Is MLK's Dream dead?

Most of us remember the essence of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech.  It had (and still has) the capacity of pulling our minds and hearts up short and calling us all to check our motivations before acting, speaking, writing and...yes...even thinking.  Today, a lot of people have apparently forgotten some things: First, that he was a "Reverend", a man of the cloth who was a devout Christian who reminded America...a nation founded on Christian mores and beliefs...of how we should live life; Second, that his message was one of inclusion, not separatism or divisiveness.

In the late 1950's he spoke at a church in Montgomery, Alabama, and part of what he said was, "How do you go about loving your enemies? Begin with yourself."  And later he advised, "When the opportunity presents itself for you to defeat your enemy, that is the time when you must not do it."  Further, he quoted from the Bible: "Love your enemies, bless them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you..." Matt. 5

During the year...and particularly on Martin Luther King's designated holiday...there are celebrations and coming together of various groups to allegedly celebrate not just his recognition, but his message.  Yet so many of these groups clearly act, think and speak in manner that reveals that not only have they abandoned MLK's views, but now are clearly diametrically opposite in their goals and actions.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) actively chants for the killing of Police.  BLM has never condemned or distanced itself from those who have murdered Police, usually calling for "understanding" of their motivation.  Black leaders have spent more time pointing to anecdotal mistreatment and actions by a minority of Police Officers as a defense and only as a one sentence add-on said that killing was wrong.

LGBT folk have, upon getting equality in the secular world, used that position to enact vengeance on any people who, based on their religious convictions, declined to produce certain products.  Once they no longer had to hide, they have taken that opportunity to "get even."  That is absolutely contrary to MLK's admonitions and the goal of his movement.  Unity and acceptance were his goals.  Note that nowhere did the term "approval" come into the picture.  I can argue that my neighbor should be free to do whatever he or she wants as long as it doesn't physically harm others...but that doesn't require me to approve of everything the do, or create a legal right for them to require me to cheer for their actions.

If I go to church or synagogue, wear a dress shirt and tie with Bermuda shorts, they are not required to take a public position approving of my actions.  Why should the reverse be considered "politically correct?"  As a matter of fact, I consider the phrase "politically correct" an oxymoron anyway.

But...shouldn't the media or someone call out these people?  BLM advocates murder, LGBT advocates vengeance, University Professors advocate elimination of the First Amendment, and University students advocate abandonment of integration and freedom of speech in favor of apartheid and controlled speech.  Rev. King looks down on these people and actions and I am sure that tears flow down his cheeks...and it is sad.  It is also despicable.

Honoring MLK's thoughts, beliefs and goals would have us ignoring physical differences, honoring each other, respecting ourselves and those around us by holding ourselves to our standards even as we allow others to chose differently.  Wonder if it will ever be seen that way again...

Social Justice Warfare

This past week I came across the following comment.  The source was declared to be unknown, or I would credit the author.  However, it encapsulates every stray thought I have ever had on the subject...putting them together in a way that seems remarkably powerful.  As I said, I would honor the writer if I knew who he or she was...and if I should ever get that information, I will edit this to provide the proper honor.  I hope you appreciate this as much as I did:

“We are fighting to end hate, to unite as one and love each other. We are fighting to be treated right without discrimination and for everyone to have equal opportunities.”

Nonsense. You have no quantifiable metrics for injustice, so you have no victory conditions (for a very simplified example, when blacks hold X% of all engineering jobs and are only Y% of all prisoners, racism is ended). That would be fine by itself, but you believe in fighting injustice with injustice (gays have historically been denied gay marriage? let’s get random CEOs fired for opinions they held six years ago). You don’t seek converts, you seek to punish and bully – straight white males who disagree with you must be purged and publicly humiliated. Even the jihadists will spare you if you convert; no apology or future correction will satisfy a SJW.

