A Cultural War Against the Constitution

What's going on in America right now? We are in the midst of a Revolution. A cultural war is raging in our country between those who believe that America is good and believe that the Constitution of the United States is an inspired document, and those who believe America is bad and that the Constitution is the embodiment of that evil. The future of the United States won’t be determined by the 2020 Presidential election. Our country will be saved by the American people, if we’re worthy of it.

I know you’re tired of hearing about this stuff. You don't like politics and you think history is boring. You'd rather not get involved. I know you're hoping that the unrest in our country is just a side effect of being locked down and cooped up and that it’s going to go away. You're hoping that this will all just blow over. I'm here to tell you in no uncertain terms that it will not. There are deliberate attacks on the heart of our nation and the time to take a stand is now. We must put our foot down. Because it appears that too many people are just hoping that they can be left alone. They think that what's going on is some distant problem. They're hoping that the mob won't find them and come after them for whatever imagined offense that they might be accused of committing next. Martin Niemoller wrote a poem about the cowardice of intellectuals and clergy in standing up for the rights of others:


First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


It has been said that “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” So I apologize for my word vomit, but I have to speak. More good people must speak out. If we all spoke out against the inequalities, evils, or injustices we saw in the world it would be a better place. We can't wait until problems directly affect us before we're willing to say something. I've been silent in the past because I thought I didn't have anything to say. I thought there wasn't anything I could do and I thought it was fine if others had differing opinions and stances than mine. And it is. However, the thread of common values that used to bind America together is fraying.

Americans used to have common values. We used to believe in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (this is literally a controversial statement to some now). I thought we lived in a country where we were judged on the content of our character and not the color of our skin. I thought that "all men are created equal" in America because the very foundation of our nation said that was the case. What part of this is bigoted? What part of this is systemically racist? Where is the institutional racism and bias against blacks? Show me the laws that need to be changed and I will be a social justice warrior alongside you to make the America that I've lived in be a reality for other Americans too.

Our country has embraced an Anti-Religion culture. We have removed God and prayer from schools. We’ve removed the ten commandments from courthouses. We’ve removed Christ from Christmas. We’ve altered our historical date notations so they no longer reference Christ. People today are being taught in terms of BCE and CE (Before the Common Era and the Common Era) instead of the notation of B.C., or Before Christ. And these are just the examples from Christianity. There are groups that are trying to change the Constitution to read that we should have freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. These things may seem miniscule. In fact, you might even agree with some of them, and that’s okay. However innocuous they might seem, this is insidious.

These few examples represent an attempt to undermine the clauses within the Constitution of the United States that are meant to ensure your ability to live your life according to your own conscience without regards to whoever may be in charge or what the dominant cultural force may be. The clause of freedom of religion allows you to disagree with the government and others without fear of repercussions. Freedom of Religion represents the right to disagree, to have different belief systems, and different opinions. Freedom of religion, speech, and expression are all intricately entwined. And all are under attack. Without Freedom of Religion, whoever is in power can arbitrarily determine who enemies of the state are and what hate speech is. Without the first Amendment you could be jailed or killed for having the wrong opinion. This should chill you, regardless of whether you belong to any organized religion or not.

American society has embraced a culture of Tribalism. How are those identity politics working out for you? Is it working out well to have warring factions within our society who think that everyone else is out to get them and obliterate their rights? Is it helpful to see enemies everywhere? Is it helpful to deny the voices and ideas of the most powerful in your society instead of seeking to partner with them and getting them to champion your cause? We’ve created a culture that appears intent upon banding together to defend one another’s rights, but only if you fall within a narrow category of sameness. We have divided ourselves into tiny tribes, been encouraged to select ever narrowing labels and descriptions so that people know exactly what tiny pigeonhole of intersectionality we fit into. We have sliced up our own society to our detriment and been narcissistic enough to believe that we must only defend the rights of our own group. Hitler understood the necessity of Tribalism to create serial enemies and the power of fear. Do we?

Identity Politics has pitted our society against each other in almost every way possible. There is always a pervasive sense of “us vs. them.” Millennial vs. Boomer. Men vs. Women. Conservatives vs. Liberals. Republicans vs. Democrats. Rich vs. Poor. Black vs. Whites. People vs. Cops. Proletariat vs. Bourgeoisie. I can hardly think of ways in that wedges haven't been driven between groups of people. Why? This isn’t logical. Logic dictates that cooperation, unity, and teamwork bring greater advances and advantages to humans. Why is division being encouraged? Identity Politics claims to want to celebrate differences, but this is a lie. Try to celebrate something from another culture and I can guarantee someone will come after you shouting appropriation.

Keeping people in a heightened emotional or trauma state guarantees they won’t feel safe and that they’ll keep making emotional rather than rational decisions. Do your own research on trauma. I recommend the book Healing the Shattered Selves of Trauma Survivors or The Body Keeps the Score. If we can be kept afraid, we will continue to use emotion and not logic. We'll continue to react instead of plan. Historian and psychologist Jay Y. Gonen said, “In a world that is seen through a narcissistic tunnel vision, only oneself or one’s group has any rights.” Is this attempt to divide us deliberate? I believe that it is. Our enemies know that if we are united we’re safe, but if we’re divided they can conquer us individually.

Our society has begun to value Emotion over Logic, and considering how we’ve been pushed to believe that we’re surrounded by enemies, this makes sense. Scared and traumatized people literally lack the ability to access their higher order brain functioning. People who are constantly under attack, scared, worried, or stressed are kept in a hyper-vigilant state, always on the lookout for the next threat. They respond to life with an instinctive “Fight or Flight” response. Much of the attempted discourse today is centered in the emotion of the argument and appealing to one’s feelings. If we really valued logic we wouldn’t discount possible solutions and contributions just because they came from someone who wasn’t a member of a victim group.

We have embraced a culture of Censorship. Many Americans try to silence people whose words they don’t like. Why are we supposed to keep our religious values to ourselves? Why, if you aren’t a member of a group who has been wronged, are you not allowed to speak on the topic? Why are only those who can prove their oppression given the right to speak freely? This is the opposite of what would happen if we were behaving logically and it's the opposite of what would happen if we were a truly free society. The free market of ideas has been smothered.

The powerful in society have the most influence and ability to change things. Why are they being forced out of these conversations? Why are they being muzzled? Are we really saying that cisgender white males are the root of all of our problems? Actually, according to some they are. Why is there a war on men disguised as the empowerment of women? The very thing that many profess to be fighting for--a seat at the table--appears to mean taking the seat away from someone who was already there. If we want more seats at the table, instead of taking someone's seat away, get a bigger freaking table. Why are we stifling freedom of speech? Why do we try to cancel anyone whose words we don’t like?

We’ve embraced an either or culture. You’re either a friend or an enemy. Right or wrong. Good or bad. There is no nuance. Because one cop was bad, they are all bad. We’ve redefined words and made synonyms of words that aren’t the same, muddying language to the point that it's no wonder we can't communicate. We’ve rejected independent thought and gotten angry at people for questioning things. We’ve torn down statues and monuments of our history, attempting to eradicate a perceived evil and sought to erase parts of the past instead of adding to them.

We’ve seen the use of repetition to reinforce a narrative. We all know the buzzwords and phrases. These words are meant to permeate our subconscious and lead us to believe that they are truth. Americans are racist. Women, blacks and minorities are oppressed. There is rampant systemic racism. Institutionalized racism is built into our very core. Because most Americans believe that racism is evil, we are essentially hearing a different message than the one that is being said. The message, to our subconscious, is loud and clear. Americans are evil. America is oppressive. The American System is evil. This evil is ingrained in the very fiber of our country. “Repetition is the precursor to success and simplicity is the key to the emotional and mental world of the masses.” The repetition of these key words and phrases, especially institutional racism and systemic racism is problematic.

When I try to ask where this systemic racism is, what laws need to be changed, the answer seems to vaguely be that it’s everywhere. Systemic and institutionalized racism are specific laws targeted against specific races and we don’t have that. Our core laws are not racist. I don’t think it even matters if the people who drafted our laws were racist. The original problems with the Constitution were resolved with additional amendments. Why can’t anyone tell me where this systemic racism is built in so that I can help dismantle it? No one can tell me if it’s the laws that need changed, or the attitudes and behaviors of the people (which if that's the case this is ironically a morality and values problem). I am told the problem is “the institution.” The “system.” Because I can't see it despite them telling me it's there, I am inherently racist. I am complicit because I am white and have benefited from this “system” that people are infuriatingly unable to define.

People are being told, and told repeatedly that they are oppressed, that vile racism is blatant and omnipresent, and the source of this evil is intertwined into the very core of our country. The system, they insist, is the problem, the system. This evil is institutionalized. It is built in. When I tell you the inevitable conclusion of this line of thinking is the dismantling of the Constitution, will you believe me? The people pushing this narrative want more people to believe, and argue with others that America is racist, she is evil to her core, her very foundations. So you tell me what the next step of eradicating this structural racism rooted in the core of our country will be.

