One always seeks and performs the best way to achieve the best results by and for the greatest number of unique individuals.
One will do what one and all of the rest of us need to have done,
or, noting the reverse as needed, one leaves things as they are when one
and the rest of us need things left as they are.
What mere faith one claims to believe in, or what mere label one
gets identified by, remains irrelevant because the unique individual is
greater than any mere identity, the individual personal religious
practice is greater than mere faith.
Noting the three separate groups of ongoing politics.
For awhile, there was the ongoing and insistent demand that in
political orientation, there is only The Right Wing and The Left Wing. A
related demand was that TRW Means Conservative and TLW Means Liberal.
The political reality is that there are indeed two orientations, but
"right" vs "left" is not where the division occurs. When trying to
force such a belief that the only options are "right" or "left", the
"right" and "left" do utterly and absolutely shriek that they are the
only options of right and wrong, but sheer vehemence never supersedes
Of the actual two orientations in politics, the other political orientation recognizes and openly acknowledges that ongoing political practice involves three quite separate groups or clusters, rather than two:
One group is the particular identity focused "left wing" liberal. One group is the particular faith focused "right wing" liberal. The third group that is equally entirely separate from the other two has the one focus on actual achievement and success and is the conservative. Any time that one of the faiths or the identities demands to be declared supreme by everyone and to give directions to everyone, the conservative effortlessly points out the problem of which identity, which faith?
For the organized faith focused liberal, commonly called the "right
wing", the fantasy is that some particular overall organizational faith
is supreme and can not be questioned:
We don't care what your identity is or what you do and get done,
we demand that you must have the correct faith or correct opposition to
some particular faith.
The problem is, of course, which faith???? Depending on which
variation, political decisions based on "faith" or "right wing" means
any one or more of: Ancestor worship, Animism, Atheist, Aztec gods,
Christian Scientist Christianity, Classical Egyptian gods, Classical
Greek gods, Cthulhu, Daesh, Family Temple, Handwaving Vaguely With Tea
Or Coffee And Little Sandwiches, Hinduism, Inca gods, Mithraism, Mormon
Christianity, Norse gods, Orthodox Christianity, Pastafarianism,
Protestant Christianity, Roman Catholic Christianity, Satan Worshipping
Christianity, Shia Islam, Sikh, Sunni Islam, Temple Family, and quite a
The ongoing failure of faith as a focus of political, social, and cultural decision keeps occurring through one of two reasons. One reason is that mere organized faith is always separate from and always less than the personal, reflective, actual religious practice of the individual. The other reason is that for any organized faith, the minimum number of guaranteed schisms is at least equal to the number of claimed believers in that faith.
The liberal fantasy of organized faith demands that
a particular faith must have precedence over all, there can be,
basically, no separate government at any time; so therefore the
government must be slashed to a mere token fragment to guarantee that it
operates under all restrictions, so that the organized faith must
therefore become the government so that the organized faith will then
control and mandate all aspects of all individuals absolutely.
The faith focused liberal fantasy doesn't really
make any sense, but the lack of sense doesn't matter as long as the
ideology is pure.
For the personal identity focused liberal, commonly called the "left
wing", the fantasy is that some particular individual identity is
supreme and can not be questioned:
We don't care what your faith is or what you do and get done, we
demand that you must have the correct identity or correct opposition to
some particular identity.
The problem is, of course, which identity???? Depending on which
variation, political decisions based on "identity" or "left wing" means
any one or more of: Working class, White Supremacist, Uneducated, Under
fifty years old, Tattooed, Straight, Socialist, Rich, Republican, Poor,
Polka-dotted, Perceived as working class, Over thirty years old, Nazi,
Middle class, Male, Literate, Left handed, Klingon, Jew, [ Insert target
identity name here ], Immigrant, Government staff, Gay, Female, Fascist
depending of course on this week's definition of "Fascist" and is one
for or against, Elf, Educated, Descended from parents and grandparents
born in the current country, Democrat, Criminal, Black supremacist,
Asian of some sort, and quite a few others.
