Paul's Passing Thoughts

In breaking from the theological/philosophical norm here at PPT and dabbling in election politics I predicted Hillary Clinton would win the election and she kinda didn’t. What do I mean by that? Don’t forget that roughly half of the American voting population chose a known career criminal to be president of the United States. How is this possible? That was the primary question addressed in that series of articles coupled with the assumption that she would win. This election makes one thing abundantly clear: moralism is not the deciding factor. If a highly moral person is unable to protect your wellbeing according to your worldview, moralism may find itself relegated to the basement closet.

Broken down to the least common denominator, at least historically, it’s individualism versus collectivism. The inability of man doctrine is not a uniquely religious doctrine; it has framed human politics from the beginning of human existence and was executed by pagan-states until the 4^th century when the church-state finally prevailed. When Americanism decimated the church-state in the 18^th century Communism filled the void.

What emerged during post-Americanism was a confused church-state. It can be rightfully dubbed, Evangelicalism. Intellectually, it adopted the individualism of Americanism but unwittingly functioned as a church-state as much as possible while ignoring the logical conclusions of its functionality. This is the advent of the “cult.” What is a “cult”? A cult is a church-state that has been robbed of its ability to enforce its orthodoxy through the state. It is the separation of faith and force. Hence, cults must seek to control people through other means. So, a cult is a church that has been separated from its ability to control what people believe by force and must improvise with brainwashing, manipulation, mind control, and propaganda.

Therefore, did America create an unprecedented vacuum in human history that was filled by Communism and cults? Absolutely. The pagan-state, the church state, Communism, and cults all have ONE thing in common: the doctrine of inability.

Presently, the Protestant resurgence movement (Neo-Calvinism) claims that the inability of man doctrine is unique to the Protestant Reformation. That’s absurd. But at any rate, the argument goes like this: “Human history has always been predicated on man being the center of all things and not God. For the first time in human history, the Protestant Reformation put God at the center and proclaimed the total inability of man (the doctrine of total depravity: Augustine-4^th century).” That’s just a big fat lie. They go on to finger the Enlightenment Age as a resurgence of the man-centered historical norm which is also a historical absurdity.

The Enlightenment finally figured out that the individual can know reality, is created free, and is individually culpable for the sum and substance of one’s own life. The great thinkers of the Enlightenment where a mixed bag in regard to what the foundation of this truth is, and it’s undoubtable that some put man at the center, but most of them held to the simple fact that God created man to be free and able. Before and after the introduction of sin into the world, God tells man to multiply upon the earth, subdue it, and be fruitful.

In contrast, the ancient pagan-states believed that the masses cannot know realty and must be ruled by elite mediators for the collective good. Government was therefore not an organizing principle, but the sole owner of truth. This philosophy of collectivism flowed from one of the major metaphysical pillars of sin—sin is driven by a desire to control. In other words, it ignores God’s command to the individual to pursue the fruits of his own ability (of course created and gifted by God), and instead seeks to control others. The command to subdue the earth is ignored in exchange for subduing others.

This theme dominates the Bible; the advent of murder in human history is the final solution to controlling others when all else fails. We see this dynamic playing out on every level of life’s strata from the top—down. Sin is defined by many different desires that are antithetical to love, but the desire to control others is one of the major organizing desires of the sin dynamic.

Sin>murder>inability>pagan-state>church-state>Americanism >Communism/cultism

In all of this an undefined historical dynamic is missed: American colonialism; what we will call the colonial spirit. These were the people who rejected the colonial Puritan church-state predicated on ancient collectivism. Evangelicalism, for about 100 years, has been a confused hybrid of Puritan collectivism and the colonial spirit.

Individualism believes man is created free and able. Government is an organized entity that serves man’s individual endeavors. Collectivism believes that man is totally unable, and government is a mediator between man and reality. In the latter, reality is defined as holding the answers to societal utopia. Therefore, government must own truth for the collective good. Proponents of collectivism, whether the great unwashed or the elitist mediators, see individualism as a threat to the existence of mankind. However, it is ironic that the great unwashed would be able to understand this theory. The totally unable are only able enough to understand that they are unable. In the religious version, God enlightens man just enough to know that he is unenlightened, and so it goes.

