On an ordinary, short drive to our local supermarket on a clear, still warm fall day, I saw a pair of dead raccoons on the shoulder of the road. Their deaths appeared relatively recent and their remains lay in head-to-tail positions resembling the circular yin-yang symbol. In Western PA, where we live, roadkill is common and may be seen in any state from still moving (rarely, I’m glad to say, because it is illegal to discharge a firearm in this oh-so-civilized suburban area, as one might want to do to the end the suffering of injured animals - including deer) to various degrees of flattening to the point of being unrecognizable, no longer even bloody biological remains. The symbolism of the circular taijitu symbol - the balance of complementary yet opposing forces of the universe - in this case provoked even more than my usual musings when I see roadkill.
Neither is it rare that I am moved to sadness by such sights, which quickly slips into the camouflage of philosophy. When I’m presented with such pathos, I often wonder if this is metonymy: does the ignominious end of these small creatures (some of them not terribly dissimilar from our two beloved Ragdolls cats (whom I consider to be among God’s greatest gifts to my contentment), encapsulate what will be the eventual fate of all humanity? Will we, one day, become nothing more than galactic roadkill - either by Sol going nova, or an unfortunate collision?
Even if not, does the existence or passing of any one of us leave any more than the first-crushed, then scattered, finally completely-recycled fragments of biological macromolecules comprising the raccoons, (which - for a brief interlude - performed the intricate ballet of life) even matter? Does it stand for all life on planet Earth following a planet-shattering asteroid impact? That plausible (probably inevitable; at least likely enough to motivate Elon Musk to enable humanity to become multi-planetary) event, particularly “rhymes”, methinks with the eclipse of the two raccoons. Is it perhaps even analogous to all life in the universe which we now understand will eventually flicker out in A - heat death or B - cold death (physicists make a distinction, so take your pick). I can only hope God has a better plan (I have become more humble as to the actual reach of my cosmic musings in old age).
One of the recurring themes of contemplation in old age is impermanence, of the never-ending contingency of all things. Looking back, as memories appear - often unbidden, in intense, brief flashes - I am prone to categorize them into facets related to themes with meaning. These late summer days, for instance, presage transition to less tractable climes. This awareness reminds me of the extent to which, ensconced in modernity, I have felt myself immune from such things as seasons of the year. But is that true or a delusion?
Only occasionally in my younger days, I would notice something to remind me of the seasons - like the changing colors on a crisp autumn day - but I mostly did so as an observer, not feeling like a participant. Oh, I had to participate to a small degree, as when snow made my steep driveway slippery. Soon, though, I was re-installed in my climate-controlled, AWD vehicle. The fact that, up until the last few generations, winter was by default deadly to many - did not occur to me; modernity had convinced me I was immune; it was just in the order of things in my epoch. I have a brief, tender memory of the beginning of that aspect of modernity and the momentous difference from most all of prior human existence.
When I was growing up in Elizabeth NJ, my maternal grandparents, Nana Blanche and Papa Joe, lived about a 30 minute drive distant - in Newark (where I was born BTW - on High Street - St. Michael’s Hospital). Their home was the rented second story of a two family house. I was maybe five or six, so it was about 1950. I recall one time I was there in winter when my grandmother said, “I have to make heat”. She then took me to the basement, where she shoveled coal into the furnace. I remember she was most punctilious about it, and swept up every small piece, even the powder/granules and put them in the fire. I also remember the noisy radiators’ repertoire of unwelcome sounds. I’m guessing she must have been about 50 then, having immigrated as a baby from the Pale of Settlement in what is now Ukraine.