What I see is an evil attempt to undermine one of the freest nations that ever existed. I've tried to warn people about what I see by showing them the pieces of the puzzle. I've tried to calmly point out the parallels to history, to point out the tactics defining our culture right now which I highlighted above. Taken individually none of these things present in our cultural seems nefarious, but considered together you've got to understand that these are literally the propaganda tactics used by authoritarian regimes in the past to control people's perceptions. These are psychological mind tactics. Someone is manipulating us. Are they grooming us for a Totalitarian Government? It seems like it. These propaganda tactics create dual realities among citizens. Don't believe me? Please, I beg you, study up on some books or articles on the propaganda tactics and group psychology. There are even more that I haven’t included that we're also doing.

I've tried to point out the alarming things that are happening across the country, that people are being taught that post-modernism and Marxism are superior philosophies than the so-called backwards notions of capitalism and Judeo-Christian values. People seem to think that I'm overreacting. That the things I'm worried about couldn't happen here. I have tried to lead people to reach the same conclusion I have about the very imminent threat facing our nation in a calm and rational way. And people either don't understand what I'm trying to say, or they refuse to believe it. So I'm going to tell you in no uncertain terms what I see happening, and if you feel alarmed after reading this then I've done my job. I'm going to sound the alarm. I'm going to use my pitiful little platform to shout out as loudly as I can. And I hope you are alarmed.

Your laws don’t matter if your government doesn’t follow them. What we see happening in the United States isn't about Covid 19, and it isn't about racism no matter how much they, whoever they are, want you to believe it. Many of us have eaten the propaganda of systemic racism to the point that we're trying to convince one another about how pervasive this racism is. While we squabble amongst ourselves about issues that aren't what they appear to be, people whose motto is to “Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste” are roaring up for the finish line with the taste of victory on their lips. They are deliberately trying to dismantle our country from its very foundations and they're doing it right in front of us, in broad daylight, and some of us are trying to help them under misguided belief that we are promoting a cause of love, equality, justice, and freedom.

Has no one read George Orwell’s 1984? Animal Farm? These are cautionary tales meant to teach us the warning signs of tyranny so that we don't fall for it again. But Orwell is a dead white guy, right? So he’s the problem and we should probably read something by someone black or brown. Nevermind his insights about the anti-utopian reality of totalitarian rule. Nevermind that these books taught us to recognize the tactics of these evil forms of government and showed us why we should fear them. He's part of the dominant culture therefore he's oppressive. He doesn't represent diversity or inclusiveness, so he's not worth listening to. He's a white man.

Why this animosity to white culture? Why this overt pressure for white people, especially white men, to stay silent? Why so much censorship? Why is there an attempt to castrate the most powerful among us? If these people intent on destroying America really wanted to address oppression or inclusivity in our culture they would seek to ally themselves with the powerful who were good. But they haven't. They've sought to cripple anyone with power and anyone with a voice. Why? Why are they alienating all groups from their strongest allies?

I can’t tell you who these people are. I can’t tell you who is ultimately responsible for the chaos we see around us, because I don’t know. They’ve done a masterful job of obscuring truth. However, I can tell you what I do know. Their ideological religion is post-modernism, post-structuralism, Marxism, political correctness, and identity politics. They are seeking to convert you to their religion, and if you don’t choose to convert they plan to convert you by force by implementing it as the state religion. The only thing standing in their way is the Constitution of the United States and that pesky Bill of Rights. These people believe that so called hateful words are a form of violence, and that physical violence is justified against verbal violence. They think that much of what you and I believe is hateful, and they wouldn’t hesitate to use violence against you or me to get us to comply with what they want.

What's going on is not about the systemic oppression of our black friends and neighbors. Look at the protests! Look at the support they have in the streets from black and white and brown people for crying out loud! People are risking their health and possibly their lives because they feel so strongly about the equal treatment, opportunity, and freedoms of Black Americans! This chaos around us is not about George Floyd. It’s not about the pandemic. It’s not about whether or not we should wear a mask. It is not about who has the right to gather, church goers or protesters. It’s not about whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden should be your next President.

The chaos and turmoil you’re seeing is a grand campaign of misdirection on a massive scale, and I for one, am not falling for it. This is my line in the sand, and I will not cross it. I will not be complicit in willfully dismantling the country that I love. I will not willfully dismantle the very protections that were put in place to defend us from the tyranny of government and the tyranny of the mob.

If you think for a minute that you're safe because you live in the heartlands of America and that they can just tear themselves apart on the coasts and in the cities while you peacefully continue your life, you're woefully mistaken. There is an ideological war raging for the hearts and minds of the American people, and the spoils of that war will be the nation. We, the American People, are the last line of defense against people or powers that are seeking to topple our Constitutional Republic.

People are being taught that America is evil, that capitalism and individualism are selfish concepts that are at the root of all of society's problems. They are being taught that freedom cannot be achieved as long as they stand. They are being taught that individual freedom, personal liberty, and pride in one's country are selfish concepts that must be dismantled for the greater good. There are many people in the United States who believe this. They believe that America was founded on white supremacy, racism, and oppression with no other redeeming qualities. They believe that white supremacy and racism continues blatantly today and that this country will never be worthy or able to overcome its past.

These people believe that America must be dismantled, fundamentally transformed, and reassembled if any of us are ever to experience true freedom. This is their religion and they are seeking to have the state impose it upon you. They're seeking to dismantle that pesky Constitution, which is the only thing standing between them and their goals. That single document is what stops them and protects you, and they are intent upon destroying it. They have planned and trained for this. And many are determined because they are convinced they’re in a battle of good and evil. America is evil, and anyone who prevents them from dismantling this country is complicit, a racist, a bigot who actively seeks to oppress others.

You are being manipulated. We are being manipulated. I don't care if you're black or white, LGBTQIA+, Christian, atheist, agnostic or any other ridiculous subgroup that people have come up with to try to divide us into neat little boxes so that they can conquer us separately. If you value your right to live life the way you want to regardless of your self-descriptors, I'm begging you to please, please defend the Constitution of the United States. We must defend our right to free speech, expression, and religion (or the right to believe what you want without interference from the government). We must defend our right to disagree.

Now, if you’re alarmed then I succeeded with my intentions. I want everyone to understand that the laws protecting you from tyranny are housed within the Constitution. We must vigorously defend our individual rights by defending the Constitution. We must contact our representatives and ask them to defend the Constitution, wherever they see its principles being violated. We must have individual conversations with our children, friends, siblings, parents, and neighbors about the importance of the Constitution, especially the first Amendment. I want you to convince your social circle of the importance of defending the Constitution and ask them to do the same. This shouldn’t be a radical proposal. We must present a united front, asking for the vigorous preservation of the values and rights in the Constitution. If I’m wrong, then a bunch of people will have some unnecessary conversations about the foundations of our government. If I’m right, then the American people are the last line of defense.

Val's Email Sunday School: Murder, Mayhem, and Miracles

Before we begin email Sunday school this week, I’d like to tell you a story about childhood Val, and a lesson she gave for Family Home Evening. She selected her favorite scripture story to teach her family.  She painstakingly drew pictures to illustrate the lesson. When the time came to present her lesson she proudly displayed her picture of King Lamoni, whose crown was studded with Velcro jewels from her Little Miss Magic Jewels doll and a separate, hand-drawn picture of bloody, severed arms on a silver platter. Fast forward to today and you, my lucky audience, get to be privy to my favorite scripture story, the tale of Ammon defending the flocks of the King against the Lamanites. So brace yourself for a delightful lesson. Although on the surface this may seem to be just a violent story, I'm going to filter this story through the lens of my perspective and show you why, to me, it's full of humor, amazing power, and unshakable faith, with a splash of blood and gore for good measure. 

Little Miss Magic Jewels

We'll begin in Alma 17, when Ammon is going to the land of Ishmael to teach the people there about God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When Ammon enters the land he's immediately captured and tied up, because that's what the Lamanites did to all the Nephites that they found in their lands. They would take the Nephites to their king, and the king would decide if he wanted to kill them, lock them up, or let them stay in the land. Ammon is carried before King Lamoni, and the king asks him if he wants to live in the land among his people.

Ammon says that he does want to live there for a time, in fact, he said he might want to live there "perhaps until the day I die." The scriptures don't expound on what Ammon said or how he said it, but whatever he said, his delivery was on point. He was so charismatic and so likable that not only did the king untie him, he wanted Ammon to marry one of his daughters. Ammon had some crazy good people skills. Ammon manages to turn down the King's offer to marry his daughter without offending him, and offers to work for him instead. He says, "Nay, but I will be thy servant."

And thus Ammon begins to work for the King, the most powerful guy in this part of the land. One of his very first assignments was to go out with the other servants to watch the flocks of Lamoni. He'd only been working for the king for three days at this point. He's out with the other servants, watching the sheep at the watering hole and another group of Lamanites "scattered the flocks of Ammon and the servants of the king. . . " The flocks of the King "fled many ways." The servants of the king start to freak out and say, "Now the king will slay us, as he has our brethren because their flocks were scattered by the wickedness of these men." The servants freak out even more because losing the king's sheep will be a death sentence for them.  "And they began to weep exceedingly, saying: Behold, our flocks are scattered already."

