Here in the United States we are experiencing a remarkable effort to remove statues of heroes of the Confederacy from public areas.  In Charlottesville an effort to protest the removal of one led to violence and the death of one person.  I will not review the details of this, nor of the various demonstrations against hate-groups that occurred in many cities across the country following this.  Nor will  I detail a massive demonstration in Boston against a few people who wanted to assemble in support of “free speech”.

I wish to compare the present movement in America to remove or destroy statues and other memorials that refer to the leaders of the Confederacy to other movements that have occurred historically to cleanse a country of their past.

Way back in ancient Egypt Thomse III ordered the removal of all images and memorials of his stepmother Queen Hatshepsut.  In modern times Egypt is working to remove all traces of Mubarak.  In ancient Rome, “damnatio memoriae” was used to removed all memorials etc. of prior rulers when those following wished it.   In China Mao Zedon had thousands of historical sites destroyed to rid his autocracy of capatalistic or traditional influence.   Most recently the Talaban destroyed a couple Buddas and ISIS worked hard at blowing up many ancient treasures.   And now the progressive liberal left in the United States is demanding that works of art reflecting the Confederacy be destroyed or hidden away somewhere.

A nation cannot erase its past by merely destroying works of art that refer back to it, nor should it.  I have heard that it “all depends on the tone of the display”.  In the U.S. one might imagine putting up a memorial to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.  Presently any such memorial would not be looked at as a celebration of the governments imprisonment of these people but as an apology for what we did.

The problem seems to me to be that presently we cannot agree on what the “tone” of the statues of Confederate heroes in public places is.  To most (according to a recent PBS poll) it still is one of historical importance to both whites and blacks.  To some it is a celebration of slavery of blacks.  We have no blacks enslaved in this country, although there might be some enslaved in the middle east yet today.  Even those Americans who are descendants of slaves are generations from them and enjoy equality under the law.  They, as well as other minorities, enjoy various affirmative perks not available to white Americans.

The present day cleansing of America of its past by destroying its statues and renaming streets, buildings and other means is merely the beginning of a total ethnic cleansing.  A reasonable next step is to decide to redistribute from this group of white Americans any assets that they may seem to have because of their “white privilege”.  This is what has occurred in South Africa and some other African nations.  The nation should work toward removal of any white culture.

So, lets have America join Mao Zedon, the Taliban and ISIS and get to work cleansing the nation of all these relics of the past.  Wait?  Didn’t the majority of people think they should be kept?   Oh well, the progressive liberal elites and the mainstream press must know best.   Move on!  Next is the Washington and Jefferson Memorials and Mount Rushmore.

Mr. Wonderful, Barack Obama, has now morphed from being the suave, sophisticated, blindingly smiling presidential mulatto to inhabit the White House to the new fashion guru as he goes around Europe visiting with heads of state either before or after the President of the United States has meetings with the same people.  Why is it that few consider that this citizen of our country seems to think he should be meeting with Presidents and Prime Ministers of Italy, Germany, France, Great Britain and scheduled to meet with the Prime Minister of South Korea to be strange?   Why should this private citizen, who routinely rants against the policies of the United States, need to talk to heads of states of foreign nations.

I, for one of a few, think it is illegal.  How could anyone think that these meetings merely are friendly soirees where only raising children when being a public figure or how to spend all the money one gets from public speeches without public comment is the evening conversation.  No, Obama merely is continuing his effort to remain a world leader and in doing so is impairing the ability of the United States Government to actually function.  Between what he, himself, is doing, and the efforts of the host of his entranced functionaries at all levels of the administration, the present administration is being hamstrung.

How the present administration permits this is beyond me.  Put him on a no-fly list, revoke his passport, make public the destruction he is doing to the functioning of the government.

It seems desirable that the authority and responsibility given to those who receive the high offices of government and have by right of their office the ability to govern the citizens of that state must have the interests of those governed above their own.    Socrates, in the Republic, challenged the idea that the ruler commanded that which was in his best interests.    Through a challenging set of propositions where ruling was compared to medicine, it was admitted that medicine (and ruling) had to consider the interest of the weaker (patient/ruled) to that of the stronger (government) as opposed to the physician considering the interests of “medicine” before that of the patient.

Why would any good man accept the burden of governing if he must act toward the benefit of others and not his own?  If he were a truly good man it would not be for money, or for the honor given him by the citizens.   It would only be because of fear that a lesser man would rule him.   Few exist in the present times in the United States.

Presently we are increasingly ruled by agencies of the Federal Government.  They are not elected and in many cases are not subject to the oversight of the elected officials.  They exist because in the past an idea occurred that experts and scientists would make government more efficient and better if removed further from the political world of people elected by the citizens.  This is the concept that government officials know better what is best for people than they, themselves, do.   These officials have a small commitment to anything other than increasing their own power, strength and budget within the government.  They know they can further their own importance by promulgating regulation after regulation that gives them increasing importance.  Each one under the cloud of doing what they feel is better for people, the land and environment, and the unknown future.

These agencies and the people living in them must be brought under control.   Firstly, remove many which no longer have a beneficial purpose.  Secondly, demand that Congress set up a mechanism to have elected officials review and approve the regulations they produce.  Finally, require that a mechanism for adjudication of complaints be taken from judges not hired and employed by the agency.

It is not right that we are governed by people not elected and not primarily interested in the governed.