Now old with declining physical prowess myself, I am quite aware of just how contingent is my comfort, even my survival - especially in winter. It depends upon cooperation of many individuals and groups to assure, for example, the steady flow of natural gas to my modern, efficient forced air furnace. Despite the fact I have a wood stove and several cord of split, seasoned firewood stored in the shed, even I even now, am vulnerable to winter’s cold (should the umbilical cord of gas and electric supply be disrupted) - embellished as it is with wind, hoarfrost, ice, and snow; each possessed of its own beauty and each deadly in its own way. I am only able to store enough firewood for maybe a month. The small additional supply left outside is obvious and, were there a real disruption, would likely quickly disappear at night - even in my oh-so-civilized suburb.
I’m also aware of how tenuous is civil society once again. Though, again, I used to feel somehow immune from that, too, Civility has been either absent or quite tenuous for most of human history. It was the post WWII period I grew up in that was exceptional. Of course, history I studied described wars of all kinds in most all places. The archetype of wars taught were against external enemies, but with some occurrences of civil wars as well. Yesterday, lunch with an old friend with whom I had worked for 20 years, reminded me of the contingency not only of friendship, but even of civil interactions. My friend, whose worldview had been previously informed and at least parallel to my own, has become infected with the “woke” mind virus.
That was most disheartening and I left our lunch with, indeed, a heavy heart, which is still weighing in today. With lots of emotive power, my old friend recited the left’s entire party line - a litany of hatred (magically couched in the importance of “diversity, inclusion snd equity”, laced with the usual epithets, starting of course, with ‘racist’ - in order to justify the cold-blooded murder of Charlie Kirk. I listened without comment, inwardly aghast, as he reminded me of my own intelligence and asked how I could possibly see things differently from him. He makes the same categorical error as all liberals, who count themselves of superior intelligence and believe that entitles them to ruling power. However, morality is not a matter of intelligence or even of formal education. All I said was that one of the greatest graces I have received is the fact that I do not have to hate anyone and I could not celebrate the death of anyone for any reason.
We meet for lunch every two or three months and usually have interesting conversations, most related to old age, history of work together, mutual friends, problems solved (or trying), troubled relations with our adult children. Out of the blue, he stated what a horrible human being Charlie Kirk was - a “racist”, “misogynist”, “hater” - all the worn talking points. He then went off on Gaza with the opinion that the Jews had no right to be there in the first place - that they had stolen Arab land. Initially shocked, again I refrained from countering. It was then a short ride from Jews usurping Palestine to Western countries’ horribly exploitative colonialism. This assertion devolved to the US treatment of the Indians and that complete destruction of all Western nations is justified in recompense! It can be summarized as “No Kings, just commissars instead”.
After my shock ebbed a bit, I asked - following his line of reasoning - if there is any present nation which is legitimate by the standard applied to Israel? Is there any nation which did not at some point in history conquer other people and either absorb, enslave or kill them off. I asked if there was any necessarily-arbitrary date before which an existing nation may be deemed legitimate? I asked if there was anywhere else where the standard to which Israel is deemed to be illegitimate, has been applied to any other nation at any time in history. Has every other war - where the ratio of civilians to combatants killed was far higher (despite intentional dispersal of weapons and fighters among civilian population) - not been a “genocide” by his definition?
I pointed out that the only political entity which had ever existed in Palestine (named late in the recorded history of the region and meant “Jews” back then) was the Kingdom of Israel, which existed about 3000 years ago under Kings Saul, David and Solomon. Without doubt, the entire area of the Middle East was shared by Arabs (before Islam existed) and Jews for millennia. Today, there exist numerous Arab nation from which all other ethnicities have been “ethnically cleansed”. Where was the outcry when 1 million Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab nations in 1948 - nations which occupy 97% of the land in the region?). Surely, then by any standard, the Jews are equably entitled to some small slice of their ancient shared homeland - largely barren until the Jews returned and made it productive. In passing, it is worthy of note that, when Israel ceded Gaza in 2005, it left significant productive infrastructure intact. Did the Palestinians put it to use? No. They destroyed every bit of it; talk of synecdoche!