In all of these articles we have connected this to Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. According to Maslow’s theory, self-actualization is efficacious to wellbeing—it is a built-in need according to our state of being in the same way food and water is needed. According to collectivism, actualization is not found in one’s own self-esteem or truthful self-assessment, but only in one’s contribution to the collective good.

And besides, according to collectivism, even if self-value was a true need for wellbeing, man is unable to achieve it anyway. Understanding this, it should be clear why collectivism deems capitalism as evil or “greedy.” In collectivism, the mommy-state is god, and selfism is the devil. Therefore, a collectivist consideration of Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs is going to dismiss self-actualization as totally irrelevant.

Individualism is therefore deemed as a threat to the very existence of mankind. Individualists believe they are responsible for their own happiness, and healthy just societies are made up of individuals free to pursue self-actualization. Any given society is defined by the strength of its individual citizens. In contrast, collectivism believes that individuals are unable, and the freedom to pursue self-actualization will lead to chaos and the destruction of the world.

Moreover, self-actualization is defined by one’s ability to contribute to the state not individual identity. The religious angle on collectivism or religious collectivism well often proffer the idea that ALL of our identity is in Jesus while secular collectivism finds all identity in one’s contribution to the state. In either case, self-identity has no merit and is deemed a threat to the existence of humanity.

Colonial Americans put everything on the line for freedom. And this explains what we are presently seeing in the American political arena. Trump represents rugged individualism born from American colonialism. This is why you are presently seeing violent demonstrations across America in protest of Trump’s election; supposedly, believing in individual ability puts all of humanity at risk for chaos leading to complete annihilation.

In my prediction that Hillary would win, a minor point and perhaps an unnecessary distraction, I underestimated what remained of the colonial spirit of rugged individualism. On the other side, the failings of collectivism (socialism) will never persuade because its presupposition begins with the inability of man. But of course socialism struggles, we are all unable! Of course there is rampant evil in the church; after all, we are all just sinners saved by grace! Hence, failure is NEVER a reason to reevaluate collectivism; failure should be expected. And consequently, the immorality of politicians is also irrelevant. BUT, supposedly, individualism will lead to the destruction of the world while collectivism will only lead to the suffering we all deserve anyway.

The point is individualism versus collectivism. The struggle between the two is defined by one of sin’s primary pillars: a lust to control and conquer others, not what God has commanded us to conquer and accomplish individually.

That’s the point.

paul

If you believe Christ died for our present and future sin—you believe a false gospel. If you believe Christ came to obey the law for us—you believe a false gospel. If you believe saints have NO rig…

Source: You Believe a False Gospel If…

As written in several articles this week concerning today’s election, the usual suspects will vote for Hillary Clinton because of fear; that is, fear of the populous having too much freedom leading to chaos. Lack of social engineering by the experts could lead to a shortfall in basic human needs. How’s it working for us?

Ignorance regarding true world history and philosophy has resulted in an unreasonable fear of self-governing en masse. The roots of this massive politic run deep from the beginning of civilization and was eventually articulated by Plato circa 400 BC. Its conception was in the garden of Eden when the concept of mediator was introduced coupled with a Dualism epistemology.

Democrats play a lot of cards, but the fundamental card is fear of chaos leading to the supposed unfulfillment of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs which is an apt description of man’s physiological makeup. And, could any candidate be played into that fear more than Donald Trump? I doubt it.

Also, we looked at why the evangelical vote, for the most part, will lean Hillary due to the resurgence of authentic Protestantism via the New Calvinism movement. The Protestant Reformation was clearly predicated on a church-state which is directly antithetical to Americanism. Before the church can return to the glory days of John Calvin’s Geneva, Americanism must be eliminated. The only way that is going to happen is through socialism; so evangelicals are willing to engage in scorched earth voting in hopes of finding opportunity in the ashes of capitalism. If you doubt this, read any one of many anti-American articles written by mainline evangelicals like James MacDonald, John Piper, and John MacArthur Jr. while considering their known propensity to vote for Democrats.

