Understanding Left and Right

We will never be able to solve our problems in America until the Left and the Right understand each other, accept those differences and work to find solutions. This is more productive than trying to change each other - or worse - demonize each other.

Here is a basic primer of the differences.

The Left

• Rights are man-made
• Morality is subjective
• Look to the future for guidance
• Past and present evil 
• Must move toward utopian future
• Man is inherently good, social constructs are bad and must be changed
• Individuals are the center of society
• The collective is the source of education
• Equality means all should be the same.
• The government should erradicate society's inequities
• Centralized power is progress
• Knowledge and wisdom are based on theory (and "scientific" studies)
• American founders were evil hypocrites
• US Constitution is out-dated and irrelevant
• US Constitution should be changed through activist judges

The Right

• Rights are God-given
• Morality is objective
• Look to the past for guidance
• The past was good 
• Must avoid dystopian future
• Man is inherently bad, must be checked by laws and religion
• Family is the central unit of society
• Parents are the source of education
• Equality means equal under the law
• Religion and charities should ease society's inequities
• Centralized power must be checked
• Knowledge and wisdom are based on experience (and historical studies)
• American founders were good men
• US Constitution was inspired and must  be restored
• US Constitution should only be changed through the amendment process

I love how Paul Jossey frames the right in his Federalist article:

The right consists of free-market capitalists, who think the individual is the primary political unit, believes in property rights, and are generally distrustful of government by unaccountable agencies and government solutions to social problems. They view family and civil institutions, such as church, as needed checks on state power. 

These people don’t think government should force a business to provide employee birth control or think law should coerce bakers to make cakes against their conscience. They think the solution to bad speech is more speech, and the solution to gun violence is more guns. 

In the graph below, the reason why the Libertarian groups are further right than the Republican groups are because they advocate total freedom, including moral freedom. They advocate the legalization of drugs, prostitution and other social issues. Republican groups agree on fiscal freedom but draw the line at legalizing immoral practices.

Who is right?

Libertarians have solid arguments but we are seeing the results of this failed experiment in the states that legalized marijuana lately. Rather than legalizing it for pharmaceutical research, so they can develop controlled doses for the various illnesses, it is legal for anyone and everyone to self medicate. Of course, people with no medical problems are eager to get there hands on it for recreation. And they easily do. We are already seeing an increase in DUIs and lowered productivity. Not to mention people moving out of those states to find a more moral state to live in.

I think it is because the majority of the Republican groups are God fearing people. They try to live a higher law of morality. These people don't need laws because their faith enforces those "laws" through a desire to fit in and do what is right. But they take umbrage over people flaunting these laws of God. They can see that the more people shun these laws the weaker our society becomes. So, naturally they will side with laws that curtail that.

The Libertarian groups are a strange hybrid of the left (morally) and the right (fiscally). However, they fall on the side of Liberty more strongly than Tyranny so they are definitely considered right wing however wrong their ideas are. The classic example of too much of a good thing no longer being a good thing. We need some laws and some order to really enjoy freedom. Total freedom would be chaos.

Nazis on the left? That is an idea that is steadily gaining momentum. Dinesh D'Souza has rightly exposed the Left's rewriting of history in order to smear the right with Nazism when it was originally a Marxist ideology in his book, The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. 

Paul Jossey also pointed out that "We can find clues to Hitler’s practical stance on economic questions from the writings of his confidant, Otto Wagener. In texts only translated in the 1980s, Wagener explains that Hitler saw the Russian experiment as right in spirit and wrong in execution. Removing production from the industrial class had spewed unnecessary blood. Industrialists could be controlled and used without slowing the economy or impeding social progress. His task was to convert socialists without killing the entrepreneur and managerial classes."

What about the Alt-Right?

The American Alt-Right might as well be a left wing hate group, because they espouse views more commonly held by left wing political groups. Maybe, that is what the "alt" means. Not right. Or opposite of right. Look at Michael Knowles' explanation in his video, "What Is the Alt-Right?"  Or Dinesh D'Souza's interview of Richard Spencer, the head of the "alt-right" movement.

