the Future of the Planet

The BP oil spill just seems to get worse and worse. The estimates of how much oil is spilling into the Gulf of Mexico seem to go up almost daily – the press reports are beginning to sound like an auction. Now, according to Steven Wereley from Purdue University, the amount of material spewing into the Gulf may be up to 84,000 barrels per day. Eugene Chiang, from the University of California, estimates the spill rate may be up to 100,000 barrels per day. There is a potential that 2 more months of oil spilling may go on until relief wells can be finished by August. This means that there will be 10s of millions of gallons of oil spilled into the waters of the Gulf. Compounding the problem is the toxic nature of the dispersant being used. The amount of environmental and economic damage this accident will cause is as yet incalculable. The genetic mutations caused in the creatures of the gulf, and the concentration of oil in the oysters, shrimp, crab, and fish will mean that people won’t be eating any seafood from the Gulf for quite a long time. We will never know the scale of the suffering of all the creatures affected by this unnecessary man made disaster - not only the lower life forms, but birds, sea turtles, manatee, dolphins, and whales, too. The Gulf ecosystem may be ruined for decades. We are looking at one of the worst man – made disasters in history.

There are many factors contributing to this disaster, including corporate greed, pressure to cut corners in the name of speed and profit, lack of regulations, drilling in dangerous environments without backup plans and technologies for accidents, a lack of foresight that such an accident could happen and what that would mean, a lack of vision of how badly things can go wrong. Oil drilling has been going on pretty much in the same way since it began, and the ways oil companies are accustomed to drilling on land have been applied to drilling underwater. There has been an emphasis on generating profits over innovation.

Our fascination with big business and industrial conglomerates has created massive bureaucracies run by people far removed from the day to day activities of their workers. Also, the managers of these organizations are insulated from the consequences of their actions upon the workers and the lives of the communities they affect. The vested interests of international holding companies and big businesses like the old Standard Oil, Enron, and AIG were and are - like BP - beholden to their shareholders – not their workers, local communities, or the environments in which they work. If they have no local roots or real ties to the communities in which they do business, such corporate goliaths will have no strong sense of responsibility for the consequences of their actions. If there are problems, they can just move elsewhere.

The use of dirty technologies has taken precedence over the development of cleaner energy sources that require substantial up-front investments to develop. Cleaner energy sources require popular political support to publicly fund research into new technologies and they also require people to make the lifestyle and social changes necessary to incorporate the newly developed technologies into their daily lives. Also, there is the insatiable and increasing demand for more and more energy, especially more oil. Currently there are 1000s of oil rigs in the world’s oceans. A similar spill could happen anywhere at any time. We can also be sure the terrorists are watching the oil spill closely.

Increasing numbers of people realize that we must eventually wean ourselves off of our dependence on fossil fuels. Nonetheless the amount of investment necessary to develop widespread use of solar, wind, wave, and geothermal power hasn’t been made. Some people are suggesting that we move towards the increasing use of nuclear power; they fail to realize and acknowledge that as nuclear plants and waste proliferate, the risks for accidents increase, and the nature of such accidents become catastrophic. As I write there is nuclear waste water leaking into the NJ aquifer from a nuclear plant. With thousands of nuclear facilities on the world’s rivers are we prepared to replace oil slicks with radioactive water spilling from nuclear plants circling the Earth’s oceans?

As a direct result of the BP oil spill, an increasing number of people are becoming aware of how dependent we are upon oil and technology and how helpless we are when things go terribly wrong. It was only a few generations ago when most people had to make their own products or trade for them with people who could. Today most of us would be unable to fix our cars, appliances, or computers if they broke down. The world is becoming increasingly complex and the activities and technologies supporting our infrastructure – those things which enable our modern lives to go on smoothly - are increasingly distant from our ability to understand, build, or fix them. Consequently when disaster strikes, we are less and less able to figure out how to deal with the ensuing chaos.

We are helpless when tasked with fixing things ourselves. The combination of the increasing complexity of the technological world necessary to sustain life, the increasing rarity of natural resources, and the consequent need to search ever farther afield for the resources we need form a perfect storm of problems for us when things go awry. Now, in order to sustain our societies we must reach out to the most inaccessible regions of the Earth to meet our needs. When disaster strikes we are unprepared for it and will be unable to make quick fixes when advanced technologies in remote areas are required to repair the damage. Consequently, accidents will get worse and more frequent and our ability to fix them will be strained to the limit.