The Republican Party emerged more from Enlightenment ideas that place faith in the individual and his right to pursue happiness. Government is supposed to be a primary support for the individual’s endeavor; a government by the people and for the people. It is still a caste system, but upward mobility is not only allowed, but encouraged.

Unfortunately, in the scheme of social strata within the caste system, the Republican Party has come to place fellow politicians on a higher level than the taxpayer. Hence, there is a revolt; so Donald Trump’s character and quirks are totally irrelevant—they think he will wreck the present system and something better will come from the rubble. Individualist voters see Trump as their last ditch opportunity to rebuild the present system with the priorities of authentic Americanism.

Therefore, the dynamic is threefold: it’s business as usual for those who vote according to fear (traditional Democrats) while evangelicals want to use Hillary to get rid of capitalism which makes a return to “godly authority” (think “church-state”) impossible. Obama didn’t get the job done so Hillary is next in line. Then, on the other side, Trump voters want to use Trump to demolish the present system altogether. They are fed up with business as usual, and as a result, are willing to gamble on the results.

Now, with all of this said, let’s focus on the rampant dread associated with this election cycle. This necessarily involves a principle that I often promote here at PPT: bad feelings are not a good thing, so, let’s not have them unnecessarily. When you feel dread, life is presently experienced as dreadful; this would seem evident. Therefore, when we feel bad, or guilty, what do we do? Right, we take an inventory of the thinking that is producing those feelings. ALWAYS. And what we find is most of the time we feel bad unnecessarily due to errant thinking.

Let’s take worry for example. If you write down everything you ever worried about you will find that worry is the biggest liar to found anywhere in the universe. Yet, because worry makes such a strong case with subjective feelings we believe a lie constantly. We are to dwell on the truth in order to have peace (Phil. Chapter 4), and worry rarely tells the truth.

Dread over this election is all but totally unfounded and based on low information if not outright ignorance, and per the usual, evangelicals lead the way in the ignorance parade.

First, the founders of Americanism were other-worldly brilliant and their insight timeless. Trust me; they were not outsmarted by the likes of Hillary Clinton. They saw the likes of her coming in their sleep. This is why America has survived big-league socialist presidents over and over again. Hillary is a little league socialist. In fact, America probably survived socialism’s best shot during the 1920s.

Secondly, Trumpism is a MOVEMENT that is loooooong overdue. If he loses, and he probably will, this movement does not go away. Look, something this radical does not take root the first time around. It might, but I doubt it. But if he loses, it will more than likely, result in a third party with an adjusted version of Trump. The Republican rank and file has been exposed by Trump; they view politics as a social strata that trumps the taxpayer in every instance. Ultimately, this will not stand because capitalism has been around long enough to establish sacred tradition. Trumpism is a working idea, so if Trump loses, the movement will find a new and improved version of Trump. Also, more than likely, his children, who are deemed impressive by all camps will be entering politics.

Thirdly, history shows that socialism cannot defeat capitalism. Everywhere socialism exists—it was there from the beginning. Socialism will never replace the cradle of capitalism: America. In every case where it could be argued that socialism replaced capitalism the populous of those countries will risk life and limb to get into America. And as stated in the several political posts written last week here on PPT, the Bible foretells a form of capitalism as the predominant economic system of the last days. It will take a pseudo-capitalism to set a slavery trap for mankind in the end. We will see a capitalist revival in the near future. Overall, life worldwide will become almost utopic, and then the end will come suddenly.

Fourthly, election angst is most prevalent among Christians because they are ill-informed in regard to kingdom theology. Because the institutional church is predicated on control and authority by virtue of being an institution, it is believed that God’s kingdom is just another kingdom in the Wrestling Mania ring vying for control of the world…for the good of mankind of course.

