The Real State of the Union
When for the first time in history the Speaker of the House failed to honor America’s President to visit the House Chamber to offer his appraisal of the state of the American union, I decided that responsibility must fall upon anyone who might possess an opinion of that condition, and also the opportunity to share it. Since I have both, of sorts, perhaps you will indulge my poor judgments for a short duration.
Now any attempt to describe the state of a “union,” necessarily implies a union exists. Well, does it? What is a “union” anyway? In mathematics a union is that part of a set of objects common among two or more sets. In politics, however, instead of objects, we might think of common ideas, viewpoints and intentions. And instead of sets, we might talk of political groups. So if a political union really exists, certain members attributed to one of those political groups must share some degree of uniformity of thought with members of others. That requirement furthers the question whether today a union truly does exist within the American body politic. From this writer’s perspective, it is difficult to identify practically any area of political discourse in which the primary viewpoints of the respective members of the aforementioned political groups even intersect, much less form a union. And so, if, as is the custom of State of the Union addresses, I as the appraiser of such things were to select one term to describe it, it might be something like, “fractured,” or perhaps, “split,” or “splintered.”
On the other hand, considering only each distinctive political group, were I to select a term to describe that same relative state, but just within each group independent of the whole, I might choose a term such as, “strong,” perhaps, “durable.” That’s because these days, even the most politically ignorant among us have strong political beliefs, do they not? And when is the last time you noticed anyone changing a political view? Obviously, in today’s political world attitudes are both strong, but also durable. It takes a special individual, someone who honestly desires to know and speak the truth, to ever change his or her politics. I can count on one hand the number of people I know who are introspective enough to truly consider the political viewpoints of others, once they have staked out a chosen political ideology, much less change their minds.
And interestingly enough, generally speaking, the chosen ideological perspectives most group members select, seem to always find basis in their group’s array of common earthly desires, rather than any higher considerations, such as authentic concerns for others or worthwhile principles tested by fire through history. And if they do profess to base their political judgments on principles higher than self-concern, why does it seem that those principles practically always coincide with the same earthly desires as the members of the groups they choose?
But am I any different than those about whom I speak? Well, fifteen years ago, I admit, I was a neocon and did not know it. As a result of the events of September 11, 2001, I believed the world did change. I believed in America’s undeniable right to preemptively attack before being attacked. I believed it was America’s right to plant the seeds of societal self-government anywhere the principle of American self-preservation might prevent another such attack, or the doctrine of American exceptionalism may apply.
But then, after almost a decade, everything changed. All Americans, and practically all persons alive remember World Trade Center Towers #1 and 2, both hit by planes on September 11, 2001, both collapsing, ostensibly due to the destructive forces that fiery jet fuel might place on steel skyscrapers. In my propaganda-altered frame of mind, and trusting our President at the time, I just bought the story.
But fatefully, years later someone sent me a video of a 3rd skyscraper that came down that day, Building 7. Building 7 is World Trade Center tower 7. In that video, and many others like it, this graduate civil engineer from Georgia Tech witnessed that on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 PM, after suffering no real structural damage at all, a 47-story steel behemoth, which if placed broadside among those forming the Atlanta skyline would dwarf most of those carving its silhouette, suddenly and impossibly imploded into its own footprint at the acceleration due to gravity, leaving only a cloud of pyroclastic dust, all in less than 6.5 seconds. Formal training at one of the world’s most prestigious engineering schools informed me that what had been told about 9/11 was not true. Knowledge changed me. Questioning the official 9/11 story started me researching practically anything of significance our government purported. And the results are what you read in these articles each week. Friends, you have been living inside a big lie. Can knowledge change you?
And so, as far as the state of the American union is concerned, until the American people can begin to separate MSM and government lies from truth that they will have to determine from personal research, there will be no American union to discuss. Knowledge of truth, once realized and understood, is the unifier. And truth is not different for each observer. Truth is absolute whether we like it or not. And understand this, President Trump knows the official 9/11 story is a lie, which is just another reason they fear him addressing the American people.
