LOSS OF FAITH IN NATIONAL LEADERS:
LOSING CONFIDENCE IN CHARACTER OF LEADERS:
As we age, among other things, we learn that:
1) Many judges decide issues based on who contirbutes to their campaigns. (Example: Most folks would think it a no-brainer that relatives within the same vehicle who are injured in an accident and who sue the same defendant highway contractors or trucking companies should, in the interest of judicial economy and conservation of resources, have their claims consolidated for consideration before the same court. In my evaluation, however, the most common and decisive factor is based on what the plaintiff’s attorney wants and whether he holds local political clout.]
2) Scientists are no less human than judges, and may easily become invested in fudging data, as for pharmaceutical companies, for improving chances for government grants, etc.
So, as we become adults, we see past the stars in our eyes, and it becomes mundane to see people we entrust to decide and report important matters fall far short.
Now we find we have people who want to change: marriage to mean parriage; diversity to mean no national or assimilating ethos; national defense to mean completely open borders; patriotism to mean paying taxes to finance the melding of Big Gov with Big International Corp; and liberty to mean complete protection (and subjugation) under the State.
So how do we as a nation assimilate socializing mores?
TURF WARS AND AGENDA DRIVEN LEADERS:
How do you instill character for keeping science honest (i.e., not agenda driven) without instilling character? To me, the import of the main article cries out in anguish about the loss of trustworthiness (character) in our nation's leaders --- politicians, judges, and now scientists.
When people have character, they can be trusted to exercise a general liberty, without needing grossly intrusive legal compulsion or constant supervision. Is not character inculcated by conditioning people to consciously assimilate respect for a higher source of moral values and principles? Those moral principles do not appear to be objectively proveable in science, math, or godless communism. If they were, I doubt we would have such a history of outrages by sociopathic socialists. Rather, principles for sustaining decent civilization appear to be intuited and inculcated by people who act in good faith. (That does not make such principles less valid.)
So, what is “good faith,” if it is not based in faith in something supernatural, i.e., superior to complete reduction to pretenses of objective natural science? To me, having good faith without expressly mentioning God is simply to have good faith while impliedly appreciating … (think it, you don’t have to say it).
There is a turf war going on, during which some among both secularists and spiritualists have become over greedy. Given human nature, I think it is naïve at best to believe that our leaders in politics, law, and science can simply be trusted to be honest and authentic without either (1) having in some fashion been “churched” to assimilate socializing mores or (2) having become kept under totalitarian watch of Big Bro. IOW, except upon assimilating good FAITH, how do we as a nation assimilate socializing mores?
A Global Atheist Convention is being scheduled in Melbourne, the point of it being: “The bigger we can make this convention, the stronger the signal it will send to Australia's religious and political institutions that atheism and secularism are forces to be reckoned with.”
For instilling a “secular brand of good faith,” one may easily substitute in the quote above, so that the words “that atheism and secularism are forces to be reckoned with” may just as well be changed to say “that religion and traditional family values should be swept into a small corner.”
Many well-buttered people have learned to argue that their positions are objectively based, such as in science or in equal representation under the Constitution. Those who disagree, perhaps based on respect for longstanding importance of traditional values, are then denigrated for disagreeing with “objective and fair reasoning.” This is prelude to ridiculing those who believe we should consider long term effects on civilization, before we simply toss out longstanding traditions and calling them: unobjectively founded (what moral principle is completely founded in “objectivity”?), irrational, against the consensus of science, or, worst of all, outmoded principles of “intolerant religious fundies.”
About faith: Sociopathic leaders of Big Gov have faith not well founded in objective nature, i.e., faith that they should count above everyone else. Followers of Big Gov have faith not well founded in maturity, i.e., childlike faith and trust in authorities of Big Gov. So why is it that only those with faith for being receptive to God are the ones whose faith is ridiculed as being unhelpful, unnecessary, non-objective, and “supernatural”?
OF ATHEISM:
What drives interest in the rise of atheism? To me, it seems a general angst is gathering, and competing schools are assimilating to try to address it. Some scientists feel their domain (even enlightenment itself!) is being threatened by over greedy creationists. And now religious and spiritual believers feel themselves threatened by over greedy scientists. It seems as if one side truly believes in saving souls, while the other side truly believes in saving the planet.
Regarding over greedy atheists: I’m not confident that scientists’ leading of militant atheism will be either scientific or enlightening. I could appreciate if scientists’ bugaboo were religious literalism, if religious literalism were a threat to science or enlightenment. But science already suffers from its own over greedy charlatans and wannabes, looking for easy grants. To expect empirical objectivism to squeeze out spiritual intuitionism and culturally assimilating religious allegories is to push empiricism too far. IMHO.