But no, this is not our kingdom. We should vote for practical here-and-now reasons and not act like we have a dog in the dogfighting ring. No, no, no, our mission, I repeat, our mission is NOT to take over the world for Christ’s glory. Good grief, please get a grip. We are God’s “ambassadors.” What’s an “ambassador”? When our brother king comes down and sets up our kingdom, it will be a 1000-year clinic on politics done right.

Stop acting like our kingdom is presently competing with the world’s kingdoms. Our kingdom is not here; we are ambassadors on a mission. When our brother king comes, he is going to completely uproot every political system and establish ours. It is my understanding that some churchians are on prescription medication to deal with the stress of this election cycle. Yep, bad institutional church theology will do that; it’s called, “orthodoxy.” And what does it produce? Fearful Christians on medication chanting, “God is in control, God is in control, God is in control.” Have you convinced yourself yet? Well bless your heart; keep up the chanting, maybe you will be heard because of your many words.

Lastly, the Trump movement has ushered in an anti-institution sentiment similar to the American colonialist spirit that gave birth to America. Do a careful study of American colonialism; it was far less pretty than the Trump movement. Far less. The colonials were not nice people and had serious anger issues. The path to freedom is often very messy, but we must remember that the essence of sin is a lust to control others (Genesis 4:6,7).

But the point I am leading to here is the opportunity to return to authentic biblical fellowship that is mutually exclusive from any form of institution. We are God’s royal family working for God as ambassadors in a foreign land, and when we meet together it is a family affair, not enslavement to an institution. That’s why our royal family meets in homes, not purpose buildings. The institutions of our kingdom reside in heaven where the kingdom is located, not here on earth. As royal family members here on assignment, we meet as a family. Furthermore, our brother the king is presently in heaven as well and will return at an unknown time; there are no Lords other than him when we meet together. It is a body with members that fulfill roles that edify the body as a whole, not any who arrogantly usurp our brother’s Lordship.

What I am saying is that Trumpism has ushered in an era that rejects expertism as the only legitimate path to wellbeing. It also follows that Christians are open to something other than traditional church and something that really works. In regard to the home fellowship movement and a return to authentic assembly—this is our time.

Look, those of you who have your emotional undergarments in a bundle, what would you prefer this time around, business as usual? How’s that been working for us since Ronald Reagan? That was a revolution, and so is this. But please thou evangelicals, stop annoying me with your “God is in control, God is in control, God is in control” mantra. God will intervene to guarantee the results that he wants in His overall scheme of things, but stop being a lazy thinker by letting others think for you and blaming God for it. That’s just lame. You are in dread because those who think for you want you to be in dread because that’s how they control you.

That’s how the Democrats control their followers, and that’s how the church controls its congregants…with fear flowing from the thoughts they want you to think and misinformation. It’s one thing to not have the freedom to think for yourself, but it is quite another to have that freedom and relegate it to others for no good reason whatsoever other than their agenda-driven purposes. And clearly, church is not about all members doing their part to edify the rest of the body, it is rather about thinking the thoughts the religious elitists want you to think for the express purpose of controlling you with fear.

Be advised: you need something other than the “God is in control” mantra and medication to silence your dread…

…you need to think with the brain and freedom God gave you. He didn’t die on the cross to enslave you, he died on the cross to set you free.

paul

Americanism had a two-fold impact on history after the American Revolution. For the first time in history, it effectively ended the church-state. Prior to the 4^th century AD and from the beginning of human civilization, the pagan-state dominated world governments. Shortly after the passing of Peter and Paul, the two most formidable apostles of the Apostolic Church, the church fathers moved to replace the pagan-state with the church-state. For more than 200 years these two competed against each other to be Rome’s mistress and thereby have their orthodoxies enforced with legislation and the sword if necessary. The church finally won in the 4^th century and the Catholic Church was born.