It is glaringly obvious - despite the high-sounding, intellectualized, disingenuous protestations to the contrary - that the Jews enjoy special treatment when it comes to their right as a people, to an historical homeland. Homelands are taken for granted for most every other ethnic group. Only pluralistic Israel is accused of being apartheid, while in Saudi Arabia (one out of many) resides not one single Jew (where they had lived in ancient times until exterminated or driven out) and where possession of a Bible is still a crime. No apartheid there, conveniently because of the complete success of a genocide prior to the age of photojournalism and social media. In congruent fashion - in the shadow of the Holocaust - anti-Semitism is resurgent in Europe; an impressive achievement, since there are hardly any Jews on site to hate. In thoroughly modern fashion, Europe has offshored Jew-hatred, to Gaza, encouraging Hamas to do the butchering remotely. A clever strategy, thoroughly postmodern - it gives them plausible deniability: “Moi”?? Impressive, no?
The only answer to my assertions from my friend was deflection - a new question - whether or not the murderer of Charlie Kirk should face the death penalty. I said I oppose the death penalty because the state does not own citizens. From there, he asked whether I supported it for war criminals at Nuremberg. The underlying ethos of our usually warm and cordial meeting had changed and he had changed it. He knows my worldview. He wanted, above all, to win an argument with me. That’s the left’s superiority in a nutshell: aggressive zeal, “what we - your intellectual superiors - say is inherently correct” (though rooted in nothing more that their own aggressive, neo-religious/secularist opinions). Disagreement can only possibly come from racism, misogyny, white supremacy or some other form of “bad personhood”.
All I could say by way response was that there existed reasoned and decent opinions on the main divisive issues, but that his side, rather than engaging in open discussion of any of them, resorts immediately and always to moral preening, patronizing, bullying, coercion, and censorship; murder (most of the time) waits in the wings, awaiting its curtain call. Our progressives are, at base, just like the Palestinians. In an effort to label an underlying, unifying cause of all the argumentative points he was making, I finally labeled it, fundamentally, as blasphemy done by a series of intellectual category errors. To equate intelligence with moral virtue is a serious (intellectual) and category error. It’s like saying the number 2 is blue (a quantity may be ascribed a color).
Tyrants of old resorted to the force of moral argument saying, “God is the source of our ruling power and God says I am to rule”. They based their view - rightly or wrongly - on the will of God as source of their beliefs and power. There was, they believed, an external source of morality - as revealed in scripture and interpreted by them - which was believed to be superior to human opinion. The First Commandment says “Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me”. It seems to me that today’s left, like their Stalinists and Maoists roots, believe there exists no power superior to their own inherent secular wisdom. Thus, they cannot rule in God’s name (as did kings who believed they ruled by divine right). I’m tempted to say, rather, they rule by “divine Left”. They would rule of their own accord, their own fiat opinions - viciously enforced as absolute and mystically derived from nothing but their own unsupported claim of authority backed by the abiding threat of force. It’s not quite consensual governance. What it is, however, is precisely what they mean by “Our Democracy™”. Let’s unpack that.
What do they mean by “Our Democracy™”? Do they mean majority rule? Not quite. Several generations of experience show the true meaning. If the left (democrats) win at the ballot box, they win (recall here, when assessing the honesty of elections, the endless refrain “by any means necessary”). Thus when they’re caught at the inevitable cheating in order to win - a “necessary means”, they are violently incensed when it is shown they cheated; to them, that qualifies as “Our Democracy™”. If they lose, they blame their opponents for elaborate false schemes/“collusion”, supported by pre-planned actual collusion with the MSM and orchestrated fake news. They accuse the Republicans of precisely what they, themselves, have been doing - cheating (Russian “collusion”, e.g.)! As is routine, the MSM immunizes the democrats, and hides the hard evidence of their cheating. This is but a single example of just how well the psychological pathology of projection has been weaponized against opponents. Again, it can only succeed with the on-board, enthusiastic collusion (remember who was continually accused of COLLUSION!) of the MSM.