This spill is an example of something that humanity will experience more and more. Our dependence on dirty energy, dirty technologies, and polluting products (like plastic bags and bottles) will increasingly risk the destruction of our natural environments and make their clean up less easy and less likely. We are suffocating ourselves. Our modern world is living the Black Sabbath song “Killing Yourself to Live.” Our increasing demand for energy and environmental resources will begin running into the consequences of the increasing decimation of our environment necessary to sustain the continuity of our mass consumption, mass destruction lifestyles. Without serious social commitments to new ways of thinking, acting, living, and the development of new, cleaner technologies and products, we will continue down the path towards increasing pollution, large scale disasters, an inability to repair the damage we cause, the destruction of the worlds resources, and the consequent poisoning of our planet. The BP oil spill should be a wake-up call! We need to make some major changes, and we better get started soon, before things are too far gone and we turn our planet into another “Dead Sea.”

Copyright 2010, B.E. Foley

Why is Right Wing Conservatism so Mean?

One of the things people in a Democracy need to concern themselves about from time to time is the development of mass psychosis. Sometimes the welfare of the public comes under threats from political movements that hold positions that fly in the face of facts, ask people to do things that normal conscience would preclude, and support policies which result in the ill health, oppression, or expiration of others - and in particular, the marginalization and brutalization of minorities and the poor.

This problem of mass psychosis rears its ugly head repeatedly throughout history – in different forms, with different people, using different symbols, and sometimes different issues. When this happens, it is necessary for the voices of freedom, tolerance, and social justice to point out what is occurring. There is a recurrent danger from the unscrupulous in right wing movements to use propaganda to induce mass psychosis – that is to create policies, laws, and regimes that are intolerant and oppressive. Be they in World War II Germany, the KKK, modern racial hate groups, Right Wing Conservative religious extremists, or even some of those in today's Tea Party – the movements are different, but their mentality is similar. What drives such anger, fear, and hate based movements and what makes the believers in such movements think the way they do? They base their authority on different sources, but they all appear to have a common denominator – they are willing to support values, policies, laws, attitudes, and individual and social behavior all of which lack compassion for others. In other words, their common denominator is a lack of empathy - they are mean.

The old Conservatism is gone. It is history. The old Chamber of Commerce Republican Party has been replaced by the Tea Party. The old Eisenhower Republicans have become Democrats. When Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater got together one of the last times, Reagan joked that they were the last two Liberals in the Republican Party. Conservatism has been replaced by extremism - a coalition of religious zealots, racists, and gangster capitalists who oppose social justice and any market regulations. Now the Republican Party has a new face, the Right Wing Conservatives.

That the Right Wing Conservative mind set is basically mean is revealed by the harsh policies and authoritarian laws supported by right wing ideologies. In fact, historically in the U.S., Right Wing Conservatism as a political movement has opposed every progressive effort by Americans to improve our lives. Luckily Right Wing Conservatism has been on the wrong side of history and, up until now, has consistently lost in its opposition to many progressive issues like abolition, the voting rights of women, workers' rights, Civil Rights, environmental regulation, human rights, and product safety. It must be remembered that people worked hard for decades, people fought and died to bring these rights to us. This progress of our society should not be so easily thrown away. Now the forces of Right Wing Conservatism are rallying to unleash the greatest assault on progressive society in history, with the most funding, activist organizations, and media pundits that have ever been mustered in a “culture war.” It is important for us to remember that the decent lives we live today are owed to the benefits of the progressive social development - the very ones opposed by the ideologies of meanness. Now each successive generation is poised to have to fight for the same benefits and rights that have been gained by the sacrifices of so many in the past – all over again!

It is important to come to an understanding of what these forces of Right Wing Conservatism are, and where they come from. Those supporting Right Wing Conservatism, such as the media demagogues Beck and Limbaugh are tellers of “the Big Lie” and use propaganda irrespective of facts. The Right Wing Conservative forces will use big money, talk radio, and the Tea Party to try to whip up mass psychosis. They are following an old playbook from the first half of the 20^th Century. All those who oppose Right Wing Conservatism should wake up are become aware of the very real threats to their way of life posed by these right wing extremists. If they are not successfully resisted, they will institute a rollback of progressive society, the abolition of social justice, the imposition of the “company town” lifestyle of wage slave labor, and the institution of authoritarian Right Wing Conservative rule. It is no joke.