I suspect there are plenty of smart folks who consider the notion of being receptive to a higher guiding source of conscious purposefulness to be rational --- not in a purely empirical sense, but in an intuitive, moral, and perhaps mathematical sense.
If atheistic empiricists consider that humanity “should” substitute some new reasoning or source for civilizing mores, then how do they expect to derive specific “shoulds”? Do they expect to use allegories rather than rigorous science to inspire humanity to accept such new mores? If so, they are merely kicking the religious can down the road. So if the leadership for atheists hopes to invade mores, to provide us with new lists for moral behavior and human purposefulness, then I wonder why? Why must they pretend such replacement would be based in science, as opposed to being based in subjectively conditioned, personal preferences among the new leadership?
Do atheistic activists expect to prove empirical validity for a new list of mores, so that all clear thinkers will undoubtedly follow? Or do they instead intend to foist or force their new mores? Absent connecting proof of legitimacy, why should society accept any such new listing, except upon a meta based leap of faith? How should society come to join hands to take such a leap? For moral guidance, should we be ready to replace priests with empiricists? Why?
I do think it would be well for leading thinkers to consider what mores should guide us. But I don’t think resolution or reconciliation will be found purely in the scientific method, nor in traditional religious literalism. We need ongoing means for pursuing the reconciliation of moral empathies, but I doubt hubris will suffice. We need to pursue appreciation for what separates the math which we experience as physics from the purposeful empathies which we experience more subjectively, as moral intuition. (Of the rational validity of intuition: I can no more measure subjective “you-ness” than I can physically, empirically, and rigorously measure moral intuition.)
It's not enough to think or say, "Me smart (bright?) scientist; you dumb believer."
GROUND OF REALITY: Are our moral empathies driven by nothing more than some sort of ultimate, unifying basis for what we experience as physics, sort of like a physics-in-itself (entirely derivative of some sort of [meta?] god particle)? Or are our moral empathies in respect of some sort of perspective-driven capacity for sharing renormalized and conserved images of mathematical equations? Upon what ground of reality do our scientific-based laws of conservation rest: is the ultimate ground some sort of (meta) physical thing, or may it consist in something not entirely explicable either by physics or math?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Some suggest the gap betweeen the (aristocratic) rich and the (serf) poor is not so great. Well, that may be true, but it also ignores that the working population has been aging. Unless the Gini index were somehow renormalized to take account of demographic trends for an aging workforce, it does not seem to be much of a reliable indicator in itself. Is not our population becoming proportionately older, even as the Gini remains stagnant? Folks tend to make more money in peak earning years. If we have proportionately more folks in peak earning years, yet the Gini remains stagnant, that would seem not to be a good thing.
Combine that with growing chasms at the very highest incomes, i.e., the accelerating number of billionaires with disproportionate influence on our politicians, and I doubt this is healthy for a representative republic. I think this is what is driving the push to economic aristocracy, worldwide. Once we come to tolerate the institutionalization of a corrupt chasm in the political influence of citizens, what tends to float to the top is not virtue, but sociopathy. We are well down the road to serfdom under sociopaths telling us this way to the egress to utopia. The worthiness of rule under an elite corps is an evil lie, but it's being perpetuated by both main political parties.
I think Ted Turner once declared, "He who dies with the most toys wins." If so, he was probably quoting anon. Well, surprise: money and power corrupt.
I just finished "The Myth of Free Trade" (aka the pooring of America). It's a bit dated, but the more things change, the more they sometimes stay the same. The author, Dr. Ravi Batra, makes an interesting argument for "competitive protectionism." Problem is, competitive protectionism presumes America's political leaders want America and Americans to succeed.
However, I suspect many among the new elites who effectuate American policy want most Americans to be poor -- at least relative to real power brokers. Indeed, they want their charges to be relatively poor -- worldwide. The better to play cheap laborers off against one another.
The new aristocracy is not really concerned with patriotism, redistributing wealth, or spreading democracy or human freedom and dignity. This redistribution of wealth politicking is a lot of horse dung. It's about buying votes cheap so rulers can buy labor cheap. They are not concerned with their fellows, but they are concerned with securing their places amongst the new aristocracy of sociopaths, narcissists, and their lickspittles.
For rugged American style liberty not to be lost, political leadership over our economic policy will have to be wrested away from evil doers who smile and lie (even while conniving with tall tales based on faux science) while meaning to reduce the rest of us. Via the Internet, the American middle class will have to reeducate itself, as well as the lower class, with a very sceptical view about what passes for mainstream and elitist "education."
Re: From A.T. -- “The health care bill will turn America into a nation of cannibals, living on the sacrifice of our elderly so that the disadvantaged can have checkups.”
****
Well, there’s a whole lotta cannibalizing goin’ on. Our children will soon be cannibalizing against the health of our elderly. The American Middle Class is cannibalizing its debt on the backs of our children. Our class of debt slaves will be indentured to perform service labor at serf wages for foreign cannibalizers of our manufacturing base.