Note that Spencer doesn't believe in God given rights and that we get rights by being part of the community. That is the Left's viewpoint. And he likes Andrew Jackson over Ronald Reagan? Wow! That is a dead giveaway to his basic ideals. Yeah, pick the president who founded the Democratic party and was for slavery and Indian removal.

It is almost like the alt-right is really just trying to resurrect the original Democratic Party complete with their Klu Klux Klan. It's the party that more closely resembles every form of tyranny from the beginning of time. The people who are comfortable in the Democrat Party today would be in favor of monarchy, oligarchy, communism, fascism and Nazism in previous eras. It's obvious they fall for governments that wield absolute power and demand that citizens be a contributing part of the government's vision of how we should think and act.

I also leave out the traditional notion of Anarchy on the right. Anarchy in it's purest, theoretical form would mean complete Liberty, or no government. But the term Anarchy today is more of a method rather than a state of things. Anarchy is used by all radical groups to destroy the current state of affairs in order to implement their desired form of government or culture. So Anarchy no longer means "no government" but rather chaos and destruction.

Many people would put Anarchy on the far right or replace the word "liberty" in my image above with anarchy. But I disagree. Anarchy is immoral or amoral and sits outside the line because it is more of a phony tactic and can be used by anyone to disrupt society. Even on the far right, near the liberty end, there are still laws. It is the law that ensures liberty for all. Anarchy violently removes liberty for all. If people were naturally good, then we would have no need for society and laws. People would govern themselves and always do the right thing, but they don't. So we need laws.

There are two mistakes when applying the terms Right and Left, as well as, Liberal and Conservative. And those are 1) thinking the meaning has remained constant through the centuries and 2) lumping the American experience with the European one.

In order to understand this, you need to understand the concept of the "Long Nineteenth Century." Wikipedia says, "The long nineteenth century is a term for the 125-year period comprising the years 1789 through 1914. It was coined by Russian writer Ilya Ehrenburg and British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm. The term refers to the notion that the period reflects a progression of ideas which are characteristic to an understanding of the 19th century in Europe."

This period saw the decline of monarchy and the rise of republicanism and socialism. The "conservatives" during this period where pro-monarchy so they can not be compared to conservatives of today, who revere the radical-for-their-time founding fathers. By the end of the long century, there were no more "conservatives" of this type. All were enamored by political Darwinism and Marxism. So most politically-minded people were part of one or another warring faction of socialism. 

In America, this included the Progressive Republicans and various avowed Socialists. The latter were aligned with French Socialism or Soviet Marxism. 

The Democratic Party were the most conservative. Using the definition of "conservative" being someone who resists change. The Democrats of the early 20th century wanted to preserve the Jim Crow laws and segregation. They believed in social Darwinism but did not trust in a natural social evolution. Instead, they actively fought to make whites superior and blacks inferior. 

This was driven part by their jealousy of the progress of American blacks. In only one generation from the end of slavery, and in spite of being segregated, the black communities had achieved a remarkable level of success and wealth. They were faithful church goers and enjoyed nuclear families.  There were many strong male role models ranging from ordinary fathers to capable political leaders, doctors, lawyers, merchants, and entrepeneurs. The black community's wealth was growing by leaps and bounds. 

[Side note: my grandfather was a traveling mens clothing salesman. He noticed that blacks were coming into wealth but could not put that money into better homes in better neighborhoods because of segregation. So they developed a habit of spending money on clothes and cars. One extreme example of this was when he showed his fabric swatches to a black gentleman who was not impressed by his array of low to high quality fabrics. My grandfather realized that he was fixated on the price rather than the quality of his fabrics. So he told the gentleman that his best samples were in the car. He went to the car, rearranged his best fabric samples, then returned and doubled their prices. The man was happy and chose one for a suit.]

Southern white Democrats wanted to end that prosperity. So, back to reason number one. You can't lump today's conservatives with the conservatives of the early 1900s. They are entirely different people with different worldviews, in spite of today's conservatives being demonized and accused falsely as racists. Conservatives today agree with the Martin Luther King, Jr. and his comment, "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

And for reason number two. You can not compare today's conservatives with the conservatives of Europe. The politics of Europe has been based on dying monarchies and the rise of socialism and republicanism. The Left and Right of the National Assembly in Revolutionary France are not remotely like the left and right in America today. Even today, the left and right in Europe don't share everything with the left and right in America.