Ammon, looked at the situation with a broad lens and saw how he could use a horrible situation to his advantage. He was so crafty that, when he saw their terror, "his heart was swollen within him with joy; for, said he, I will show forth my power unto these my fellow-servants, or the power which is in me, in restoring these flocks unto the king, that I may win the hearts of these my fellow-servants, that I may lead them to believe in my words." He recognizes an opportunity in their desperation. He plans to not only restore the flocks of the king single-handedly, but to do it with the clear intent to show them the power of God, manifest through him, so that when he tells them about God, and the power of God, and Christ, they'll have reason to believe him. "And now, these were the thoughts of Ammon, when he saw the afflictions of those whom he termed to be his brethren."

The servants are freaking out because the flocks are already scattered and they're going to die because of it and they know it. Meanwhile, Ammon says, "My brethren, be of good cheer and let us go in search of the flocks, and we will gather them together and bring them back unto the place of water; and thus we will preserve the flocks unto the king and he will not slay us." He persuaded them to work towards a goal. Ammon was so good at human psychology that he was able to calm and convince a group of nearly hysterical people who were destined to die to work towards a productive goal instead of giving up. 

"And it came to pass that they went in search of the flocks, and they did follow Ammon, and they rushed forth with much swiftness and did head the flocks of the king, and did gather them together again to the place of water." The bad guys came back and were waiting to scatter the flocks again, "but Ammon said unto his brethren: Encircle the flocks round about that they flee not; and I go and contend with these men who do scatter our flocks." Ammon had so much faith that he believed that he could not only confront this group of robbers alone, but that he would be successful doing it. "Therefore, they did as Ammon commanded them, and he went forth and stood to contend with those who stood by the waters of Sebus; and they were in number not a few." Even this part makes me laugh. Ammon goes to defend the flocks and servants against these bad guys alone. He is outnumbered. They don't even try to say how many guys there were. There were not a few. So in my head, there were a lot. 

The servants had to be terrified still. They weren't warriors. They couldn't fight their way out of this, and here's this crazy Nephite who's like, "Hey guys, just watch the sheep. I got this." And he goes marching off to confront the guys who just scattered the king's sheep, guys who were were intending to steal the king's animals knowing full well that the servants would be killed for losing them. These bad guys didn't care. They'd done it before and they'd do it again. "Therefore they did not fear Ammon, for they supposed that one of their men could slay him according to their pleasure, for they knew not that the Lord had promised Mosiah that he would deliver his sons out of their hands; neither did they know anything concerning the Lord; therefore they delighted in the destruction of their brethren; and for this cause they stood to scatter the flocks of the king." 

This verse tells us about how the Lord had promised King Mosiah that his sons would be safe. Ammon believed that the Lord would protect him when he was doing the Lord's will, and he believed it to the extent that he was willing to confront this gang of murderers who were more than happy to try to kill him in order to not only protect the lives of the servants of the Lamanite king, but to provide them with evidence to believe the words he said after he triumphed. Ammon expected to succeed. He fully expected the Lord to support him in his righteous efforts and his actions reflected that. 

"But Ammon stood forth and began to cast stones at them with his sling; yea, with mighty power he did sling stones amongst them; and thus he slew a certain number of them insomuch that they began to be astonished at his power; nevertheless they were angry because of the slain of their brethren, and they were determined that he should fall; therefore, seeing that they could not hit him with their stones, they came forth with clubs to slay him." Ammon starts attacking this gang of robbers with stones and a sling to try to get them to leave. He's a warrior, taking on the enemy despite being outnumbered and having no one to back him up. He starts killing the bad guys because they won't back off, and they're really getting mad because he's killing members of their group and they can't get him. They get so mad they decide to charge him with clubs, intending to kill him. Guess what Ammon does? You'll never guess!

Ammon literally chops off the arms of every guy who lifts his club to kill him. He didn't even try to fight them. He unequivocally removed their ability to fight or kill him. Admittedly, this is a bit gory. But it's so cool. Ammon is such a beast warrior that no one can even attack him. How strong would you have to be to fight off a band of bad guys, literally chopping off their arms while they're all simultaneously attacking you and trying to kill you? He's defeating the bad guys right and left "for he did withstand their blows by smiting their arms with the edge of his sword, insomuch that they began to be astonished, and began to flee before him; yea, and they were not few in number; and he caused them to flee by the strength of his arm." So here we see again that the number of bad guys was not few. They keep telling us how many bad guys are and how Ammon contends with all of them at once like he's got superhuman strength. The story says that six of them fell by the sling, but he only killed the leader with his sword, and he only chopped off the arms of those who tried to kill him. The story stresses at least three times that "they were not a few."

Ammon drives the bad guys off, and he returns like everything is normal "and they watered their flocks and returned them to the pasture of the king . . " But the story doesn't end there. It gets better! The servants watched what Ammon did and they know that no one is going to believe what happened. So they go to the king "bearing the arms which had been smitten off by the sword of Ammon, of those who sought to slay him; and they were carried in unto the king for a testimony of the things which they had done." The servants gather up the arms and take them in to prove what happened. It's funny! Can you imagine how gross that would be? But they did it because otherwise no one would believe what had happened. King Lamoni wants to know why the heck all his servants are bringing severed arms in. 

    "And when they had all testified to the things which they had seen, and he had learned of the faithfulness of Ammon in preserving his flocks, and also of his great power in contending against those who sought to slay him, he was astonished exceedingly, and said: Surely, this is more than a man. Behold, is not this the Great Spirit who doth send such great punishments upon this people, because of their murders? And they answered the king, and said: Whether he be the Great Spirit or a man, we know not; but this much we do know, that he cannot be slain by the enemies of the king; neither can they scatter the king’s flocks when he is with us, because of his expertness and great strength; therefore, we know that he is a friend to the king. And now, O king, we do not believe that a man has such great power, for we know he cannot be slain.

    And now, when the king heard these words, he said unto them: Now I know that it is the Great Spirit; and he has come down at this time to preserve your lives, that I might not slay you as I did your brethren. Now this is the Great Spirit of whom our fathers have spoken . . . Lamoni began to fear exceedingly, with fear lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants; For he had slain many of them because their brethren had scattered their flocks at the place of water; and thus, because they had had their flocks scattered they were slain. . . And it came to pass that king Lamoni inquired of his servants, saying: Where is this man that has such great power?"

The servants tell the king that Ammon is feeding his horses. The king had told the servants that they were supposed to prepare his chariots and horses and also water the flocks. He's shocked to hear that Alma is still just working on carrying out his assignments and he says, "Surely there has not been any servant among all my servants that has been so faithful as this man; for even he doth remember all my commandments to execute them. Now I surely know that this is the Great Spirit, and I would desire him that he come in unto me, but I durst not." This is so funny too! The king is freaking out because he thinks Ammon must be a God, not only because of the power he had to defend his servants and the flocks, but because he's following the king's instructions and orders perfectly, despite what happened earlier in the day. The King of the whole land wants to talk to Ammon, his servant, but he doesn't dare ask him to come!

So Ammon does all of his chores, and gets the horses ready, and finally he goes "in unto the king, and he saw that the countenance of the king was changed; therefore he was about to return out of his presence." When he goes in he sees that something is up, so he discreetly intends to slip away for now. But, "one of the king’s servants said unto him . . . the king desireth thee to stay." So, Ammon goes up to the king and asks, "What wilt thou that I should do for thee, O king?" And it says that the king "answered him not for the space of an hour . . . for he knew not what he should say unto him." This is funny too! The king is so flabbergasted by everything, that he can't figure out what to say to Ammon for an entire hour! I don't know if it was really an hour, but I really like to think that it was.

So Ammon tries again, "What desirest thou of me? But the king answered him not." This is where the story gets really funny. Ammon is either really dense, or he's been up to some crazy stuff. Cuz it's only after this hour of silence that the Spirit of God helps it dawn on Ammon what this might be about. And Ammon "perceived the thoughts of the king. And he said unto him: Is it because thou hast heard that I defended thy servants and thy flocks, and slew seven of their brethren with the sling and with the sword, and smote off the arms of others, in order to defend thy flocks and thy servants; behold, is it this that causeth thy marvelings?" Ammon's like, oh, maybe this is about the fact that I single-handedly defended the servants and the flocks, killed seven people with rocks and a sword, and chopped off a bunch of arms. That's probably what this is about. It took Ammon an hour to figure that out! What else had he been up to that day? What else could it have been about?!! So Ammon continues:

"I say unto you, what is it, that thy marvelings are so great? Behold, I am a man, and am thy servant; therefore, whatsoever thou desirest which is right, that will I do. Now when the king had heard these words, he marveled again, for he beheld that Ammon could discern his thoughts but notwithstanding this, king Lamoni did open his mouth, and said unto him: Who art thou? Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all things? Ammon answered and said unto him: I am not. And the king said: How knowest thou the thoughts of my heart? Thou mayest speak boldly, and tell me concerning these things; and also tell me by what power ye slew and smote off the arms of my brethren that scattered my flocks— And now, if thou wilt tell me concerning these things, whatsoever thou desirest I will give unto thee; and if it were needed, I would guard thee with my armies; but I know that thou art more powerful than all they; nevertheless, whatsoever thou desirest of me I will grant it unto thee."

