Anti-Progressivism
(click title above)
A recent AT article defines terminology for describing how we are being swamped and ripped by a social, political, and economic tsumani. The article does not seem to have been meant to propose alternative suggestions. Without an alternative plan, merely to advocate for "just say no" does not work. Regardless of terminology, all of this odious central planning that is swamping us seems to be channeling from two related and parallel currents: (1) Controllers are becoming more powerful, with more powerful tools for telescoping power; (2) and sheep are being multiplyied far faster than thinkers.
Reason 1 relates to Controlling Progressives ("C-Rinos and C-Dinos"), while Reason 2 relates to Sheep Progressives ("S-Rinos and S-Dinos"). Such C and S Progressives are made for each other, but there is no substantive place in their politics for Conservators of Decent Civilization. Simply put, Progressives are hell bent towards a N.W.O. that will genuflect to pretended attempts at Conservation of the planet, while crushing all attempts at Conservation of civilizing freedom and dignity.
An alternative society would be one that accomodates respect for each responsible person's freedom and dignity. But hope for any such alternative is sinking fast. Our situation is comparable to that of early 1900's Galveston, when a mighty hurricane swamped its seawall. Now, globalism is the new tsumani for swamping ALL islands of freedom and dignity. Broken b0rders, broken education, whore media, advances in advertising and mind control, advances in communicaton and behavioral monitoring, concentrations in corporate power (hard to compete against Walmart), undermining of respect for customs and traditonal authorities, replacing of God or Higher Consciousness with "Scientific-State" --- these are the handmaidens for the the new world order.
No workable alternative is presented just by saying no to all such handmaidens. Because these are powerful handmaidens. Among decent people, those who want to preserve islands of civilizing freedom and dignity had best get an alternative act together --- soon.
In speaking of Conservatives, I am reminded of Howard Beale: You've got to say, I'm a human being! G-dda***t!
We need to turn back the spigot by which we are being flooded with sheep. Newsflash: It is immoral, not moral, to allow the voting franchise to be so universally extended as to allow easily manipulable herds to be recruited by crass controllers in order to swamp responsible society. To fail to resist such human tsumani is to surrender hope of decent human civilization.
I have been away on business, but I saw a call from AT for support. Well, we need to support voices like AT. We need to get our conservative act ORGANIZED and appreciate which aspects of N.W.O are worthwhile vs. which are handmaidens to Evil. We need to educate those sheep who can be educated, and stop allowing our voices and votes to be drowned out under a flood of newly enfranchised S-Progressives being farmed by C-Progressives.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Re: [http://www.storyofs tuff.com/]
This site [http://www.storyofs tuff.com/] gives quite an interesting presentation about ecology and “stuff.” For beginning to bend fresh minds to one p.c. path for thinking about conservation, it is certainly effective --- especially if not subjected to challenge in respect of alternative considerations.
Regarding stuff: Even the most p.c. conscious among us seem forever to be over-building houses and “stuff” next to hurricane centers, tornado alleys, fire prone mountain vistas, and fragile wetlands. But, if we are the main threat to ecology, it would seem that the most direct way to diminish the threat would be to better manage our own population. Problem: The population that is most conscientious about limiting itself tends also to be the population that is soonest overrun.
Regarding central planners (“Big Gov”): I have been unable to appreciate how any particular ecological system can very well be managed by central planners. First Law: The most unchanging of natural laws seems to be that things change. Second Law: The purposes and ideals of central planners are not immune from the changing and corrupting influences of the First Law.
Gaia thinkers have long idealized Eden. Unfortunately, natural stuff naturally intrudes ---like asteroids, volcanoes, and ice ages. Insofar as earth’s time is mostly spent under thousands of feet of sheets of moving ice, human stuff seems likely to be pulverized mostly into debris.
Conserving Ecology vs. Civilization: Many occupy themselves with concerns about different kinds of Conservation: Some with how to Conserve systems of Ecology, such as by trying to dictate concerns upon others; others with how to Conserve systems of human freedom and dignity, such as by trying to inspire concerns about democratic Civilization.
But the “stuff” we leave behind is the trail of our expressions of human purposefulness. I doubt we could very much reduce that trail without reducing human expressiveness and inventiveness. And we are going to need inventiveness, because somewhere out there lurks an asteroid with our names on it.
It is well and good to raise consciousness about the effects of “stuff.” However, such consciousness needs to be tempered with appreciation for how each effort to reduce stuff creates its own stuff, and how creativeness needs not to be stifled to the point of rendering us impotent to meet unavoidable coming challenges.
For example, given the historic rarity of systems for preserving human freedom and dignity, it is short sighted to ask those societies that enjoy some semblance of freedom to consciously hold themselves back in order to give brutish regimes time to catch up. Should we be Peter Pan, to let Captain Hook retrieve his sword?
