Misogyny In The Ten Commandments

The society which produced biblical literature was male oriented and misogynistic as to their thinking. Although most ancient cultures envisioned female deities in their tales and myths, the Hebrew world which produced the Old Testament usually identified God as a singular, male being. One particular Hebrew Creation Myth explains patriarchal rule as the divine order. It seems that once upon a time there was a woman who ate fruit from a tree which had been labeled as off limits by her male God. Naturally, as the narrative explained, that wanton act of rebellion subjected that particular woman to a life of patriarchal rule. Over the course of time, the basic interpretation of that myth became “what’s good enough for Adam is good enough for me”, hence all women of the ancient Hebrew culture were subjected to that same treatment. Thus, Eve’s punishment came to be regarded as a divine order of sorts. More reasonably, the writer responsible for the myth itself probably revealed the actual male oriented values of his day by way of this creative tale.

In fact, the ancient Hebrew culture which produced the biblical literature known as the Old
Testament was so male oriented that misogyny and the maltreatment of women were both normalized and legalized. Indeed, the hallowed Ten Commandments themselves were by no means exempt from the sexism which so characterized ancient Hebrew ideology:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” (Exodus 20.17)

For this Tenth Commandment clearly documents that which so many Old Testament passages and accounts confirm; namely that the women of that society were regarded as mere male property. In other words, every good Hebrew male was lawfully bound to have the respect to refrain himself from coveting a fellow male’s personal possessions, among which included his wife.

This patriarchal dictate then was somewhat of a good old boys code of ethical conduct, yet there is no wording within the passage which would bind women to show the same respect to each other with relationship to their husbands. Thus, there was a loophole in this sexist commandment which allowed husbands to freely consort with concubines and prostitutes, but which certainly permitted no such liberties to wives.

The degradation of women and the double standard for men so dictated by this Tenth Commandment are clear indicators that the society which produced biblical literature both normalized and legalized misogyny and sexism. It is my personal view that ancient patriarchal standards should be left to the past, and that it is furthermore a shame that such were ever normalized and legalized in any setting.

(Next: “Females A Fraction Of The Worth, Yet Twice As Unclean”)

Misogyny In The Creation Myths

Normalized misogyny and patriarchal rule are clear and consistent themes throughout biblical literature. The fact that the history of Western Civilization has traditionally reflected these same core values seems by no means coincidental. For so long as the template for social order in modern society involves a literal interpretation of the ancient myths of a male dominated culture, then we shall embrace the same bigotries which are recorded therein.

Indeed, the fundamental basis for patriarchal rule was introduced in the opening chapter of the Bible when God is identified as an exclusive and male entity. Despite the fact that the Creation Mythicist exposed the original generic perception of polytheism in Genesis 1.26 (“let us make man in our image”); nonetheless the later perception of a monotheistic deity prevails throughout both Creation myths as recorded in the Bible. And by identifying that God as exclusively male, the Creation Mythicists disenfranchised all women from any sense of equality with men, and relegated them to the status of second rate beings and insignificant consorts to their patriarchal rulers. Such was certainly the conclusion of the Garden Creation Myth, which may very well have been patched into the text immediately following the preceding Creation Myth to serve that very purpose.

For by blending these two Hebrew Creation Myths so as to read as one narrative, then such a reading leaves the false impression that the only reason the earth is not a blissful utopia is due to the fact that a woman named Eve ate an unidentified piece of fruit in a garden called Eden. In fact whereas the first Creation Myth concludes that all which God (the male figure) had made was good, the Garden Myth closes with Adam and his consort Eve banished from Eden, and cursed to a life of struggles and suffering due to Eve’s decision to partake of the forbidden fruit.

The degree of blame cast upon Eve was clearly irrational, and her punishment was likewise disproportionate to the deed, but such is commonplace throughout biblical literature. For whereas Eve became the scapegoat for all suffering and was sentenced to the lifelong rule of Adam simply because she ate a piece of fruit, Lot’s wife was killed simply because she looked back. For that matter, any newlywed wife who displeased her husband in bed was publicly shamed and stoned to death at her father’s doorstep, unless of course she could prove she was a virgin when she wed. Indeed, biblical literature reveals a male dominated culture in which women were subjected to double standards and were constantly vulnerable to the rash whims of the patriarchs in their lives.