The ongoing failure of identity as as a focus of political, social, and cultural decision keeps occurring through one of two reasons. One reason is ideological opposition, where some particular identity is declared forbidden merely out of ideology, so that someone is attacked for having the wrong identity. The other reason is that of mere narcissism, where the identity liberal demands to be the focus of attention, therefore that narcissist's declared identity is required to be admired by all.
The liberal fantasy of personal identity demands that a particular
personal identity must have precedence over all, there must be,
basically, total and massive government at all times; so therefore the
government must be totally expanded and granted all powers, so that the
particular personal identity must therefore become the government so
that particular personal identity will then control and mandate all
aspects of all individuals absolutely.
The personal identity liberal fantasy doesn't really make any sense,
but the lack of sense doesn't matter as long as the ideology is pure.
The third and definitely separate group is the one that is
clearly neither "right" or "left", is the group that doesn't bother with
the mere ideologies of either organized faith or personal identity. For
the third group, the interest and concern is the unique individual and
what the individual may do or not do, and then by extension, what can be
done by and for groups of individuals: Basically, the ongoing focus for
this third group is to always seek and perform the best way to achieve
the best results by and for the greatest number of unique individuals. For the conservative, the focus is very simple, utterly elegant, and universally comprehensive.
1) One always seeks and performs the best way to achieve the best results by and for the greatest number of unique individuals.
2) One will do what one and all of the rest of us need to have done, or,
noting the reverse as needed, one leaves things as they are when one and
the rest of us need things left as they are.
3) What mere faith one claims to believe in, or what mere label one gets
identified by, remains irrelevant because the unique individual is
greater than any mere identity, the individual personal religious
practice is greater than mere faith.
The unique individual, and, the individual personal religious practice.
Regardless of the demands regarding mere dogma of a mere organized
faith, the conservative knows that genuine, actual religion involves the
ongoing personal religious practice based on the unique individual, and
that individual's ongoing, reflective, direct, personal religious
experience, where as a result, there is no faith involved whatsoever, in
whatever form that religious practice may take for whichever person.
Regardless of the demands regarding mere dogma of a mere identity
label, the conservative knows that an individual is an individual
person, with a unique history and background that does indeed overlap
with some and does indeed not overlap with others, in what ever form
that unique individual reality may take for whichever person.
Because that mere faith or identity labeling ideology is irrelevant,
the conservative takes each individual as an individual. One only
aggregates from there, as needed, to best get things done by and for
that aggregate of individuals. To Get Something Done, As Needed, is the
issue. What is an individual trying to do, at a particular moment? What
does an individual need to do, at a particular moment? When applicable,
what is it that is needed to best assist the largest aggregate of
Defining the "other":"left wing", "right wing" ,
liberal, conservative ,
"far right", "far left".
the political pole,
The organized faith and personal identity groups have trapped themselves into claiming there is only "right" and "left" and that they alone are the "liberal" or "conservative". When any of them look at that "Other" group that is not faith focused or identity focused, there are lots of claims of "centrist" and "moderate" politics, of being "pragmatic". In addition, some of the "right" claim that other "right" are actually "far left", even as some of the "left" claim that other "left" are actually "far right". All of these claims and complaints are failures.
"left wing", "right wing"
In political history, "right" and "left" comes from the French
Revolution and the seating patterns that started with the 1789 National
Assembly. Generally speaking, those supporting the monarchy, utterly
rigid social structure, and the official deity of the moment sat on the
right side of the room. Over on the left side were, generally speaking,
those demanding more for me rather than we and death to those who
disagree. Over time, precise details have shifted a bit for those two
of the three actual political groups, but their two overall agendas have
basically remained the same.
Over time, the framing reality of what gets called the "right
wing" has settled into a central focus of demanding that all support and
follow some particular large scale organized faith, with a feature of
particularly opposing some particular other or several other organized
faiths, even though all organized faiths are equally also "right wing".
Over time, the framing reality of what gets called the " left wing"
has settled into a central focus of demanding that all support and
follow some particular personal identity, with a feature of particularly
opposing some particular other or several other personal identities,
even though all personal identity definitions are equally also "left wing".
And, of course, the faiths despise and oppose one or more or all of the faithless
identities, and the identities oppose and despise one or more of all of the faceless faiths.