Ammon was hoping something like this would happen. So he says, "Wilt thou hearken unto my words, if I tell thee by what power I do these things? And this is the thing that I desire of thee." And the king says he'll believe him, so Ammon gets the missionary opportunity he was hoping for all along. I envision this story happening in a great hall, with the king sitting on a throne, and down the steps from the throne is Ammon, looking up at the king. There's probably a few officials around, plus servants trying to listen in. Because come on, what person who heard about what had happened wouldn't be trying to listen in on this conversation? Ammon then proceeds to give a magnificent sermon about the Gospel of Jesus Christ: 

"24 And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

25 And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.

26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?

27 And he said, Yea.

28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?

29 And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.

30 And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels.

31 And king Lamoni said: Is it above the earth?

32 And Ammon said: Yea, and he looketh down upon all the children of men; and he knows all the thoughts and intents of the heart; for by his hand were they all created from the beginning.

33 And king Lamoni said: I believe all these things which thou hast spoken. Art thou sent from God?

34 Ammon said unto him: I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God, and I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people, that they may be brought to a knowledge of that which is just and true;

35 And a portion of that Spirit dwelleth in me, which giveth me knowledge, and also power according to my faith and desires which are in God.

36 Now when Ammon had said these words, he began at the creation of the world, and also the creation of Adam, and told him all the things concerning the fall of man, and rehearsed and laid before him the records and the holy scriptures of the people, which had been spoken by the prophets, even down to the time that their father, Lehi, left Jerusalem.

37 And he also rehearsed unto them (for it was unto the king and to his servants) all the journeyings of their fathers in the wilderness, and all their sufferings with hunger and thirst, and their travail, and so forth.

38 And he also rehearsed unto them concerning the rebellions of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, yea, all their rebellions did he relate unto them; and he expounded unto them all the records and scriptures from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem down to the present time.

39 But this is not all; for he expounded unto them the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world; and he also made known unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and all the works of the Lord did he make known unto them.

40 And it came to pass that after he had said all these things, and expounded them to the king, that the king believed all his words."

There's so much I love about this story. I can't even write it all here. The story doesn't end here, but this is my very favorite part about it. I hope that I helped you look at this story from the scriptures in a new light and see how a story that appears to be quite violent is also an inspiring tale of unshakeable faith, miracles, and humor. 

Come Follow Me June 22-28

#Comefollowme

What's Wrong with Modern Monetary Theory?

With the disclaimer that I'm not an economist or an expert in any way, let's discuss US fiscal policy. Currently, the way that our government controls inflation and liquidity is through interest rate manipulation (setting interest rates) and monetary policy (spending). Traditionally, a national budget was supposed to be balanced, meaning if you wanted to spend a specific amount of money,  you needed to have a surplus in your budget or you needed to fund your projects in some way for them to be possible. Many Democrats now tout Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as the answer to funding constraints. 

What is Modern Monetary Theory? It is an economic theory that states that an issuer of a fiat currency can never run out of money or default on its bills because it is the issuer of that currency. One can always issue more currency when one needs it, so essentially a government with a fiat currency could spend as much as it wants without adverse consequences. The only constraint with this type of spending is inflation, or the devaluation of the currency. Since our current government seeks to control inflation by the manipulation of interest rates, why not instead control inflation (and fund new needed projects) with monetary policy instead and have unlimited funds? 

Now on paper this theory seems like it might make sense. In that case, what's wrong with modern monetary theory? The biggest flaw I see with Modern Monetary Theory is that it disregards human nature. This is a huge oversight. In MMT when inflation starts to rise out of the target zone as it inevitably would, taxes need to rise and spending has to be cut. By taxing at higher rates and cutting spending, money is removed from the economy and inflation would be reduced. 

Why do I see a problem with this? Well, there are a few reasons and all of them have to do with human nature. First, what politician is going to raise taxes and cut spending right when the general public starts to feel the pinch from inflation? None. Our politicians are not disciplined enough to hurt the people for their own good. If they did they'd never be re-elected. Second, MMT would make it so that the response to inflation would be legislative. How effective are politicians at working together when facing a crisis? How good are politicians now at agreeing about taxes and budgets? Third, MMT would basically give politicians free reign to implement projects without regard to cost. How effective are our governmental officials at using funds wisely now with supposed budget constraints? Are you willing to give Trump and his cronies the keys to the treasury? If not, you shouldn't be willing to trust Biden and his minions. If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, we shouldn't give our government even more power in this area. One could even make an argument that they should have less influence here than they already do.  

One of the biggest problems with our government today is that it appears to be practicing MMT without admitting to it. Why do I think this is happening? Well, we've been doing some form of QEing or stimulus  monetary policy since Bush, all through Obama, and it's only accelerated under Trump and the pandemic. What's up with this? Why is our government so afraid of market cycles and deflationary periods? I believe it's because deflation would literally cripple the United States economy and have drastic impacts on the world economies all because of record amounts of debt.

Part of what made the stock market crash in 1929 so bad was the accompanying deflation that followed it. Tons of people were in debt because they'd speculated and borrowed money to invest. When the whole thing came crashing down, those with debt were economically crippled. They had borrowed little cheap dollars, but the debt that they had to pay back was with big expensive dollars. Why is this relevant now? Irresponsible borrowing and spending has been the hallmark of bubbles in the economy since the 1600s with the first recorded bubble, the Tulip Bubble. It seems like every bubble since then has been similar. The stock market in 1929. The dotcom bubble in the 90s. The Housing Market bubble in 07. Some people speculate that we're now in an "Everything Bubble" or a "Bond Bubble." I can see where they're coming from. Government debt is at the highest it's ever been. Consumer debt is the highest it's ever been. Corporate debt is the highest it's ever been. Student loan debt is the highest it's ever been. What happens when people can no longer service their debt? Deflation would destroy most of America. 

Inflation, which has been described as the only tax you can pass without legislation, would be the cure. The government has no intention of "paying back" the debt. It appears that the only logical way out of the current predicament is through inflating our way out. The only casualties of this would be savers, the people trying to be responsible and plan for the future. Our entire economy is based on consumer spending to the degree that we are encouraged to spend, even if we can't afford it. We are actually incentivized to accrue debt. The government does everything it can to accommodate this, from keeping money artificially cheap with constantly low interest rates, to injecting money into the economy. When the Fed tried to reduce its balance sheet in September of last year (2019), the Repo Market (a complicated thing that entities use to borrow cash for government securities overnight), which is referred to as the heart of the economy, almost broke. Our economic system couldn't handle having the constant liquidity dry up. 

Why does it matter to us? It matters because our government is in such a tangled mess it can't get out. They've used up all of the ammunition it has in its interest rate arsenal. The only place to go now is negative. They've quietly been experimenting with MMT and calling it Quantitative Easing and Stimulus, while passing out Corporate Handouts to keep the entire system from imploding. Meanwhile, with interest rates perpetually low forever, savers lose spending power to inflation, but debtors end up better off as inflation eats away at what they owe. With interest rates so low, people who are trying to be responsible and save for retirement are quietly taxed without it being official. There's no yield in savings (did you know that in the early 80s you could get like, an 18% yield on 6 month CD?). If people want to invest or save or have any kind of yield, there's only three places to get it now: The stock market, real estate, or opening a business. Let's face it, not all people are cut out to be traders, landlords, or entrepreneurs, and in the past they didn't have to be. People could invest according to their risk tolerance, but now with no yield anywhere, what is anyone to do? They flock to stocks and real estate, and we wonder why there's a housing shortage and why stocks are so high and divorced from the actual fundamentals of the economy. 

So, if the government has been practicing MMT for a while now, and the only constraint is inflation, why haven't we seen it yet? Well, technological advances might have made providing food and clothing cheaper, but we sure can't trick other costs into remaining artificially low. How are those housing costs working out for you? How's the cost of education working out for you? How about the cost of healthcare? The price of stocks? Are these examples of inflation? I think they very well could be. I think the implementation of MMT would be a disaster because it would require everyone to go against human nature if it were to be implemented successfully, and I don't think that is something we can feasibly do. 

Why Nations Fail: What Does Institutional Racism Look Like?

In reading chapters 8 and 9 of Why Nations Fail, I learned a lot more about the history of Slavery and the slave trade, specifically in Africa and Europe. They do briefly address slavery in the United States, but the focus is mostly on South Africa. About slavery in the US they said,  

"In the United States, southern slavery was often referred to as the "peculiar institution." But historically, as the great classical scholar Moses Finlay pointed out, slavery was anything but peculiar, it was present in almost every society. It was, as we saw earlier, endemic in ancient Rome and in Africa, long a source of slaves for Europe . . ." 

So originally a bunch of groups of people were enslaving each other, even members of their own groups, especially in Africa. Europe transitioned away from enslaving their own people to just oppressing them as serfs, while Africa didn't. The book states that "before the early modern period, there was a vibrant slave trade." There were various reasons for this that I won't go into, but "most slaves who were sold were war captives transported to the coast [in Africa]."

 

The slave trade was so bad in Africa, that it was basically government sanctioned, "so that no matter what crime you committed, slavery was the punishment." Africa created their political institutions and their economy on the capturing and selling of slaves. This book says they instituted a "process in which all laws and customs were distorted and broken to capture slaves." The African States were transformed, it says, into "slaving states."