In fact, the Hebrew culture was so male dominated, that patriarchal rule was regarded as natural for a woman to endure as were the pains she experienced while delivering children. This disturbing perspective derives from a literal interpretation of Eve’s punishment for eating the forbidden fruit as recorded in the Garden Myth. The case for a patriarchal order was ironically even further established as God punished Adam, for his indictment was that he listened to Eve, and thus partook of the forbidden fruit himself. The implication of course being that had he been a strong Patriarch and ignored the foolish woman that he would have remained blameless in the matter. It is somewhat ironic that Eve’s punishment was that she had to live under the rule of a man, even though that same man was chastised for his lack of leadership.

It is of course quite evident that these Myths merely reveal the culture and the worldviews of their respective writers, but therein lies the danger of interpreting these tales literally. For as hard as it is to conceive, even now in the 21st Century, there is still a sizeable demographic who maintain that the man is the natural head of the woman, and that the woman is therefore duty bound to subject herself to the rule of man. There is of course no natural basis for such a theory, which is why the Garden Myth is so significant to patriarchal thinkers. For without the Garden Myth to authorize patriarchal order, then there is no justification for male domination in any culture.

The manifestation of misogyny in the modern world ranges from the subtle conditioning of male dominance as a matter of church doctrine and personal faith, to celebrated males feeling entitled to verbally and sexually assault women, to the systemic oppression of double standards and intrusive dictates into the personal lives of women in general. Clearly, the influence of ancient male dominated Hebraic values as introduced into and forced upon modern society has lead to social discord in the way of defiant resistance from women who have chosen to become liberated from social convention and antiquated bigotry in our contemporary setting. And rightly so.

It is my personal view that until such time that Western society can mature past a dependency upon ancient Hebrew myths as a standard bearer for moral values and social order, that we will be doomed as a matter of our own making to live by the dictates of antiquated sexist values in the modern world.

(NEXT: “Misogyny In The Myth of Sodom and Gomorrah”)

On Biblical Standards and Natural Understanding

The Bible is a volume of writings which were hand selected (and in some cases hand edited) by the early Roman Church in the 4th century CE, and subsequently deemed as the exclusive and sacred word of God. About a thousand years later, these same writings were divided and organized into chapters, verses, and into a two fold division of an “Old” and a “New” Testament. The earlier major section of these writings reflects the personal, social, and religious values of a relatively isolated, desert people of an era of some two millenniums past; whereas the latter section reflects the ethical values of the Greco-Roman era of a slightly later time. The latter section likewise seems to serve as the subtext for a 2nd CE struggle between two general factions of the then recently conceived religious movement known as Christianity.

Each of the two major sections of the Bible center upon creative tales and embellished claims of the development of a select chosen people of God into an influential and powerful collective. In the first major section, that collective was visualized as the great and powerful nation of Israel. In the latter section, the collective so visualized was the institutional Church. There is a sense of validity to the existence of the respective collectives themselves, though in each case the chronology of the claimed circumstances are debatable, and the actual extent of influence and affluence are seemingly overstated, that is if taken literally.

The writings of the former major section are primarily composed of ancient Hebrew mythology, poetry, preaching, and the biased, fanciful tales of the over exaggerated national empire heretofore mentioned. The humble state of the allegedly once significant people is attributed to sin and faithlessness of the people themselves.

Meanwhile, the latter major section (evidently written primarily in the 2nd century CE) opens with the narrative of a wildly popular itinerant preacher who captured the interest and following of the local peasants, who conversely drew the ire of the religious establishment of the day, and who eventually was executed as a blasphemer. This young cleric’s claims of an impending apocalyptic crisis, coupled with the conclusion to the narrative being an empty grave and a claim that he was resurrected, lead to ever evolving claims of immortality, ascension, and even deity.

Although the content of the biblical narratives are primarily mythical tales, nonetheless there is no denying their worldwide influence even to this day. The first major section of the Bible is the forerunner for and serves as the foundation of the three major global monotheistic religions; namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The latter major section though is primarily the domain of the numerous sects of the Christian religion. In this respect, the influence of these texts in a variety of cultures simply cannot be overstated or underestimated.

