How Do You Think? (Or Do You Just React Emotionally?)

I have never given much thought to the actual process of how I think; until now that is. I don’t know if there is a technical term for how I lay my ideas out, but I like to think of it as a logical, linear progression; where I establish one fact, then based upon that fact I prove another fact; ultimately leading to a provable conclusion. In some ways it is like the old math formula which says if A equals B and B equals C, then A must equal C.

That is how I lay my ideas out when I put them down for others to read; but it is NOT what is going on inside my head at any given moment. That, on the other hand, is absolute chaos as I may have hundreds of little snippets of ideas, or thoughts, pinging around inside there. It is my job as a writer to bring order to that chaos and take those thoughts and lay them out in an orderly manner for you to read.

However, the transfer of ideas requires that the transmitter, (me), and the receiver, (you), be dialed in to the same frequency. In many ways it is like a short wave radio; if I transmit on one frequency, and you receive on another, then the message gets lost. If I think logically, basing all my beliefs upon provable facts, and you think emotionally, basing all your beliefs upon emotional, or knee jerk as they are sometimes called, reactions to the issues, then there will be a disconnect between the sender and receiver of ideas, and the message will get lost; or unintelligible upon receipt.

The problem is, I don’t speak knee jerk; or to be more precise; I don’t think in a knee jerk fashion. I can’t lay my ideas out in such a manner as to influence a positive emotional reaction from my audience; I deal only in facts and evidence. So what happens is that I send these little commentaries out and they fall upon deaf ears because most people have stopped thinking the way I do. Oh sure, there are still some out there who think like this; but they are becoming an increasingly small minority. Think of it like this; imagine being plunked down into a teeming mass of people who speak a different language and you are unable to communicate with them; and you’ll get an idea of how I feel when I try to talk to most people about the issues that are of importance to me.

So what happens is that I get frustrated; then I get angry, when I cannot convince people of the flaws in the way in which they view certain issues. The result is that I end up writing articles such as the one I wrote the other day; full of anger and resentment. I don’t mean to do it, take out all my frustration upon my readers; it just comes boiling out of me sometimes. I often think that my writing is therapeutic; it is a way for me to release my feelings so I don’t blow a gasket, or take my frustration out upon my family.

It is just that sometimes the logic that people use is…how do I say this without being too insensitive? Ridiculous? In my political discussions with people I often encounter a great many double standards and contradictions. In other instances I hear people say the damndest things; things that have absolutely no basis in provable fact; and when I try to correct them with facts I am treated as if I am a criminal.

I’ve read articles which have spoken of the two halves of the human brain; how one half is the reasoning side and the other the emotional side. I truly think that most people have let the logical side atrophy; almost like a person who goes to the gym and only exercises one arm; letting the other side grow weak and ineffective. I can be as humorous as the next guy when the time calls for it. I can tear up during scenes in movies that tug on my emotional heartstrings. But when it comes to discussing issues of such great magnitude as the crimes being committed by our government, or the history of this country, I deal solely from the logical side of my brain; and you should too.

I’m not saying you can’t get emotional about your beliefs or values; you can, but your beliefs or values should be based upon logical conclusions drawn from facts and evidence; not just how you feel things should be.

Take for instance the powers you think government should wield; upon what do you base your position? Do you base your position on what you hear from the news media or the politicians who seek your votes? Or, do you base your position upon the things the people who actually established our system of government believed? Whose beliefs do you think hold more weight in a political discussion; those who established a system of government or those who may seek to overstep the powers outlined within a constitution?

The thing is, I hear these people talk about the two differing parties in America today; the Democrats and the Republicans, and I hear them say that one side is conservative and one liberal. Those are just titles these parties have assumed to present a supposed position on how government should function. But the truth is, if you care to consider it, that both parties are liberal.

The problem lies in a basic misunderstanding people have of the terms conservatism and liberalism. If you mention either of those two terms people automatically associate them with the political party which has assumed that title for themselves; when this is not actually the truth of the matter.

If you were to research what is meant by the terms conservative and liberal, you might be surprised at what you find. A true conservative is one who holds to traditional values, or is reluctant to change existing institutions; such as government. A liberal on the other hand is one who has a loose adherence to traditional values and is open to rapid and frequent changes in values.

If our Constitution is the guideline which establishes what powers our government shall hold, and if you then compare the actions of both political parties to that document, you would be forced to admit that both parties are liberal in their interpretation of the powers government should wield over the people of this country. There are very few true conservatives who run for political office; and when they do they are shunned and ridiculed by both parties. This is not to say that Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, who were both shunned by their respective parties, are conservatives; they aren’t. It is just that there is a hidden power behind the scenes that controls both political parties, and those two men threatened their hold on government. Trump just happened to be the one who grabbed hold of the brass ring and made it to the Oval Office.

There has not been a true conservative running for President since Ron Paul, and even then I had doubts about him when he refused to address the ineligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of president due to his not being a Natural Born Citizen. People today are outraged that there exists accusations of tampering in our election process by Russia, yet they refuse to consider the fact that for 8 years we had a man acting as president who did not meet the standards established for the position he held.

The history of conservatism and liberalism dates all the way back to the administration of George Washington. The schism between the way Thomas Jefferson, (Washington’s Secretary of State), and Alexander Hamilton, (Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury), viewed the powers government should hold led to the formation of the first political parties in America.

The very first political parties in America went under the names of Federalists, and, ironically, Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists were those who shared Hamilton’s views on government, and the Democratic-Republicans were those who shared the views of Jefferson and James Madison.

