Varieties of Collectivism: Elitism, Marxism, Islamism --
We must restore honor to speak both intelligently and from the heart. Not with mindless rancor, but with principled and heartfelt comprehension. We must not allow P.C. to banish speaking from the heart, to allow speech only from the machine, or few will believe us. If we do not even say we care, who will believe we care about higher consciousness, i.e., higher empathy? Among Leftists who believe only in the model of the machine, the winding down clock of the universe, or the indifferent and despotic notion of Islam, why should they not simply retire to feed their glands within their machine, while ridiculing respect for any notion of anything higher?
Among machine-minded, Leftist Islamlovers who believe only in an indifferent Nature or a despotic God, why should they allow anyone to communicate any idea or invention that demonstrates individual insight, initiative, creativity, freedom, or dignity? If the Koran prescribes and circumscribes the perfect, complete, and final word, why should any expression -- in word or deed -- be allowed unless it is first pronounced and pre-blessed under the Koran? If the collective is the prime directive, then, once the collective is completely confined and regulated to the nines, why should any consciousness on earth be allowed further to persist? Why be conscious?
Governmental Collectivism -- whether sponsored as Elitism, Marxism, or Islamism -- is inherently a cult for those who aspire to rule or be ruled, under stupor or suicide. If you value life, freedom, creativity, receptivity to higher consciousness, then you must resist Leftist Collectivists at all costs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Saudi Princes, Marxist Bolsheviks, Civil “Servants,” Collectivized Workers, Multi-Culti Divisionists, Secular Humanists, and Jews In Name Only ... make easy, “progressive,” collectivizing, common cause against the concept of individual freedom, dignity, and civilizing decency. They infiltrate and undermine with shameless smiles, guile, lies, and taqiyya. They buy our politicians and governments in the currency of our own misplaced trust.
We all suffer. Many, in their suffering, come exclusively to respect the evil that is in the world. They decide that, to live with evil, they must join it … at least, until they can die (even if at their own hands). Combine an inclination for being shocked and awed by evil with constant conditioning to join it and you get: Soros, Marxism, and Islam. Those so inclined and so conditioned may come to see joining evil as their prime “ought” in life. So they live with evil by joining with it, even to laugh with it. Thus, they come easily to recognize and promote one another to highest echelons. They get even with their outrage at their own beingness by laughing, smirking, drinking, and drugging — spitting their depravities against all lessers who prefer not to join them.
So how do we tend to respond? By politely declining to recognize that which is owned by evil? Thus would we invite and entertain sponsors of evil into our governance. But our ignorant, polite stand is not taken by them as being principled. Fundamentally, they do not believe in principles higher than evil. To them, the “fittest” for natural selection are those who are most cynical. They believe a field of cynicism trumps a field of empathy, not vice versa. Apart from lip service, in order to bring down believers in a higher field of empathy, they do not even believe in their vaunted collective state as a source of rights. They believe only in their wannas, the devil take the hindmost. Wrongheaded projection of good will on such ilk does not inspire them with respect for values. It excites their sense of opportunism, to take advantage of ignorance, weakness, and meekness in the face of unprincipled evil. It leads them to expect we will be easy prey to force into abject submission, and that we have no right to stand against them. It further authenticates their sense that life is a meaningless crock, with spoils meant to go to wise guys, smart alecks, and the worshipful of a despotic Allah.
Either one believes that a field of empathy tends generally to trump cynicism, or one believes a field of cynicism trumps empathy. Either one believes evil must submit to Individuals’ empathy for the collective, or one believes that all empathy among individuals must submit to a communist caliphate that worships the Collectivizing of evil. Not being God, we lack means to fix spiritual pathology. Nor can we defend against spiritual pathology by politely dithering with it. But, we can know evil by its acts: Burkas, stonings, abortions, depravities, intrusions, unrelenting deceits, and promotions of murder into “religion.” How low must we sink?
I doubt many multiculturalists believe their own propaganda. The cynical money is too interested in keeping trouble stirred up, keeping people divided and fighting, hedging its bets, and occasionally, when the chips are aligned, giving a sudden push. (Why else would Murdoch and Arab investors be bedfellows?) These people don't have to have principles, but they make it sound nice to dupes by calling themselves "multi-principled" (i.e., multi-culturalists). If they were principled, they would help develop within each culture a sustainable respect for principles, rather than submission to the arbitrary power of whatever oligarchy happens to be jockeying to rule the collective. To look behind a symbol of toleration of the intolerable, see [www.youtube.com].
Regarding Hume’s Guillotine (Is/Ought Problem): Is not the Golden Rule, with all its permutations, nothing if not an expression of the relation between the field of “Ought” and the condensate of “Is?” Indeed, one may wonder whether there would even be any condensate of Is, were there no field of Ought. One may wonder whether the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule could most concisely be phrased: Be Empathic! That is, empathetic in the sense of being reflexively, emotively causal … as in the case of feedback, back and forth, between the field of Ought and its particles and perspectives of the condensate of Is.
Some suggest they need no belief in God in the fore of their consciousness in order to constrain their choices and actions to the realm of the moral. Perhaps so. But that presupposes a moral realm. So, what is that moral realm, if not akin to a field of empathy? Can it not reasonably be conceptualized that their perspectives of conscious empathy are condensate of a field of conscious empathy? What are atheists, as condensate of a field of empathy, if not condensate of a field of consciousness?