I could forgive that too if you weren’t all hypocrites and liars. Your treatment of women and minority dissenters is appalling; if they don’t want you acting on their behalf, that’s their choice, not “internalized patriarchy” or whatever. You rob them of moral agency. When called out for these behaviors (as you always insist on calling out others), you lie. You strawman your opponents (criticized a woman? misogynist!), you group them with the worst (you’re a gamer? you’re as bad as the anonymous rape threateners!) and when confronted with your own flaws, you restate them less threateningly (motte and bailey argument). You phrase all arguments as Kafka traps (disagreeing with your assertion that we are evil is taken as proof that we’re evil). You publish manipulated and misleading statistics, and then lambast anyone who questions them.

You insist on vigilante justice against random acts of the week for your two-minute hate. Why is it the NFL’s business to punish domestic violence? And, if it is their business, why isn’t Hope Solo receiving the same attention from your side?

Then you claim to be arguing for equality, but you’ve taken the idea of racism (hatred based on skin color is bad) and replaced it with a new concept where only one race can be guilty of racism. You excuse racial prejudice and hatred based on what I’ve already explained are arbitrary, unmeasured states of being. Your solution for the unequal treatment of whites and blacks is to hold whites to a higher standard. Your side lobbied the FBI to redefine rape so more women victims would be counted, but also so that “made to penetrate” does not count, leaving male victims in the cold. Because of male privilege, apparently.

Historically ignorant SJWs think whites hold collective guilt for the awful things our ancestors have done. But they don’t care about the unspeakable atrocities by other races. The only difference between whites and others was that whites had the social and technological prowess to do evil efficiently; Africans, Asians, Indians, and everyone else practiced genocide and slavery, they were just less adept at doing it right. Given the means, they would have done the same. But nope, only whites are guilty; Arab oppression of blacks and Caucasians never happened, not to us, nope.

I’ve been lucky enough to grow up in America, so this shit is new to me. But I’m descended from puritans, and I know my history; I know how they treated dissent. I also know how commies treated dissent; I grew up next door to a grizzled old Russian who barely avoided the gulag by smuggling himself out of the country. I know what you petty tyrants have turned into every time you gained enough power.

Worst of all, you turn the very principles of freedom against us. We tolerate you because we believe in free speech and civil discourse, not bullying and violence. But that means we have to watch you advocate against that very freedom. We don’t believe in ruining a stranger’s professional life over an opinion, but that means that we can’t punish your actions.

We believe that the rightness of our actions should speak for itself. You believe in bullying, even as you claim to love the oppressed.

Funny how the evil and all-powerful patriarchy has seen fit to act according to SJW whims for all of recent memory, punishing those they hate and protecting those they love. Funny how the evil oppressor males have to speak anonymously, while the SJWs fighting the power can use their real names and get mainstream media coverage for fun and profit. How when a million straight white male nerds get bullied, no one cares, but the minute one gay person hangs himself, suddenly bullying matters – and the solution, of course, is more bullying, but by the “right” people.

That’s the arrogant core of it. You do the same evil, in the same pattern, as so many before you, because mob justice, punishing dissent, and repression of others is just fine and dandy so long as the “right” people are doing it to the “wrong” people.

All I ever asked was to be left alone.

                                                                                                      "Anonymous"

Why such an increase in lawlessness?

While certain crimes appear to be fewer in number, general lawlessness seems on the increase, as does a disrespect for the concept of Law.  Why?

Some argue that increased enforcement of laws has also come with lawless behavior on the part of those enforcing laws.  Is that true...or is that a nurtured perception made possible by the ubiquitous nature of phone cameras and the social networks that make no effort to separate truth from fiction?  Whatever the truth, and I would suggest the impact is relatively small, that does not really help to answer the question as to basic cause.

There is a theory that of the total population in America, there are about 20% that will always try to do the right and just thing, regardless of the law, its enforcement or the attitude of those around them.  That theory also puts forward the likelihood that about 15% of the people in the country are true psychopaths, who ignore the law and attitudes about them with the exception of the care they take to do exactly what they want to, when they want to.  Laws have no effect on them, and they regard the attitude of others as inconsequential.  That leaves 65% of the population.  That 65% is arguably highly influenced by the attitude of those around them and the degree of enforcement that various laws receive; if a law is ignored by the authorities, they will ignore it and break it with impunity and no sense of guilt...if a law is enforced and stringent punishments applied in a timely manner, they will forego breaking that law, even if they would wish to.  While I can not verify the percentages suggested, I have no doubt that the three categories exist and that the vast majority of the populace is affected by laws and their enforcement.