Let’s take a quick survey of issue areas that reveal with clarity what some Right Wing Conservative policy positions entail:

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose things like universal health care, Medicare, and Medicaid?

The opposite is to let people die without adequate health care. Right Wing Conservative policies equate to telling people that can’t afford their own health care, they should just die. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose financial and business regulations?

Having an economy based upon unbridled, unregulated businesses only guarantees financial swindles of unsuspecting people and dangerous products sold to consumers. This is business based upon the notion of Caveat Emptor” – “Let the buyer beware.” Such business practices take the attitude that the consumers are idiots who deserve to be swindled out of their money. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose Civil Rights, Equal Rights, and Gay Rights?

The existence of an unjust society where people are not entitled to equal and civil rights creates a civilization based upon differing classes of citizenship under the law. This is nothing short of slavery. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose things like Welfare, Food Stamps, Social Security, and subsidized housing for the poor?

What are the poor supposed to do – starve and / or be homeless? Not taking care of the least among us is mean and the social policies of Right Wing Conservatism would create results that, as Scrooge would say, “if the poor were going to die, they had better hurry up and do it to decrease the surplus population” This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose public education?

Having large numbers of people under educated and unable to provide decent lives for themselves in a global Knowledge Age is a formula for social disaster. Whether it is the proliferation of crime, the election of demagogues, poor public health, social disruption, broken families, multi-generational poverty - - all of these are the legacy of a lack of adequate support for public education. This only keeps the poor uneducated and poor. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose governmental regulation of product safety?

Without product safety regulation we would not be able to be sure of the safety of our cars, toasters, electrical sockets, nor anything else we purchase. We wouldn’t be able to return faulty products. Opposing safety standards is an attempt to offer the public dangerous and sub-standard products. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose environmental regulation?

Obviously, now with the BP Gulf oil spill disaster, the lack of environmental regulation results in a poisoned environment if its care is only entrusted to the goodwill of corporations. Opposing strong environmental regulations results in damaged ecosystems, health problems, and destroys lives. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose taxation?

When those with a great concentration of wealth and resources do not have the conscience to take care of the least among us, in a just society, they must be made to do so. After all, the people who get rich are doing so upon the labor and consumption of others. Taxes enable us to have roads, bridges, police and fire departments, schools, hospitals, a military defense, product safety, environmental safeguards… all of which are necessary infrastructure for the wealthy to make their money. We need taxation of the wealthy to provide for the needs of the poor who are being used to generate the wealth. Furthermore keeping people at slave labor wages that are not enough to subsidize a decent quality of life – compensation for labor that is not a living wage – is actual slavery. A living wage provides for food, housing, transportation, child care, health care, entertainment, and continuing education. Anything less than a living wage is an insult, is slavery, and relies upon the rest of society to pick up the tab to cover the difference between the actual costs of living and the wages paid. It is cheaper to keep one as a wage slave than it is to pay to keep them as an actual slave. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose the rights of organized labor?

The Middle Class owes its existence to organized labor. Without it, we wouldn’t have the working conditions we have today. Many people fought and died for labor rights, which too few of us remember. If it weren’t for organized labor, businesses would not have been forced to improve the working conditions of their workers, and as is obvious from the behavior of big business (which is more than happy to use slave labor in places like China and Vietnam because it is cheaper and there are few, if any, health, safety, and environmental regulations) that working conditions would not have changed. If it were left to some businesses, workers would still be slaving away in the working conditions of Dickensian sweatshops – even in the U.S. Many people still are working in such conditions around the world. Many of them work for American companies. Without organized labor, we would still have child labor, no minimum wage, no 40 hour work week, no weekend, no worker’s compensation, no unemployment insurance, no occupational health and safety standards, and no collective bargaining. Right Wing Conservatism opposed all of these, and this is mean.