Further reading:

Read A Pile Of Top Nazis Talking About How They Love Leftist Marxism

A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles

American Conservatives: A Misnomer for the Real Radicals

One problem we have with today's debate is the confusion that labels bring. And nowhere is that more evident than with the label of "conservative" used for the people who want to defend the US Constitution and roll back the many governmental policies that have led America to stray from the founding principles of the Great American Experiment.

The reason why "conservative" is not a good label is because "conservative" in the rest of the world and throughout European history means the people who resisted change and wanted to keep the order of things the way they were.

That meant, in Europe, they supported the various monarchies.

The 18th, 19th and 20th century struggle world-wide was between the traditionalist/conservatives who defended the monarchy and the radicals who wanted to tear that down and build up free societies based on equality or citizen rule.

The radicals in Europe gravitated to equality through socialism (See: Alexis de Tocqueville Warns of Socialism: 170 Years Ago!)

That was not the atmosphere throughout America's history. The radicals in America were the Patriots who wanted to set up a free society based on citizen rule. The Tories where the traditionalist/conservatives who wanted to keep things the way they were.

People everywhere gravitate to a government that controls everything and tells you what to do. America is no exception. It never had a monarchy, but the American people still gravitate to centralized government.

How often do you hear people say, "There ought to be a law!"

That role in America has been filled by Marxism. Whether it is Communism, Socialism or Democratic Socialism, it is all the same - a centralized government ruled by an oligarchy who calls all the shots and forces their will on the populace.

This is just what the Patriots where trying to avoid by implementing the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Since that time, the struggle in America has been between Patriots who believe in the founding principles of equality, freedom, self-governance and the sanctity of private property and those who think that we should give Socialism yet another try - ignoring the ugliness that it has brought upon the world in every form it has arrived.

So the bottom line is that the Patriots of today are NOT conservatives in the historical sense. The American Experiment never fully matured before the tendency for centralized power crept into American government.

Centralized governments have been around for 1000s of years so the people who desire to return to that system - whether it is a monarchy or an oligarchy of Socialists - are the real conservatives/traditionalists. The citizens of America who want to return to the founding principles of the Constitution and further the American Experiment are the true radicals.

We modern Patriots believe that the reason America has led the way during the last 200 years is because of the radical ideas put forth by our founding fathers.

Those principles have stood up in comparison to the alternate governments. Nowhere has life been better than in the USA. And those countries who implement those principles thrive more than the countries who embrace tyranny - whether in the form of Communism (China, USSR, Cuba, North Korea), National Socialism (Nazi Germany), Democratic Socialism (modern Europe), Theocracy (the Muslim world) or Monarchy (every two bit dictator in Latin America, Asia and Africa).

The other source of confusion is to assume that the original radicals in America (Patriots) and the radicals in the rest of the world (Rousseauists/Marxists) are one and the same. Both rejected the concept of divine monarchies. But that is were the similarity ends.

The Patriots want equality of opportunity for the people. Marxists want equality of outcome. The latter has been proven to be impossible.

Another way the lines are blurring is with the rise of nationalism in the European countries. The conservatives there are fed up with the failed and failing policies put forward by the Left and are now using the same language as the Patriots in America. They are trying to supplant the entrenched Socialism with a variation on the American experiment. They are seeking a more sustainable form of government with more freedoms, while preserving their cultures from the engineered homogenization of people through uncontrolled immigration. Immigrants who have no desire to integrate but rather supplant the cultures of Europe with their own cultures.

That is what happens when there are too many similar immigrants arriving all at the same time. Rather than integrate, they form separate communities because they are more comfortable with their own language, morals, religion and culture.

Unfortunately this keeps them and their children from progressing in society due to their self-inflicted ghettoizing.

Alexis de Tocqueville Warns of Socialism: 170 Years Ago!

Even in 1848, Tocqueville saw the dangers of socialism. 