With the third group focus on achieving the best for the most, that
itself also destroys all claims of the other two groups being "liberal"
vs "conservative". With both of the faith and the identity groups, the
central demand is my and our way at any and all cost no matter what the detail or damage.
Such a fantasy of "anything goes" makes both of the "right" and
"left" being equally the liberal "right" and the liberal "left".
Only with the third group is the ongoing and permanent focus being to find and carry out the best and most efficient and effective ways, that the greatest number of all individuals can, by themselves and with others, create the greatest results. Only with the third group is the focus of conserving the resources, using the most conservative estimates for the most extended results, being the actual and only conservatives.
"Centrist" does not describe the unique individual focused "other" at
all. A "right wing" monofocus on some large organized faith is not a
metaphoric or political direction. The "right wing" monofocus on some
random faith is just a belief. A "left wing" monofocus on some
particular personal identity is also only a belief and also provides no
direction. In both cases, being neither "right wing" or "left wing"
isn't being in the center, because with these three quite separate groups, there is no particular directional
center to be at.
"Moderate" is also completely useless as a political label. When the
individual is very clearly and emphatically something other than "right"
or "left", that individual is also clearly anything other than
And then there are the times that that the organized faith and
personal identity groups complain about the "other" being "pragmatic"
instead of following the "correct" ideology. In all such cases
"pragmatic" is the euphemism preferred by the ideologues of the faith
and identity groups, instead of more transparent words such as accurate
"Far" or "extreme" liberal
Because there are these three discrete groups rather than a spectrum of
two extremes, this fact also addresses what various claims mean by a
"far" or "extreme" form of "left" or "right"---When the only choices are
Exe, Wye, or Zee, there is no way to be "Far Exe", "Extreme Wye" does
not exist, and one is Zee or is NotZee and can not be "Ultra Zee". For
any and all claims that "Far Something" can or even does still exist in
political discussion, consider the "right"/faith wing view of everyone
[ faith focused "right wing" group ] <<---------->> [
Conservative ] <<---------->> [ identity focused "left
wing" group ]
For the "right", everyone other than "right" is automatically
declared to be all the way over to be at least "left" wing. Therefore,
according to that view from the faith/"right", conservatives are thus
particularly declared to be "left wing". Following from that, the actual
"left"/identity wing is seen as being off beyond the conservatives, and
therefore "must be" the "far" left wing. And, in turn, the reverse is
also declared anytime that anyone "left" wing claims that there is a
"far right" wing, when what is out there is nothing more than
established, generic, only "right" wing.
The political pole and even more "far something"
The concept of "Far Other" becomes even more surreal when what is also
going on is the political pole, as a comparison to the planetary north
and south poles. In the case of the planetary pole, when one is at one
of the poles, all other directions and locations are towards the
opposing pole. The same is with the political pole, in this case being
any person who is claiming to be THE holder of The Faith or embodiment
of THE personal identity, where anything politically different is
automatically considered an absolute and opposing extreme and
hysterically declared wrong!!, wrong!!, wrong!!, wrong!!, wrong!!, etc.
In such situations, one faith focused faction will see another faith
focused faction, and will refuse to acknowledge that the other is also
"right wing". Instead, the claim is made that the other faith is part
of the "far left". A personal identity focused faction will note
another faction that itself is absolutely focused on some different
personal identity rather than some faith in any way. The one identity
faction will then refuse to acknowledge that an opposing personal
identity focus is also "left wing" and will instead insist that the
different personal identity faction is "far right".
The actual reality remains that extremist is just
extremist, regardless of whether faith oriented extremist or identity
oriented extremist. When one takes out the orientation focused political
posturing, one does reduce down to only the three groups of the
conservatives as contrasting with the faiths and the identities.
There is a set of analogies that underline the conservative
leadership over the liberal followers of mere personal identity and
organized faith, that of The Lattice, and The Mirror and the Painting, and Playing Poker, and Playing Poker And Demanding To Play, and The Powerful and The Weak and the Deluded, and The Stage.