New forms of Right Wing Conservatism emerge from old roots in reactionary, abusive right wing ideologies and the warped mentalities that foster them. Throughout history, these right wing ideologies have often manifested in movements of mass psychosis that have done great damage to the welfare of many others. Right Wing Conservatism is mean – as we can clearly see from the progressive developments of humanity that Right Wing Conservative ideology opposes. So what is the the philosophical basis of this meanness called Right Wing Conservatism? Does it actually have any foundation other than selfishness? Upon what authority and reason do the policies of Right Wing Conservatism rest - the Divine Right of Kings, Social Darwinism, or a Religion of greed, discrimination, and social oppression? In actuality Right Wing Conservatism has no reasonable philosophical foundation. Just think – who in their right mind would want to embrace a world view, a mind set, an ideology - that projects strength and moral superiority but is essentially based on fear and a sense of inadequacy; an ideology that is essentially mean, greedy, selfish, authoritarian, intolerant, closed minded, hateful, oppressive, and that opposes any progressive reforms that improve the welfare of humanity?

We have taken a look at what the Right Wing Conservatives oppose - let’s take a look at some of what they believe:

Lift Yourself Up by Your Bootstraps:

This only applies to you, however. Right Wing Conservatives will be the first in line to receive benefits if their own property or businesses are damaged by a flood, hurricane, meteor, oil spill, chemical spill, military or terrorist action, bad financial investment, someone else, or even themselves! This is selfish.

I’ll Get Mine, You Get Yours:

Another way of saying this is “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.” Right Wing Conservatives want to make as much as possible and pay as little as possible. This is similar to the idea of “buy low, sell high” – but applied to society. They want the benefits, of roads, highways, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc. but feel that they owe little or nothing to contribute to the upkeep of such things. They want to make as much money as possible from everyone, but pay people as little as possible. They want the benefits of living in the U.S. but they don’t want to pay taxes. They want to become rich, but begrudge the poor food and shelter. This is greedy.

Nature is Harsh:

Right Wing Conservatives believe that nature is cruel, harsh, bad, and punishing. They forget that the lion does kill to eat, but it doesn’t kill every antelope in the herd – it only takes what it needs, when it must. In fact, nature and the universe are the ultimate free lunch, we only charge for things in human societies. Hitler couldn’t understand why “man shouldn’t be as cruel as nature?” The problem is that it is not nature that is cruel, it was Hitler. This is just a projection of their meanness.

Human Nature is Bad:

Right Wing Conservatives believe that people are inherently bad. They believe that we are inherently prone to all manner of sin, vice, cruelty, crime, and horror. This is a very scary view of what people are. Actually, very few people commit the vast majority of crimes. Most people are decent folks who live their lives, raise their kids, work, and participate in society without victimizing their fellow humans. This belief that human nature is bad requires a hierarchical social system to keep people behaving properly. This is authoritarian.

People Must be Controlled:

This belief results in their desire to have tightly controlled people under their thumb – be it in the workplace or in society. They support harsh, punitive, and restrictive moral and legal systems. This is oppressive.

I Live in the Real World – You Don’t:

Just what is the “real world?” Is it the “real world” of a frog, a dolphin, a Stone Age human, St. Francis, a peasant in China, a Mid Western Suburbanite, Donald Trump, or Vladimir Putin? Just which “real world” is the correct one – certainly each of the above think theirs is the proper one! In actuality, the “real world is subjective – it is relative to the experience of the individual in question. Right Wing Conservatives believe that they have the corner on the market of “reality” – they believe they truly understand everything they need to know about the universe, what it is to be human, religious teachings, and society. This is closed – minded.

People Different than I am are Threats:

This belief that “my kind is the right kind” gives rise to all kinds of injustices. It is Xenophobic, and rests on an inability to be accommodating of surface differences between people irrespective of our common humanity. It is this belief that gives rise to racism. This is hateful.

My Interpretation of Religion is the Ultimate Truth - Yours Is NOT:

Right Wing Conservatives believe that their interpretations of religious teachings are the only true ones. They believe in literal interpretations of religious teachings that were written by people thousands of years ago for different people from different cultures with different languages and with different needs. Often these teachings were written in allegorical, metaphorical, and aphoristic styles that require reading between the lines to get to the essence or spirit of their intent. Right Wing Conservatives who believe that they are “divinely appointed” to interpret such teachings and who allow for no other discussions on the meanings involved are beyond reasonable discussion with those of beliefs other to theirs. This is intolerant.