And just who benefits from this system? Why, the New World Order of elite Sociopathic Cannibals and Wise Guys (“SCAWG”).
Suppose elite cannibals were really sincere about wanting to address environmental, atmospheric, and oceanic pollution and accompanying degradation of general health and welfare. Suppose earth may naturally incline to a homoeostasis effect. Would not the most humane way to restore homoeostasis entail the establishing of incentives for more rational and sustainable levels of human population? For that purpose, appropriate tax policies could readily be fashioned. Also conducive would be enforcing borders and immigration policies, so that countries and cultures that are irresponsible in managing their populations would not be allowed to continue to dump excess population. Also conducive would be developing our own energy resources to free us from enriching stone age civilizations that are under thrall of primitive and lethal religious dogmas which seek our destruction. Also conducive would be developing local economies so they do not need to consume vast quantities of polluting fuels in order to transport duplicative trinkets from abroad that could just as easily be produced at home. But do we see Soros, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi leading any such efforts? Not on your life!
Now, suppose those who have lately most risen in influence tend to be sociopaths, narcissists, financial sell outs, and gangsters, who feel no purpose greater than seeking promotion to higher levels of control within a dehumanizing, submission demanding, soul stifling, machine like, chain gang.
Now ask: If you wanted to break the will of independent minded, small business, middle class people, and subjugate them to control of yourself or your master, what would you do differently from what Soros, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are doing? With what sort of criminals, gangs, and Stone Age cultures would you seek to align? Who is more dangerous than the cannibal who can smile and sooth while slipping the poison to your back?
Well, we have now allowed gangsters to institutionalize means for monopolizing our economy, our politics, and soon our very health. We have failed to heed the progressive institutionalization of corruption in our academia, media, politics, motor voting, and lately in what passes for our social and political science and research, i.e., “global warming.”
While being diverted to keeping up with the Jones, we have become dupes to the institutionalization of means for our own subjugation. Now we have reached a low point and made ourselves the main course. That is, we are allowing sociopaths to “educate” our children to believe their best interests are being served even as they are being sacrificed. Indeed, our children are being led to believe that they can only preserve their birthrights by selling out cheap. That is, by putting their trust in lying scientists and thug controllers.
If McCain had been elected, we would likely have been duped beyond a point of no return. The rise of Obama may be just the sort of providential slap we needed to wake us up. Now awake, we can act. Nearly everything being prescribed by Soros, Obama, Reid and Pelosi is the sort of medicine a cannibal witch doctor would offer. When one acts, steals, and eats like a cannibal, one is probably a cannibal.
***
Is the admin insane or is it cannibalistic? If it truly thinks worrying small businesses about increasing taxes in order to help pay for health care and carbon pollution is the path to more jobs and better national health, than it is insane. If it knows the effect will finance extended periods of job welfare and dependency among its power base, then it is cannibalisitc. I suspect Obama is more like a smiling thug or cannibal than an un-sane Don Quixote.
Re:
von Mises wrote,
"[T]he principle of equality is most acclaimed by those who expect to gain more than they lose from an equal distribution of goods. Here is a fertile field for the demagogue.
***
Well, to be human, it is essential that each human mind should have opportunity to be all that it can be; i.e., to develop its own talents. But this requires mature respect that some are endowed with greater talents in different areas. For those who grow bitter in failure, this is a hard pill to swallow. So they displace their failures by blaming them on others.
People brought to disappointment and envy want to believe all would be better if only Big Bro would use Big Gov to spread wealth to "make us all equal." Of course, every sane person knows Big Bro (i.e., Big Demagogue) has no such talent or ability. So Big Bro never aspires to do any such thing. Instead, what Big Bro does is to assuage the fantasies of Big Bro's power base.
But living large in dreamland while trying to survive in a competitive world always leads to tragedy on a large scale. In treating one's nightmares, one should try to enhance capacity for taking charge of one's dreams. That is, change the dream and thus banish the nightmare.
A decent society needs to inspire each mind to respect the talents of all, when such talents are directed in good faith. Unbridled Capitalism feeds on exciting many workers and consumers beyond limits of decency in envy and avarice. So institutions are needed, to check and soften rough edges of Capitalism and to fortify respect for each person's efforts. Traditionally, such institutions are powered by assimilated respect for a Constitution and are enhanced by volunteers working in good faith through churches and civic clubs.
Although Big Bro is wholly unfit to take the place of such institutions, Big Bro always sees temporary advantage in fooling those whose nightmares render them ripe for wishing to believe otherwise. And so, Big Bro always works to consolidate control for mesmerizing those wounded by envy. Regardless of politcal effrontery, this is done by: (1) stooging for those who have connections and capacity for cornering the market on owning Big Gov and its political puppets; (2) cornering the market on speaking for Big Religion; and (3) banishing from the public square and from public education those expressions of spiritual faith that are independent of, and alternative to, Big Bro.
