The Screwtape Letters by the noted author C.S. Lewis is one of my favorite books. The long letters were written by a man (a lay-demon) for the purpose of instructing his nephew in how to evangelize an ordinary man against God and into following Satan and going to hell. I’ve been working on a book probably titled the Redtape Letters, with a man instructing his nephew vis-à-vis politics and how to guide the nation into socialism. Here is a letter:
It occurs to me, based on your recent letter, that you may have come under the influence of an unusual ignoramus, i.e., a professor in today’s enlightened academia who is unable to understand the proper way to accommodate the U.S. Constitution with the modern-day workings of government – or vice versa. I can’t believe you actually consider that document to be of any real importance now though I admit that we are stuck with it short-term. The long-term outlook will be much more gratifying to the Force when either a new Constitution is written by the enlightened or a legal way is developed to simply do away with this anachronistic verbiage written for the horse-and-buggy days. For instance, did the founders ever contemplate men on the moon or those awful unregulated traffic-lights or almost fail-safe condoms? Indeed, they figured that a business trip to Europe and back would take weeks or even months, depending upon – of all things – the weather. Admittedly, the document has done some good, like legalizing personhood for the former slaves or getting it right in 1933 by bringing back booze, thus paving the way for other mind-improving drugs like LSD. You’ll pardon me a slight interruption for a bit of nostalgia vis-à-vis the Democratic convention of 1968 in Chicago, when so many of us grooved through the teargas to make our points, feeling little of no pain, thanks to O’Leary. This reminds me of one of my role models, Professor William Ayers, who didn’t just talk the walk but actually walked the talk in blowing up buildings and shooting policemen. You can be thankful that the nation is headed now by one of Ayers’s closest friends, also a disparager of the Constitution…for all the right reasons.
Your remark indicating a disavowal of redistribution of wealth is what set me to wondering. As you noted, the Constitution does not provide for redistribution but you seemed to be encouraged by that flaw in the document. Instead, you should be planning and carrying out a protest – like Operation Wall Street last year – in the interest of making an even playing-field for everyone, no matter his/her circumstances. The fact that the Congress made a slight mistake in legislating that everyone should own a house regardless of the ability (or not) to pay for it should not alter your efforts since recessions – even huge ones like the present one – are simply parts of the governmental cycles. Upheavals are the mother’s milk of all of the Force’s endeavors. A satisfied society – always built upon greed – is anathema to the cause. Don’t get sucked-in by those – though there probably are not many on your faculty there – who insist that there are differences in people regarding such things as intelligence, risk-taking, good luck and rich relatives. We are all sprung from the same amoeba or slime or cave-person or orangutan or whatever else Darwin may have noted and current university geniuses are corroborating. Simply put, no person should be better off then any other person, including the homeless and the lazy. People are just what they are, warts and all. Your suggestion that most people would not settle for that position is clearly erroneous…people are inherently good, never mind when they murder, rape, pillage, and do crazy things like telling other people not to cross red lines, real or imagined. That “lowest common denominator” stuff just represents an effort to muddy the economic waters.
Your mention of the term “capitalism” was a further proof that you need to have your schedule changed since that type of economic system is on the way out. Your current professor is a total cipher if he’s lecturing that the nation was built upon this spurious model. Indeed, you would do well to go to your dean, who – if I don’t miss my guess – would take some immediate action, even in the face of the professor’s tenure. College and university faculties are the hotbeds of action in behalf of the Force’s plans for the country. The keyword to understand is “diversity.” There has to be a quota of some kind so that everyone will have his/her uniqueness recognized in whatever area of endeavor is involved, and rewarded. This does no violence to the level-playing- field concept since their differences are calculated quantitatively, not qualitatively, the latter leading directly to discrimination.
I make so bold (please don’t be offended) to suggest that you discover fellow students and even professors who subscribe to the level-playing-field philosophy. This is central to setting in motion actions that will guarantee government covering everyone’s back cradle to the grave. The propaganda that such a system will kill incentive and thus accomplishments is…just that, propaganda. People who produce (pay taxes) will be happy to carry along those who for one reason or another do not produce – nearly half of all households. “All for one and one for all” is not the Force’s approach; rather, “All for one and one for All’s stuff” is the motto and accurately reflects the view of the nation’s hierarchy, though I suggest you not use that term to describe current government. It sounds so pre-revolution that the infamous Tea Party might put it to use. The greater use for coddling the non-producing half of households accrues, of course, to this segment’s guaranteed democrat-vote in every election, vital to advancing the Force’s plans.