I wonder whether the “best” way to conserve systems both of ecology and of decent civilization should incentive both democracy and population planning (I do not mean to speak of abortion).
****
If the human urge to consume constitutes the greatest threat both to ecology and to human population, then why hinder the natural course of competition from reducing the human population? Why not just tend your own garden and let nature take her course? Nature will reduce the human population, and ecology and evolution will change right along. Why fight inevitable changing evolution by trying to prolong the health and welfare of overpopulating humans by trying to corral them into centrally planned feed lots?
Markoh said, "Does the end ever justify the means?"
Well, I would like to hear a liberal define the terms --- "end," "justify," and "means."
I accept that such terms may help convey fuzzy kinds of communication, especially about feelings.
But I am not confident such terms are appropriate to liberal lexicon.
After all, what does a lib mean by "justify"? Does he just mean, "Was it good for you?"
In a perfect lib-gaia world, what harsh man made action would ever be "justified"?
Libs, in hubris, like to believe they are more "scientific."
Well, what of science, physics, empiricism, or objectivity is concerned with "justice"?
Is there some ultimate lib-particle of objective justice?
Libs like to "justify" our existential predicament entirely in respect of natural selection, unaided by any force of conscious design. That is, libs tend to subordinate conscious choices about justice as if they were mere shadows, entirely accounted for by inanimate forces that just happen here and there to favor the evolution of whatever complex systems may locally be most adapted to compete and replicate. That is, consciousness is less morally responsible than it is merely epiphenomenally derivative of physics.
But, if, for libs, we are only the epiphenomenal rationlizations of shadows, then what's the moral fuss about torture? Do libs mean to say anything, really, or just to emit rationalizing squeals whenever their pleasure diversions are discomfited?
Is not the end (i.e., evolution) proceeding with means (natural selection) quite as it "should"? Is there not room in natural gaia for brutishness to become "most fit"? Or, if we "should" oppose uncivilizing brutishness, may we please resort to such means as are necessary, you know, for us to survive?
To me, it seems silly to try to judge the past in respect only of itself, without regard to lessons that may be learned about how our future choices should be guided. One needs more substantive philosophy about morality and justice than mere homily.
I fail to see how a homily that "the end can never be justified by the means" helps very much ---
except perhaps as noise and squeal for expressing whether one finds a particular end or means being discussed to have upset one's mental balance du jour.
Life is often hard. There is more for us to account for than can be done under the noise of opposing volleys of homilies. When the brute is at the gate, will someone please call out the Lib-Guard of the day, you know, to talk enlightened, scientific reason with Attila?
Re: "The two parties are the same ."
Indeed! Soros is a Pure Progressive. As such, he could care less which party is in power. He wants to progressively reduce the masses to organized global control and submission. Sounds Marxist, Islamic, or Mafia'esque, right? All are about heirarchical control and destruction of freedom. Soros thinks the security of the world cannot entrust humanity to a system of principled individualists, i.e., human beings.
If you are an unprincipled greed monger (abusing Rino) or a submissive security zombie (wishing to be abused Dino), then the Unified Progressive Party is just right for you. Then, it's just an unprincipled matter of jockying for whose gang colors can pillage or re-distribute the most goodies, while government of, by, and for the people is banished from the earth.
Progressive Rino International Corporatists ("PRIC's") vs. Progressive Dino International Collectivists ("DIC's") --- in the end, the view is the same: Unprincipled reduction of all Principled Individualists.
The American Thinker gets that government needs to be reduced. But many on AT (and Rinos, Repubs, and Libertarians) fail to get that government of, by, and for the people can no more work when the consumption of power, wealth, and political influence is absolutely consolidated among a few than it can work when property is confiscated under Marxism. The paths are parallel to the same end: The end of Principled Individualists.
It matters to me very little whether one unprincipled gang holds turf or another. Obama or McCain --- what's the diff, in principle? I want them both reduced to supervision of adult, principled individualists, under a system for preserving individual human freedom and dignity. The alternative is certain disaster --- submissive loss of what it means to be human --- regardless of whether what happens to prevail is the short sighted greed of Rinos or the abject ignorance of Dinos.
Simply put, Rinos are PRIC'S and Dinos are DIC'S. But what we need are Principled Individualists, i.e., Social Conservatives, or Moral Realists. The progressive alternative falls "beyond good and evil," into the zombie pit.
A decent republic or civilization should idealize the honoring and defending of the integrity and dignity of its citizens. Dignity entails “bottom-up” respect for opportunities for expressing self reliance and individual responsibility. This is an ideal that has been distinctly American, but it can be adopted by any society. Counterpoised to it are all those “top-down” societies (fascist sectarian societies) that trade individual freedom and dignity for security, certainty, and organizational power and intrusiveness. A society accustomed to individual freedom will not give it up without being defeated by frontal battle or by “progressively” deceitful treachery.