Big Bro always lunges to seize advantages in audacious lies. This is the stuff that nightmares are made of. The challenge for Conservatives is to redirect the dream.
Among voters, those of "the lowest common denominator" are no match for advertising and electioneering gimmicks. Advertising turns them into debt slaves. Electioneering slogans turn them into useful idiots.
Sociopaths and narcissists probably know this better than anyone, and perhaps know how to put such knowledge to use as well as anyone.
The notion of "fairness" in availing the right to vote may have passed its prime, unless we can somehow find fortitude enough to restrict the right to vote to those who actually have a stake in America, as opposed to the selling off of America.
"Fairness" untethered to vision sucks. As bad as Obama is, he is not the worst that can be produced by the current voting system.
Unfortunately, for a politician to run on a platform for restricting voting rights, such as for restricting the vote to persons aged 25 and above, would be political suicide. And restricting the vote to persons who pay taxes would be "racist."
Re: “succumbed to “meanness and greed” that had harmed the US economy and increased the gap between the rich and the poor”
I am supposed to believe Jeffery cares?
Give me a break! He is deep into Bozo Bizarroland.
Global Warming is an excuse for Jeffery and the EPA to lobby for and assume draconian regulatory powers, with or without congressional action. With congressional action, we get EPA regulations under Cap and Trade. Without congressional action, we get EPA red tape under plain old Cap. Either way, we get a whole lotta governmental “help” and intrusiveness, far beyond anyone’s power to comprehend.
Well now, when no one can reliably comprehend the law, then no one can respect or comply with the law, so that all become outside the law. Society reduces to bozo bizarro land, aka, ObamaNation.
As near as I can tell, this is the powder-keg state of affairs that is most appealing to Radicals, La Raza, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the religion of peace Islamists. It is certainly conducive to the reduction of civilization to an unassimilated, smoldering mix of races, creeds, cults, and gangs, perhaps united only by common hatred or envy of “Whitey” (even if Whitey is a strawman "Emmanuel Goldstein" and a mix). Bozo Bizarroland.
Simply put, pushing law beyond what it reasonably is suited to, as by propounding ever more intrusive laws and regulations under ever more esoteric rationalizations, does not promote fairness, assimilation, or clarity in law.
The Obama Regime-Of-Changing-Regulation has been busily hi-jacking every institution in order to tie us in knots, hype racial divisiveness, and relegate us to ever more arbitrary and racially divisive czars, thugs, and sordid goofballs. Our world has become a temporal oyster for elites, who rule us by dividing us. And fear us not.
The Regime cannot hope to preserve itself except by accelerating its abusiveness. Hence, it must recruit ever more uneducated and envy-driven useful idiots. It must destroy every border, boundary, and institution that would promote the kind of decent law that could reduce the control and onslaught of sociopaths, malignant narcissists, and third world denizens of the Stone Age.
To promote that kind of pot-stirring instability under the whim of a hierarchy or cult of media-monopolizing narcissists and sociopaths is to promote CYA paperwork. This does not promote production, progress, incentive, creativity, cooperation, respect, or happiness. It does promote soulless, mind numbing drudgery, impoverishment, envy, suspicion, and divisiveness. IOW, it advantages what you see in Russia and Iran, i.e., default positions for that which, for the hoi polloi, is short, mean, nasty, and brutish.
To the extent we turn more and more to faux principles, deceivers, and man made priests and gods (aka, The One, the Taliban, Big Bro, Soros, G.E., and most of all, Red Tape), the world and the principled pursuit of happiness will more and more pass us by.
When nothing is abnormal, everything is permissible. Both Liberals and Libertarians think one person's freedom stops at the proximity of another person's nose. Well, what about the proximity of twisting the minds, mental habits, and brain wiring of our youth? Shouldn't the definition of "abnormal" have something to do with what is sustainable for a decent civilization? Or is it illiberal to want to sustain civilization?
As best I can fathom, Obama is a man of modestly above average intelligence, with talent for reading a teleprompter in an earnest Marxist voice, and not the least compunction against pretense, deceit, and demagoguery. But there is no way he could be where he is, were he not part of an entrenched movement for rewarding like-minded malignant narcissists and sociopaths.
Inasmuch as Obama recycles some of the same hirelings as did GWB, I suspect his narcissistic movement is bi-political, and he is little more than a puppet. IOW, I doubt the sort of moneyed interests that find advantage in contributing to both main political parties care much about middle class, ordinary Americans, or any Conservative who is not part of their network of self indulgent narcissists. That is, I very much doubt that Soros or the upper echelons of Goldman Sachs or G.E. care about America. Rather, I believe these types have an agenda, and they will always be seeking ways to promote their agents and representatives, who, morally, are little more than happy-faces-on-sticks. Lately, wherever I look, I notice a lot of those.