In time, as Africans transitioned away from absolutism and began to have private property rights, the regular citizens began to make money and succeed, even the blacks. They were able to produce things cheaper than the European market, which undercut the profits of those in Europe. So the Europeans or the whites deliberately tried to drive them out of business and keep them impoverished so that it wouldn't undercut their profits. The whites deliberately passed laws to benefit themselves and institutionalize that benefit by law, while deliberately keeping the blacks in poverty to maintain them as a cheap labor force. 

"Both of the goals of removing competition of white farmers and developing a large low wage labor force were simultaneously accomplished by the Natives Land Act of 1913. The Act, anticipating Lewis's notion of dual economy, divided South Africa into two parts, a modern prosperous part and a traditional poor part. Except that the prosperity and poverty were actually being created by the Act itself."

The dual economy that was created didn't happen naturally or organically. It happened because of the laws that were put in place. "[T]he act of 1913 . . . definitively institutionalized the situation... and set the stage for the Apartheid regime." The Apartheid regime gave political and economic rights to the white minority, disregarding and deliberately oppressing the 80% black majority. This regime lasted from about 1950 into the 1990s. 

"To the development economists who visited South Africa in the 1950s and 1960s when the academic discipline was taking shape and the ideas of Arthur Lewis were spreading, the contrast between these homelands and the prosperous white modern European economy seemed to be exactly what the dual economy theory was about. The European part of the economy was urban and educated and used modern technology. The homelands were poor, rural, and backward. Labor there was very unproductive. People, uneducated. It seemed to be the essence of timeless, backward Africa. Except that the dual economy was not natural or inevitable. It had been created by European colonialism. Yes, the homelands were poor and technologically backward, and the people were uneducated, but all this was an outcome of government policy, which had forcibly stamped out African economic growth and created the reservoir of cheap, uneducated African labor to be employed in European controlled mines and lands."

What were these government policies that had been instituted to keep the blacks uneducated and in poverty? I'll list a few. The economic incentives they had to succeed were removed. They weren't allowed to own land, they were denied political rights, and education was discouraged. The whites in power deliberately kept the people unskilled and uneducated to reduce competition for skilled jobs. They were excluded from specific positions and weren't allowed to be businessmen, entrepreneurs, scientists, or engineers. They weren't allowed to vote, hold political office, or join the military. The system had been structured to ensure that they would remain uneducated, unskilled, and available as a labor pool. "The dispossession of the African farmers led to their mass impoverishment. It created not only the institutional foundations of a backward economy, but the poor people to stock it." There was a vast reversal of living standards after these policies were implemented. Wages fell despite economic growth for a really long time. It says that "over this period South Africa became the most unequal country in the world."

"But even in these circumstances, couldn't black Africans have made their way in the European modern economy? Started a business, or have become educated and gotten a career? The colonial government made sure that these things could not happen. No African was allowed to own property or start a business in the European part of the economy." The "Colour Bar" was a racist invention of the South African regime that was "extended to the entire economy in 1926 and lasted until 1982." This policy removed the possibility of economic advancement, refused to invest in black schools, and discouraged black education. "There was to be no seamless movement of poor people to the modern sector as the economy developed. On the contrary, the success of the modern sector relied on the existence of the backward sector, which enabled white employers to make huge profits paying very low wages to black, unskilled workers." These conditions lasted to some degree until the overthrow of the regime in 1994. That's very recent 

Another thing that's recent is the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s in the US. While it seems like a long time ago, it makes it easier to understand in terms of lifetimes. Those events occurred in most of our grandparent's, and some of our parent's lifetimes. It would be extremely naive to believe that the residual attitudes and behaviors of some people or institutions wouldn't bear the stain of racism in the US today. 

However, it was enlightening to have an example of a racist institutionalism to observe. I am glad that blacks in the United States have property rights, but I am concerned about how welfare sometimes removes economic incentives. I have friends who use WIC or Medicare who have to be careful not to be "too successful" because if they are the help that they rely on will be removed and they won't be able to make ends meet anymore. Is this institutionalized racism where economic incentives to advance have been removed? Maybe, but that seems less about race and more about poverty, which isn't restricted to race. I don't think there are deliberate attempts to keep blacks unskilled and uneducated, and I don't see evidence of them being excluded from specific vocations or political positions. Our highest office in the country was held by Obama, a black man, only a few years ago. Blacks in the US are allowed to vote, hold political office, or join the military. I am in favor of rooting out any institutionalized inequality we have in the US based on race, class, or any other characterization. Feel free to point out to me where the specific laws and problems are in our system as I'm very happy to write my representatives about them. 

Why Nations Fail Continued: Working Together for Common Goals

I'm not a historian, just a regular person reading a book, so if I get some of the details of the history wrong I apologize. In finishing chapter 7 of Why Nations Fail, I learned about the importance of cotton manufacturing to England around the 1730s, and it's influence on national trade, prosperity, and political power. The people were all fighting for their own interests (traders, merchants, manufacturers, etc). They tried to pass laws to benefit themselves the most politically and there was a struggle back and forth as different groups tried to create monopolies for themselves in different areas of the economy. Technological innovation was stifled at times because innovation was "Creative Destruction" that destroyed the old ways of doing things and shifted economic and political power from the old guard to the new guard, and thus was destabilizing for the current winners. 

"Most critically, the emergence and empowerment of diverse interests ranging from the gentry, a class of commercial farmers that had emerged in the Tudor period to manufacturers to Atlantic traders meant that the coalition against absolutism was not only strong but also broad. This coalition was strengthened even more by the formation of the Whig party, which provided an organization to further its interests." It was this empowerment of various groups that led to their joint success. 

I especially liked this quote which struck me as relevant and true, something that could be applied to other situations or time periods: 

 

"If all those fighting against the Stuarts had the same interest and the same background, the overthrow of the Stuart Monarchy would have been much more likely to be a replay of the House of Lanchaster vs. the House of York, pitting one group against another narrow set of interests, and ultimately replacing and re-creating the same, or a different form, of extractive institutions. A broad coalition meant that there would be greater demands for the creation of  pluralist political institutions. Without some sort of pluralism there would be a danger that one of the diverse interests would usurp power at the expense of the rest." 

So, pluralism is defined online as "a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist," which is something I think is completely desirable. If I were to make parallels to today, I might adjust the quote to reflect what I see in America and have it say something like this: 

"If all those fighting against the [centralization of power in politics and the economy] had the same interest and the same background, the overthrow of the [current power monopolies] Monarchy would have been much more likely to . . . [pit] one group against another narrow set of interests, and ultimately replacing and re-creating the same, or a different form, of extractive institutions. A broad coalition [would] meant that there would be greater demands for the creation of  pluralist political institutions. Without some sort of pluralism there would be a danger that one of the diverse interests would usurp power at the expense of the rest." 

The book goes on to discuss that a "crucial factor in making  parliament listen to petitions, even when they came from outside of parliament and even from those without a vote" was the fact that they came from such broad groups of varied interests. "This was a crucial factor in preventing attempts by one group from creating a monopoly at the expense of the rest." 

We could parallel this to our own government as well by saying that a "crucial factor in making [congress] listen to petitions, even when they [come] from outside of [congress] and even from those without [power]" would be to band together with dissimilar groups to fight for common goals. "This [would be] a crucial factor in preventing attempts by one group from creating a monopoly at the expense of the rest." If we considered this in the light of our current polarization in America between many, many groups competing for power, we can see that we, the people would be more likely to achieve our goals if we were to combine forces and work together towards the future that we want instead of assuming that power to affect change is out of our hands. That's true when we fight individual battles alone; however, it gives weight to the phrase "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." 

It was interesting that the success and power of these groups together were much greater when they were united with one another. The book states that "The Glorious Revolution was a momentous event precisely because it was lead by an emboldened broad coalition, and further empowered this coalition . . ." Basically by banding together, they were no longer pitted against one another, and this placed constraints of power upon the different groups so that no one group would end up becoming "too powerful and abusing its power." 

The book talked in earlier chapters about "Critical Junctures" or times of the shifting of economic and political power within nations. Sometimes there are events that speed up the occurrence of these critical junctures or shifts of power. Examples of this would be the black plague in Europe or the Industrial Revolution. The book said that these "revolutions" were typically characterized by unrest and turmoil.

One could make an argument that the current pandemic could have a similar effect in that the neccessity of the consumer as a key part of the economic engine, combined with the essential nature of the workforce that keeps the economy moving (essential workers being grocers, shippers, delivery personnel, etc) are actually the backbone of our country's prosperity and should be compensated as such. It makes an interesting comparison to our day now too. The current political and societal unrest could be attributed to a shifting of power back from the political and economic powers that hold them back to the people. If Black Lives Matter, NAACP, LGBTQ+ groups, Religious Freedom Groups, and even NRA groups banded together to support and defend one another's Constitutional Rights, I imagine they would have a greater impact and power to affect law than when they struggle individually to preserve freedoms. Either way, it's interesting to see how history might rhyme. 