I am Better than You:

The belief in an inherent inequality of people is anathema to Democracy. The world view that Right Wing Conservatives adhere to is one in which wealth and might make right. They believe that other lifestyles and religions are bad, sinful, and criminal. This breeds intolerance and hatefulness, including spreading fear about those who are not like themselves. This is a belief in social, moral, and sometimes even genetic or racial superiority. It is not unlike the old idea of the “Divine Right” of kings, where they are the anointed ones who are entitled to make rules for everyone else and inflict harsh punishments for violations of their privileges. This is a sense of superiority.

I am Always Right, You Are NOT:

The Right Wing Conservative belief system, drawing on its sense of moral superiority and ownership of religious truth leads them to believe in the infallibility of their beliefs. And they also believe that extremism in the defense of their world view is acceptable, even when it comes to discrimination, the imposition of harsh rules, inequality under the law, and even violence. They are not unlike the extreme right wing Islamic extremists who believe that terror and murder in defense of their view of reality is acceptable and will be rewarded in Heaven. When it comes to clothing themselves in the flag and using the Bible as a hammer of injustice, they believe that the rules are made for everyone else. This is hypocritical.

Greed is Good:

The belief that one’s self worth is determined by possessions, property, wealth, and power. Right Wing Conservatism embraces a religion of greed and intolerance. This is a combination of Church and Mammon in a death grip. It is the belief in the religious value of wealth generation that leads to the kind of cynicism prevalent on Wall Street. The little guy is a sucker and deserves to be ripped off. When he is robbed, the thieves should be bailed out by the community of suckers if their gambles with the ill gotten gains of their swindles are squandered. Caveat Emptor – let the buyer beware, could be one of their convention banners. This is greedy.

Change is Bad, Stability is Good:

The belief that change is bad unless it is an increase of my wealth is another key facet of the Right Wing Conservative world view. Just let me keep on making money off the labor of others without regulation or interruption. Let me keep swindling others and getting bailed out by the community. Let me continue getting the best from my society while contributing as little as humanly possible. Let me oppose everything that could alter my equation of superiority. This is the justification for opposing any progressive reforms that improve the welfare of humanity – heck someone else might get ahead. This is regressive.

Only a Few Succeed:

This is a fear based approach to society that derives from a sense of inadequacy. It is a fear that if others succeed, if others get ahead, that reflects poorly on me because I didn’t do it. This compensation for the deep sense of inadequacy that surely must be felt by those embracing such a small world view – which is always under threat – must project power, strength, wealth, ambition, and well – being lest any chink in the armor becomes visible. This is selfish.

What are we to make of such an ugly mix of delusions? It is possible that some ideologies of hate, fear, etc. are actually manifestations of pathologies or even neurological damage to the brain. Right Wing Conservative ideologies that are cooked up by true believers who may actually be sociopaths - like Hitler, Jim Jones, or Bin Laden – sometimes get transferred to large numbers of others. How do sociopaths and sociopathic ideologies become popular, as seemingly reasonable reactions to environmental conditions in the lives of people; and wind up enabling otherwise normal people to do things and support policies that damage others? Some of these episodes in history where Right Wing Conservative ideologies have had their way seem to be like epidemics caused by sociopathic ideological viruses. They begin in the minds of truly twisted, sick individuals and spread by appealing to the demons in our nature. Then the talking points of these ideologies are repeated endlessly by Right Wing Conservative minions through the media regardless of other opinions, perspectives, or facts proving the contrary. It is possible that such ways of thinking, if indulged in, and often enough repeated, actually affect the brains of the believers, developing neural nets which serve to validate their interpretation of experience, and hence their sense of "reality" - irrespective of and over-riding empathy, compassion, kindness, love, truth, wisdom, facts, reason, or any experience to the contrary....

Why is Right Wing Conservatism so mean? Where does this impulse for oppression, discrimination, and treating others with a lack of compassion come from? To find the answer to this we don’t have to look any further than the playground bully – the anti-social personality that has a disorder based upon aggression, violence, and most importantly, a lack of concern for others. It is clear the value system of meanness and abuse rests its authority on violence in the name of self interest. One of the reasons why Right Wing Conservatism is mean is that Right Wing Conservative ideologies are the result of a world view, a mindset – although not necessarily shared by all those who call themselves political Right Wing Conservatives – that is essentially paranoid, anti-social, and neurotic. This is not healthy. Right Wing Conservatism is mean essentially because it is a value system derived from a lack of empathy for others – it is a spiritual illness caused by a lack of love and compassion in life.

Copyright 2010 B.E. Foley