Perhaps the most profound such influences have been realized in the realm of social relations. The adaptation of ancient thinking and harsh standards to modern societies has involved a predictable share of problems and unfavorable influence. Unfortunately, a number of unseemly social and systemic issues which plague contemporary cultures have precedent in and therefore may be founded upon biblical ideology.

Such include:

Patriarchy, Sexism, and Misogyny.
State sanctioned murder (aka Death Penalty, Capital Punishment)
Theocratic justifiable murder
Infanticide
Genocide
Religious Bigotry
Institutional Slavery/Exploitation of Labor
Sex Slavery
Militarism
Imperialism
Colonialism
Homophobia
Xenophobia

This list is not necessarily totally exclusive, and by all means some the of cited issues may overlap with each other. For example, the Old Testament authorized (even commanded) that non virgin newlywed wives should be executed for crimes against Israel. Such would constitute both Misogyny and Capital Punishment, which are each social issues to themselves, but in this case, they clearly overlap. There are several other such instances, but this example suffices for the moment.

The presumption then that biblical writings are of a sacred nature unfortunately can leave the false impression that the thinking of the people and the way of life of those depicted in biblical literature are somehow just and correct simply as a matter of record. And so to many people, mere biblical statements and examples are their basis to justify debatable social practices. And so, one might quote “an eye for an eye” to justify Capital Punishment, or “if any will not work, neither let him eat” to justify cutting funding for Food Stamps, with no need for further deliberation or alternative considerations. There is undoubtedly a “the Bible says it, that settles it” mentality among a large demographic of our society, but such is based upon the heretofore mentioned presumption that biblical writings are sacred in and of themselves.

Now, to be certain as to the matter; not all Jews, Muslims, and/or Christians are bigoted, homophobic, or misogynists; and for that demographic of religious monotheists I have the utmost respect. It is not easy for a Christian to take a “live and let live” perspective with regards to the LGBTQ community while they hear homophobic propaganda from their Preachers, nor is it easy for peaceful Muslims to conduct their lives while being slandered for the deeds of extremists Islamists. But the fact remains that the social values of many monotheists; especially here in the Southern region of the US, are based upon the social values of a desert people from an isolated region of over 2,000 years ago.

And thus the conclusion of the matter at hand:

Shall we, as individuals and as collective societies, base our standards upon our own natural understanding of “right and wrong”, or shall we allow our natural senses to be influenced by ancient writings from harsh and somewhat barbaric cultures? Shall we trust our common sense and natural sense of compassion as a moral guide, or shall we trust the harsh standards of a people of antiquity?

I suggest that such queries are not so much a matter of faith or religious ideology, but a much more basic reality of natural existence and common sense.

As for me, I choose to trust my own natural understandings.

But to each their own.

On Order and Anarchy

Order without power is anarchy.

Power, on the other hand, is necessary in order to enforce disorder. Thus, layers of authority figures are utilized to enforce a system of wage slavery. A system in which communal efforts yield a concentrated return. That is, the efforts of the many yield profits for the few.

No collective would initially agree to such an arrangement without the threat of force and power, yet the masses have been conditioned to accept their place as submissive servants in such a very arrangement. Hence, the power of conditioned response in order to meet systemic ends.

Anarchy seeks no such arrangement.

Order midst cooperative efforts for the common good requires no conditioning nor constraints, but mere common sense in order to meet common needs.

The administration of the affairs of social anarchy then is the execution of deliberated decisions midst peaceful collectives towards broad based and mutually beneficial ends.

For order without power is anarchy.

On A Limited Libertarian Socialism

It is my personal opinion that a society which operates in accord with limited Libertarian Socialist values could potentially be the most humane and the most practical of all prospective systems which I myself have considered. This is not to say that there may not actually be social systems better suited for human cohabitation than those which I have researched to date; however among those systems which I have researched, I prefer limited Libertarian Socialism to the alternatives.