Treachery from deeply complicit Progressive Rinos and Dinos (every President since Reagan) has been becoming ever more obvious. For Principled Individualists, the following are obvious; for greedy and ignorant “Progressives,” the following are un-apprehended or ignored:
1) STATE IS NOT GOD (The One): Consciousness of “God” should present us with evolving moral models, which are essential to good faith intuition, but which are beyond quantifying to objective logic; the best time to evade the devil is before he draws nigh.
2) EXCUSING EVIL (Bowing): Unguarded friendship with moral derelicts is as corrosive to nations as it is to individuals.
3) CONSPIRACY OF GREED (Soros): Sociopathic rewarding of unprincipled double dealing can quickly corrupt an entire electorate.
4) ABSOLUTE POWER (MSM): Power and wealth, when allowed to become too concentrated in the hands of too few, without counter measures for checking their abuse, lead quickly to the hollowing and selling out of a republic.
5) SELLING OFF INHERITANCE CHEAP (Letting no crisis go to waste): Citizens should be watchful not to allow the rewards of free trade to tempt the shredding or hollowing out of their republic.
6) SPARING THE ROD (Availing military technology to China): To fight moral hazard, citizens should demand the punishment of traitors and sell outs of their republic’s infrastructure and defensive military technology.
7) ETERNAL VIGILANCE (Surrendering military technology): Technological diligence must be demanded, to shield societies based on respect for human freedom and dignity from fascist religious and secular despotism.
8) ENFORCIBLE MODERATION (Comprehensive immigration reform): Water, like immigration and multiculturalism, is essential, but too much of it can lead to drowning.
9) MASK OF LAW (Replacing law with minority empathy and gang colors): Constitutional law must be preserved as something more substantial than whim of despotic or judicial fiat.
10) PUPPETEERING (Cap and trade): Government’s job is to generally incentivize, not to piecemeal intrude or dictate, especially where reasonable alternatives avail.
However, notwithstanding the obviousness of such points, Progressive Rinos and Dinos have desecrated each and every one. Principled Individualists will not preserve themselves by respecting or empowering either wing of the Unified Party of Rinos and Dinos for the Progressive Destruction of America (UPORADFTPDOA).
The Trojan Horse is fully obvious to our gaze. This time, its trick has been mastered not by freedom loving Greeks, but by despotic loving Progressives and their moral zombies. Will Principled Individualists rally against this obvious, existential threat in time?
When Lincoln was running for President, politics was broken. The time was ripe for a new platform, and developed nations abroad were sensing it. Today, politics in America is again broken. What is broken is this: Those who lead both our main political parties are leading us, and the world, to disaster --- and I don't mean global warming. The disaster is the organized rush by frontpersons of both parties to re-chain (farm into intrusive corporate and governmental red tape) human freedom to cheap servility.
The cure is to restore checks and balances, by reining in intrusiveness of national government and by redistributing not wealth but political influence. The goal is not equality, but to check marauding political packs, so that their influence can be muzzled and leashed, so they can be made less free to carve up turf for preying on and reducing the freedom of everyone else.
If aggressive displays of wealth must somehow be progressively taxed in order to curb wolf packs, then so be it. Only, do not redistribute such revenues among individuals, but apply them to the development of common infrastructure. After all, why should not those who most progressively profit by using the nation's resources also pay the most progressively in taxes in order to build and conserve the nation's infrastructure? Preserving a decent politics is perhaps the most imperative of modern priorities.
May the party that first advances an effective leader and platform for igniting that common, public concern soon prevail? One can hope.
Against Rome, it was barbarian organizers of otherwise incompetents and sociopaths who inexorably brought down Rome’s governors and empire. For awhile, Rome occupied: Its incompetents and servants with bread and circuses; its sociopaths and mercenaries with rapine and plunder; and its philosopher-servants (principled individualists) with checks and balances. For the system as a whole, there was an extended period of “creative destruction.”
America’s founders, in framing a neo-roman system of checks and balances that catalyzed almost unimaginable inventiveness, may not have fully appreciated how the resulting expansion of wealth and influence would eventually derail social decency --- as when patrician ownership and control of resources (such as banks, newspapers, media, and academia) became consolidated less in philosopher-servants and instead overbalanced in “Soro-nian” barbarians, united and inclined more to self-conferred titles of elitism and sociopathy, for leading unwashed masses into a “progressive” cashing in and hollowing out of the entire system.