But contrary to the “Apostolic Church” motif, the assemblies of Christ led by the Apostles were never “church” and never called such in the Bible. The word “church” was inserted into the Bible as a replacement word for “assembly.” The assemblies were held in private homes without exception because the followers of Christ are literally God’s family and not an institution. Hence, the Bible often refers to the “household of faith.” It’s a household, not an institution.

Therefore, “church history” is truly just that; church history and not the history of Christ’s assemblies. That history would be very obscure and for the most part undocumented. Church history is vast and well documented because it’s an institution that has always vied for power and world domination through various means. Upon close examination of world history, we find that church martyrs were really political refugees, spies, and captured combatants. The Pilgrims were really political refugees that were really Puritans who were really Calvinists who also brought their new and improved church-state politics with them. The Pilgrims are a part of American heritage alright—the American Revolution was a pushback against the theocracy they brought with them.

When Americanism ended the church-state, Communism filled the void. Until then, the Church was the primary propagator of The Republic which was Plato’s socialist opus. The Republic proffered the following societal model: the masses cannot know reality and must be ruled over by mediators. Social justice is defined by unity around whatever the mediators dictate. Societal roles are predetermined and upward mobility threatens the purity of humankind which functions best when everyone is content within their predetermined societal roles. This was always the primary doctrine of the pagan-state and church-state alike.

In the 13^th century, the Catholic Church began to be “corrupted” by Thomas Aquinas’ integration of Aristotle’s ideas with the Platonist theology that had dominated world thought until then. This “corruption” continued until the 16^th century and ignited the Protestant Reformation. In contrast to Reformation propaganda, the Reformation was about one thing and one thing only; Plato versus Aristotle. The revival of Aristotle’s empiricism eventually led to the Age of Enlightenment which gave birth to Americanism.

After the American Revolution, the church in America was integrated with Enlightenment ideas. This led to a confused Platonist Lite theology that characterized the American church from 1776 to 1971 or almost 200 years. Unbeknown to most political strategists, the evangelical vote is shifting from Republican to Democrat because the church is returning to its Platonist roots that are foundational to Protestantism. As written about often here at TANC and PPT, the Democratic Party is driven by Platonist presuppositions concerning mankind with a socialist expression and application. Clearly, though the Republican Party has its caste issues, it is primarily driven by the idea of upward mobility and empiricism.

Though Neo-Protestantism has little in common with Hillary Clinton other than presuppositions concerning mankind, the church knows that any return to the glory days of John Calvin’s Geneva must be preceded by the toppling of Americanism. That means voting for Hillary Clinton. The goal is scorched earth with opportunity emerging from the ashes. While the debate among evangelicals concerning Donald Trump is the focus, the following is a triple wide jumbo jet reality flying under the radar: Neo-Protestants who now comprise the vast majority of evangelicals will be voting for Hillary as their best effort to get capitalism out of the way. Capitalism is the economic expression and application of Americanism. Regardless of what they may think of Hillary, capitalism must go if the glory days of church-state will ever return. This is scorched earth voting regardless of any character issues. The fact that Hillary is a career criminal is not the point; her socialism is the point.

Likewise, this is why Bernie Sanders is supporting her after she rigged the primaries to exclude any prayer that he would be nominated. Notice that the very undermining of our representative republic via election fraud isn’t even a concern; her socialism trumps any and all character issues.

With all of this said, the Republican Party still possesses its share of aristocratic snobbery. The Republican Party machine has come to relate more with fellow politicians than the common taxpayer whether other politicians are socialist or not. Aristotle’s empirical reason is much better than Platonism, but it still possesses a caste system. Yes, it is a better caste because one’s place in the social strata can be earned, but it still has a tendency towards class snobbery. However, the problem follows: fellow politicians; ie., Democrats, are higher on the caste strata than the common people. And the people are fed up with it.

Therefore, likewise, Trump’s character is entirely irrelevant. They will also vote for Trump in order to destroy the political system. It’s the same scorched earth voting. Sure, Trump may end up being a horrible president, but at any rate, the system must go! People believe he will burn down the entire system and start from scratch—this is what they want.