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French nobleman who wrote extensively about the new American republic. His writings give a clear description of how the newly formed American republic was faring. By reading his, "Democracy in America" you can see what part of the system was working and what part of the system was weak. Some of his predictions have come true, including how it would only be a matter of time for people to realize that they can vote for people who will give them money out of the national coffers.

In 1848, he gave a scathing rebuke of socialism during a debate about instituting a socialist style work project in the Second French Republic. His full speech can be found here.

Below are the excerpts that I specifically felt needed highlighting. For a long time, I've felt that 21st century mankind is so wrapped up in ourselves that we don't realize how brilliant and enlightened the people of yesteryear were.

It is uncanny how the words of Alexis de Tocqueville sound like the words of a brilliant conservative pundit of today. But this was delivered in 1848!

"Now, the first characteristic of all socialist ideologies is, I believe, an incessant, vigorous and extreme appeal to the material passions of man."

"A second trait, always present, is an attack, either direct or indirect, on the principle of private property. From the first socialist who said, fifty years ago, that “property is the origin of all the ills of the world,” to the socialist who spoke from this podium and who, less charitable than the first, passing from property to the property-holder, exclaimed that “property is theft,” all socialists, all, I insist, attack, either in a direct or indirect manner, private property."

"Now, a third and final trait, one which, in my eyes, best describes socialists of all schools and shades, is a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual. They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom."

"Is socialism, gentlemen, as so many have told us, the continuation, the legitimate completion, the perfecting of the French Revolution? Is it, as it has been pretended to be, the natural development of democracy? No, neither one or the other."

"There is one thing which strikes me above all. It is that the Old Regime . . . was, in its political philosophy, far less distant from socialism than we had believed. It is far closer to that system. The Old Regime, in fact, held that wisdom lay only in the State and that the citizens were weak and feeble beings who must forever be guided by the hand, for fear they harm themselves. It held that it was necessary to obstruct, thwart, restrain individual freedom, that to secure an abundance of material goods it was imperative to regiment industry and impede free competition. The Old Regime believed, on this point, exactly as the socialists of today do."

"After this great [French] Revolution is the result to be that society which the socialists offer us, a formal, regimented and closed society where the State has charge of all, where the individual counts for nothing, where the community masses to itself all power, all life . . . where the very air is stifling and where light barely penetrates? Is it to be for this  . . . that the French Revolution took place? Is it for this that so many great men died on the field of battle and on the gallows, that so much noble blood watered the earth? No! I swear it by those men who died for this great cause! It is not for this that they died. It is for something far greater, far more sacred, far more deserving of them and of humanity. If it had been but to create such a system, the Revolution was a horrible waste. A perfected Old Regime would have served adequately."

"I mentioned a while ago that socialism pretended to be the legitimate continuation of democracy. I will not . . . rummage around in the garden of Greek roots to find from whence comes this word. I look for democracy where I have seen it, alive, active, triumphant, in the only country on earth where it exists, where it could possibly have been established as something durable in the modern world — in America."

"There you will find a society where social conditions are even more equal than among us; where the social order, the customs, the laws are all democratic; where all varieties of people have entered, and where each individual still has complete independence, more freedom than has been known in any other time or place; a country essentially democratic, the only completely democratic republics the world has ever known. And in these republics you will search in vain for socialism. Not only have socialist theories not captured public opinion there, but they play such an insignificant role in the intellectual and political life of this great nation that they cannot even rightfully boast that people fear them. America today is the one country in the world where democracy is totally sovereign."

"Democracy and socialism are not interdependent concepts. They are not only different, but opposing philosophies. Is it consistent with democracy to institute the most meddlesome, all-encompassing and restrictive government, provided that it be publicly chosen and that it act in the name of the people? Would the result not be tyranny, under the guise of legitimate government and, by appropriating this legitimacy assuring to itself the power and omnipotence which it would otherwise assuredly lack? Democracy extends the sphere of personal independence; socialism confines it. Democracy values each man at his highest; socialism makes of each man an agent, an instrument, a number. Democracy and socialism have but one thing in common—equality. But note well the difference. Democracy aims at equality in liberty. Socialism desires equality in constraint and in servitude."