I qualify my Libertarian views as limited, in that I do believe that a minimum of social structure is necessary in order to ensure mutual benefit and the common good of each and every person, the latter expressing the sought end of any society of my personal preference. As I am clearly a Socialist, my thoughts as to limited government may seem contradictory, but frankly, my observations of government in general are that such seems to inevitably evolve into layers of illegitimate power and assumed authority which are unnecessary and at times outright oppressive.

It is likewise my observation that most people tend to do the right thing quite naturally, seemingly as a matter of personal principle, as opposed to as a response to an external coercive power such as a law or rule of social engagement. Frankly, most people don’t need a law in order to live peaceably within the realm of their social relations. Sensitivity for the feelings of others as a natural governor of social conduct is the norm, hence autonomy is for the most part a reliable guide for such. The exceptions to those who choose to live peaceably with others, and the existence of those who exploit others in unfettered circumstances; however would necessitate a limited, democratically directed structure for the purpose of protecting principled people from those with malevolent intent in any given social setting.

As to Socialism itself, I maintain that the principle of “from each according to ability, to each according to need” is a practical guide for any society, and one which maintains an ethical high ground in terms of seeking the best for everyone. I certainly regard such as preferable to any form of Capitalism. The social experiment known as neo-liberal Capitalism, which has been the prevailing process here in the US since the late 70’s, has proven to be a pitiful failure as a medium to provide for the general welfare (a Congressional responsibility according to Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution), yet such has been a smashing success as a get rich and stay even more wealthy scheme for the upper 1% among our society. The last few decades have seen a decline in the leverage of the working class to the extent that collective bargaining is becoming a practice of the past, an alarmingly inequitable distribution of financial resources between the wealthy and the working poor to an extent unrealized in this country for almost a century, which has resulted in a working class whose existence is a dependency upon wages that have seen no noticeable increase for almost 40 years. Our society is in dire straits, and we have neo-liberal capitalism to thank for our miserable state of affairs.

Inasmuch then as the cause of Socialism is just, it subsequently seems to me that we should be able to transform a given culture by intelligent persuasion and passionate appeal to the principles upon which Socialism is founded. In fact, it is my personal opinion that most people are Socialists, they just don’t realize such to be the case. Most people believe in the principle of “from each according to ability, to each according to need”. Most people feel it is wrong to allow someone to suffer. Most people feel it is wrong for some to hoard resources while others suffer. Most people seem to hold Socialists views, for Socialism is based upon basic principles which are so universal that in everyday life they are almost assumed.

That said, I maintain that the means to secure a Socialist society is by way of passionate but intelligent persuasion, and perhaps there is no time more opportune for such than the 21st CE.

We live in the age of the information highway, the social media, Youtube, and Instagram. Now, I personally am a techno fossil. I actually use my cell phone primarily to place calls, which seems to put me in the minority. But even an old throwback like me can navigate FB, email, or blog. And I can also present my case on behalf of Socialist principles in everyday conversation, which I try to do as reasonable opportunity allows.

The case against Capitalism as an evil system is a case which should be maintained persistently, but one of the fundamental evils ever present to such is that Capitalism must be secured and maintained by brute power. There is no righteous basis for Capitalism, and certainly no one would voluntarily choose such as a viable social system, save for those who are greedy and insensitive enough to exploit the misery and services of others for their own gain and gratification. Certainly no one would volunteer to be exploited at the commencement of a start up society; hence no one would willingly choose Capitalism as a social system of choice. Thus, Capitalism is a system which has to be secured and maintained by way of brute power, and the history of Western Civilization reveals such to have been the case.

Ours is a just cause, theirs is an evil and sinister system. Most people don’t realize this, and consequently vote and propagandize against their own self interests.

I am for peaceful, persistent, private and public appeal to the intellect of my human peers in pursuit of a society based upon mutual benefit and shared responsibility, established and maintained not by brute force, but by way of voluntary cooperation.

Such as they are, these are some of my general thoughts as to a society based upon limited Libertarian Socialists values.

The Adverse Effect Upon Children In The Era of Trump

I have observed for several years now that Conservative ideology prioritizes the right to profit over the needs of the people. Such has always disturbed me. But now that we are living in the “Era of Trump”, I have observed a focal point of that general ideology which escalates my concerns to a sense of urgency heretofore unrealized.

