People should back up to the point where one considers how one arrives in Congress. What feelings, thoughts, words, and deeds possess a person such that he or she runs for a position, what with how that whole system is inherently flawed?

We should discuss this in hypothetical terms. If someone were handed the position (no running for it) and were he or she principled, an idealist, honorable, and sincere, that person could still stand on principle and lose the position were that system not radically transformed into what would be compatible with principle. All the people would have to stand up with that one.

Barring that radical transformation of the hearts of all the people, we are left with the truly principled, idealistic, honorable, and sincere one telling everyone that the Congress as it stands is itself an error.

Now, I come at it from a Christian perspective, but there is a meeting of the minds up to that point with those of purely voluntary, non-violent, consensus, council communism. This is regardless of spiritual beliefs or disbeliefs.

The self-styled libertarians cry foul though. They can't compete against that. Hence, with few exceptions, they are not only prepared to combine as the "state" to smash the "commies" and no matter the version, they advocate it.

Dennis Kucinich could have, and should have, stood his ground so that the message would be clear that simply holding out against him and ignoring him would not win the day, which it did. From here on out, he can't say he won't where anyone will believe simply waiting and ignoring him won't defeat him.

Let me finally say that just existing on this plane of existence is seen right now by most as a level of compromise at best. It is a paradox. Not to be reconciled to aiming at the highest and best and standing by that is an error. One is given to pick and choose where one engages. Dennis Kucinich has compromised way too early.

Contrary to what he's suggested, if he had stood his ground, he would not have been responsible for evil prevailing in the form of the privatizers regaining the Presidency. They never lost the Presidency. Barack Obama is way too much the early compromiser that the privatizers could be construed as having lost the office. The point here includes that privatization is anathema to that form of council communism I referenced above.

I wish these concepts were easier for the general population to follow. They aren't because the option of that council communism is deliberately avoided by those who have purchased everything via its (council communism's) direct opposite. They definitely don't want the general population pondering the pros of giving and sharing all, collectivism, cooperation versus cut-throat competition, consensus democracy in the workplace, and employee equal ownership, etc. They want everyone to believe that human nature precludes altruism; and, therefore, socialism has never worked, even though it has where it hasn't been smashed by the privatizers.


I'm not condemning Dennis to hell. I hope he'll see.

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.