PEACE: If Liberals, “progressive” iconoclasts of society leading the liberally unwashed to cash in on entitlements, were not so myopically greedy and ignorant, and if they truly valued non-violence: They would renounce those who heckle conservers of life and liberty; they would renounce those who facilitate abortions of partially born babies; they would renounce those who advocate and spread totalitarianism; and they would renounce those who renounce those who fight against those who spread totalitarianism.
ENVIRONMENT: If Liberals intelligently and sincerely desired to conserve Earth’s environment, they would work more consistently to advance decent methods for incentivizing limits to human population. Instead, Liberals work to open new borders to every slum population and to overrun demographics of every existing, successful culture.
OPPORTUNITY: If Liberals wanted to enhance and spread opportunity, they would work to reward those who are willing to recognize opportunity. Instead, Liberals work to replace opportunity with excuses for entitlement-thinking.
MORALITY: If Liberals sincerely respected any higher, moral purpose, they would work to reform and improve existing cultures. Instead, Liberals work to so diversify each culture and practical system of mores as to undermine every culture.
PROGRESSIVELY GROOVY: Obama is only a fronting head for the real Medussa, which is a barbaric syndicate of heads, often headed by Soros. The new Barbarians are at the new Rome, and they have harnessed “Liberals” to storm the gates. The Soro-nians mean to cash in. Big time. Buurrrrp.
PROGRESSIVE CONSUMPTION TAX: Stop the thievery that consists in wealth-redistribution; substitute the restoration that consists in infrastructure-rebuilding and opportunity-redistribution.
NOT A CENT FOR TRIBUTE: Power to tax is power to destroy. Do Soro-nian pirates now control power to tax America, or does America still retain institutional fortitude to tax Soro-nian like consumption into political subjugation? Shall we smell the spoils of piracy and plunder, or harvest the liberty of reform?
"Logically speaking, it's customary to assume something does not exist until it is proven to."
Well, how do you prove consciousness exists?
Do you assume it does, or that it does not?
Ultimately, whatever consciousness is, why not equate it to God, or at least perspective of God?
Do you assume a basis for goodness, meaningfulness, and purposefulness exists, or that it does not?
If you assume such a basis exists, yet cannot provide a complete "physical" description of it, why not equate it to "god"?
If you are unwilling, absent "physical proof," to accept that a non-physical, spiritual basis exists for consciousness, goodness, etc, then how do you ever justify making any moral choices --- inasmuch as you lack any ultimate, physical, objective basis that could meet your notion of some superior burden of proof? What logical proof could ever meet the burden of proof by appealing to, or reasoning from, a non-existent (or, at least, non-proven) "physical" source of moral objectivity? That prescription is for hollow men (here we go round the prickly pear).
Well, is that not a key problem for Progressives? How can a Progressive who casts the burden of proof as you do ever take a stand for anything, any person, any concept, any tradition, or any good?
An analytical philosopher with no direct consciousness of center, superior to math and logic, is more suited to noise than music.
Beetle ("a relatively unknown genius, who has spotted a fatal flaw missed by a half century of other mathematical geniuses, or he is mistaken")
Well, Beetle, you strike me as more informed than most. I did notice that of which you write. I have previously noticed philosophers tending to limit some of the aspects about math to which GIT applies. But, if I recall, Stoner's position relates to how GIT is not so much incorrect as it is misleading. That is, folks may assume GIT means more than it does. (However, I only skimmed Stoner's article about GIT --- just enough to be intrigued.)
In any event, regarding "completeness," it is hard for me to imagine how anything that is more than trivial could be complete in itself. Would "science" (or even math) exist, were there nothing to express or rationalize it? May some fundamental, particulate, or algorithmic character of matter or energy encapsulate all that is needed to express all scientific relations? If purely particulate, perhaps a "God particle" will be found to close a GUT / TOE. (Odd, if only space and time were each "stubborn illusions," but an "ultimate particle" were not.) But, if the God particle is found to exist as only a mathematical function, then how "spiritual" (or non-physical), ultimately, is that? And if even that is incomplete to close the TOE, then perhaps "there be dragons," or turtles (or god).
I cannot explain The Ultimate Consciousness ("God"). I only (1) intuit or believe that IT has capacity to explain my consciousness. And, (2) I sense that humble respect for such a Source helps enhance opportunities for communities to spread a civilizing, meaningful empathy.
Regarding Honesty about non-trivial concerns, such as socializing metaphors, I wonder, in respect of eternal and infinite Truth, apart from trivialities and truisms:
What of meaning do we communicate that is not representative, figurative, contextual, or limited in its formulaic truth to a bubble, of which even our universe is but an example?