I am highly disturbed by the fact that in less than 2 months since Donald J. Trump assumed the Office of the Presidency, that several policies have been enacted or are in the works which result in harmful effects upon CHILDREN.

I find such to be inhumane, indefensible, and unequivocally unacceptable.

Consider the following examples:

1. The Muslim Ban has terrorized and potentially threatened the safety of CHILDREN. Families from war torn region are banned from entering the land of liberty, thus creating terror for the children whose parents must now find a place for their already displaced loved ones to settle and live. Who knows the perils that await such CHILDREN due to this insensitive and inhumane ban against immigration.

2. The Deportation of people whose only “crime” is being here has terrorized and potentially threatened the safety of CHILDREN. Families have been torn apart as children have witnessed their parents taken from their homes and disappeared. School children live in terror that their Mother might not be there after school to take them to the safety and security of their homes. Then once these precious children are home they live in terror that perhaps their Father might not come home in the evening from work as he has done so each and every day of their lives. And then to compound the terror that burdens the minds of these innocent children, they go to bed each night terrified that at sometime during the night their parents might be taken away by the Authorities and disappeared, and that they themselves might be snatched from their beds and taken to places which in their minds could only be perceived as places of horror akin to a living hell.

3. The reversal of President Obama’s order to allow transgender children in the Public Schools to utilize the bathroom of their choice will terrorize and potentially threaten the safety of these precious little ones. The insensitivity to the feelings of these already oftentimes misunderstood and all too often maliciously maligned children is reprehensible. The angst that a transgender child will experience by being forced to use a bathroom which is not in accord with the gender identity with which they personally most comfortably identify will terrorize these children, and could potentially lead to mental anguish with long term effects. Not to mention that now those precious children will be more vulnerable to bullying and taunting as a result of this insensitive policy reversal.

4. The prospective repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act threatens the health and general welfare of countless children among the 20 million people who will lose Healthcare should such a repeal take place (as to “the general welfare”, such is the responsibility of Congress according to Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution). In the light of the Trump Administration’s insensitivity to the suffering of children in the aforementioned context, I personally see no reason to trust this Administration to replace the ACA with any Healthcare plan which would be better suited to provide for the health needs of our society’s children than the ACA itself. That said, I would welcome a Single Payer, Healthcare for all system, but clearly such is so far removed from Conservative ideology in general, that there is no reason to even entertain such becoming a reality so long as this regime rules.

5. The proposed HR 610 Bill threatens the nutritional health of school children nationwide. It is bad enough that HR 610 steals from funding for public schools in order to support private education (which should be paid for out of private pockets), but furthermore by eliminating nutritional standards for school lunches and breakfasts this Administration is shamefully sacrificing the health and general welfare of our public school children for budget cuts and cost saving purposes. In essence, the health of school children is threatened for a price paid for by the public on the return of the enterprise of private education endeavors.

6. Now that House Republicans have voted to allow the dumping of Coal in rivers, and now that President Trump has authorized the building of the DAPL under a major water source in Native American regions, there will be a potential threat to the health of the children who live in those areas of the country. The fact that the Environmental Study related to the DAPL will now not be published, the public will not have access to the environmental and health effects of such, thus sheltering the public from ever knowing the degree of the perils to which the children of those area are being subjected.

Conclusion:

The fact that the focal point of many of the current Administration’s policies in such a short span of time results in the terrorizing of and potential health threats to innocent children is alarming and disconcerting. Although I am not saying that it is the intent of the current regime to harm children; nonetheless the effect of many of the Trump Administration’s earliest policies and decisions has done reprehensible harm to the mental and physical well being of our CHILDREN.

If the potential adverse effects upon CHILDREN is an unsuitable litmus test for an Administration’s policies and ideology, then what pray tell can justify the terrorizing and potential health threats to the most innocent and vulnerable of all beings in any given society?

If adverse effects upon children is the price in order to “Make America Great” again, then perhaps such an effort was never such a great idea in the first place, at least as conceived in the mind of Conservative ideology as executed in the Donald J. Trump Presidential Administration.