Now, if they lose at the ballot box, for them, that’s not the end of the left’s story, because the “long march” put the deep state in place and manned it with fellow traveler radical leftists, joined at the hip with MSM “journalists”. The result of the lost election is usually legislation on its face not to the liking of the left. Through an arcane, but well-worn, highly-corrupt path, the intent of the legislation is perverted, however, through the administrative rule-making process. That process, remember, is in the hands of lifetime, leftists (who else would want a lifetime government job?), deep state bureaucrats. Virtual reality says the career bureaucrats in the executive branch will execute the legislature’s intent in good faith, consonant with their sworn Constitutional executive duty. Does belief that will actually happen withstand any scrutiny at all?
No. None. Here’s what happens not virtually, but in reality: Permanently installed statist staff collude with hair trigger, highly-paid radical lawyers ever in the wings (as for every executive order of DJT). These cadres of zealous lawyers are ever primed and ready to pounce. Once the rules (written by deep state leftists staffing every administrative agency regardless of who is President) are published in the Federal Register for comment, the lefties pile on their objections (always that the rules don’t go nearly far enough for the left) and the lawyers file a lawsuit (the prime example of lawfare in this country) demanding they be re-written with changes (again written by leftists outside the deep state, but joined with the state “officials” ideologically at the hip).
In sum, “opposing” the outside lawyers (representing, say some radical environ - mental cases) are lawyers “for the government”. Shock! They, too, are career members of the same deep state, again leftists who wrote the rules in the first place (already well to the left of the legislative intent) which didn’t go far enough to satisfy the most extreme leftist. In short, NO ONE in the entire “adversarial rule making process” of administrative law courts (what % of the population even knows these exist?) actually represents the real intent of the legislature!
How do the parties “hammer out a compromise”? Can there be any doubt as to the nature of the final rules which result? Procedurally, the final rules published in the Federal Register take the form of “consent decrees”. In consent decrees, the parties all agree to the rules at the conclusion of the administrative court kabuki theatre, where every participant pretends to be representing differing points of view. Most consent decrees barely resemble the legislative intent of the law passed by the legislative majority - the elected legislature. If it is a Republican majority, superficially, they “win” and pass legislation more or less on their terms. Implementation of those statutes in the executive, however - even when the President is of the same party as the legislature - bears little resemblance to it true intent.
Make no mistake. That is precisely what democrats (sic) mean when they say “Our Democracy™”, knowing how completely they have stacked the deck. As with all the words we hear from the left, the words mean the opposite of common meaning; it is neither ours, nor democracy - at least not democracy to the extent it means something like majority rule. BTW, since the decree is judicial, unlike mere duly-enacted administrative rules, the consent decree lives forever, and is un-amendable.
As anyone working under the cumulative accretions, the burden and often absurdity of layer upon layer of rules upon rules - say in medicine for example - ordinary warmth or human kindness has no place. Individual impulses to do good or alleviate suffering, are systematically excised by scripted words and choreographed actions; by centralized control of one’s duties to the exclusion of ordinary human kindness. “Health “care” is thus legally deconstructed to mere quantified transactions. The image which comes to mind is cattle constrained in pens and gently ‘nudged’ toward narrow chutes as they are led, one by one out of sight of those following, to the slaughter - so very calmly and efficiently. In this image we see the import of convincing the public that Charlie Kirk deserved his plight. Success of such efforts, would make us tractable, even as we move along to the abattoir with no resistance.
The fact this vastly corrupt enterprise has continued for years is a testament to the persistence and unyielding temerity of the left. The complexity of this enterprise makes Machiavelli amateurish by comparison. Given their minuscule attention span, the intentionally dumbed-down public wouldn’t sit still for even an explanation if you paid them. Nonetheless, they love “Our Democracy™, as Winston loved Big Brother at the close of “1984”. Such is the “woke” mind virus. I’m deeply saddened my friend has fallen ill with it.