I do not here conceit to judge the quality, power, or intelligence of the field of empathy. But I must respect that it abides with strict enforcement of measurable limits for the manifestation of all condensate of physics. And, somehow, from the condensate of Is, we adduce Ought. I know I am conscious, and I know I am part of an encompassing field of Being. Except in respect of an undeniable and encompassing field of empathy, whatever its higher quality, I sense no other way to derive Ought from Is.
From JournOlists to OzMonkeys: When ruling oligarchists put on their “scientist” masks and deploy their media OzMonkeys to grace we of the hoi polloi with their scientific consensus, they do not mean that we are to infer any “should” issues. They mean that we shall obey their science. We are not to peek behind the curtain and see that they are just little wrinkled people pulling strings and wanting us to believe they are wise men, wizards, and scientists. What’s really going on is this: Oligarchist henchmen are working to replace representative republicanism with their own elitist interpretation of the collective will. However, it’s an odd kind of collective will, since adverse opinions of informed and interested members of the middle class are not welcome. (Rather, they are "racist.") Indeed, a new group of social engineers, Stalin and his Henchmen, intend to railroad the middle class.
What institution remains that can check Keynesian collectivizers, now that their handlers have flattened the market to acquire ownership of every institution, so as to have become bound to a codependent death grip of an ”obligation” to reign, in joint oligarchy, thus to set aside influence of the middle class? Do we now just accept as science that there is a kind of natural divine right to rule for those who nature has selected to acquire wealth, influence, and power? Does social science teach that they have a superior, higher (divine?) right to buy politicians and government?
How do ordinary bees counter Japanese bumble bees? Can we save ourselves by smothering collectivizers with even more government, by giving a branch of law or government power to take them down? But how will such branch remain immune from itself being coopeted by those who own government? The more we look to government for solutions, the more we seem to fall prey to those who own government.
So, how can we come together to use government to preclude the wealthy from selling America into the governance of a foreign and/or despotic regime of international oligarchical collectivists? How do we avoid all falling prey to Orwellian, impersonal, collectivized power? How?
@Dougral said, "I believe that the Left thinks it can forge a new world order in which a greatly reduced West is made acceptable to the Islamic nations."
I greatly fear you are right. Perhaps more so than you realize. The reason has little to do with reason. It has to do with depravities of those who forsake higher consciousness (God?) or who choose to follow a despotic notion of God. Did not Jesus caution those who would save themselves other than by grace to give up material possessions? Do not those who worship the State or a despotic God assert entitlement to acquire, control, and spread the material possessions of all others? One (Freedom Trusting in God) is faith based on a field of caring empathy; the other (Marxist-Islam) is variation on faith for material bartering under close regulation of the collective. Entitlement in the collective to rule material (BLT?) is its mediator to God.
What does this entail? It entails selling out your family (teaching your children to rely on government welfare), your country, your own free mind, in order to become an agent in complete subservience to the collective for controlling the dispensaton of material goods of all others. And what culture or cultures are most practiced in this? The Saudis have funds to buy. Our secular Leftists have means, motive, and opportunity to sell. Somebody explain what can prevent America from becoming owned by Islamists, with nary a whimper, so long as America consents to be ruled by Leftists who adhere to a philosophy of meaninglessness?
I know folks who rail against organized religion. When I ask what it has done to them that messes up their lives, that some other organized activity had not already messed up equally as much, they tend to come up short. IOW, it seems they just don't like much of anything that is organized. Not religion, government, education. Maybe sports. Sometimes. IOW, the solution seems to be "we'd be better off without it." Sort of like anarchism. I suppose atheism is an attempt at spiritual anarchism. Looking at it in those terms, it is not surprising how spiritual anarchists, general anarchists, and despotic intrusive rulers seem often to make common cause. Has there ever been an effective anarchic uprising that did not soon transition into despotism?
I think "God" is like a field of empathetic consciousness. Evolution tends to reflect a process of feedback or creative destruction. Sort of like building on what we have, to continuously seek to improve it. In that light, it seems to me that spiritual anarchists and dictatorial spiritualists (religious fascists) tend to have much in common: they both mess big time against any creative process of building on what we have. One tries to tear it down; the other says it has all the answers and we should live forever in the seventh century.
Lose clarity in definition and lose capacity to communicate. Lose borders and lose your country. We're either a nation or we're not. There is momentum enough already to drown liberty under a rushing tide of international collectivism. Had we will to preserve a nation for respecting individual liberty, we would find means appropriate for enforcing the border. The fact that the border is not being enforced is not evidence of the difficulty of enforcing it, but of the weakening will to enforce it. This article, if uncontested, would further undermine that will. If I could rehabilitate derelicts by housing them for only a short time, I would. However, I have lived long enough to know that very few among derelicts would be rehabilitated, but my home surely would be ransacked. I can choose to try to preserve a spot of decency and liberty on this earth, or I can surrender to the tide of collectivism. It's a stark choice, not a gray one. For those who feel sorry for Mexico, go there and help reform it from the inside.
Post a Comment