 

Val's Email Sunday School: Trying to Be Like Jesus Christ (Again and Again)

When reading and contemplating the lesson this week, I kept thinking about themes and how those themes apply to me and the world today. Specifically, I noticed a theme of repentance. Very often in the scriptures people are “called to repentance.” Without boring you with dictionary definitions, I’ll explain what I’ve come to understand repentance as. I used to think repentance was apologizing when we did something wrong, and trying not to do it anymore. While it can be that, it’s much more than that. Sometimes I think we wonder what we have to repent of when we haven’t committed any big sins. But I don’t think this is what repentance was ever really supposed to be about. Repentance is useful to those who sin against commandments, and equally useful to those who may be keeping the commandments. Repentance is to become better, and regardless of where we are in our life journey, we all can do better in many ways. The quest to become a more charitable and compassionate individual is a lifelong pursuit.

Repentance means to change, to turn back to the ideal way. To repent means to repeatedly try to be like Jesus Christ. Repentance is allowing ourselves and others the freedom to change and to become better when we learn something is better than what we've been doing. It involves Jesus Christ and the enabling power of his Atonement that helps us make these changes in attitudes, behaviors, or our nature that are otherwise ingrained in us. Repentance helps us recognize the changes we need to make. Repentance is recognizing and implementing a better way, a more Christlike way, when we recognize we’ve deviated from his standard. Repentance can be applied to any area of our lives. Finance, fitness, relationships, social, spiritual, etc. When we learn a better way to behave that leads to better outcomes, repentance is the word that describes abandoning a habit or behavior  that doesn’t serve us in favor of one that leads to better outcomes like peace, success, love, or prosperity.

Now, with that said, I’d like to talk specifically about one scripture: Alma 13:20. Halfway through this verse it says, “Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.” At first I thought this said to "wrestle" with the scriptures, or to fight with the scriptures, was bad for us. However, the word is wrest, not wrestle. To wrest with the scriptures means to twist or distort them. That’s a slightly different meaning. If we twist or distort the scriptures, it will be to our own destruction. In what way do we sometimes twist or distort scriptures and adjust or justify them in our minds?

Well, Matthew 22:36-40 tells us the two great commandments are to love God and to love our neighbor (we have learned our neighbor is our fellow man). Do we find justifications that allow us not to love some people? Do we choose not to love some other people because we don’t like their opinions or choices? Or do we follow the scripture as it is written and love God and our fellow men without caveats?

In Mosiah 18 Alma teaches the people that to follow Christ means to “mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places. . .” One thing that has struck me about society lately is the utter lack of empathy that many of us have. We see people mourning and try to convince them their pain isn’t justified. Whether or not we think their pain or sadness is justified, it shouldn’t change our behavior. Many people in our society are hurting. They are mourning. They stand in need of comfort and some of us are twisting the scriptures and choosing to read them as “mourn with those that mourn if their complaint makes sense to you, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort if their pain is justified.” It’s ridiculous. If a little kid was scared but there was no basis for it, would you ignore their pain or fear or tell them to get over it? Or would you comfort them and help them see the truth? If the little kid's fears were legitimate, your behavior wouldn't change. You'd comfort them and then face the fear together. Either way your job is to love and comfort them. It's really quite simple.  

We are told in the books of Jacob, Mosiah, and Helaman to care for those around us. Helaman 4:10-13 is especially scathing in it’s condemnation of those who profess to follow Christ, but don’t live according to the teachings of Christ. It’s talking about a “great slaughter” that happened among the Nephites which “would not have happened had it not been for their wickedness and their abomination which was among them; yea, and it was among those also who professed to belong to the church of God. And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred, denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation, murdering, plundering, lying, stealing, committing adultery, rising up in great contentions, and deserting away into the land of Nephi, among the Lamanites—” Do we have a clear conscience when it comes to our treatment of the poor? Or the afflicted? Or the sad? Do we excuse ourselves from helping people because they brought their situation upon themselves by their choices? Do we need to stop wresting with the scriptures and stop justifying our bad behavior or the bad feelings we sometimes harbor in our hearts?

What about the admonition in 1st Timothy 4 to “. . . be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” Do we live that scripture? How about all the scriptures to “be one?” Are we unified with one another? With others in the church? With the other children of God who might not have found the church yet? Do we love our enemies? Do we bless them that curse us and do good to those who despitefully use us and persecute us? These are Christ’s teachings. These are the things he admonished us to do without qualifiers. Are we doing them? Are we living the way he asked us to?

I admit that I stink real bad at this sometimes. I’ve judged people across this country who always talk about being triggered and needing safe spaces as being weak and ridiculous. I’ve viewed people in our country (who I knew thought I was an uneducated bigot who was brainwashed for being a member of an organized religion) as my enemies and I didn’t love them and I didn’t pray for them. I was happy to be segregated from them. They could live in their weird, politically correct, Marxist utopia prison, and I’d live a normal peaceful life far away from them. They were too far gone, championing the right to be enslaved by the government and I didn’t want anything to do with them. I felt like we lived in different worlds and there was no common ground upon which we’d ever agree or begin to communicate.

At the beginning of this year, I’ve felt compelled to begin writing again. I didn’t want to, and I still don't. The world is full of enough noise and I didn’t want to add my voice to the screaming matches online or anywhere else. Besides, what did I have to say anyway? What unique perspective did I really think I had to contribute to the conversation? But I started writing about Derek’s accident and his recovery, and I have been learning a lot about myself and the world as I’ve done it. In the beginning, I resisted a lot. I knew that no matter what happened in my life, I would be okay. I’d gone through a lot, and I’d learned how to endure. Why did I have to share what I learned with anyone? They could learn it the hard way just like I had, and they’d be fine. What I was told in my mind and heart was, “Your lessons aren’t just for you.” Guys, our lessons aren’t just for us. The peace that we have in our lives isn’t just for us. And it isn’t up to us to decide who gets to know Christ and who doesn’t.

Our nation is traumatized. Much of our country is living in a godless society. We’ve allowed Christ to be taken out of Christmas and now we say Happy Holidays. Universities now talk about dates in terms of B.C.E. or Before the Common Era instead of Before Christ. There is a concentrated effort to remove Christ and God from our nation and society and we aren’t better off for it. The young people in our nation who use the language of trauma and who are overly concerned with safety are not weak. Many of those we love to hate and derisively call “Snowflakes” or “Social Justice Warriors” appear to be decent human beings who have Christlike goals. They want to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick and afflicted. They are growing up and living in a world without God and without purpose, and they’ve been mocked for their passion to make the lives of other humans better. We live in a horrible society where homeless people live on the streets because we just can’t figure out how to care for the poor among us, babies are killed in their mother’s wombs, mass murders are just another headline, kids go hungry, people cheat on each other, pornography is everywhere, children are abused and exploited, and people are vicious on a national stage. And we wonder why people today use the language of trauma.

The greatest crimes many are guilty of are wanting to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and have greater equality for all. Anyone who is a true follower of Christ has these same goals. They’ve insisted there must be a better way to take care of people, and half of America has scornfully said that the poor “just want free stuff” and demanded to know who is going to pay for it. Half of America has said that improving the world is impossible, and this is just the world that we live in. Many have refused to even consider how we can make some of these goals happen. People have expressed a preference for a Zion-like society, which we claim is our own goal, and many have mocked them for it. They’ve been called weak. They’ve been called too sensitive. They’ve been led to believe that most of America values profits over people. And we wonder why they speak the language of trauma and of being triggered.

When you look at the problems plaguing America, they’re problems of trauma and PTSD. They're problems of isolation and lack of meaning. I could write a whole book about this, but symptoms of trauma include obesity, drug abuse, anxiety, depression, and more. Our society is traumatized and we have watched it crumble. I thought that most people had chosen to live this way. I thought that they’d made their choices and this was what they wanted. They didn’t want Christ, they didn’t want God, they didn’t want religion, and they didn’t want us. They mocked it and they hated us. But I can’t help but wonder if the scriptures are true that say that there are “many . . . yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—”

What if our fellow Americans have only been taught to hate religion “because of the tradition of their fathers?” What if they are desperately seeking a source of purpose and peace and we have it? I don’t know how to share what I know with other people when my circle of influence is so very small. But I, and a few others that I know, have felt like we needed to return to social media. It’s lame, I know. Lots of us know that one way to stay mentally healthy is to just avoid living so much of our lives online. However, the battle for the hearts and minds of the people is taking place there, and we probably shouldn’t just tune out and turn off our electronics and hope the war doesn’t find us. “17 Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let us cheerfully do all things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.” (D&C 123:17)

Matthew and 3 Nephi tell us the same thing. To let our light shine before men, “that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” As the world is darker, there is greater contrast between darkness, light, and peace. And in darkness, a “perfect brightness of hope” is beautiful and unique. Matthew 24:27 tells us that “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” I used to think this mean that Christ would come and it would be super obvious, unmistakable, like, you can’t miss it. But lately I have thought that perhaps this means that the light and love of Christ will spread like the light of the morning. The light will hit some places first. And like the light of dawn, it will creep across the earth until it covers all the land, and then the world.