Sources:
Federalist Radio Hour podcast

Additional Study:

America's Founding Fathers, Professor Allen C. Guelzo

Lecture 35: Professor Guelzo explains how Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America fortold exactly how we would end up in the mess are are in today. He suggested America's focus on self-interest instead of virtue was the key to our success (as opposed to France's failure at creating a republic by focusing too much on equality). He also pointed out that the only thing keeping self-interest in check were the newspapers and voluntary associations in America, especially the religious ones. He warned that if we lose those two checks on self-interested power and corruption that a soft tyranny from the beaurocracies we create to ensure equality would destroy our liberty. The quest for equality under the law would not be enough and would breed jealousy and resentment as it morphs into the desire for equality of outcome.

Terraforming a New Planet: My Strategy for Success

Year: 2144
I've been directed to to spell out the plan for creating a new home for human colonists. This process of transforming a bare planet into a livable one is called "terraforming." And to reduce the amount of trial and error, I will pattern my project after our home planet - based on what is written in our planet's rocks.

Here is my 12 step plan:

Step 1: Find the Right Size, Perfect Distance
I cannot over stress the importance of this step. If we skip it, the project will fail. We need the perfect size planet. If the planet is too big, the planet's gravity will hold too much atmosphere, resulting in crushing pressure at the surface. However, if the planet is too small, the atmosphere's gaseous molecules bouncing off each other will eventually fly off into space, because their average speed will exceed the escape velocity of a small planet's gravity. Mars is the poster-child for that scenario. It had an atmosphere once, but it's gone now because Mars is too small. Now, Venus is about the size of our planet, but she is our go-to example of a planet too close to the sun. A run-away greenhouse effect makes the average surface temperature of Venus 864° Fahrenheit (462° Celsius). We won't get many colonists signing up for that!

Step 2: Send an On-Site Crew
You won't be getting very far without a dedicated team of engineers, scientists and support staff in a comfortable self-sustaining residence. When things go wrong - and they WILL go wrong - you need a crew capable of fixing things before they get out of hand. The distances are far too great for command control at home to do everything remotely.

Step 3: Establish an Atmosphere
The planet will be a barren rock at first. So, without an atmosphere, any water we add would just freeze. And we NEED water. So we must enshroud the planet with life sustaining air. Atmosphere formation will also focus on generating tons of water vapor to prepare for Step 4. In fact, the resident crew won't see their sun for a long, long time. Humidity will be at 100%, with a pea-soup-like fog everywhere.

Step 4: Put Water Everywhere
The resident buildings will be air tight and strong enough to withstand high pressure, because they will now be underwater.  In this step, the foggy atmosphere will release most of the water vapor and precipitate on the planet as liquid water. We will keep this up until the entire planet is covered with water since we will introduce life to the ocean first. We won't wait for the atmosphere to be "human-ready" before introducing life, however. The early stages of our own planet had the same scenario. Part of the plan is to allow time for the organisms to live and die. That will enrich the silt that accumulates on the sea floor. You see, we are thinking ahead to Step 8.

Step 5: Let the Sun Shine Through
As the water settles out of the sky and into the ocean, our resident crew will finally start catching glimpses of their sun. Eventually, they will enjoy blue skies, fluffy clouds, sunrises, sunsets, thunderstorms, wind and the stars at night. They will have to come up to the surface to enjoy the beginnings of these atmospheric pleasures, though, because the ocean still covers the entire planet. We want that valuable sea silt to build up and don't want to leave even one section of land exposed to remain barren. We have important things to do with that organic matter. So let it coat every square foot of the planet.

Step 6: Add Simple Sea Life
Here's an analogy to help you understand why we start simple. Long ago, some humans had aquariums. If they put a fish in a fresh tank it would die. The tank was too barren and had to be seasoned by establishing a cycle where bacteria would convert the ammonia from fish waste into nitrite and then into nitrate. The latter being the least toxic to life. They could speed things along by adding water from an established tank that already had bacteria. As these chemicals came under control, they would add sturdy, inexpensive fish until it was stable enough to add their prized angelfish. We'll need to do the same thing in our new ocean. So, we'll start with bacteria, algae, diatoms and other hardy single-cell organisms like our planet's pre-Cambrian seas. The bonus now is that the algae will start converting CO² into oxygen.