IOW, don't we need to refer to a common history of incomplete metaphors in order to communicate about any non-triviality? If so, why focus on the incompleteness, as if it were "dishonest," rather than on the contextual content? The Civilizing Messages of most religious traditions need be considered "dishonest" only if taken as
dogmatically literal. Perhaps it is only the Essential Message of most that may be literal, i.e., the message, in perennial formulations, to "Be (consciously!) Empathetic."
Ask: Are the dogmas of "secular churches" (of scientific moralists bent on never contracting abortion rights and saving the planet) somehow less figurative and contextual and more mathematically precise? I doubt it. But I do fear their militant, centralizing, dogmatic, scientific, elite, condescending, "know it all-ness" ---- more so than I fear most literalistic religious traditions.
As we consent to the rule of those who come to believe themselves to be soul-less machines, beyond freedom and dignity, will they not seek to spread and enforce their "insight," to "save the planet" by reducing human society to a Borg-dom? In fact, throughout history, has not the loss of freedom and dignity been the usual lot of the bulk of humanity? Is it vigilant to the preservation of freedom to surrender moral control to elite scientists who mock spiritual beliefs?
Re: "Atheists openly hate religion, so she ended up leaving the possibility open that there is a God? It doesn't make sense."
How so? One who professes a spiritual belief is not professing knowledge or empirical proof.
IOW, to believe while not quite knowing is necessarily to leave room for doubt, is it not?
Is not the difference between a "believing theist" and a "doubting agnostic" more one of psychological inclination or leaning, rather than one of objective kind?
Re: "Going to church and having your mood lifted from hearing wonderful songs and sermons is not evidence of God."
Well, who said such things are "scientific evidence" of God?
Re: "So, we don't have all the answers, but that seems to give some people license to buy into wonderful tales of intelligent creators who sit in the sky, listen to all of our thoughts, and pull all of the strings."
Did someone say such things?
Re: "Also, as usual, none of the above commenters of faith can offer a shred of evidence that connects the natural universe to a sentient, supernatural creator."
So, you expect spiritual believers somehow to evidence with science, necessarily based on an assumption that all events are controlled or determined only by natural causes, that not everything is controlled or determined by natural causes? You want evidence for Something that is believed to be beyond or superior to evidence? Don't you sense a flaw in such a demand?
One either chooses to believe that some superior Consciousness plays a role with our perspectives of consciousness, or one does not. But how can you pretend to discredit such a belief by demanding evidence? Don't you see that your demand for natural evidence of God is just a trivial way for restating your belief that God cannot exist beyond natural evidence?
I doubt people believe in God based on empirically replicable empiricism or double blind experimentation. Rather, I suspect beliefs have more to do with personal intuitions and qualities of consciousness. Or, beliefs in God may even have to do solely with confusion. But, now, how do you propose to prove such a thing, i.e., that beliefs in God derive solely in respect of confusion, without any spiritual aspect beyond? (Luke, look to the Force.)
Can you stalk your own consciousness, to evidence its likely direction, before you finish choosing your direction?
Insofar as conscious choices of observation change the quality of what otherwise would have presented to consciousness, why should anyone suppose they can fashion a double blind experiment to catch or prove consciousness of the Holism that synchronizes that which each perspective of consciousness perceives?
Regarding Byproduct Of Childishness:
Well, is the way our brains develop (and the purposes to which we exert ourselves) the "byproduct of Information that is never lost"?
If so, what stores or "forms" such "information that is never lost"? Is it a purely-natural communal-sum of "god particles"; a purely mathematical function; a self-synchronizing randomly-evolving holism; or a self-synchronizing choice-evolving holism?
Should society inculcate a character of moral responsibility among its participants for the quality of their choices? If so, based on what? (1) that Big Brother government is watching; or (2) that a fundamental Source of empathy (not necessarily "love") is imbued to all who perceive nature; or (3) that no one (except the sociopaths who make history?) can escape his naturally evolved nature for altruism?
Among such models by which to educate, assimilate, or indoctrinate students, which would be most prone to condition and sustain a worthwhile and viable civilization? Which would best support a community of trustworthy citizens of broad discretion, freedom, and dignity? For sustaining civilization, which can be reliably proven to be more of Truth than of Concept of Consciousness?
If no old Information (or religious “Soul”?) is ever lost, then is any new Information ever created? (“In” what is “form” activated?)
Well, within the Potential of Math, perhaps nothing really CHANGES. But, in how math potentials are reduced and related to the idealizing Experience of each perspective of Consciousness, there may be relational CHANGES in focus, breadth, sequence, and association in informational experience.
One’s conclusions about Conservation of Information (during tenure of the universe that confines the situation with which one's Identity is presently entwined) will depend upon one’s primary choice among filtering conceptualizations (models of reality). But, no non-holistic perspective can ever enjoy a complete conceptualization of the mathematical infinity of existential Potentials.