In the case of The Lattice, the personal identity focused liberal
fantasy is that all individuals are individual and independent vines,
every vine is required to be utterly equal to every other vine at all
times, and there is nothing but vines, everywhere . . . and all these
vines thus wind up stuck on the ground, with everyone in everyone else's
way, with all being trapped in a quite flat and limited sprawl,
achieving little, if anything at all, ultimately finding blatant
In turn, the organized faith focused liberal fantasy is of everyone
together forming the totally massive, monolithic and uniform structure
that encompasses and consists of everything . . . . and there is no
space, total rigidity, no room for growth, no place to go, achieving
little, if anything at all, ultimately finding blatant failure.
Contrasting with the liberal faith and personal identity extremes,
the conservative sees and seeks out an ever rising and always open
lattice, rock solid, ever extending, providing the support for all the
vines to rise up in whatever ways and means that all and every vine can
thus reach, with the lattice being totally rigid and totally open, so
that all have the opportunity to achieve anything and everything,
ultimately finding total success in all areas of absolute growth.
The Mirror and the Painting
With The Mirror and The Painting, the personal identity focused
liberal always has a large mirror at hand that the liberal gazes into
adoringly, so that on the rare occasion that the personal identity
focused liberal actually looks away from the mirror, the personal
identity focused liberal can then compare the reflected image with
reality, find reality to be deficient, and then demand that reality must
be changed to match the image in the mirror.
Quite in turn, the organized faith focused liberal always has a
large idealized painting of The Faith at hand that the liberal gazes
into adoringly, so that on the rare occasion that the organized faith
focused liberal actually looks away from the painting, the organized
faith focused liberal can then compare the painted image with reality,
find reality to be deficient, and then demand that reality must be
changed to match the image in the painting.
The conservative doesn't waste time staring into a mirror or a
painting. The conservative always looks out at everyone and everything
to see everyone and everything as they are, where the conservative then
goes about working with and in the ongoing reality as it actually is.
When considering a poker game, this is when playing community card
poker, the variety of poker with aces beating all other cards, and
several cards being shared by all players. With both the organized faith
focused liberal and the personal identity focused liberal, each
demands to be dealt aces every time, and also demands exclusive use of
community card aces. By contrast, the conservative sees what cards are
dealt, and works with those cards and the poker variation to get to the
Playing Poker And Demanding To Play.
When also considering poker in politics, the absolute, ongoing, and
permanent practice is that every person playing will bring a card deck
so that all may play. When no one brings a card deck, no one plays.
With this in mind, the Conservative always brings a brand new deck, and
sometimes brings several brand new decks, to best allow the best play
for the greatest number. Furthermore, the Conservative is quite
interested in playing any poker variation with anyone.
The liberal, whether faith based "right wing" liberal or identity based
"left wing" liberal, always shows up with no deck, or shows up with a
collection of blank pieces of paper. With either nothing or the blank
paper to contribute, the liberal then not only demands to play, but also
demands to be considered the most important person playing, and to be
the only winner.
The Powerful and The Weak and The Deluded
With The Powerful and The Weak and the Deluded, the conservative is
the Powerful, the organized faith focused liberal is The Weak, and the
personal identity focused liberal is The Deluded. For the Weak, the
fantasy is to disappear into The Faith, never stand out, always blend
in, always be totally aligned with The Faith---regardless of which of
the infinite different faiths--- regardless of what fails to get done or
who gets hurt. With The Deluded, the fantasy is that The Identity Is
Everything, where everything else always revolves around and focuses
upon The Identity and always will---regardless of which of the infinite
different identities---regardless of what fails to get done or who gets
In turn, very, very, simply, The Powerful don't care---Such is
certainly a gross oversimplification in general, but equally certainly,
when the powerful are compared to the weak and their frantic clustering
on some bandwagon, and the deluded and their frantic self promotion
based on lies and failure, the summary is apt: The Powerful don't care
about faith or identity, the Powerful remain focused on what to do, or
to refrain from doing, as noted by the circumstances of the moment, and
always for the best benefit and support of absolutely everyone.
With The Stage, that is where all the work gets done, with The Stage
being flanked by the personal identity and organized faith box seating.
From both sets of box seat liberals, there is that incessant demand of My agenda is superior because I say it is superior and I don't have to explain and I have to have it all now!!!!!!!!.