Bigots Babbling In A Bar

(NOTE: If you are offended by the content of this Poem; then please do not feel alone. I likewise am offended by the content of this Poem; and I wrote it myself. Dave)

A Commie around every corner,
A Terrorist upon every terrace.
The dark skinned and non-Christian,
You know man, they’re such a social menace.

The slaves that we imported,
They may cause an insurrection.
Preacherman says if you don’t pray,
You get tortured after the Resurrection.

Got to watch them Mexicans man,
They got this weird notion.
That this land is theirs,
It’s ours man, from ocean to ocean!

Got to watch them Indians man,
They got this weird notion.
That this land is theirs,
It’s ours man, from ocean to ocean!

It was us that did the work man,
It was we that developed Western Civilization.
It was Divine Providence man,
That made this here great nation!

It was we that brought the Blacks here,
To work and pick our Cotton.
Look away, look away man,
Old times there are not forgotten!

It was we that fought hard,
To kill them heathen Injuns!
It was we that Industrialized,
We made electricity and mechanical engines!

It was we that invaded foreign lands,
And overthrew foreign governments.
To make for ourselves a better life,
To live in high rises; instead of dusty old tents.

And it was we that brought Christ,
To those heathen dark skinned heathens.
Did I say heathens twice?
O well, at least now they can go to Heaven.

Yeah, we saved them dark skinned heathens,
Gave ‘em a land of opportunity.
Now them dark skinned heathens,
Can live like you and me!

And how do they thank us man?
I ask you if this ain’t ungrateful.
They owe us for their way of life,
They owe us for every plate full.

Now them dark skinned heathens,
And the Gays and the Liberals too.
They want to blame us for their hard times,
Yeah man, they blame me and you!

They whine, cry, and complain,
Bout poisoned water up in Flint.
And they moan and go on,
Bout killer Cops and dead bodies on the pavement.

We got to watch out man,
Trust in our President to protect us from all harm.
Cause they’re all out to get us man,
Stay alert and stay armed.

It ain’t gonna be easy man,
To make America great again.
But it’s the folk who think like you and me,
Who will protect our women and our kids.

A Commie around every corner,
A Terrorist upon every terrace.
The dark skinned and non-Christian,
You know man, they’re such a social menace.

The Threat of Hate to We North Americans

The recent murder of several Muslims who were peacefully assembled in a Canadian Mosque, and the similar mass murder a few years ago by Dylan Roof of African American Christians who were peacefully assembled in a church here in the USA, are each indicative of the danger of hate crimes committed by North American white extremist terrorists.

White extremist terrorism is an issue which we North Americans simply must take seriously and address swiftly, for these are times of white extremist xenophobic hate, and there is no indication that the trend of such will dissipate any time soon.

If anything, white xenophobic hate is being stirred up and incited in a social climate of strategic Islamophobia, racism, bigotry, and homophobia by those who are feeding the fears of white supremacist Christofascism by addressing fantasy terrorism while ignoring and minimizing factual terrorism.

The threat of ongoing extremist White xenophobic terrorism is too real to be ignored and denied, and the impact and social implications of such are too horrific to be taken lightly.

While good and peaceful family people who are fleeing war torn regions are being detained and deported, and while decent families are being torn apart by knee jerk Fascist policies; extremist White xenophobic terrorist activity remains a very real and practical threat for all North Americans who lead peaceful lives and who worship in peaceful assemblies.

We cannot deport hate.
Nor can we North Americans afford to deny its horrific implications.

Corporate Bullies and The American Way

Bribery and Brutality,
‘Tis the American Way.
Corporate bullies and their strong armed Law;
Have always ruled the Day.

Railroad executives made the decisions,
The Military executed their will.
Our First Americans to this day,
Are imprisoned and occupied still.

Rockefeller paid the National Guard,
To suppress Colorado miners on strike.
After Rockefeller’s paid goons,
Had murdered Strikers children, and their wives.

When starving WWI Veterans,
Came to DC to demand their Bonus Pay.
Macarthur and Eisenhower lead the military operation,
Attacking WWI Vets and their families that day.