So...back to the question.

It is inarguable that most of the laws in America are NOT enforced effectively; many are archaic and remain on the books, others are spottily enforced to the point where people are fined when caught but the vast majority will break those laws to some degree because of the small odds of being caught.  But these factors have always been around and can be considered a constant.

So, let us turn to the matter of "selective" enforcement of laws...and almost as importantly, the selective "unenforcement" of laws.  Laws were intended to reflect "right" behavior.  Over time the concept or "right" and "wrong" have, for better or worse, gone by the wayside and now the law reflects "legal" and "illegal" behavior.  Often this allows what is clearly wrong to be allowed as legal.  This muddies the waters of any logical mind as they view the power and dictates of a formal society that has a governmental presence to enforce this "Legal" point of view.  Civil Rights is a case in point where for years "wrong" was "legal."  People broke the "law" to point this out.  What was remarkable in the last century, however, was that those who broke those laws expected and were willing to suffer the legal punishment in order to bring attention to the "wrongness" of those laws.  They did not expect to go unpunished; they respected the need of laws to be enforced if they were to have any validity at all...that to not be punished would take away the efficacy of ALL laws.

That is no longer true today.  The Judicial System, including both judges and prosecutors, frees without penalty the vast majority of those arrested by police officers with little regard for the fact of the misdeed in favor of the technicalities that allow them to release most accused.  In truth, such actions have fostered a belief in the majority of our citizens that most laws don't matter and there is little reason to be concerned for, or expect the meaningful enforcement of, the law generally.

Then we have the example set by the Federal Government of the United States of America;  The President ignores laws on the books and directs law enforcement personnel to disregard them; the Congress passes RICO statutes but exempts themselves from the application of them; the Justice Department ignores perjury in sworn statements to Congress on the basis of political alignment, and then fails to elicit facts of disputes before condemning those front line Police Officers around the country tasked to be the first line of defense against lawlessness and crime.   Government employees routinely break the law and are, save for the very occasional sacrificial lamb, never punished in any way, while citizens are routinely charged, have their money and property taken without due process and otherwise abused.  Arguably the Federal Government made Organized Crime illegal because it didn't want the competition.  And now, many would argue that they now are willing to license such activities as long as they get their share.

So why is there any wonder at all as to why lawlessness is on the increase.  There is little, if any, honor of the concept of "what is RIGHT" in Washington.  Instead, it is whether something is legal or...if illegal...proof can be eliminated.  Our "Leaders" set the example and then they complain that we do as they do instead of as the "say".

Our police departments know how to fix this...but they are ignored.  It is the "broken window" approach: take notice and action against the smallest infraction and it will lessen the tendency of more egregious law breaking to take place.  Protect the civil nature of a neighborhood and lawbreakers find it harder to have a disparate impact.  Bring to trial those who are accused quickly so that both the miscreant and the public understand the relationship between the misdeed and the punishment (does anyone other than a victim's family really connect a killer being put to death with the horror of their crime 10 or 15 years ago?).

A true Leader...a Representative Government...trusts the system to discover and prosecute fairly those who break the laws.  They forego pre-judging any matter, as that is for a jury of the citizenry, not an elected or appointed official, to rule.  And even as the quality and training of our Law Enforcement Personnel is scrutinized and their performance analyzed, there is respect and a demand made by all for the well-being and honoring of those who put their safety at risk to protect the rest of us.

ALL lives, including the quality of those lives, matter.  Those who call for the killing of members of the Police Force are inciting lawlessness.  Truly, if they were to be successful and we return to mob rule, it is they who would fall as the first victims of majority mob rule.  Be careful what you wish for.

A cohesive argument can be made that the true cause of the current state of disrespect and disregard for the law lies with the actions and words of the United States Federal Government...and that they should be held accountable.