Monday, December 28, 2009

Politics and Ambassadorship

I think I'm like many, tired of the pretense, the facemaking, the charades; that is, of politicians: sure ordinary people do it as well, but they don't often hold directly the reigns over the lives of so many, either. I've interpreted observations to conclude that in large part either political party, for instance, is about thoroughly the same; both are also historically liberals (by which I mean 'modernist'), not conservatives, but one is somewhat moderate according to history, the other the modernists' fringe, (thus the 'moderates' of the former being more akin to extremists). (Superficially touching upon conservatives vs. liberally ostracized liberals calling themselves conservatives, see "Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary"[1] by Robert Nisbet, HUP (C) 1982)

There are also many observations one can make about the American system: the politicians, being careless with their restraints and eager to ignore them, spend us to death--we all know this; they promise entitlements which they fund through borrowing, which to provide through increased (and successful--it's both possible and legal to 'avoid', though not to 'evade', taxes, and especially easy for large corporations) taxation they still would likely not be able to fund: because to do that would mean the people would have to be productive in the first place, in order to be taxed.

The effect of entitling everyone is to sell everyone, in exchange for these 'benefits', into foreign hands. Meanwhile, supposed 'help' for business, such as the mom & pops, rarely is: there is hyperregulation on the dumbest of things in the name of protecting people which stymie new entries and favor vast mega corporations such that even monetary help really isn't help: to have a successful business today, one pretty much must sell into the larger system, which is so largely corrupt.

And there is no relying on the lawyers, the so-called educated, the charlatans to do anything about it: they are, after all, at the forefront of being unable 'to legislate morality', trendy as it remains so everyone may do what one thinks is right in his (or her) own eyes. Those referred to as 'elites' are those who know how the system works, as well as how to leverage social connections either to pull the strings of that system, or get around them, and tend to work within it and manipulate it to their own betterment, rather than to work to reform it for justice's sake. It's likely no accident that we have so many vague and overreaching laws that authors can write that 'professionals commit about three felonies per day without knowing it', because that is all the better to those who might need to seize upon someone when such is advantageous.

A decent quote about our form of capitalism by Victor Edwards (link to his blog in the right panel),
There is something rotten about America’s version of capitalism. Whatever the American system is, it is NOT free market capitalism: it is a highly regulated system designed to severely regulate and control any input except for capital. Translated, this means that money controls the nation.
I have to note that in large part throughout the whole world this sort of thing is true: America in all these respects is very similar to China, for instance. What Mr. Edwards says we all seem to realize, on some level or another, if not act on it: it's the reason so many 'seek influence', and often form coalitions to lobby so heavily in Washington.

On a global scale there is the problem of modernism, the largest form current being Marxist (though often no longer named). This totalitarian and absolutist hegemony is intolerant, despite liberalism's preaching of "tolerance", just as modernism has been since its inception centuries ago. It is irrational--dogmas override the proving of fruits and rational analysis, and everywhere imposes its anomous 'order' through the force of a gun, or rather by the legal systems it has concocted to ensnare and make life impossible for all who oppose it: just ask husbands and fathers everywhere about what was done to them when they were divorced--by an adulterous wife--and you will realize how disinterested today's rulers are in justice in anything but lip service.

It is always weird to discuss such generalities, there are so many sects, nuances, and specifics within those generalities that the generalities themselves are open to many counter assaults, but of course it needs to be done, to be considered, we must think. (

Talk to many Republicans, and one will hear of the Democrats who all want to steal our money and do all for us: not largely innaccurate, I don't think, for many of those politicians; talk to Democrats and Republicans are all baby-eating oil-mongering racist-bigotted knuckle-dragging dimwits. Also not always too innaccurate, but too much of a broad-brush and too prevalent: plenty are not so, though I have to admit, I can name few anymore. Sometimes the simpletonism has the accidental consequence of putting to rest the 'academic' (so-called) theories which are totally disconnected from reality which so many in the Democratic sect like to bandy about or impose. The same type of consequence, however, can work against Republicans, who too often having a superb grip (and faith) in Keynesian trickery, preach it without flinching, though in the long term such will destroy a nation; we don't, however, hear their opponents complaining so much about that beyond superficial jabs--afte rall, they are often beneficiaries.