As I write, I find myself wondering how I got here, starting at roadkill and the many contingencies so clarified by old age. Have I strayed too far afield, or was there some subconscious logic to my argument? My best guess is that control of the modern Western state - the only extant and functional deity in modernity - has passed from the public (now pawns) to those who exist (a self-appointed elite whose superiority may not be questioned) for the sole purpose of gaining and holding total political power and control. In other words a totalitarian elite, where the secular apparatus of state replaces God with this secular deity which is the state. “Our democracy™” is a cynical and clever deflection, (or misdirection) designed to hide underlying reality. Success of this project promises lethal consequences on the order of a cometary E.L.E. (extinction level event). There’s the underlying premise.
In this novel secular millenarian religion, signaling “righteousness” or pretending ardent “support” of some troubled group (currently, those suffering individuals with so-called “gender dysphoria”), is nothing more than a virtual lever to move non-rational voters (legal or not) to their side to acquire power. Alternatively, it acts as a cudgel to silence rational opposition. Once again, we see the MSM, captured bureaucrats, academics and even some judges, gang up to define all opposition as mere “hatred” by “bad people”. Doesn’t it seem odd that, for all the accusations of “white supremacy” as to some falsely-emphasized aspect of life, they have no problem whatsoever with their own global moral supremacy as to every value of every person in all things - even if it reverses millennia of universal human understanding? Here is a glaring example of psychological projection in every issue the woke so publicly aver.
Corrupt flattening - squashing - of the many barriers erected by the Founders, designed to prevent formation of a tyrannical oligarchy - that is what ties roadkill to the sorry and broken state of affairs in these formerly-United States today. The impending success of that intentional process is a perversion and a shame. The “Our Democracy”™ activist movement is torturing, killing, our Constitutional republic. This novel iteration will likely cost many lives (that part won’t be novel, just the stealth tactics), once again, in settling - for a time - the eternal human dilemma: by what authority may tribe or nation be ruled? What is the origin of the power of an elite to enforce the state’s worldview upon their subjects? Is it really superior to the ethical and moral power of individuals to independently exercise their own agency in forming and maintaining a majority rule polity? Does it result in consenting citizens or squashed roadkill? There’s the connection from beginning to middle to end of this (Aristotelian) essay.
By all appearances of the opposing forces, it seems the survivors will, in the foreseeable future, experience the result of the latest iteration of the essential, recurring fundamental human issue of governance. Will individuals be able to live according to their own individual moral agency - informed by a divine and tolerant ethos or will they be controlled by a central, totalitarian power? Consent or coercion?
Modernity has succeeded at resolving with great granularity the many forces, tactics and apologetics (to the extent there is any rational argument at all from the left - beyond acquiring raw power for its own sake) regarding self-governance. I will go so far as to say that the bald self-referential SUPREMACY by which the new left operates, rests on nothing more than fiat - naked arrogance and grandiosity - intolerant in the extreme, of any deviation whatsoever.
The psychological projection of the practitioners is on stunning display: in their venomous accusations that others are hateful, supremacist, and intolerant - they act out these exact evils in broad daylight. These tactics are central to their strategy o”divide and conquer”. It could not be more clear. Only the onboard MSM keeps the entire misbegotten enterprise afloat. Consider the treatment of apostates or (God forbid) individual members of designated ‘victim’ groups who dare disagree with their assigned place in the helper-victim hierarchy (Jacobin* comes to mind).
THE pillar of identity politics then, is the carefully unstated yet unavoidable fact that the recipients of progressives’ putative largesse must by definition be inferior to their benefactors. Were they not, they wouldn’t need the militant, vehement and eternal “help” of the preening, self-congratulating supremacists - whose real game is always singular: POWER!