This is why character is completely irrelevant in this election cycle; ideas are being voted against, and voting is not for a particular person. The goal is to vote against a system.

paul

In the previous four parts, we examined why the American people are willing to elect known criminals for President of the United States. It boils down to fear of not having our basic needs met. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is correctly descriptive in regard to these basic human needs.

The next consideration focuses on how these needs are met: is the individual best suited and able to meet these needs (ability of mankind) or is mankind unable and in need of government to fulfill these basic needs? The question concerns the ability/inability of mankind. Historically, cultures have always been dominated by governments predicated on the inability of man until the advent of Americanism.

Why did America and individualism finally come about? Because the doctrine of inability always appeals to a promise of meeting basic needs which result in loss of self-actualization. In other words, the doctrine of inability appeals to the base fears of not receiving food and protection but results in the unfulfillment of individual accomplishment resulting in loss of self-worth and dignity.

Moreover, the economic vessel of the doctrine of inability, socialism, NEVER ultimately delivers on the base needs. It just doesn’t work and never has worked. This, and this alone is the reason that America is the greatest force for good ever known historically; it was founded on the doctrine of individual ability. After thousands of years of incessant war, plague, and starvation, great thinkers began to ponder the reasons for this dreadful norm. They concluded that government’s true purpose was to free the individual to pursue self-actualization with the basic needs being the natural result.

Historically, there has always been a deeply ingrained fear of an unrestrained population. The collective freedom of man was/is thought to define chaos. This deeply ingrained presupposition concerning mankind has always enabled socialism to live another day. Also fueling this presupposition is man’s propensity towards laziness and getting happiness for free rather than earning it. Having one’s basic needs “guaranteed” through obeying a government controlled by the “gifted” has always been the intellectual path of least resistance. It took thousands of years of unspeakable misery to incite the Enlightenment Era which gave birth to the founding fathers of Americanism.

Before we move on to the primary point of this post concerning the present landscape of this election cycle, I would like to park on the two doctrines of ability and inability a little more. Before circa 350 BC, the inability of man was the dominant worldview which encompassed three parts: deity, mediation, and the total inability of the masses. Inability was the doctrine and caste was the application. In all cases, it was necessary for deities of various stripes to appoint mediators (knowers/seers) to rule over the masses for their own good and to save them from themselves. Typically, in that construct, individualists are seen as a threat to the collective wellbeing of the masses because they think they understand reality. So yes, until America came into being, world history was dominated and ruled by the church-state. This is at the core of America’s separation of church and state and the subsequent separation of faith and force.

Circa 400 BC, Plato defined the doctrine of inability via The Republic, and this construct disallowed upward mobility. One’s role in society was predetermined by lineage. All just societies were to be ruled by philosopher kings and their edicts enforced by the warrior class. “Justice,” according to Plato, was defined by one thing only: unity. This led to even more business as usual: wars between philosopher kings (governments) because they disagreed on the best philosophy to bring about utopia. Wars have always been about saving the world.

Aristotle (circa 350 BC) brought a slightly different philosophy to the table; he believed mankind, in general, was able to understand reality, and ability to know realty was not confined to predetermined elitist knowers. Aristotle was the father of the ability of man doctrine. It was still a caste system, but it allowed upward mobility. One’s status as a knower could be earned. Though America is clearly the best thing that has ever happened to the world horizontally, it is still dominated by caste at every level of experience.

When it gets right down to it, the least common denominator of politics and religion is Plato versus Aristotle; the two doctrines of ability and inability. Protestantism, in particular, is little more than a cheap knockoff of Platonism and post-American evangelicalism is a confused hybrid of ability and inability. America was originally settled by European “Christian Platonists,” viz, Puritanism, but the American Revolution produced a Christianity that believed in the ability of mankind. However, as written about much on this blog, evangelicals have all but totally returned to their Platonist roots via the Neo-Protestant/Neo-Calvinist movement.

