Paradocracy

Let us all remember that, at the very outset of the reported COVID-19 outbreak, we purportedly had precious little to sacrifice for the “common good.” To be precise, “two weeks to flatten the curve.”  At this point, a year and a half later, we must confess that this projection was either a blatant lie or premised on the farfetched expectation of total participation. At this juncture, it’s self-evident that, while we responded with something approximating total participation, we were destined to never achieve absolute, 100-percent participation in mask-wearing.  Even if we had perfect participation in strict compliance with the ever-changing and uncertain guidance from the so-called experts and approved channels, there would have been no way of proving the public's innocence. What's more, there would have invariably been something imperfect about its execution: whether improper use, inadequate materials, or something else entirely.  Bearing this in mind, those seeking to encoura

People often mischaracterize money as the root of all evil, whereas the old adage rightly states, per 1 Timothy 6:10 , that it is “the love of money” that is the root of all evil. Nevertheless, we live in a money-driven world due not only to the inescapable need for resources, but for the progressive specialization of labor and the endless pursuit of instant and material gratification. In this way money, formerly conceived as an expedient for the mutual satisfaction of wants, has eventually come to consume the lives of people who've decided for themselves, or who've had others decide for them, that little to nothing else than material or monetary gain should ever come to define their lives.  Of course, people are rightly free to define their lives as they see fit; they’re free to define their lives by material and monetary gain, just as they’re free to define their lives by their memories, adventures and precious moments. While I’d contend that the worthwhile life consists of

Many in the history of America have likened the United States to a melting pot. Already in use as early as the eighteenth century, the term “melting pot” particularly gained in popularity after the 1908 play of the same name.  The term has come to describe America for generations, and it can continue as a convenient analogy so long as we account for its limits. After all, an analogy is useful only with consideration to limits and reason.  The challenge, then, is to determine the extent to which an analogy holds up, and where it begins to unravel. In the case of the melting pot , the analogy really serves only to communicate a principle: that America has, on balance, benefitted economically and culturally from a diverse blend of influences.  However, in the course of debate and political discourse, people are oftentimes paralyzed by the principle at face value, which numbs them to the kind of critical thinking which would otherwise call into question the veracity and applicability of th

In describing the "mysterious factor of difference" which has "wrought such a strangely different result here in our country," as opposed to the "fate of Europe... [which is] to be always a battleground," President Calvin Coolidge concluded in his speech, titled The Genius of America , delivered October 16, 1924, to a delegation of foreign-born citizens, that "[i]t was not a single factor but the united workings of at least three forces, that brought about the wide difference." President Coolidge went on to characterize a culture of tolerance unique to the United States, which had demonstrated "peace, harmony and cooperation" in helping "to rid [the countries of the Old World] of the bad traditions, the ancient animosities, the long established hostilities":  "Among these I should place, first, the broadly tolerant attitude that has been characteristic of this country. I use the word in its most inclusive sense, to cover

When any people are finally convinced of their equality, or otherwise made to submit to this fiction, by definition none is exceptional enough to challenge the authorities and overlords who determine the status quo, and with it the proposed purpose of life and human capital.  In their purported equality, stripped of their identity and individuality as of their property, they are stripped ultimately of every last authority they retained over their governments, themselves and the property they once considered their own.  In the achievement of this equality, they are swindled into a form of political equality whereby the masses are assumed equal in their submission to the new status quo and the regime which fleeces and commands the masses effortlessly and at will.  In the achievement of this equality, indeed the only form achievable in the pursuit of equal outcome, they are made to be roughly equal only in misery, destitution and subordination to the regime which commands and rules over t