She wasn’t supposed to lose.
Now any attempt to describe the state of a “union,” necessarily implies a union exists. Well, does it? What is a “union” anyway? In mathematics a union is that part of a set of objects common among two or more sets. In politics, however, instead of objects, we might think of common ideas, viewpoints and intentions. And instead of sets, we might talk of political groups. So if a political union really exists, certain members attributed to one of those political groups must share some degree of uniformity of thought with members of others. That requirement furthers the question whether today a union truly does exist within the American body politic. From this writer’s perspective, it is difficult to identify practically any area of political discourse in which the primary viewpoints of the respective members of the aforementioned political groups even intersect, much less form a union. And so, if, as is the custom of State of the Union addresses, I as the appraiser of such things were to select one term to describe it, it might be something like, “fractured,” or perhaps, “split,” or “splintered.”
On the other hand, considering only each distinctive political group, were I to select a term to describe that same relative state, but just within each group independent of the whole, I might choose a term such as, “strong,” perhaps, “durable.” That’s because these days, even the most politically ignorant among us have strong political beliefs, do they not? And when is the last time you noticed anyone changing a political view? Obviously, in today’s political world attitudes are both strong, but also durable. It takes a special individual, someone who honestly desires to know and speak the truth, to ever change his or her politics. I can count on one hand the number of people I know who are introspective enough to truly consider the political viewpoints of others, once they have staked out a chosen political ideology, much less change their minds.
And interestingly enough, generally speaking, the chosen ideological perspectives most group members select, seem to always find basis in their group’s array of common earthly desires, rather than any higher considerations, such as authentic concerns for others or worthwhile principles tested by fire through history. And if they do profess to base their political judgments on principles higher than self-concern, why does it seem that those principles practically always coincide with the same earthly desires as the members of the groups they choose?
But am I any different than those about whom I speak? Well, fifteen years ago, I admit, I was a neocon and did not know it. As a result of the events of September 11, 2001, I believed the world did change. I believed in America’s undeniable right to preemptively attack before being attacked. I believed it was America’s right to plant the seeds of societal self-government anywhere the principle of American self-preservation might prevent another such attack, or the doctrine of American exceptionalism may apply.
But then, after almost a decade, everything changed. All Americans, and practically all persons alive remember World Trade Center Towers #1 and 2, both hit by planes on September 11, 2001, both collapsing, ostensibly due to the destructive forces that fiery jet fuel might place on steel skyscrapers. In my propaganda-altered frame of mind, and trusting our President at the time, I just bought the story.
 |
| Trump Knows the Real State of the Union |
But fatefully, years later someone sent me a video of a 3rd skyscraper that came down that day, Building 7. Building 7 is World Trade Center tower 7. In that video, and many others like it, this graduate civil engineer from Georgia Tech witnessed that on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 PM, after suffering no real structural damage at all, a 47-story steel behemoth, which if placed broadside among those forming the Atlanta skyline would dwarf most of those carving its silhouette, suddenly and impossibly imploded into its own footprint at the acceleration due to gravity, leaving only a cloud of pyroclastic dust, all in less than 6.5 seconds. Formal training at one of the world’s most prestigious engineering schools informed me that what had been told about 9/11 was not true. Knowledge changed me. Questioning the official 9/11 story started me researching practically anything of significance our government purported. And the results are what you read in these articles each week. Friends, you have been living inside a big lie. Can knowledge change you?
And so, as far as the state of the American union is concerned, until the American people can begin to separate MSM and government lies from truth that they will have to determine from personal research, there will be no American union to discuss. Knowledge of truth, once realized and understood, is the unifier. And truth is not different for each observer. Truth is absolute whether we like it or not. And understand this, President Trump knows the official 9/11 story is a lie, which is just another reason they fear him addressing the American people.
She wasn’t supposed to lose.
Comments
Post a Comment