Step 7: Add Complex Sea Life
Now we'll introduce complex lifeforms a little at a time. Remember, our atmosphere is still not "human-ready" so make sure our lifeforms can stand the current make up of the air and sea. Most of these won't survive the transition to a "human-ready" atmosphere, so don't get too attached to them. In fact, why don't we have some fun and make some really crazy plants and animals. What we are emulating here is our planet's Paleozoic seas. We'll systematically introduce more complex life, in as many varieties and sizes as possible - including giant animals similar to our Mesozoic oceans. The more biomass there is to live and die, the richer the seafloor silt will become.

Step 8: Transfer Organically Rich Seafloor to Land
Next we'll expose some landmass. We'll bend and break the crust of the planet to form sea basins and continents. Even better! We'll start with one big landmass. A supercontinent. That way the dissemination of life will be easier (see Steps 9 and 10). We can always split that continent later into multiple continents for more diversity and beauty. We'll leave the majority of the planet as ocean, however, for a more naturally stable planet (around 70%).  The oceans are the lifeblood of the planet, driving the water cycle, the weather patterns and oxygen-carbon dioxide cycle. The built-up foundation of silt laid down in steps 6 and 7, as well as the ash strewn around by the vulcanism from bending and breaking of the crust, will now provide some topsoil to support the land life we will introduce in the next step. We aren't just doing this so our colonists will enjoy a beautiful place to live, the ecosystems we are building are the key to a self-sustaining planet.

Step 9: Add Simple Land Life
So now we have some topsoil to work with, but we can't get carried away and plant a rose bush, yet. The soil will barely support hardy plants and small animals. Let's be pragmatic and start with algae, moss and plants that reproduce with spores. We'll save those seed-bearing flowering plants until later. We will include worms, insects and other creepy-crawlies that thrive on scavenging dead stuff, like the Devonian and Carboniferous periods. As we gradually add more complex land life we want something to clean up the mess and add to enriching the top soil.

Step 10: Add Complex Land Life
Now comes the fun part. We'll gradually fill the continent with complex lifeforms. Reptiles, birds, mammals and seed-bearing plants of all kinds. And again, we'll try to include as many giant animals as possible, to speed things along with a large biomass. In fact, if we didn't have to worry about our resident crew's safety, now would have been a great time to create some big, scary monstrous creatures. But, alas, we'll have to be content with more placid predators.

Step 11: Sit Back and Relax
If we did everything right, now all we need to do is take time off and watch our new world establish equilibrium. As more time passes, the more stable the planet will become. The wildlife and their environments will evolve jointly into thriving ecosystems. This would be a good time for our residents - who have grown to be a rather large population by the way - to take a much deserved rest and to enjoy the beautiful world they helped create.

Step 12: Bring on the Colonists!
The moment we've all waited for - and it has been a long, long wait. Terraforming a planet doesn't happen overnight. But all that effort was worth it, because the rest of the humans are coming in their colony ships. We pioneers who first set this project in motion have long since passed away, but our offspring should honor our memory by taking good care of their new home. They have been watching things unfold and waiting eagerly for this time to arrive.

Epilog
Why does this all sound familiar? Wait a minute, I remember! I read about a similar plan in an ancient book called the Holy Bible. The first and second chapters had two separate "creation" stories.

The first chapter was the blueprint or planning stage or spiritual creation - whatever you want to call it. See Genesis 2:5.

The second chapter had a very scant explanation of the physical creation, yet the order that was laid out was curious.

First, there "went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." (Sounds like my foggy atmosphere.) Then man was created BEFORE the plants and animals and he was given a pleasant home. Why? It sounds like the workplace for an on-site manager to me. A man in an immortal state. (Much like my resident oversight crew.) The Book of Moses says; "And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also..."

Then man was joined by plants and animals of all kinds. When his job was done, "a deep sleep [fell] upon him"  and he was re-created in a state that had the potential to become mortal should he fall, and he was given human companionship in the form of a female mate. He was made to forget about his role in the creation, too.