Well, what is the agenda of this evil movement? Evidently, the agenda is not one for preserving or promoting traditional American values or decent civilization for fellowship among a majority of human beings. Rather, it appears the agenda is for fulfilling self-indulgent gamesmanship among cannibals privy to The Network, for preying on everyone else. America means nothing to them. Nor God.
If this entrenched network wants to bring America down, then how so, and why? As to how so, consider the hydra-headed monstrosity of legislative abuses and volatility being presently waged against America: Constitutional Sabotage, Stimulate the Slush Funds, Snap and Charade, Health Rationing, Border Games, Destruction by Multiculturalism, Parriage Values, Newspeak Academia, etc, etc. As to why, consider how they see god only as being reflected in their mirrors. And consider who is most practiced at standing ready to capitalize on destruction and volatility. Indeed, how many times shall Soros profit by breaking national currencies?
Sure, Conservatives now have a few forums for sounding alarms. Yet, the axis of malignant narcissists fears us not. Why? Well, assume Republicans pulled from the present crop somehow replaced Dems tomorrow. Absent election of rogue-minded traditional Americans, what then, fundamentally, would change? Is history on the side of those who seek short term profit by not underestimating capacities for growing useful idiots? Do the subhumans of the Network have a better view of the board, on which to play everyone else? Have they incapacitated everyone else by setting races, tribes, creeds, and cults against each other? We think there is always the last resort, i.e., the Second Amendment. But have they already got that cornered? Well, it appears they nearly have rogue Americans caged. The poor bastards.
Unlike Dems, Repubs have not been prone to offer much in the way of "candy" to the poor black relations of Hansel and Gretel. This is because Dems "care" more than Repubs. Given their constituency, Dems figure they can baldly reconfigure their bad history, as if it belonged to their opponent, so that the unwise will never be the wiser. This is why unions tend to fill union jobs newly created in inner cities with carpetbaggers; this is why so very many well paying jobs are going overseas. And this is why those who know best how to market and offer candy are trusted by Dems to know what is best for everyone else. Indeed, Dems have well learned that some of the people can be trained and fooled to believe well nigh anything, all of the time.
Such are the people who will never quite grasp the moral of Hansel and Gretel ... or any among countless grim tales for children. How else should the Old Witch have came to run the NYT?
If "screwels" won't teach common sense, can't they at least teach about Hansel and Gretel? Or Pinocchio, The Pied Piper, Bernie Madoff, Lysenko, or Snow White? Can't they teach how fools and their country are soon parted?
Dems, too smart by half, soon sew their own demise. Problem is, they eventually pull the country and everyone else down with them.
Re: "America must come to terms with the reality that orthodox Islam requires unceasing jihad. Eradication of jihadism is a daunting task. Massive education efforts, combined with resolute confrontation of all sources and people that support and promote this deadly philosophy, hold the best promise of dealing effectively with this affliction of humanity."
Well, imagine some "spiritual" branch of the mafia re-invented itself after finding (or interpreting) artifacts of crime gangs from ancient Rome, and imagine it then based its new found spiritual radicalization on loyalty to a newly interpreted Roman God of Self Indulgence (aka, Crime). Imagine high mafia prophets and "Messengers of God" then sanctioned constant turf war for the conversion of new Wise Guys, at the point of the sword. Would our government find mettle enough to say, "Wait a minute. That's not religion. Incitement to conspiratorial rationalization for killing is crime, not religion. And as such there is no Constitutional right to teach, spread, or incite it." Or would our government hold: "Well, conspiratorial incitement to killing non-wise-guys is neither crime nor murder, so long as it is part of the tradition of a recognized religion." Or would such holding depend on whether our government had already become infested through and through with elites of the Wise Guys?
One may as well say: "The reality is that orthodox Marxist Fascism requires unceasing struggle. Eradication is a daunting task. Massive education efforts, combined with resolute confrontation of all sources and people that support and promote this deadly philosophy, hold the best promise of dealing effectively with this affliction of humanity."
Problem is, Radical Fascists have already taken control of the House, Senate, White House, NYT, MSM, many Corporations and Unions, and most Ivy League schools. In that context, "massive education" would only mean redoubled continuation of Marxist indoctrination. After all, if "education" through existing institutions were adequate to meet the challenge, then many modern fascist ring leaders would be tried and jailed for trying to bring down the economy of the Republic (as well as the Republic itself).
Yes, education is necessary. But it will need to run a non-orthodox course.
