In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King
But what happens when a patch is placed over the King's good eye?
I get why some good folks don’t get my position on the Russo-Ukraine War.
I really would like to be pro-Ukraine and anti-Russian – and I am, just on a different level than most. I am for the Ukrainian people and against Russian government (Putin).
I will always be on the side of people fighting for self-determination and self-rule.
Let me see if I can address the root cause (hopefully better than Kamala did on illegal immigration) of my seemingly confused intellectual process.
I think it all has to do with a global pandemic of relativism brought about by communistic globalism.
First, while many see globalism as a function of capitalism, and it has used businesses and capitalistic tendencies to spread, it is NOT capitalism. At some point during our naive push (greed, maybe?) to spread capitalism to the third world (China) and to communist states that seemed to be vulnerable to change (Russia), we failed to truly comprehend what Marx understood and Nikita Khrushchev told us.
In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev uttered the oft misunderstood quote “We will bury, you!” speaking of the eventual defeat of democracy and capitalism. On August 24, 1963, Khrushchev himself remarked,
“I once said, ‘We will bury you,’ and I got into trouble with it. Of course, we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.” – a reference, of course, to the Marxist saying, “The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism”.
When you look critically, one of the reasons communism is so hard to get started is that it requires that large groups of people – entire nations – to get on the same page of the hymnal, and not just on the same page, but the same notes and words in the same verse. Everybody must be singing exactly the same tune at the same time.
Try walking into a room with fifty people and getting them to do that.
It takes some effort.
Now scale that up to a nation of millions of people.
Virtually impossible. Communism is not scalable, that’s why it always tends toward coercion, force, and violence by the state to keep the cats herded.
Capitalism is not that way.
Capitalism exists wherever there are individual sellers willing to sell something a buyer is willing to buy. The seller makes a profit on his efforts and innovations and the buyer gets something he values – a win-win. It is also voluntary event that requires no force, coercion, or violence. It requires no involvement at all from the state to initiate and spread.
And yet, as capitalism becomes “organized” into companies and corporations, it takes on a distinct authoritarian structure. Corporations have boards of directors, but they are run by individual CEO’s who have a central committee of C-suite level corporate officers, each of whom have their own minions in the management structure. Certainly, there are significant differences – employees to have some say and participation is voluntary, and the corporation does live and die by the law of supply and demand, but the operation of a corporation is governed by a largely authoritarian, autocratic structure.
Marx’s dream was global communism in a stateless, borderless world.
The smart communists recognized that capitalism was the most efficient way to eradicate borders and the easiest way to establish a global socio-economic structure that could most easily be transitioned to communism. China has mastered this process, and therefore the Davos crowd and the World Economic Forum believes their brand of communist government is just around the corner. The “new” economic system they plan for the world is just the old system of communism – just this time with a capitalistic patina on the surface.
Now that one has a vehicle to spread communism, how can you get everybody on the same page?
One eradicates any semblance of moral consistency.
One introduces relativism.
I know it seems that relativism would produce so many competing opinions and viewpoints that it would augur complete chaos, but the effect is just the opposite. People become so unsure of the facts and their own assessment of them, they descend into a state of apathy. They simply adopt the idea that “One position is just as valid as the next, so why push it? How can I know my position is right?” and eventually stop taking a stand. Instead of anger and chaos, relativism creates a sort of unity of disunity, a quiet place where people can avoid inconvenient truths and confrontation.
People in this stage look for some person or some entity to provide them with the consistency and certitude they lack, they search for some authority to tell them what is right and wrong, what is true or false.
Enter the technocrats and the state to fill that void.
And the state and the technocrats have agendas as well. Invariably, their determination of right, wrong, true, and false, entirely rests upon their interests at the time. This is why we are told our enemies are our friends and our friends are our enemies dependent upon the given situation. Relativism means the end of moral certitude and the end of the good/evil dichotomy when assessing conflict.
The discernment process is no longer based on immutable principles of universally understood good and evil, every conflict is now based on the needs, wants and desires of the state. Everything becomes a matter of degree.
That is not to say that conflicts were not always this way – but there was a time when we, as a moral people, were able to sort out the greater good from the weaker good (which often enabled the greater evil) and proceed accordingly.
The fact is, no matter how distasteful it is to consider it, Nazi Germany was good for some people, but to achieve that “good” required the Hitler government to do horrifically evil things. The Allies were blessed with the moral certitude (even before the West knew about the Holocaust) to sort out contradictions and take up arms against the greater evil that was supporting the lesser good.
The Russo-Ukraine conflict is also filled with similar contradictions. Russia invading a sovereign state is evil, but Ukraine allowing alleged neo-Nazi militias to attack ethic Russians in the Donbas region is also evil. Putin resisting the globalist cabal is good, Ukraine allying themselves with Klaus Schwab and George Soros is evil. Nationalist Ukrainians fighting for freedom from nationalist Russians is good but achieving freedom just to fall under the sway of the globalist “Great Reset” is evil.
I still retain moral certitude. Since I know the state and its technocrats have their own agenda, I reject their absolutism about Ukraine and Russia.
If this was just about Russia bad/Ukraine good, there is no question as to which side we should take.
Both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Democrats) have combined to destroy America’s moral certitude and with it, went our global standing as the only beacon of good and right. As the old saying goes, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. America used to be that king, with our one functioning eye focused unblinkingly on God and good – but now there is a patch over that eye, placed there by the globalists (communists) and their religion of relativism.
And the world is a worse place for the loss of that eye.
Another dynamic in this Russia bad, Ukraine good dichotomy was Biden's pledge to Ukraine to bring them into NATO. Without that, there is no invasion. Six years after the 'we will bury you' remarks, Kennedy announced, "We cannot and will not, accept Soviet missiles in Cuba."
Put could not and would not accept NATO at his front door. Too many don't seem to grasp that very simple equation.
The Oliver Stone documentary UKRAINE ON FIRE is a great primer for those hoping to understand the increasingly hidden story of the Ukraine/Russian conflict. While we have been programmed to believe that Russia invaded and conquered Crimea, few know that Victoria Nuland, John McCain, George Soros, and Joe Biden led the 2014 revolution that drove out the democratically elected government of Ukraine.