Still, even though we seem barred from ultimate, non-trivial Truth, we have no choice but to rationalize choices, even though we have no rational capacity to believe in “absolute nothingness.” So then, in communal participation with what Necessarily-Incomplete-Metaphor “should” one choose to be guided, as one works, civically or spiritually, to try to best lubricate a morally responsible and “informed” society or civilization?
Religulous? You decide.
HINT: Scientists (and perhaps Analytical Philosophers), being inclined in order to compete to spend most of their time searching for replicable or objectively measurable means for leveraging power over nature, necessarily incline to believe all experience (even conscious and moral experience) is reducible to completely natural, secular explanations. That is, they come to identify their essence with justifying a search for their holy grail of a grand unifying explanation for all of nature, as if all of experience should be amenable of reduction to measured control. Like Ghost Riders in the Sky, their search for the Theory of Everything is their dedicated choice of Necessarily Incomplete Metaphor. And they call the rest of us "religious."
I seem prone to trying to connect every experience to my present situation. The other evening, I saw part of a program on TV concerning the “Hawking Information Paradox.” Apparently, various high priests of physics take different positions, but most want Evidence and Proof that accumulations of information are never lost to the Universe (or, at least, not to the Multiverse). That is, they want evidence and proof of a “physical” nature.
But, what if all of physics is entirely derivative and subordinate, as byproduct of interactions among spirits (or perspectives of Consciousness), projected out of a synthesis of nothing more than (“nothing buttery”) mathematically weighted communications?
Consider how we are presently jousting with concepts of “dark” matter and energy. Well, what about dark (or fuzzy?) Information?
May not one reasonably conceptualize or model “Reality” as if every imagined or imaged idealization of information were necessarily “fuzzy” in respect of infinities of possible chronological sequences and associations? May not one conceptualize (all non-trivial) information as being inherently fuzzy, so that foci appear only insofar as we choose (or identify with) perspectives of observation and interpretation?
IOW, when I get an idea, it is not merely a precise nit, bit, or “particle of information.” Rather, “it” necessarily encompasses an infinity of unstated and subconscious relations and connections at all fringes, which I can never bring to precise “physical” representation.
Perhaps, the ultimate “particle of information” will be captured about the same time the “god particle” is captured.
Beetle said "I think some people look very hard for God"
Well, I think God is quite easy to sense --- for one with a will that is receptive to good sense.
The only difficulty is getting through to institutionalized, conditioned, black-hole circle-chasing, willful insensitivity. (Example: Big Giant Spaghetti Monster brilliance. After awhile, one simply accepts that the difficulty is insurmountable, whereupon one resolves, in example of another brilliance, to cease trying to teach "pigs to sing.")
Regardless, I would agree that some people do look very hard to find common ground for communicating and respecting principles that can be conducive to a meaningful society.
I also think some people, who tend towards self responsibility, value human freedom and dignity and will often bridle at over-greedy attempts by elitists in science or government to unnecessarily or crudely restrain them, justified in nothing more than militantly atheistic, Marxist, Progressive, fear-mongering, or hubristic concepts (i.e., global warming, spread the wealth, save the planet, scientific management, state raised children, etc.).
When uni-dimensional scientists and bureacrats find their ways to better respect individual human freedom and dignity, I may sympathize more with their positions. However, when they do find that way, I suspect it will be marked with at least faint scents of religion and spirituality.
In any event, given what I sense as lowbrow, unearned haughtiness of our present political leadership, I suspect things will get quite tense before they get better. Meantime, freedom-lovers will indeed be working hard.
Re: "China and Russia WANT the US to be weakened and defeated."
And Obama and Soros do not?
The Headcase In Chief relies on Biden and Pelosi as insurance against his impeachment.
But removing a competent Marxist to replace him with an incompetent gaffe producer would seem to be a giant trade up.
Evil trends are being feverishly accelerated. As the last guardian of human freedom and dignity, the USA is being confined within a tightening net. Gullible Americans are at sea, being fished to "save the planet," while those who would net us as socialist slaves are cheering from dry land, where they are playing chess.
And so, checkmating forces are gathering, as evidenced in the:
Spreading of nuclear technology to enslavers of human freedom;
Shredding of of U.S. borders to make them completely porous to terrorists and freedom underminers;
Reducing of electorates to masses of mis-educated, vicim-mongering, entitlement-beggers;
Buying off of loyalties among cheaply unionized sellouts (card checks and teachers' unions); and
Reducing of all opposing media and academia, via surrogates for fairness doctrines and speech codes.
At breathtaking pace, before our eyes, any chance of "hairy fortitude" for the rousing of electorates of free thinkers is being rapidly neutered and, in Iran, slaughtered.