In such, each of the personal identity focused liberal and organized
faith focused liberal has no concept of consequence or how to get
anything done except scream and point at the other box seating and hope
to ignore the entire expanse of The Stage.
Those stuck in the box seats keep getting very frustrated when doing
the political binary math.---Each box sitter notes being in the local
box seating with a value of zero, and everyone else is in that other box
seating with a value of one. All conservatives are outside of the local
box seating and therefore---and at that point the binary only mechanism
seizes, because of course the conservatives are on The Stage instead of
being in the other box seating, the Conservatives are being separate
from both the personal identity and organized faith box seating instead
of being part of either.
Quite by contrast to that box seating, the conservative goes to and
gets all the work done on The Stage, where everything gets looked at
when on The Stage. From the personal identity box seats to the stage to
the organized faith box seats, everything gets assessed, solutions to
issues are proposed and discussed in detail. All that greatly needed
conservative practice is done and thus separates the conservative action
or inaction from the liberal ideology and thus notes the conservative
as being the conservative and providing the leadership.
The idealist liberals are those who remain forever organized faith
OR personal identity, who will never accept anything the least bit
conservative or opposing liberal, who remain the useless and ineffective
The practicing liberals are those who switch back and forth between
organized faith AND personal identity, depending on circumstance, while
also remaining the useless and ineffective extreme. For the practicing
personal identity liberal, the particular personal identity is
paramount, as long as that personal identity liberal gets the personal
advantage that is demanded. For the practicing organized faith liberal,
the particular organized faith is paramount, as long as that organized
faith liberal gets the personal advantage that is demanded.
When the practicing personal identity focused liberal no longer gets the
personal advantage that is demanded, that liberal then swaps to become
an organizational faith focused liberal for as long as that liberal then
gets the personal advantage that is demanded. When the practicing
personal identity focused liberal no longer gets the personal advantage
that is demanded, that liberal then swaps to become an organizational
faith focused liberal for as long as that liberal then gets the personal
advantage that is demanded.
Contrasting always and absolutely against mere identity and mere faith,
constantly dragging the ideologue into the light of reason, the
Conservative continues the ongoing focus upon the entire gathering of
all of us discrete and different individuals, and how are we all doing,
At all times the conservative welcomes analysis and discussion, for
only that way does refinement and evolution and progress occur. At all
times the liberal extreme frantically avoids the conservative to point
to the other and opposing extreme, for in that way the liberal attempts
to deflect any self examination and improvement. The ongoing nightmare
of the liberal is that someone may become and remain actually aware.
Becoming and being aware inevitably moves the individual away from mere
faith and mere identity, moves away from the liberal outskirts,
extremes, and limitations, to the all encompassing conservative
There is no Third Way of politics, there is only The Way. The
liberal claim is that politics is a two way road and that one must
choose which direction to go. Reality notes that the political road has
only one direction, and that the conservative supports and includes
everyone, from the center of the political road all the way past both
the organized faith and personal identity liberal edges of the road.
The conservative acts to know, to understand, to best help and support
every individual. Only the liberal demands that any who cartwheel and
crash off the opposing edge of the road must be left to die.
The ongoing question asked by and for the conservative is: What will
be done by We The People, of We The People, for the good of We The
I support and refine that which works, and I waste no time in
ideology. The only constant is change. I watch all parts and occurrences
all the time so that I may continually project into the future and look
into the past, learn for myself before events develop, learn what may
go wrong, learn what must be prepared for.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the
state of facts and evidence.
When the facts change, I change my mind . . . .
The conservative notes that every single country is founded by
individuals, and every single country is made of and governed by
individuals, and every single country and its government exists and
continues to exist solely of and for the individual and the people.
The conservative notes that at all times and in all places that the
correct amount of government is just enough government, that the correct
amount of government is the amount that is needed for that time and
place, and that the time and place best supports the greatest number of
discrete, different individuals.
Government exists to act and decide on a larger scale than can be
managed by the individual, acts solely on behalf of its people and to
best preserve and support the rights, choices, and actions of each
individual person. Government does not in the least exist to attempt to
prevent those individual actions done by individuals alone. By its own
nature, government can only act in general terms, as only an individual
can work with another individual.