At base, this neo-Marxist motivation is hubristic and intent on acquiring, retaining and/or expanding power through propaganda or by force - “by any means necessary”, as has been boldly asserted, explicitly, for generations. It relies not at all upon open discussion or persuasion. The contingency of all we take for granted to merely live decent lives is once again staring us in the face. It has been placed at the forefront by election of an imperfect but needed disruptor. Though flawed, DJT represents an attempt to restore the representative republic detailed in the Constitution. Are we of the requisite character - as the Founders so clearly knew we had to be - for it to survive?
The base of this political conglomeration is (another favorite word) “intersectional”. It is the intersection of faked and falsely-amplified grievances which unifies the new left. For them, grievance has replaced Marx’s class by joinder of offense taken at society’s non-approval or even its mere disinterest. In past generations, political minorities (not in the modern twisted politicized sense of the word, but mere numerical representation of a given political viewpoint) hoped to attain mere tolerance of their status or of their common behaviors or viewpoints. Today, mere tolerance of heretofore deviant behavior by specified groups is insufficient.
Tolerance has been replaced by demands for affirmative duties (like utterance of specified words) of action by the majority vis-à-vis various “oppressed” groups. Not only must I simply accept or be indifferent towards say, same sex couples or transvestites, or biological members of one sex acting out the traditional role of a different sex - howsoever they may choose (and no matter how unusual or bizarre). Nope, that’s not enough. I am required - on pain of punishment - to voice, demonstrate or publicly celebrate any public sexuality or behaviors in which such groups choose to engage - not just, say, kissing or embracing. No, I must celebrate any and kind of display public sexuality. Disregard of sexual boundaries, in other words, usually considered psychopathological at best, is now de rigueur! Drag shows for kindergarteners, for example. I must attend, bring my children and cheer, with enthusiasm! Only hatred could cause one to abstain.
Where might such personal needs come from? Are there any roots in normal psychology for such demands? Can they be understood as part of a recognized or coherent psychology? Are there any other examples where a self-identified group of individuals demands affirmative duties of all others, in order to affirm some portion of their subjective individuality? The answer requires a fairly deep look into personal identity formation and maintenance in the context of normal social interactions. The inquiry necessarily centers on that facet of personality along the spectrum of dependency versus independence.
In normal development and maintenance of one’s personality, there is a lifelong interplay between self image and input from others according to how they respond to us. If one allows no penetration of feedback from others’ responses to us, we remain rigid and isolated - unable to comprehend or adjust to life in tribe or society. At one extreme of this is psychopathy. Such individuals act as they wish, with no effect on their self image resulting from responses of others. This an extreme form of isolation. Having walls which separate us emotionally from others forecloses even the possibility of warm human interactions; sensitivity to others’ perceptions of us and needed adjustments in order to socialize meaningfully are impossible in this circumstance.
At the other extreme is lack of coherent a self image, where one’s opinions of one’s own worth and/or center of being extends only to how others experience and respond to us. Now, others experience of us is, itself, a complex matter - as there are varying degrees of honesty when it comes to responding to other individuals. Sad to say, in modernity even in families, there often exist unspoken issues and unresolved power struggles. The kind of feedback about self - to be effective and healthy - must be honest. Sadly, honesty is scarce nowadays; many responses are scripted for various reasons, including political ones. Further, healthy individuals must have healthy boundaries which permit entry of some, but not all feedback. This is a lifelong negotiation - this refining of experience of self - of who am I - am I enough? am I a decent, whole person? am I acceptable? In healthy individuals, as I said, this is a lifelong process, requiring honesty on both sides and good boundaries.
Some feedback in response to my words or behavior, for example, may have little or nothing to do with me. It may be almost entirely about the other person - their imaginings or fantasy. Maybe they’re just having a bad day. Here’s a clarifying example: someone tells me, “I think you’re an ax murderer”. Since I’m not, the statement has no emotional power over me. I have no need to deny it or persuade them they’re wrong. It’s only about their imaginings and has nothing to do with me. Trouble is, most things said to me are a closer call. For example, suppose some says they think I’m selfish.