Come Follow Me June 15-21

Currently Reading: Why Nations Fail (Chapters 5-7)

The hypothesis in Why Nations Fail is that the prosperity of nations is directly linked to politics and economics. In places that are inclusive with politics and economics, regular citizens have a say in how things are run, as well as access to capital and opportunities that provide them with motivation to work hard and innovate because they can make their own lives better (economic incentives). The farther societies drift from this ideal, the more they become rooted in "extractive" or exploitative systems where political elites (who have power) and economic elites (who are rich) work to pass laws to benefit themselves without regard to the general populace. It's this centralization of power that's the problem and leads to the demise of nations and empires. What's interesting is that these prosperous, powerful societies (inclusive nations) can only be destroyed from within. It is the internal conflicts, based in the struggle between the ruling class and the regular citizens, that can destroy a nation with infighting.

When external enemies fought the empires in the past when they were inclusive, they were defeated by the unity of the nation, even though they were more coordinated and unified than the groups within the nation's inner struggles that end up being their ultimate demise. They cited examples from Venice and ancient Rome, pointing out how when the exploitative practices started to lead to a decline in prosperity, the ruling class sought to mollify the general populace with free food and free entertainment to keep them distracted.

My opinion is that it's interesting to consider America in this light. Is the current unrest that we're seeing rooted in something like this? Have we long since drifted away from the inclusive nature of the society that was created following the Revolutionary War? If nations fail because the systems and laws have been twisted to largely benefit certain portions of society without regard to others, who is responsible, and what can be done? If America is failing as a nation, according to this book,  there's a simple solution: Return the power to the people. How can return the power to the people? We do this by decentralizing the power that's concentrated in the hands of the economic elite and the corrupt politicians who want to keep the status quo because they are the ones benefiting most from the system as it is to the detriment to everyone else.

If this hypothesis is true, there are two steps to saving the America:

1. Regulate Lobbying and Special Interest Groups 

2. Term Limits for all Political Positions

 

If we implemented these two steps, the current consolidation of power into the hands of the few would be disbursed among the citizens again, which according to this book is what leads to prosperity, innovation, and success in a nation.

Who is Behind the Unrest in the US?

Where did the phrase “the man behind the curtain” originate? It occurred in the story The Wizard of Oz. Forbes talks about it in an article here, saying, “In one particularly memorable scene, Dorothy's dog Toto sneaks behind a curtain while she, the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man and the Scarecrow are being mesmerized by a massively enlarged, projected image of the wizard, who talks with an amplified, booming voice, light effects and smoke designed to create the aura of an actual wizard. Toto sniffs out a side chamber and tugs open a curtain that reveals a diminutive old man behind a curtain who's talking into a microphone while pulling levers and pressing buttons. Once exposed, the man jumps up and yells into the microphone, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” Forbes makes some very interesting points in this article, and I'd encourage people to read it. But what's my point? Why am I talking about a man behind a curtain?

I want to present a little bit more info first before we talk about that. I'd like to discuss Nazi propaganda and how the German populace was lead to believe in an alternate reality (yes, seriously). An excellent article by Slate.com (that I also beg everyone to read) analyzes how this could happen, exposing the tactics of the leaders in power in a chilling and enlightening way, and presenting the psychology of the general populace who followed them.

This article states that "The purpose of Nazi propaganda was not to brainwash ordinary Germans, and it was not intended to deceive the masses even though it did enable the movement to gain new recruits. The principal objective, according to historian Neil Gregor, was “to absorb the individual into a mass of like-minded people, and the purpose of the ‘suggestion’ was not to deceive but to articulate that which the crowd already believed.”"

"One of the foundations of their propaganda was repetition, or the “repeated exposure effect.” They didn't so much want to convince everyone of what they said, but simply exhaust people into going along with things. "The citizen was not a target to be persuaded so much as a victim to be conquered, ravished even. They wanted internal commitment, not just external compliance." The article stated it another way, that "Nazism did not ask for belief but for surrender—not through coercion, primarily, but by assaulting consciousness. The essential aim was the extinction of independent thought. . ."

According to the article, "Another core part of Nazi grand theory was the dethronement of reason and the celebration of emotion. Nazism felt rather than thought, and therefore the nature of its propaganda appeal was also to feeling rather than thinking. The mobilization of emotion lay at the heart of everything the Nazis did. . ." They knew their propaganda was simple and primitive. It had to be. They weren't trying to appeal to the intellectuals or the critical thinkers. Walther Schulze-Wechsungen wrote: “Many . . . laughed at the propaganda of the [Nazis] in the past from a position of superiority. It is true that we had only one thing to say, and we yelled and screamed and propagandized it again and again with a stubbornness that drove the ‘wise’ to desperation. We proclaimed it with such simplicity that they thought it absurd and almost childish. They did not understand that repetition is the precursor to success and simplicity is the key to the emotional and mental world of the masses. We wanted to appeal to the intuitive world of the great masses, not the understanding of the intellectuals.”

Hitler understood how powerful tribalism could be. He understood the need to create serial enemies and the power of fear. The slate article states that, "His construction of tribal passion could arouse the emotions and therefore render people vulnerable to any kind of visionary persuasion or invocation to epic quest."

Now, lest you say, but Val, are you arguing that we're being taken over by Nazis? No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that it seems increasingly likely that we are deliberately being manipulated by individuals who have meticulously studied one of the most successful Propaganda campaigns in history and re-branded it in order to control us. So, with that said, let's discuss several propaganda tactics that seem like they're being used today in much the same way that they were used in Germany in the past to manipulate the general public. Here are a few: 


* Anti-Religion

*Emotion over Logic

*Either or Philosophy

* Creation of Serial Enemies

* Redefinition of Words

* Rejection of Independent Thought

* Censorship


Anti-Religion

People repeatedly argue that the separation of church and state means that religion has no place in public life. It has no place in politics. You are free to believe and do whatever you want to believe or do, as long as you do it out of my sight so I don't have to be offended by your religious sensibilities. These people argue that our Constitutional right of Freedom of Religion is actually Freedom from Religion, and there are actually groups seeking to change the language of the constitution to reflect that. What the text actually says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . " We are supposed to be guaranteed the right that the lawmakers will not make laws favoring one belief system over the other, which would be akin to establishing a state sponsored religion. I would like others to be able to live their beliefs, but I want to be able to disagree with them without being publicly shamed, vilified, or silenced. It appears at times that our government is seeking to establish a state sponsored religion without regard to other systems of belief. I only say this because of people getting fired over saying the wrong thing or being publicly shamed by having the wrong opinion. Is there some push to establish a state religion? It sometimes seems like it.

People opposed to religion often characterize religious people as narrow-minded, rooted in tradition, unscientific, believing in fantasies, brainwashed, or just plain stupid. Everyone has a religion, because one's religion is merely one's values and belief system. Those opposed to organized religion tout the claim that they believe in science like the two are somehow mutually exclusive. Having a different value or belief system than someone else doesn't negate your ability to believe in reason, education, or physics. Reason, logic, and the scientific method are things which we should all be able to agree on regardless of values. 

Emotion over Logic

Many of the debates today center around how people "feel", disregarding or vilifying and hating those who would disagree or those who point out statistics, facts, or truth. Without trying to cause problems, I'd like to compare some of the recent protests.  

I think that the people protesting for their Right to Work had legitimate grievances. I think that people need to be able to work, earn a living, and feed their families. I don't think that the state should be able to arbitrarily decide which businesses are "essential" and which are not. This was actually a tactic of Nazi Germany as well, a connection I made on my own. Only now did I look it up and found that others had made the same comparisons. But the headlines openly mock this parallel and dismiss it as absurd. These people were protesting because their lives (ability to feed and shelter their families) were threatened. This is one of the unalienable rights listed in our Constitution. At the core, these protesters were demonstrating because they believed their Constitutional Rights had been violated. Individuals derisively mock these protesters for "wanting a haircut." The protesters had convictions in their Constitutional Rights to such a degree they were willing to risk illness or possible death to make their voices heard. These people protested, their objections were heard, and adjustments were made. 

Some people were upset that while they were allowed to shop, they weren't allowed to attend religious services. To these people, being able to "peaceably assemble" and freely exercise their Constitutional Rights was being violated. I don't think anyone was advocating meeting without provisions with regards to continued safety,  they were just advocating for their ability to meet at all. Individuals mock these people, too, accusing them of  valuing superstition over other's lives. The protesters had convictions in their Constitutional Rights to such a degree they were willing to risk illness or possible death to make their voices heard. It was my understanding that there were formerly restrictions placed on religious services that weren't placed on protests, even if both were held outdoors in a similar venue. 

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) and George Floyd protests protests are about addressing police brutality and racism. At their core, these protests too are about equal Constitutional Rights of all citizens. BLM advocates are shouting that "Black people have the same right to life, liberty, and happiness as everyone else" with an emphasis on the word "life." Black people should have equal citizenship and rights under the law. The people protesting with BLM believe that  they are also about Constitutional Rights. These protesters had convictions in their Constitutional Rights to such a degree they were willing to risk illness or possible death to make their voices heard.  They are protesting so that their objections will be heard and adjustments will be made. The argument for emotion over logic comes in here. Why were these protests praised by media and many on social media, while the others were mocked? What makes this cause, the case of securing Constitutional Rights different from the others?