Blue clad bullies with bullets and badges,
And armed with Fire hose might.
Have water tortured peaceful demonstrators,
Who dared sit for equal rights.

College students who demonstrated,
Against an illegal and immoral war.
Were murdered by National Guardsmen,
The dead count tallied four.

Don’t you dare organize!
Don’t you dare stand up for what’s right!
Don’t you dare become a dissident!
Don’t you dare stand up and fight!

‘Cause Bribery and Brutality,
‘Tis the American Way.
Corporate bullies and their strong armed Law;
Have always ruled the Day.

Children have been burned to death,
War Veterans attacked by the Military,
Students have been murdered,
Because people dared to be contrary.

Against a system of oppression,
Against systemic tyranny,
Against an evil empire,
Against an oppressive plutocracy.

From Ludlow to Kent State,
From Wounded Knee to Standing Rock.
Plutocratic servile bullies,
Arrive and go off half cocked.

So don’t you dare organize!
Don’t you dare stand up for what’s right!
Don’t you dare become a dissident!
Don’t you dare stand up and fight!

‘Cause Bribery and Brutality,
‘Tis the American Way.
Corporate bullies and their strong armed Law;
Have always ruled the Day.

And the beat down goes on………

Dave Henderson
Denison, Texas
November 25, 2016

(Dedicated to the brave Veterans who have committed to self deploy to Standing Rock in early December in order to stand with and protect our nation’s brave Water Protectors who have come under siege and vicious attack by Corporate bullies and their strong arm of the Law.

Veterans such as these understand the concept of standing up for the good by standing up against the evil.

I respectfully salute such brave men and women. DH)

Make America Great. Finally.

It seems to me that many of the problems related to our badly divided society are actually due to the fact that certain of the more honorable principles of our national Constitution have historically been systematically limited as to the degree of their application. For example, consider the beautiful sentiment and the profound principles of the phrase “promote the general welfare” as recorded in the introductory Preamble of the Constitution. As noble as the concept sounds, the fact of the matter is that promoting the general welfare was by no means the actual concern of the 55 Aristocrats who composed the Constitutional Convention. Nor for that matter had promoting “the general welfare” ever been the primary concern of any of the other greedy gold diggers from whom our nation evolved. The sentiment so expressed is indeed honorable, and undoubtedly “the general welfare” is in fact the end goal and defined purpose of that noble collective known as the society; but therein lies the misunderstanding which serves as the basis for the limited application of the sentiment itself.

For from our very conception as a sovereign nation, America was never a society. More to the point, America is, and always been; an ongoing commercial enterprise, whose welfare for an elite sector is systematically maintained by way of domination and exploitation. In fact, for the most part the history of Western Society was never about promoting “the general welfare”, but rather has always been an ongoing predatory commercial enterprise based upon invasion, conquest, domination, and exploitation of the vulnerable, for the express purpose of enriching and further empowering the already wealthy and powerful class of any given country. The systematic domination and exploitation of the many, in order to provide welfare for an elite sector then, has been the historical pattern of Western Society in general, and America more than any other country simply serves as an example of such.

And so, while giving lip service to the concept of equality and the general welfare, the fact is that the societal system by which our forefathers functioned is in principle the same by which we function today. Granted, the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s legalized the concept of the equality of all people, nonetheless we have yet to abandon our national systematic commercial enterprise for the welfare of the wealthy, nor do we yet refrain from foreign invasions to the same end. Thus, in spite of our incremental social advancements towards social justice, we nonetheless continue, as did our Forefathers, to fall short of the sentiments of our own Constitution, by implementing a system which fails to function accordingly.

This is not to say that things must remain as they are. For as long as the words “promote the general welfare” remain written in our Constitution, then we as a collective people shall ever have the documented right to become a society which seeks the common good as a necessary goal. Our challenge then is to aspire towards that noble state of social being which has alluded every generation of Americans going back to and including our Founding Fathers themselves.

For when, and only when, we as America decide to finally live up to the precious sentiment as expressed in our national Constitution “promote the general welfare”; then and only then, we will actually be a society instead of a collective commercial enterprise for the primary welfare of the wealthy and the powerful.

To do so would make America great. Finally.