Throughout the nation, there are, I think, many who are truly conservative, realistic, skeptical, and able to overturn such shody affairs: if they would only come to grips with the challening complexities under which we're operating, remember too that the world, especially a dynamic society, is also challenging, and then proceed knowing better ways to get elected: Ron Paul, despite being quite non grata among many, and even mocked, is a fellow one can point at as an example who, despite accomplishing little of his larger goals thus far (for he needs support of many, and the many aren't interested in being as principled and acting in conviction), has both a grasp on complexities, a mind for discernment, and a record of consistency with his convictions: many of which just happen to be wise.

To a Christian, of course, all these things are not a surprise, though we're not to be despodent or surrendered cynics: we're to confront immorality, individual, and corporate (produced by the dynamics between individuals, which proceeds unhindered and unstopped when any single individual refuses to speak-up or do anything about a perceived injustice), alike, everywhere: from the highest to lowest, from the least to greatest, in every realm too--secular and christian, since ours is a spiritual battle, and in all these things our enemies are spirits and their followers: doctrines and schemes besides Christ.

We will not accomplish some earthly kingdom or reign: His kingdom, His reign, is not of this earth, and is limited to those who are believing, those who believe; it extends to all who believe, and keeps them for Him, in faith and holiness, and they become witnesses and the persecuted for His glory, and for the elect's sake (which consequentially...all brings Him more glory). We are to be upright and holy for He who saved us demands it, and how can those indwelt by Him and the very Spirit of God who is called Holy, not thusly do?

This leads to ambassadorship: Paul calls us ambassadors for Christ; the original words used being one signifying in the ancient mind that an ambassador does all, and that only, which the one (in our case He) who he represents instructed of Him: all he does is towards those ends, and any harm brought the ambassador is considered to be made directly upon him he represents. Christians are to be wise ambassadors acting according to the word (rightly handled)--ministry itself is not a genuine ministry if not a ministry of the word--towards all men in every nation; it is not in the hopes of transforming the world, Christ promised it would not listen: and we see this with Paul who, for instance, was not eager to exhort the emperor to do 'social justice', but rather to preach unto him Christ Jesus Crucified and Resurrected.

The peace of our ambassadorship, of and in Christ, is not between men: it is between God and men who trust in Whom He hath sent, and upon that basis all in Him, all who do believe, may have peace with one another--but since their Lord is opposed by the world and rejected, so will they also be: this makes the influence-seekers among so-called evangelicals easily spied apostates, disobedients, and hypocrites who deceive their own selves as well as those around them to claim Christ, all the while trying to be the world's buddy, seem cool or relevant, etc., when fundamentally at the very core of all men is willful rejection of Christ and blinding of their hearts (minds) to the truth, which the carnal (the natural, i.e. not regenerate/born-again) man will not accept.

This, of course, could lead into the 'problem' of will vs. Sovereignty, the nature of the 'offer' of the gospel and whether 'offer' implies the ability of men to accept, i.e. the Pelagian/Arminian vs. Augustinian/Calvinist spiritual war, but before going there, because for now this is long enough for a itty bitty blog, I'll end this post.

[p.s. I REALLY need and want to review punctuation, both prescriptively as well as historic-descriptively, and go back through this to re-do things; it could also use much reflection on writing as written text, instead of spoken word: to keep the clear distinction between written and spoken English, which provides ever so much more lucidity.]

edited 28 Dec. 2009 and expected further editing to come.

- -

[1] Disclosure: I'm an affiliate, but haven not provided a link thereto using the type of link necessary to gain any benefit from clickthroughts/purchases through following that link.

No comments:

Post a Comment