If Leftist Orwellians can make the Constitution mean anything they like, then so can Conservatives. We may just as well say the Constitution does not confer a right to spew or spread much of the hate that is plainly written in the Koran. Proof that any resident civilian has conspired to urge and incite other civilians to assault, injure, or kill anyone else based merely on their beliefs should result in a hate-crime criminal conviction. Not a license to carry on.
How bad is the current regime? Once it is retired, should it be tried? That may depend on whether it further exacerbates its endangerment of the Republic.
In American Thinker, Robin of Berkeley wrote:
"Through Obama's election, some of the most ferocious and unhinged inmates of the nation's radical sexual fringe have been released upon the citizenry.
This fringe doesn't want to be left alone. In fact, it will not leave you and your children alone. We're talking about a lethal combination of traits: for many, manic-depression, severe character disorders, and addictions, sexual and otherwise.
The fusion of the three produces the most toxic of people, what I call "poisonous personalities." Empowered, they are now wrecking havoc in every place imaginable."
****
Very well stated! So often, when I read of Liberals (or Libertarians, for that matter) discussing unhinged social liberty, there is no concern in sight about consequences to children. Liberty is great --- within a society with institutions designed for the decent preserving (i.e., Conserving) of liberty through generations to come.
Why "poisonous personalities" deem themselves elite and entitled to rule is obvious. But why society consents to it is asinine. The crop we now have in D.C. is unforgiveable.
[A.T.:] Kingsman said, "Morality is first and foremost a personal matter. Then, if that morality falls below a certain standard and others (or even society at large) are negatively impacted, legal lines are sometimes crossed. Societies enact laws, and a good many of these or their derivations can be traced back to the Ten Commandments. Yet there are countless situations that beg for additional guidelines—hence we have judges."
Well, as I am quite sure you appreciate, if morality were only a personal matter, it would not much matter. We would all be moral, at all times, and trivially so. But I would agree that morality is a matter for one's perspective of consciousness, provided you add a necessary ingredient: behavioral interaction in empathetic respect (regardless of whether theistically appreciated or not) for a higher source. (It is because of the role of empathy for a higher source that I take issue with egoist Libertarians.) So long as one appreciates the importance of empathy with other perspectives of consciousness, I don't think it matters much whether one refers to the Source of moral beingness under the locution of Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, or God.
Not to split hairs, but the only things you think you "know" of Jesus are what has been interpreted, passed on, and re-interpreted to your subjective appreciation. What you know of Jesus is what you appreciate from what you take to be his teachings. But insofar as Jesus taught moral truth, and such truth is available to all who are receptive to God, I hardly think the only "way" to moral fulfillment is under some constricted, Western idealization of Jesus as a white man. Jesus' teachings, yes. Blinkered images of Jesus filtered through prophets and priests, no. One raised on an island with no contact with priests but who was receptive to God has a "way" through Jesus, whether (s)he calls him by that vocalization or another. IOW, the Word is not restricted to writings on books of paper.
As to nuts and bolts, I'm into empathetic respect for others, but not so much into perfected legalisms. Without traditions for inculcating empathetic respect for others, law becomes a mere whore, and fairly quickly. (At least, having practiced trial and appellate law for more than 30 years, winning much more often than losing, that is my experience.)
The fine line for decent society is not preserved merely by legalisms or constitutions, no matter how ingenious. Mere legalisms will not lead a people to moral flourishing. Nor godless "anything goes I'm my own moral dictator." Nor blind following of some faux-prophet's constrictive regulations that he would imagine should be bolted down as intrusive laws.
And that is my main concern: A single person may behave morally without a mature appreciation of God. As to an entire society --- not so much. When you look at an entire society, there is an abyss on either side of the God path. A society falls into an abyss of tyranny by drinking not at all of God or by drinking too much and too second hand. That is what I mean by a "way." And a society can succeed along that way without being strait-jacketed into a fundie Western view of Christianity.
I agree with you that there is a way, or path. But I don't believe "the way" is only through hidebound, Westernized chants and notions about what Jesus meant. I agree that one may be moral while idealizing the higher source under different locutions. And I agree that the Source of morality is not hidebound to favor fascist repression of individual freedom of thought.
I think I agree with you about what matters. To my thinking, the rest is semantics. Of that, I respect your disagreement.
FulghumInk noted:
"If we extend unlimited tolerance to those who are intolerant, if we are not willing to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right to not tolerate the intolerant."
- Sir Karl Hopper
Great quote. Conservatives know this even without reading it. Liberals fail to comprehend it even after reading it. It's the difference between thinking with your thinkster vs. thinking with your keyster.
Islam spread under the idea that forcing people to pledge allegiance to Sharia would lead inexorably to their actual desire for Sharia. Because free-thinkers were beheaded, leaving only those who were happy to submit in order to keep their heads, Islamists took this to mean that they knew best.