The actual practice can sometimes be complicated, but the basic theory
is simple. To be conservative, pay your bills and mind your own
business. To be liberal---whether focused on organized faith or personal
identity---don't pay your bills and mind everyone else's business.
When it comes to minding one's own business, the conservative regulates to support something.
When it comes to minding everyone else's business, the liberal regulates to try and ban something.
The conservative recognizes that greater and greater ease and
quality is to the benefit of individuals and government. Therefore, a
purpose of government, being for the benefit and support of individuals,
is to support and sustain, equally each and all together, ongoing and
continuous good quality. Conservative support and interest includes:
roads and transportation, personal and general health and safety
standards, initial and ongoing education, bridges and buildings,
ensuring sustenance, housing, environment and its good condition,
employment and the encouragement thereof, commerce and the encouragement
thereof, law and the administration of the courts, the general defense
of and among the entirety of the people at all times, all for the best
support and benefit of all individuals and the people.
Liberal attempts to prohibit are fraud; Any action and choice that
can and will be done by an individual as an individual can be regulated
by a government, but will never be banned regardless of any declaration
Among the documented and noted prohibitionist liberal failures of
various otherwise competent governments are the attempts to ban:
Individual thought and expression.
The creation, sale, and use of particular books, texts, and all other forms of expression.
The creation, sale, and use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs.
The personal ownership, ongoing immediate possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.
The marriage or related association of any two or more consenting human adults.
The various forms of physical manipulation and alteration.
Assorted social practices.
For the conservative, there are indeed questions and requirements regarding
regulation, for the purpose of best supporting individuals and
individual practice and protection.
When it comes to paying the bills, the organized faith focused
liberal insists that there be no taxes, and that everyone else pay the
taxes. The personal identity focused liberal insists that there be
absolutely massive taxes, and that everyone else pay the taxes. The
liberal fantasy doesn't really make any sense, but the lack of sense
doesn't matter as long as the ideology is pure.
The Conservative remains aware that taxes exist to support a
government and are charged only to pay for that which assists, helps,
and otherwise stays out of the way of any and all individuals..
Therefore, for the conservative, the issue with taxes is not how much or
how little. The reality, of course, is that the correct level of
taxation is enough taxation, and no more, or less. Conservative
taxation, therefore, prepares a set budget for a particular year and
raises enough taxes to pay for it. When one year's expenses wind up
generating a deficit, they get added to the next year's budget and
higher taxes until the deficit is paid off. When one year's expenses
wind up generating an overly large surplus, the overage gets added to
the next year's budget and lower taxes until the surplus is back to a
The conservative notes that the best taxation is that which is paid
equally and in equal amount by all. When there are different rates of
taxation, those with greater amounts of money, and thus greater taxes,
always arrange special deals and special circumstances so that they wind
up paying as little or even less than those who have less money.
For areas of business and bills, recurring issues are the general population and individual ability.
Of a general population, many will have been born where they live, some
will be immigrants. For the liberal---whether faith based liberal or
identity based liberal---the demands will get made that a particular
faith or a particular identity must be considered when allowing any
immigration. The conservative realizes and accepts that as the
conservative's people came in, others will also. The conservative notes
that those already in place have much to offer and also that those
arriving have much to offer. The conservative recognizes that the sole
factor with immigration is the individual and what the individual will
do, where the noted best outcome of any and all immigration results in a
blend of the original and the new to thus achieve the best by and for
To cover both minding your own business and paying the bills, there is
the matter of various forms of welfare, covering anything from food
stamps to education to health care. Overall, such programs are forms of
safety nets. Details can and do vary, where a recurring faith based
view of safety nets is that someone else being poor or ill or uneducated
is someone else's fault, and absolutely nothing should be allowed to be
done to address the issue. Details can and do vary, where a
recurring identity based view of safety nets is that when some identity
doesn't have something, that is someone else's fault, and absolutely
everything is required to be given to that identity to address the
The conservative realizes that it's a big social universe, yes, but it
is a limited one. The conservative notes that the individual is rather
often the best person to choose and act for that individual, for as much
as that individual can so act and while noting being among and with
others. The conservative realizes that there are people who would like
to improve their situations, but can't, as an example, through lack of
money for schooling of some sort, or even schooling of some sort. When
these problems occur, they can be proven and solved for those genuinely
in need. When noting the variations in need, and recognizing that there
must be a support for such, who is to say that if, in turn, the safety
nets are torn out for pillage, and those who truly need them fall, the
rest of us will not follow?