Thus, shall we be reduced to the mercy of sociopaths who only want the freedom to enslave us, while abetted by the weakest and most corrupt generation, as the last of the greatest generation die out?
It strikes me that we have for too long been deferential to elite pretenders to being the "best and brightest," able to find all pertinent answers in objectivity, science, rational thinking, and respectful diplomacy.
Now, rational thinking is great, but it is only one arm for a well rounded human being.
But another arm is needed, relating to insight, strength of character, and spiritual fortitude.
However, that arm has been wounded and hounded from the field.
And so, around the world, there have arisen forces for taking advantage of a one-armed USA, which has now so lost its moral compass as to have come to think its forbears to have been nothing but evil.
And so, Americans with strength of character have quit the field, even as our elites continue to think they have a plan for "talking reason to our opponents."
And so, we find ourselves reduced to begging of Atilla that he ought not take gold from a one-armed man.
And the sad thing is, most of the electorate now residing in America (I decline to call immigrating-socialist-enslavers and gullible-children-of-the-hippie-generation "Americans") believe that should work.
In our academia, we have given our youth not opportunities to achieve maturity, but holidays from history.
And now, the holiday is over.
Re: "once I abandoned wishful magical thinking, it actually increased my awe of the planet, the solar system, the universe"
Perhaps you only wish you had abandoned wishful thinking (?). If you think ("believe in") any basis for moral values which you believe should be adopted, then, unless you can provide an objective basis, are y0u not merely engaging in your own brand of wishful rationalization?
Surely, you are not suggesting a person or society should only adopt such moral values as can be objectively proven to be valid? Or, if you are, please do detail your objective basis.
My observation is that much of what we most value is purely a creation of conscious rationalization, beyond proof of validity in pure physics. Beyond direct intuition, I have seen no basis to expect that we can or should ever "objectify" such observation in "measurable physics."
If I am correct, how then does a civilization manage? Does it not begin with self-affirming faith in the mutual worth of one another's consciousness, and does it not sustain itself with empathetic regard for one another's ground of creative participation?
Unless that faith and empathy are nurtured and inculcated, I don't think civilization gets very far, very fulfilling, or very inspiring. And that gets to the nut of it: WHY should any faith and empathy be nurtured, and how should it be inculcated?
I don't think physics will answer those concerns, and I don't think striking out against fundamental, morphing metaphors for social communication will inspire or assimilate civilizing cooperation.
Do you not sense the dead hand of nihilism and sociopathy that abound in the absence of inspiring, assimilating, heroic, spiritual empathies? Sure, spiritual inspiration can lead to tragedy when insufficiently governed by reason, but does not passionless reason lead to deadness to meaningfulness?
When you combine passion with reason, must you always have a measurable, quantifiable, objective, provable reason for it --- apart from an inherent Source that is beyond measure?
When a person, gang, or society gives up on faith and empathy as being of fundamental worth, to what do they turn in order to fill the hole in their cores, if not nihilism, destruction, abuse, drugs, and self loathing?
Where does a person, gang, or society find fundamental worth, if not from direct intuition of validity of faith and empathy, apart from requiring proof in physics?
What supports direct intuition of validity of faith and empathy, if not physics?
I believe that what supports intuitions of moral value is Consciousness, superior to physics. Expecting to find alternative support for moral values in "physics" is "wishful thinking," of a type engaged in by persons who have overdeveloped their talents for quantification by allowing their talents for apprehending values that are beyond quantification to atrophy.
(On a side note, this may relate to why it may be reasonable to fire every ivy league graduate who has obtained position in government, without ever having acquired the talent or insight that arise with actual experience, such as in the military or in business. After all, how balanced is any mind likely to be, that has been indoctrinated within a system that actually bans ROTC instruction from most of its campuses? Is not the unbalanced, unidimensional sort of leadership we have now leading us on a quick path to national destruction? What path could be quicker than the one we are presently being led on?)
Sarah should tell Republican top bananas (Rove, Gingrich, Huckabee, Brooks) that there is so little difference between glide paths for the Progressive rino party and the Progressive dino party that we no longer have a viable two party system.
She should tell America that she will be exploring and speaking out about reinvigorating a real two party system, i.e., a system with room for a party for American Conservatives, for proudly advocating for the preservation and strengthening of not the Globe, but of America. Strengthen American freedom and dignity, and freedom and dignity for the Globe will follow. Weaken America, and the world will become a dreary banana plantation.
Sarah should unleash righteous American anger and blow the tarantula venom of the banana Progressives --- right back in their faces. She should tell Americans to look through the fog of practiced progressive rhetoric and into what is in her heart. She should not crawl back, like Bush, after being ridiculed by double-tongued snakes; instead, she should steal the banana balls and stuff them. Just like a good point guard.