Those who shared Hamilton’s views were primarily the business interests in the Northern States; the bankers and the industries that grew up in the North. Those who shared the views of Jefferson and Madison were primarily from the South in the agricultural areas; which just happened to be where the majority of slave labor also lived.

Although an abolitionist movement began in the North to free the slaves, it was not the primary reason which led to a schism between the two reasons which led to civil war. The power in Congress had gradually increased by the industrial North; yet the chief administrator, or President, had, for the most part, been a follower of Jefferson’s line of thinking; a true conservative.

With the election of Abraham Lincoln, a liberal Republican, the South feared that the Republicans in Congress would have free reign to enact all their policies and force the South to comply. The faced but two choices; submit to rule by a government they felt violated their State sovereignty, or severe the ties which bound them to the Union.

It does not matter that slavery was but one of the many issues which the South felt the Lincoln administration might tamper with, the true reason for the Civil War was a States right to voluntarily leave a union and sever the ties which bound it to a system of government established by consent of the people. If the government was created by an act of the people, did it have the power to force those it governed into remaining in the Union, or could the member States of that Union sever the ties which bound them to it at any time? The South, believing that the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence, “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…” were still theirs to exercise.

Lincoln believe otherwise and raised an army to force their obedience to the will of the entity known as government. It is said that the attack on Fort Sumter was the reason we went to war; North against South, but the South’s hand had been forced, and had Lincoln not attempted to resupply a fort on the sovereign soil of South Carolina, the North would clearly have been seen as the aggressors in this conflict.

As outsiders, set apart from this conflict by the Atlantic Ocean, the British were not engulfed in the sentiments of the two regions of America engaged in fighting for their beliefs. Their view may, therefore, be enlightening as to the true nature of the Civil War. In a November 7th issue of the London Times, published in 1861, we read, ” [T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”

Historians, the textbooks we use in our schools, all teach us that the Civil War was fought to end the institution of slavery, or hold the Union together. These are bold faced lies, and there is ample evidence to prove them to be untruthful representations of why that conflict was fought.

In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne wrote the following, “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” (My emphasis)

Thirty some odd years after the Civil War ended, former president Woodrow Wilson wrote a set of books on the history of America, entitled A History of the American People. In his books he states, “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”

What the Civil War accomplished was not the ending of slavery, nor the saving of the Union, it was the end of the belief that the Sovereignty of the States was anywhere close to the sovereignty of the central government; that the federal government could, and would, exercise absolute dominion over the States, and the people. It was the end of true conservatism in America; the belief that our Constitution set forth limited powers our government was to hold and that any exercise of powers not described by that document were to be challenged.

People all the time tell me that our Constitution is outdated, that it is no longer relevant in today’s modern society. If that is the case then our government is no longer relevant either; for without the Constitution our government would not even exist.

When George Washington had finished serving 8 years as our nation’s first president, he wrote a lengthy letter to the American people which formed the basis for future presidential farewell addresses. In his letter he stated, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

Our free system of government was destroyed when the North won the Civil War. The victory of the North was an end to State’s rights and State sovereignty, and the beginnings of an all powerful and centralized government which has led us to where we are today.

In 1821 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Charles Hammond, predicting with trepidation, what would occur, if and when the central government became all powerful, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated ….”

It may be of little concern to you, but I find it interesting to note that the Constitution written by the Confederate States of America after they had seceded from the Union was very much like the one which established the government located to the North in Washington D.C. The basic structure of the government was the same; with a president and a bicameral Congress. However, the president was to serve a term of 6 years, and was afterwards ineligible for re-election. There were also some modifications to how Congress could legislate. For instance, no moneys would be drawn from the treasury of the central government created by this constitution to promote the internal improvement within any of the Confederate States. They also included a section which said “All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.” This was done to prevent the rampant crony capitalism that had been so rampant in the North.

What the Confederate States effectively did was to take the Constitution which had been ratified in 1789 and improve upon it to ensure that it would not lead to the kind of government which had led to their having no other choice but to leave the Union and form their own nation. The victory of the Union over the Confederacy was a victory of big government over States Rights and limited government. That’s all it was. It was not a victory of those who sought freedom for the slaves, or a continuation of the Union as it existed before any State had declared secession.

The facts are there for those of you who have the courage to seek them out, and accept them when you find them. But that goes right back to my opening comments; people don’t think logically today, they prefer to base their beliefs and ideals upon emotions instead.

That is why, no matter what I say, I will never be able to convince you of the true consequences of the outcome of the Civil War, and the true problems we face in this country today. That is why you will continue believing in a system that is not functioning as designed, and that no matter who you put into office, government will continue to increase in size, power, and with a corresponding loss of your liberty.

It is also why you will continue believing that Republicans are conservative and that Democrats are the only liberals under this system; when the truth is they are both liberal in their interpretation of the powers the Constitution grants government. It is just that they abuse their power for differing reasons.

So once again I will send this out into the ethos; hoping beyond hope that something I have said will cause a light to go on in someone’s head and they will say, “Damn, I never thought of it from that perspective.” If that happens then I will not have wasted my time. But I’m not counting on it either.

About Br'er Rabbit

I'm just one person out of millions of others. The only thing different about me is that I don't walk around with my head up my ass.
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to How Do You Think? (Or Do You Just React Emotionally?)

  1. Pingback: The Jackson Press – How Do You Think? (Or Do You Just React Emotionally?)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.