In all of these cases of attempting to prevent any one individual
from performing an action that any individual may perform by or upon
said individual, the reasoning given may vary but the effort required by
any government is not worth the waste of government and individual
effort and therefore no such attempt is made by any government at any
The responsibility of police and other security is to preserve and
protect the general public order and not necessarily any random
individual. The personal and ongoing safety of an individual is
primarily the concern of that individual, is answered for by that
individual, and is not infringed upon. Any arm or weapon is an inanimate
and neutral tool just like any other tool, requires knowledge and skill
for correct use, and there are no limitations of the safe possession
and operation of any arm or weapon by any adult individual. When an
individual commits murder, that individual will be executed. When an
individual kills in self defense or the defense of another, that was the
execution, delivered at that moment. Such an individual may may be
compelled to later show cause, where once such is shown, the executioner
will not be further infringed.
If an individual makes the decision to practice any form of self
destruction, no other individual can infringe or be infringed in any
way. When any individual wishes to create some disruption, that
individual answers for that disruption. In turn, if any individual
wishes to prepare for the possible disruption caused by any individual,
that preparation is not infringed.
There is no demand that is made of an individual based on a
religious choice as all religious choice is solely the decision of an
individual alone and no other individual.
Of regulation and the wills of several individuals, the individual
is limited only in that individual's direct and physical effect upon
another individual or individuals; The right of one person to wildly
swing a limb ends at the presence of another, be that other an adult or a
child. The right of one person to bathe in perfume, any sort of smoke,
produce noise, practice self impairment, or anything else that will
intrude upon or limit another's environment ends at the point of the
encounter by that other individual.
When two or more individuals join together in mutual interest, the
requirements of that mutual interest permit the exclusion of another
individual who does not share that mutual interest, and the requirements
of an individual who does not share that mutual interest permit the
exclusion of that mutual interest by that individual.
When two or more mutual interests come together, they will work
together to best further the interests and benefit of the associated
individuals for the greatest amount of time, or all such involved mutual
interests will fail and be destroyed.
So as to provide and protect the general future and all future
development and growth, the defenseless remain defended and the
limitless remain unlimited; Assault a child and die and the executioner
may be compelled to later show cause, where once such is shown, the
executioner will not be further infringed. As any parent will remind,
parenting is the effort and work and active involvement needed to raise a
child. To assault and to batter a child is to brutalize the child;
parenting is a description of a job, not some mere random privilege.
Anyone incapable of practicing or unwilling to practice actual parenting
gets no influence over or access to any child.
In all of this here described, at all times, the Conservative
acknowledges that many aspects of being are subtle, detailed, and
require careful, reflective, conservative balance of individual and
general decision. There is no one decision, and there never will be.
Only the liberal claims that there is only one choice to ever be made,
and that is how the liberal fails.
The practice of and inevitable success of conservative government
will continue to supersede and exceed any and all attempts or
proclamations by faith or identity focused liberals, because such
success is predicated upon the inevitable success of the practice of the
conservative individual and individuals.
The principle of Conservative democracy is that all government
exists solely for the good of the governed; that the branches of
government, and all other public institutions are to be maintained so
far, and so far only, as they promote the happiness and welfare of the
common people; that all who are entrusted with any public function are
trustees, not for their own class, but for the nation at large; and that
the mass of the people may be trusted so to use electoral power, which
should be freely conceded to them, as to support those who are promoting
their interests. It is democratic because the welfare of the people is
its supreme end; it is Conservative because the institutions of the
country are the means by which the end is to be attained.
Conservative government is instituted for the common good; for the
protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for
profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of
men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and
indefeasible right to institute conservative government; and to reform,
alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety,
prosperity, and happiness require it.