Look where we are, to see what the rhetoric of elites of no common sense so easily rationalizes. Then ask whether real Americans want to see less of elite rhetoricians and more of authentic proponents of American values.
1) Establish a National ID System, based on genetic identifiers.
2) Restrict the right to vote to those legal citizens who have satisfactorily completed some form of national service and who have demonstrated some minimal proficiency in standard tests of English, Math, Civics, and History.
3) Require that all in-country purchases be made out of accounts that can be placed on hold by the Revenue Authority.
4) Eliminate all income taxes.
5) Domestically, retain only death, sales, and annual progressive consumption taxes.
6) Jimmie death taxes to encourage consumption and to provide some limitation against the rise of ruling aristocracies.
7) Jimmie sales taxes to discourage vices.
8) Jimmie tariffs against businesses, to protect vital industries and to discourage off shore accounting abuses.
9) Jimmie annual progressive consumption taxes to encourage savings, as well as to protect society from falling under the rule of those who otherwise would corner currency markets.
10) To protect the poor, elderly, and disabled, phase the tax changes in; altogether exempt the first $25,000 or so of consumption from the progressive tax.
11) Curtail welfare except to those who consent to radical controls against alcoholism and illegal drugs.
12) Within such parameters, let freedom ring.
We have allowed our governance to be bagged by a global networking of elite purchasers, separated only by "Six Degrees of Corporate Bacon," for the purpose of creating and sustaining niches of volatility that favor the survival, replication, and rule of the most invisibly vicious.
Substituting puppet-governance for god, we now come to cheer and worship nihilism of (giving the finger to) all assimilating, decent, familial, and personal values. Thus, elite and racist tribes are now progressively and affirmatively leveraging to be "more equal than others."
Forget the god-particle, for we have now consented to be led and ruled by the elite-particle. Tightening networks of Ivy-Fascists and Avant-Scientists have made it so. The crisis is not about the number of dollars, stupid; it's about the spider-like control.
The only real potential power for countering this evil consists in empathetic appreciation of our interconnection as worthy perspectives of Consciousness (God). So long as we are led by our puppet masters to believe that what they prop up as government is the only value (god), we are without hope of freeing ourselves from their jealously constricting, Nazi rule.
It's not that our ruling elites are Hitler; it's that the power of the Nazi meme has always shadowed us.
*****
Beware when someone from the Government says, "I'm here to help you."
Be aghast when that someone has been elected to political office by using campaign contributions from those he is charged to regulate.
Dems are just the happy hens in the foxhouse who the fox has promised to eat last.
And the Fox? Along with his foxhouse community organizers, he just looks so sincere!
Someone has said it's all about race, reparations, and revenge.
Wrong. It's about depraved, narcisstic, sociopathy.
These people believe they deserve to rule.
And they won't go quietly into the night, even when they are tossed out.
Nor will they need to, for they own a network of academia, media, and corporate corruption.
On August 1, 2008, Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote:
"Hope in God?
Or hope in Obama?
I thank God every day for giving us Americans such a clear and easy choice. Perhaps He is simply using Barack Obama to separate a bit of chaff from the grain."
*****
Well, Kyle-Anne was partially right, in that it was an easy choice for all who had even a grain of judgment (this specifically disqualified Peggy Noonan) for thinking beyond their base feelings.
Unfortunately, more than 51% of the electorate became so easily conned or greedy as to have made the clearly wrong choice.
So, at least we know we now have an electorate that consists in more than a majority of chaff.
Now then, how do we reduce that chaff?
Do we make deals with the devil about it?
Do we work harder not to separate chaff, but to convert it?
Do we let the chaff dissolve away in its own excesses?
Do we allow the chaff to dry into kindling for a prairie fire that will burn the country to the ground?
I have hope in God.
But I have little clue where we are going.
All I know is this: The less we work for good, the more likely we will reap evil.
Make no mistake: Obama is harbinging danger to America, indeed, to the world, that surpasses even the danger leading up to America's entry into WWII --- the kind of danger our sheltered children, students, and elites have little or no knowledge or experience of.
Are the evil things being foreshadowed the things that must be, or the things we still have power by righteous effort to avoid?
*****
About fundamental values:
Review the Lawrence sodomy case. Anyone with the merest grain of vision should have seen that it would lead to our current dissolution of the institutional value of marriage. Yet, most said, "oh, that's just the discredited slippery slope argument." And we just keep saying that ... on and on and on.
Now, absolute military and economic horror is nearing our doorsteps. And what concerns are foremost among our "educated" college students, profs, "elite" journalists, and whore-dog representatives?
Try global warming, health care and tuition help for illegal aliens, path to citizenship for illegal aliens, and, you guessed it, gay marriage.
Maybe we need a burn down.
Post a Comment