Obama-Change is being spread under the idea that baiting and switching in order to lure and push people into regulatory cages will lead inexorably to their actual desire to live in regulatory cages. This will be accomplished by re-education camps, to be conducted by MSM, leftist academia, liberation and global warming theologists, and assorted corporate and union gangsters ("elites") in for the take. Because resisters will be taxed out of business, Obamites take this to mean that they know best.
I take this state of affairs to mean that Obamanation is unadulterated, sociopathic evil -- pure and simple. Stamp this out before it grows.
[A.T.:] Re: "Will the enraged electorate have the stamina, the staying power to continue the fight to the bitter end, until the internal aggression is beaten back?"
****
Even a panhandler will not give to another panhandler (s)he does not know. The "spread the wealth" panhandlers of America will not remain keen to spread America's wealth by pouring it out to countries controlled by third world commie and fascist thugs. Especially as they begin to see that this is not working out as they had hoped. If Obama does not get America into the cage by midnight, Cinderella will escape. When she does, the Obamites can run, but they won't be able to hide.
Obama does not want to improve America. He wants to fundamentally change America into something it is not. And if he cannot do that, he will be satisfied to destroy it. His ego is far bigger than his "love" for America. His love of history, if any, would be assuaged by his role for destroying American individualism. The sooner his program is thoroughly outed and discredited, the better. He may not use military force against us, but he will use poison debt. Problem is, D.C. abounds with his aiders and abettors.
Maybe Atlas may shrug again for social decency in the long run. But for most of the long run, the default position of humanity is for the masses to cycle back to be steeped in ignorance, Pravda, and disinformation, while being ruled by the more "noble" aristocrats and elites among us. Of course, among those who are most superior in luck, intellect, energy, audacity, absence of conscience, and self promotion uber alles, there will always be professional courtesy for carving out spheres of demagogic influence.
For decent civilization, however, to adopt the idea of a "Cloward-Piven-Rand strategy" for letting "Atlas Shrug" would be to destroy the grand experiment that was America. So does the pursuit of happiness lie in winning material comforts by way of indifferent connivance and effrontery against your fellows? What kind of society and leadership do we want? Surely not an alliance among Lionmurdoch and Hyenasoros. Let's retake a decent America -- one that respects the Constitution and individual liberties.
[A.T.:] Cynical Man,
I appreciate your cynicism. In fact, I extend it. That is, I suspect Cloward-Piven tends to be respected as a concept only by immature thinkers, with little talent or inclination for thinking past their noses. They, however, tend not to be its financiers. Rather, the financiers of such abominable notions tend to be folks looking to ulterior gains. The types who truly believe in Cloward-Piven tend only to be useful idiots for George Soros types.
I suspect Obama most desires to destroy America, not to save her. He knows spreading the wealth does not work. (What fool still believes Obama's purpose is to improve the standard of living of ordinary Americans?) Obama does not intend for Cloward-Piven to work in order to usher in a golden ages of socialism. He intends it to establish control, especially over hated capitalists of the old order.
Of course Cloward-Piven does not produce a decent or workable society! But, for those who finance it, it is not intended to. Sure, most people will suffer as America fails. But cannibals like Soros will be primed for the feast. At Soros' age, one should think he would have better things to do. However, I doubt the man believes in any moral source higher than the State, and the nature of a scorpion is to be a scorpion. Besides, the momentum for his "moral position" is carried along with his young cannibal prodigies.
Problem is, Soros is not loyal to any state, much less any religion. Because of people like him, America is constantly fed rationalizations for free trade (rather than smart trade). The result is this: The most tenuous bond of loyalty between corporate employers and their country (much less their employees) is completely severed. This is why elites presume the movement to a N.W.O. for erasing old national boundaries is inexorable. Instead, they intend we should have turf divied up among competing syndicates, headed by rival gangster corporatist elites.
All little people are to be mere pawns, competing to sell their labor as serfs. Your freedom and dignity will not count. Indeed, most details of your life will be regimented, right down to how much t.p. you can use, how much health care you can be rationed, how many children you can have (if any), and deciding whether the value of your existence has met its expiration date.
Of course, this will cheapen the meaning of life for everyone. But the gangster elite already finds no meaning in life, except in this: "He who dies with the most toys wins."
Obama smiles and lies. MSM abets. Fools buy it. Soros primes to take advantage of it. Ordinary Americans simply do not comprehend the evil of sociopaths and malignant narcissists. Much is at stake -- not just for America, but for the continuation of conscious experience of freedom and dignity. That is, human liberty. By and large, recorded history consists in biographies of sociopaths.
While Obama may only be a henchman for those who would condemn America, he will, if we let him, be the one leading America to its execution. So far, we, the Conservative majority, are docilely following him to the guillotine, apparently out of naive habits of Christian charity, trust, and good will. Perhaps we assume Obama cares about his place in American history, as opposed to World history.