Initially, post-Revolution America was dominated by an individualism that has laid a foundation that will never be fully destroyed. Americanism finally opened up the Pandora’s Box of freedom, and mankind having tasted it for more than 200 years will never completely turn back. But, American politics will always be a struggle between these two doctrines; the ability or inability of mankind. As stated in the previous parts, a socialist road will never lead to the mother of all church states described in the book of Revelation, but if the book is examined carefully, the best thesis points to a pseudo-capitalism that will set a trap utilized by the Antichrist. Capitalism will lead to a “we are rich and have need of nothing” mentality leading to an unexpected swift destruction when the world is saying “peace and safety.” It might be said as well that the world is experiencing a sort of utopia at that time and snubbing their noses at God accordingly. The ability of man created into man by God becomes a means of worshipping man above God.

Presently, Hillary Clinton embodies a philosophy that believes socialism can lead to socialism. Socialism ALWAYS leads to the total loss of a society’s dignity, but revolution comes when socialism invariably fails to deliver on the basic needs of food and water. Loss of freedom causes misery, but many will live with that if they can get food and water while believing that self-actualization is defined by one’s ability to contribute to the collective good; ie., the mommy-state.

Hillary and company are trying to obtain a socialist utopia by transforming capitalism through redistribution of wealth flavored with class warfare. And in fact, earned status does create envy. Through the dumbing down of the American populous being led by the nose via sound bites that appeal to the baser instincts, 47% of all American households depend on government assistance. The policy is designed to create a fear of homelessness and starvation. We all know people willing to trade their dignity for some kind of security. Right now in America, this duped populous can have their cake and eat it also because there is still plenty of wealth to redistribute. If a prior socialist candidate fails to deliver, there is always hope that the next one in line will do better, but the chorus of the political jingle is always “free stuff” seized from those greedy capitalists. And by the way, note that Hillary’s embracement of the doctrine of inability is frightfully evident.

Hence, Democrats only get reelected when they fail to deliver on the free stuff. The intended recipients stay home and don’t vote—that’s the difference. Example: Jimmy Carter. So, how did Obama get reelected? Despite views to the contrary, he did deliver the free stuff. For example, the horror stories that we hear concerning the Affordable Care Act only affects the middle class, not a large part of the Democratic base made up of the lower middle class. Besides, any shortfall of free stuff is effectively blamed on the Republicans.

Last week, Neil Boortz was a substitute on Herman Cain’s conservative radio program. He reiterated his position that the tightness of this race is media propaganda for purposes of ratings, and I agree with him.

Due to the dumbing down of the American people, a majority will continue to be led down a road paved with promises of guaranteed food and water, but resulting in the same ancient misery flowing from the doctrine of inability. Right now, people can still vote for free stuff while enjoying freedom because there is still plenty of wealth to redistribute from the foundations of American capitalism. Until the balance tilts to a lack of freedom and the delivery of free stuff, the likes of Hillary Clinton are still electable…morals be damned. Morals are not the issue, perceived ability to mother our inability is the issue. In fact, one pro-Hillary celebrity comedian was quoted last week as saying:

To me, it’s really exciting to have the first mother in the White House. It’s not about the first woman, it’s about the first mom. Because a mother just does it. She feeds you and teaches you, protects you. She takes care of sh*t… We need just a tough b*tch mother who nobody likes and who just does sh*t.

As the adage states, good humor is funny because there is some truth in it. The cited statement is the crass version of Mark Twain’s version: “Humor is the good natured side of a truth.”

It may be a close race, but fear of individualism that disregards a safety net and prefers dignity over food and water will prevail. Nevertheless, we must remember there have been former Presidents every bit as socialist as Hillary and America not only survived, but thrived. More than likely, capitalism will make a comeback for the aforementioned reasons.

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps the balance is tipped enough that a road of socialism attempting to obtain socialism is a thing of the past. Perhaps Trump will be the beginning of the coming capitalist revival foretold in the Bible. We will find out on Tuesday.

paul