If all of these groups (and others) within the US are trying to ensure their Constitutional Liberties, then why are some of them praised for it and others mocked? Why is there a disparity? If other Americans are concerned about the exact same things we are, why aren't we working together, pledging together to ensure one another's rights? If Black Advocacy Groups, and LGBTQ+ groups, and Religious Freedom Groups, and Gun Rights Advocates are all worried about their rights and equal protection and status under the law, then why aren't we working together? Why aren't we on the same team? Even LGBTQ+ groups and Religious Freedom groups wouldn't have to be at odds if we could just agree to disagree.

While I admire homogeneous groups allying themselves with one another to try to defend and preserve their own rights, I wonder if we aren’t thinking too small. If the issue at the root of many of these conflicts is concern about the critical civil rights of various groups, wouldn’t it make more sense for us to unite with more groups who are dissimilar to our own as a pledge to uphold one another’s liberties?  I would try to create this group myself if I had the temperament or the connections.

Envision a coalition among groups like the Religious Freedom Groups banding together with BLM, the top LGBTQ+ groups, even NRA groups, to establish an overarching group of Americans committed to defending one another’s Constitutional Rights. Someone could draft a document, a type of pledge that vows to uphold the rights of all Americans to live according to their beliefs and preserve the freedom of speech, expression, and religion (belief system). This would remove the pervasive “us vs them” mentality that many seem to have. Ensuring the rights of others doesn’t diminish our own rights, it shores them up and strengthens them. Why is no one doing this? I imagine the power and the unity such a pledge to defend Constitutional Liberties of all Americans, signed by all the most prominent groups from ideologies across the board would have. It would be a powerful display of solidarity and unity that put everyone on the same team. If the fight was centered around defending the Constitution, suddenly it is a cause that most Americans are personally affected by and passionate about. Suddenly it is we, the people, struggling together to secure our rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness according to our law.

Instead of logically trying to discover the root of our problems, we emotionally argue our own viewpoints, dismissing the experiences and ideas of others, and resorting to name calling. Why are we so emotional? Why do we have an aversion to dealing with facts and reason?

Either or Philosophy

This problem is pervasive in our society. It's everywhere. You are either a demon or a saint. You either want to stay locked down forever or you want little old ladies to die. Cops are either good or bad. Racism is either systemic or it doesn't exist. You either agree with us and are a friend, or you disagree and you're an enemy. You either admit there's systemic racism or you're a racist. Either Biden wins this election or all is lost and America will be obliterated. Either Trump wins this election or the country is destroyed never to recover. You're either a Republican or Democrat. You either support LGBTQ+ rights or you hate LGBTQ+ people. You either belong to the party of Morality, Goodness, and Science, or you don't believe in any of those things and you're evil. Come on now, this is absurd. Have we forgotten that different approaches to problems and different perspectives are actually helpful? What the heck is up with this kind of mentality? I could go on and on with these. Where is the nuance? Where is the middle ground? Where is the recognition that life is complex? Things are never as black and white or as simple as we seem to want to believe. 

Creation of Serial Enemies

Why is our society so pitted against one another? Men vs. Women. Conservatives vs. Liberals. Republicans vs. Democrats. Rich vs. Poor. Black vs. Whites. People vs. Cops. Etc, etc, etc. Keeping people in a heightened emotional or trauma state keeps them from feeling safe. It keeps them from using rational thought and reason (study trauma this is literally a thing, I'd reccommend the book Healing the Shattered Selves of Trauma Survivors or The Body Keeps the Score). If we can be kept afraid, we will continue to use emotion and not logic. We'll continue to react instead of plan. Historian and psychologist Jay Y. Gonen said, “In a world that is seen through a narcissistic tunnel vision, only oneself or one’s group has any rights.” 

I am willing to bet the majority of us want the same things. We want our own rights and the rights of others to be protected. We want to improve educational and job opportunities for all Americans. We want to improve the living standards and quality of life of ourselves and others. Our goals are not at odds! So why are we??? Is there a deliberate push to keep us divided? If so why? By whom?

If people communicated more, would they realize they aren't enemies, and that their goals are the same? 

Redefinition of Words

In the 1987 classic movie The Princess Bride, Inigo Montoya utters these words, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Our precision of language has been polluted to the point where words are meaningless. They are relative and mean what you want them to mean. It's no wonder we can't communicate. A riot is not a protest. There are distinct differences. They aren't synonyms and shouldn't be used interchangeably. Peaceful protests are not characterized by police precincts engulfed in roaring flames. That's not what peaceful means. That's a violent riot. Why are we so reluctant to call things what they are? 

We've reached the level of absurdity where man doesn't mean male, it means anyone who wants to be male. And woman doesn't mean woman, it means anyone who wants to be a woman. I say absurdity because people are now talking about ways that they can protect and preserve the rights of biological women in things like sports, changing rooms, and sex-specific shelters, by mandating that perhaps we should group them by XX and XY so that you're categorized according to your chromosomal category and not your sex or gender. Sports are so twisted trying to accommodate transgender athletes, that they decided to do it by hormone level. If your hormones exceed a certain level, you no longer qualify as a "woman" and you have to chemically adjust your hormone levels to be able to compete, even if you're a biological woman. 

Our society claims to want to celebrate diversity, but when girls wear Asian style dresses the outrage about cultural appropriation is deafening. Everything it seems is cultural appropriation and insensitive, but to appropriate an entire gender is acceptable and even celebrated. Where is the logic in this? 

The debate between Socialism and Capitalism is extremely heated, but when Liberals and Conservatives talk about it, they're not even close to the same page. The new definition of socialism means government services or social programs, while the old definition is a soft form of communism where the government controls what you can buy, at what prices, and how much you get paid to work. Here is an excellent commentary regarding this debate by author Larry Correia detailing why we can't communicate about this. Are you starting to feel crazy, questioning your sanity or the sanity of the world? There's a term for this. It's called gaslighting.

Rejection of Independent Thought

How many people are being "canceled" because they have a dissenting opinion? Why do we suddenly have to hate JK Rowling just because she said that there's a term for "people who menstruate" and that term is women? How come we have to hate Terry Crews because he tweeted "Defeating White supremacy without White people creates Black supremacy. Equality is the truth. Like it or not, we are all in this together." How many people are being fired from their jobs for expressing an opinion that the social mob doesn't like? How many people are ridiculed or shamed for trying to question why there are so many double standards? Why are we trying to make rules for every possible exception to the rule? Does our society actually value free thinkers and open minds like it claims, or are they seeking internal and external compliance to an arbitrary standard they've set? 

Censorship

Political Correctness has taught us to censure ourselves. Microaggressions have taught us to very carefully and constantly censure our thoughts. Who has the mental stamina for critical thinking when you have to tread so very carefully to be an acceptable member of society? A virtue signaling mob has been taught that words are akin to violence, and they have taken it upon themselves to "call one another out," shame people with the wrong opinions, and to throw fits if people refuse to be "educated." The mob tries to destroy people's livelihoods and careers if they dare to express anything contrary to the narrative.  There are rumors of people's posts on social media being flagged or taken down. Social media is the new public square. Are some people being denied their freedom of speech because someone, somewhere doesn't like what they have to say? How much freedom to speak and express our beliefs do we really have right now? 

There are more propaganda tactics that we're dangerously close to paralleling, but I don't have the time or inclination to try to write about all of them. It would fill a book. Regardless of who you are or your political persuasion, we would all do well to ask ourselves if we are being manipulated. Do the facts support what you "know" to be true? George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 has some grim insights and parallels to the time we're living in. Do we have our own thought police? Has someone engineered a world where up is down, left is right, and right is wrong? Have they done this deliberately? It seems like it. If it were true, who would be responsible?

Do we really think that the problems facing our nation are just too hard to solve? Do we really think that with all of the technology, genius, ingenuity, goodwill, and innovation available that this crippled, class and race divided society is the best we can do? The book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson discusses who benefits from the status quo and states a hypothesis that those who control the current political environment and those who control the wealth often collude together for one another's benefit to the detriment of the rest of the citizens and the society. 

So now, I ask you to consider this question: If someone were seeking to divide and/or destroy America, who would it be and why? Who would benefit from maintaining the status quo?

A) Boogaloo, Hawaiian shirt wearing, AR-15 toting, Nazi-sympathizing white supremacists who are intent on destroying America?


B) Internet trolls who are ignorant 600lb red neck fools who don't leave the house or ever interact with real people and maliciously want to destroy America with their keyboard commando thought weapons?


C) Antifa, the upper middle class 150lb pound pasty white, entitled, commie sympathizers who worship dictators and want to play anarchy and see if they can destroy civilized society?


D) Vladimir Putin, an evil mastermind genius the likes of a Bond villain who has the cunning and skill to take on all of the United States, all of the people, all of the intelligence agencies, all of the politicians, and all of the critical thinkers and make our current President dance like a puppet to his whims without leaving enough evidence to convict him despite massive investigations?


E) Corrupt people currently in government and the largest corporations who want to maintain their economic privilege and political power by pointing anywhere else to distract us?


Ocham's razor tells us the simplest explanation is the right one. The answer to who's behind the curtain is obvious if the hypothesis of Why Nations Fail is correct. It is in someone's best interest to keep things the way they are. Who benefits from political power or money if the status quo remains the same? Who is getting rich from the system as it is? That's who's behind the curtain.