During the French Terror, was there ever speculation about whether consciousness momentarily survives the severing of one’s head (depending on which of the neck vertebra were severed)? May some condemned person have agreed, if still conscious, to signal by fluttering eyelids while head lay rolling? I rather doubt it, although it may present an interesting analogy.
At what point will America have had its body severed, and not yet know it? At what point will America resist having its head presented on a platter to goon elites and priests, for that which follows a Robespierre’ian Liberal Festival of the Supreme Gaia?
The debt poison Obama is feeding Americans does not just herald their hardship. It heralds future enslavement. I think Obama full well knows that.
The surfeit of lawyers is more a symptom than a cause. We have become a service industry nation, producing a lot of hamburgers, make work, and hot air. Many among us (especially lawyers -- I grant you that) have bought into some notion that we can employ people to print money, gather in circles to organize communities to seek governmental handouts, air grievances, and pick one another's pockets, and that this will spread wealth and keep us well fed and productively occupied.
But the cause is not a surplus of lawyers. The cause is a nationwide deficiency in rugged, spiritual decency. Check out this clip: [www.youtube.com].
It becomes ever more apparent that our leaders do not care about decency, but about appearance of decency. Massage the media and you can make a mint under the table. All you have to do is sell your soul. But elites don't believe in religious hokum anyway. Politics is becoming the art of the deal for divvying territory between competing syndicates of criminals. Media, academia, and leftist goo goo are for mis-directing the useful idiot class. What is important to Obama is to bury capitalism. In the process, he punishes those he has grown to despise, while walking off with cool millions. Not bad pay for a few phony promises. Ushering in the glorious socialist utopia is work of down the road. So far down the road as to fade into the mists of fantasyland. Against this crap, what can stand? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtjfMjjce2Y
What is it about Leftists? Is there some kind of secret handshake or wise guy signal of entitlementarianism? Does overuse of some kinds of drugs among teenagers somehow stunt maturation of the prefrontal cortex? These people recognize, associate with, and promote only their own kind. Growing up, Obama avoided normal, civically responsible people. If Leftists can recognize one another, why not Conservatives? Why were any Conservatives duped about Obama? Is it the naive good will of Conservatives that dooms them? One who is conservative may expect that insults from Chavez and Fidel would snap Obama into reality. In that, one would be wrong.
Either our Reps are too dumb to realize the health care bill is a trojan proxy for the treasonous pushing of representative governance in America perilously close to doom, or they are so corrupted they do not care. Must be the pieces of silver. No surprise, since middle class Americans of good sense were shunted aside long ago in favor of representation of corrupt interests. For how long have the "silent voice" slogans of Congress been "money talks and b.s. walks," "(s)he who has the gold makes the rules," and "(s)he who has no money and no voice is not worthy of representation"? If ever there was doubt that ours is a "Parliament of Whores," that doubt is ripped. I think, and hope, this will signal a protracted resurgence of political involvement by ordinary Americans of good and decent sense. Turn the filth in Congress out! Out, out, damn filth!
Blinded by greed, our corrupt reps are selling us all out for Indian beads, wampum, wooden nickels, tulips, and laminated flower currency. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-hbxxLgpsQ. This is what America is being sold for. Our reps are volunteering the rest of us to become slaves to repressive societies. So as not to be called commiephobic or islamophobic, a majority of us are quiescently going along. Having been handed our wealth and freedom by our betters, we squander it, so as to be liked. But we are not liked for this. We are ridiculed. And we will be ridiculed for this for the coming millennium, if we do not find our heads.
Small business operators: You are today's kulaks. Obama has your back. Indeed, he has thoughtfully placed a target on it. We are at the tipping point for a silent putsch. A new mafia has merged with government. It has technology, academia, corporate science, MSM, banks, GM, GE, and the Fed. Indeed, it has its own sexed up, pantheistic, pagan religion, which respects will to power, but respects empathy for meta-consciousness not at all. It can invent money and channel it almost directly to its elite mobsters. If we sleep through this putsch, then America will be no more when we wake.
Is there some point of diminishing returns, when an organization, such as our federal government, or any large corporation, simply gets too big, fat, and dumb to be alert, much less competitive? When there's only one organization and one head fish, what happens when the head begins to rot? If smart agents are not attracted to this dead fish regime, and the only smart agents still with it feel abused and disrespected, and there is no likely gain or respect for rocking the boat, then what?
Well:
Pick out a pleasant outlook,
Stick out that noble chin;
Wipe off that "full of doubt" look,
Slap on a happy grin!
And spread sunshine all over the place,
Just put on a happy face!
Obama's got more important concerns than promoting excellence. Like taking from those who study and strive in order to spread to those who don't. So shut up, smile, do your time, then draw your pension. That is, if the country is still here once "hope and change" have run their course.
Post a Comment