[detbuch]

We are arguing inside the fog of transition. It is a sort of parallel to the fog of war. Things, or issues, are not clearly understood or defined. Foe is often perceived to be friend, or vice versa. With the best of intention, we kill that or who would save us. Because we see through the fictional "truth" of the fluid moment rather than the stable truth of principles and fundamentals, we see through a glass darkly.

There is no argument among those "in the know," the generals outside the pitch of battle, what the battle is about and who the enemy is. Those in the obscure heat of combat are merely following orders. So they follow the party line or the generals' commands, and often destroy each other.

There is no longer a debate, among "those who know" that we are in transition, that we are being transformed from a constitutional republic to a "progressive" authoritarian State. And the true battle is between those who wish to transform us and those who wish to resist and maintain the constitutional order. Most of the rest of us are enlisted as the grunts who provide the fodder for political war.

The leaders of transformation welcome the fog, in fact create it by not defining the ultimate mission. They did define it long ago, but the grunts were still attached to "outdated" notions of individual freedoms and constitutional protections against the very government that would supposedly free them from the tyranny of the wealthy class. Initial victories were gained, but eventually turned back and progressive government lost some of the freedom it had gained to "free" the people, and had to go underground. It no longer could clearly define its mission, but had to undermine the basis for the supposedly outdated constitutional order by co-opting it. Progressive government re-emerged more strongly by convincing the grunts that it was actually operating constitutionally. This tactic propelled it into dominance, and it has constantly gained ground against the old order, to the point that its grunts no longer question it. They accept that "history" has changed and "progressed" to a point that we no longer need to fear government, that it is the benefactor not the oppressor, that it, and it alone is our protector against a ruling class who would steal every penny we own and subject us to the slavery of supporting the 1% that robs us of wealth, dignity, and true "effective" freedom.

It is no longer necessary for the most part that progressive government even pretend to follow the Constitution, not only has it re-written it by judicial fiat, but their grunts no longer consider it a factor. So it is understandable that when a Hobby Lobby, or a baker, or photographer resists government mandate on personal individual, or even constitutional, grounds, the progressive grunts "see" that as "forcing" their values on others, but do not see government mandates as forcing its dictates on individuals. For them, government is not forcing, it has become the legitimate arbiter and decider of law, ethics, purpose, and method of existence. It is not a power of force, it is a creative power. It creates our reality. Reality cannot be forced, it just is.

Those who oppose this, "see" that government is to serve the ends of the people rather than people serving the ends of government . . . that individuals are the creators, and that government serves their freedom to create. They are not as much in need of grunts as their opponents since they are the acting grunts. They wish to convince the opposing grunts to join them . . . to understand that "grunts" are the true power. That in a truly liberal society, the grunts run the show. The show is about them, not about a ruling party or power, progressive or otherwise. But that to rule, as a united people, they must have a common ground acceptable to all on which to govern themselves. They understand that system of government has already been created by individual forbears who created a limited government to protect all against the real or possible tyranny of an overly powerful or all-powerful ruling class.

So there is an intellectual and political battle fought in the fog of thrown out bombs and fragments posed as issues and mandates which supposedly create fairness, equality, and freedom, but which actually deny those to some in favor of others, and eventually ensnare even those who were once favored into the same vortex of losing their "rights." There is the confusion that these are LAWS and are legitimately imposed by a beneficent government which is an irresistible force of history and should be obeyed because those who resist are antiquated, anti-historical, laughable retrogrades who do not understand the transformational purpose of government. These backward types, supposedly, do not understand that progressive government, the type of government that history has created, does not force, it creates. And it is legitimate because history, not individuals, not the People, not some supernatural or mystical or unknowable force, is the true creator.

And through that fog, the other side argues that history is entirely the reflective product of people, not that people are a product of history. This side argues that history is a record of human events. Without humanity, there is no history, and if humans wished, they could stop writing history, or, as many do, rewrite it. History is more imperfect than individuals since it is a second generation product created by individuals. We cannot be ruled by historical force, since we create the history which has no force beyond our recognition. And so, this side sees progressive government not as an historical imperative that must be obeyed, but as the rule of men who impose their will on others. That progressive government actually does FORCE the dictates of some people on other people. And this side does not see resistance to that force as forcing their values on others, but as preserving their own.

So long as there is no common basis for government there can be no resolution for what government is. That progressives are about transforming our society and its system of government is not in question. They have openly avowed to doing so. Their tactics may have been untruthful, but in war all is "fair." And the political fog of debate that has been created is the transitional one we are in. The discussions we have here pass by each other in parallel but opposite directions. The ends and the means are different, and cannot be reconciled. As in most wars, only victory will decide, not argument or compromise. Compromise is always temporary since it does not allow the fundamental differences to be fully satisfied, and the fight will eventually resurface until somebody "wins" with a total victory.

And that's what the ACA and the myriad of federal regulations which are outside the scope of the original Constitution are about. Even in using it's bogus "constitutional" power to mandate what we must buy, it was not necessary to force the majority of people who have medical insurance to undergo higher costs and deductibles as well as limiting their choices, all in order to provide insurance for the uninsured (actually to FORCE the uninsured to get insurance). All of the progressive anti-constitutional mandates eventually assure total victory of progressive government over constitutional government.

And so, in the meantime, we grunts are reduced by political fog to arguing about health plans, and who invested in what, and who are hypocrites, and who is forcing who, and who should have insurance, and who should pay for it, and what should be in insurance plans, and should they provide contraceptives for everyone (really!?! most people can't afford them?), and a myriad of trifling tidbits, and the obfuscation hides the ultimate objectives.

Which grunts are destroying each other in this fog of war with friendly fire is debatable. If you wish to preserve your individual and unalienable rights beyond the reach of government, but, in order to claim victory for your progressive side, you destroy those rights of others, you are destroying the protection of your own. And if, in the pursuit of your personal happiness, as a "conservative" you choose to fight for the right to do so beyond the reach of government, by accomplishing that you destroy the rights of others and government to impose on you, or, as well, to impose on those who fight against you.

One side fights for everyone's unalienable right not to be unlimitedly imposed on by government, the other fights for the government's "right" to impose without restriction on their "enemy," and so gains the government the right to impose without limitation on all, including on themselves. The fog of political war obscures who the enemy really is.