Dakota Beacon

I

awoke one morning with this being the first conscious remembered thought of the day.  Those who hold Darwinism and Statism dear to their hearts are either very conflicted or are very large hypocrites!  Allow me a moment to attempt an explanation of my thought.
We know that Darwinism’s main thesis summarized is survival of the fittest.  You either adapt and and survive or you die off.   I once heard Zig Zigler summary this theory as “from the goo to the zoo to you”!  Mankind evolved over time discovering things like fire and learning how to utilize it for their betterment.  Man learned to stop beating a female into submission to mate, to simply asking if she would be willing to do so (aka as marriage by some liberals) I would venture to guess that most of the liberals or progressives in this nation would ascribe to Darwin’s theory.  Yet, these are the same people who believe that the STATE should be the caretaker of all its citizens.  It is the role of the STATE to enforce equality and fairness not only in opportunity, but also in results.  In the evolutionary development of humans, only the strong survived, but now liberals determined to deny evolution its role and keep around those who are unwilling to adapt and change, but remain entrenched in their lifestyles.  These, if liberals were true evolutionist, should be allowed to disappear for the betterment of the human race.

So, is STATISM the final evolutionary state for mankind?  We stop evolving because now we keep the status quo going, mandated by the state?  We no longer reward risk takers and dreamers and inventors because we wish to make everyone feel equal and we take the reward out of succeeding because some can’t and some won’t?  Progressives seemingly want boys to be more like girls and girls to be more like boys and deny what Darwinism would call the evolutionary traits that the sexes demonstrate they have been for the last century or so.  Is, “being all you can be” and “to thyself be true” only applicable if it is within the approved norms of the statists or do we really believe those coined phrases and let the individual be free to do such?  The STATISTS want children never to feel defeat and so they revile scorekeeping in kids games.  Evolutionist KNOW that there are winners and losers.  They admit to this in their theory, so in one way or another, why are they now trying to thwart this natural course of event?  By the way, if you have attended one of these so called games, the kids KNOW who has “won” and who has “lost”.  

Now, as a Christ follower and understanding HIS teachings, I do believe that everyone individual is precious and important.  As a Christian, I am to  “do unto others as I would have them do unto me” so I have principles upon which I must act to protect the weak and the unfortunate.  It is a personal responsibility and we as Americans, our nation founded upon such principles, have been the most generous and giving people on the face of the earth.  We also understand the flip side as well, that if a man will not work, he should not eat. I wonder what Darwinian principles the Statists cite for their desire that government be the big protector of the weak and unfortunate!  With statist philosophy, the state takes and it decides who wins and loses, not the natural course of events.  Example, in our last financial meltdown, the government decided who should survive and who shouldn’t and acted accordingly. According to Business Week, (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_50/b3963114.htm) it was proposed that natural course of events should have decided this and yes, it may have been much more painful, however there are economists to say that the healing would have started sooner and the recovery would have been shorter and we would have been a freer people.  Now, we reward a weakened condition and there is no punishment for failure.  GM & Chrysler continue to limp along to this day.
So, would a liberal, progressive or whatever you may consider yourself to be, who ascribes both to evolution and statism explain to me if you are a conflicted individual or a hypocrite.  You have to be one or the other based on your actions.