It makes sense that the physical creation followed similar steps to the spiritual creation. Hearkening back to the first chapter of the ancient book's planning stage, one of the first things discussed was the atmosphere, or "firmament" or "heaven." Then that atmosphere "divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." This all sounds like my plan's Steps 2 through 4: the atmosphere, it's precipitation and the formation of an ocean.

Furthermore, the "lights in the heavens" were not "created" until the fourth day. Again that sounds like what I expected in my plan about the the sun, moon and stars not being visible because of the thick cloudy atmosphere. Even the mention of the "waters under the heaven [being] gathered together unto one place, and [letting] the dry land appear" perfectly mirrors my plan to start with a global ocean then creating a continent later.

I tried to pattern my plan after the history written in the rocks of our home planet, but it is interesting how closely it imitates the plan written in that ancient book.  That book said the planning took 6 days, however it didn't say how long the physical creation took. I bet it took a long time. Our little exercise in terraforming suggests that it would have taken a long, long time. (Read also: Science and Religion: Both Dating Methods Are Wrong)

Peace and Prosperity without Globalism

There is a problem with the European Union. There are too many diverse cultures lumped together. If you think the United States federal government is out of touch with the common man in the respective 50 states, the EU is worse.

Regardless of the constant claim that diversity is a strength, we must realize that it really is a weakness. 

As Thomas Sowell explained, "It has not been our diversity, but our ability to overcome the problems inherent in diversity, and to act together as Americans, that has been our strength."

Their solution is to import immigrants and destroy the identities of these member countries so that a superpower can be born after homogenization is complete. The problem is that it won't work. They are heading down the road to destabalization and violence. Another failed state like the USSR and Nazi Germany. But instead of wars between countries, they will have internal wars. Civil wars drag on forever and never reach an definite outcome. They just continue to smolder.

Each country must retain their sovereignty and make their own domestic laws, treaties, immigration laws and trade agreements - while preserving their cultures and languages because "multicultural" really means "monoculture." What a boring world that would be.

But going it alone in this world doesn't seem to work anymore. The smaller countries will not be able to compete in the global game of politics and economy.

One solution to a gargantuan, ineffective union like the  EU, is to allow groups of countries with similar customs, languages, religions and heritage form smaller unions. They'll benefit from block trading, unified group treaties, and common defense. Much in the same way as the United States of America. The success of the United States lies in the fact that the diverse 50 sovereign states are similar enough that they can forge a united, national character.

That will never happen when you try to put dissimilar countries like, say Turkey and Belgium, under one umbrella. (Turkey is not a member but is trying.)

If similar countries would unite in the same way as the Visegrad Group (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary), then we would have the best of both worlds. These medium-sized federations can protect each other militarily and benefit from a shared economy. All while maintaining their own unique national identities, something they can capitalize on to attract tourism.

Another example a successful small regional union is Mercosur. An economic union between Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina. As well as their associate members of Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Guyana, Ecuador and Suriname. (Venezuela has been suspended as of this writing.)

This would decrease the chance of war. You won't have violent border disputes with someone on your own team. And non-allied countries would think twice about invading a given country when there are 4 to 8 other countries watching their back.

This is a map showing the possible breakdown of the various unions. The key is that they voluntarily form these unions. The larger countries are already a union of smaller states, provinces or departments, so they have no need to unite with anyone. Beyond a certain size, bigger is not better. It is actually worse - having reached a point of diminishing returns, especially for small businesses.

"If there is any place in the Guinness Book of World Records for words repeated the most often, over the most years, without one speck of evidence, “diversity” should be a prime candidate. 

Is diversity our strength? Or anybody’s strength, anywhere in the world? . . . Have the Balkans been blessed by their heterogeneity — or does the very word “Balkanization” remind us of centuries of strife, bloodshed and unspeakable atrocities, extending into our own times? . . . 

It has not been our diversity, but our ability to overcome the problems inherent in diversity, and to act together as Americans, that has been our strength." 

- Thomas Sowell, Is Diversity Our Strength? American Spectator; June 14, 2016

Additional learning:

Why Diversity Doesn't Work