Thursday, September 30, 2010

Consciousness and the Circularity of the Web of S-T-M-E

Consciousness and the Circularity of the Web of S-T-M-E --
Of that which exists measurably and that which exists immeasurably:

Consider space, time, matter and energy. Are they not dimensions which, taken together, encompass all of that which is commonly considered to constitute measurable physics? Is there anything of any physical nature that is not encompassed within the set of such dimensions?

Consider E = MC squared. Does that formula not define each of such dimensions in terms of the other three? E is for Energy; mass is an aspect of Matter; the speed of electromagnetic radiation relates to matter (massless photons?) traveling over a distance of Space at a certain speed within Time. So space, time, matter, and energy seem to account for all of physical phenomena that is subject to measure, but the prime equation that defines their relations defines each, circularly, by reference to the others. No one of such four dimensions can be understood in itself.

So what, if anything, can account for each and every said dimension by reference to phenomena, whether physical or not, in any way that is not circular or absurd? Is there any phenomena outside of those four? Well, no combination of said four proves itself. While they may in themselves store information by which their interactions could be measured in respect of physical marks and patterns, they are not in themselves the measurer or observer. That role goes to consciousness.

So is consciousness something, whether measurable or not, that is not entirely accounted for by the interactions of said four dimensions? If conscious awareness (or will to represent) is neither entirely measurable nor entirely derivative of interaction of the four dimensions of physics, then may consciousness reasonably be conceptualized as a fundament that is essential to the existentiality of the web of physical dimensions? Indeed, may the physical dimensions be entirely derivative of some fundamental capacity of consciousness in itself? Is there any other notion that could reasonably account for the circular relationships among the four dimensions that are physical in the sense of being measurable with regard to their interrelations or interconvertibility?

What would avail or direct choices among the myriad of unfolding possibilities for each of the dimensions to be defined in terms of the others, with no reference to any superior, measurable substance, except something which exists, but which itself, at least in some aspects, defies being measured? That seems to relate to that which may be "God."

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Human Objectivism

Of Human Objectivism: An interpenetrating aspect of subjectivity tends to be unavoidable (thank goodness). However, to the extent possible, to communicate respectfully, one should endeavor to couple one’s subjective insights to commonly shared models, by which such insights may be communicated as objectively, testably, and meaningfully as possible. One’s models should serve purposes and functions, and they should, as much as possible, be objectively testable in respect of whether and how they serve such functions. That is how to communicate objectively and in respect for the dignity of the independent minds and perspectives of others.

It tends to evil disrespect towards others to deploy models that serve no function except to ridicule, intimidate or dispirit them into states of confused submission in order to steal the dignity of their separate perspectives. When it is shown that a model serves no function except to convey confusion about objective reality or despair about traditional values, with no insight or inspiration for any meaningful system of replacement values, then such a model may reasonably be labeled as conducive to mind-rotting bunkum, social depravity, or collectivizing slavery. Those are the models of Religious Fascism, Hierarchical Socialism, and Elitist Oligarchism. Those are the models that bribe masses to help financing elites to safely reduce the middle class to the cattle feed lot.

As a society becomes more and more fragmented, divided, and multi-culti, it becomes easier to insinuate hierarchical fiats and fatwas, and it becomes harder to accord due respect for common ways for conveying information and good will. Regardless, not even our best attempts to communicate about non-trivialities can be reduced to perfect logic. As to oughts, it remains necessary to work with each culture’s accumulation of parables and figures of speech. It borders insanity to try to communicate oughts without due deference to prevailing connotations about God or higher values.

Meantime, Dinos of little mind and Rinos of little conscience have aligned for an evil, N.W.O. putsch: to reduce minds, enslave consciences, and steal humanity. They advance their wicked meme by conflating theft as charity, small minded ridicule as principle, and sinisterism as virtue. Theirs is the principality of serpents, the charity of zombies, the intelligence of inertia, the joy of oblivion, the peace of mind surrender, and the salvation of darkness. While independent, middle-class people of mind, purpose and conscience have slept, the zombie axis has been voraciously at work. The voraciousness is now measured in terms of trillions of dollars. Little time remains to awaken, unite, and fortify a city on a hill for decent civilization to resist the red-eyed zombie Dino and Rino cowboys for the N.W.O.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The Character of God

Circular Character of God:

Does either God or Nature have free will, random potential, or pre-determined knowledge regarding a pre-set path for the unfolding of our experience of the universe? Well, it is beyond my capacity to comprehend meaningfully how God could be either all powerful or all knowing. How could God have all power and free will to choose to do anything, if God already knew everything that was to come to pass?

To me, it is only comprehensible that God may have all the power and all the knowledge that are allowed to be had, in relation to any context of the here and now. Beyond connection to information accumulated to the here and now, it may be that not even God necessarily knows what God shall or should do. It may be that possibilities "exist" in potential, which may have aspects beyond present knowledge or appreciation. For all we can appreciate, perhaps God's teleology is only to pursue happiness and fulfillment.

Regarding space, time, matter, and energy: These fundamental, measurable, physical dimensions or aspects are each defined in terms of the others (E = MC squared).  So, what would avail the unfolding possibilities for each, circularly, to be itself defined in terms of the others, with no reference to any superior, measurable substance, except something which exists, but which itself, at least in some aspects, defies being measured? That seems to relate to that which may be "God."

Handwriting on the Wall

Handwriting on the Wall:

I doubt we would be seeing the onslaught of workers organizations against an independent minded middle class, were useful idiots for Rino and Dino masses not set in motion and financed by international, corporatist elitists. Regardless, whether the influence of the middle class is wiped out by an elitist oligarchy of disloyal, international corporatists or by an elitist nomenklatura or umma of communalists, the intended effect is the same: the middle class is to be stripped of any influence as free thinkers, aside from capacity, if any, to extract lip service.

The axis of elitist oligarchs and drone collectivists is only imagined to be conducive to benign rule based on noblesse oblige or a workers' paradise. In actuality, the axis will produce one thing in common: a cattle feed lot, for the feeding, butchering, and harvesting of the masses.

This is the workers' paradise to which international corporatists are herding us, for which they provision both Rinos and Dinos. The handwriting on the wall is nearly complete (13 trillion worth). Unless the middle class assimilates in respect of common, real values that are superior to the values of governing elitists and their easily purchased drones, the middle class of free thinkers and doers will be smashed. Unless the middle class finds motivation and means to reassert leadership for preserving American values (not N.W.O. values), over both of our main political parties, it will be stamped out by an alliance of conniving sociopaths and their drones.

Thus may we return to being ruled under an inbred aristocracy. The drones who vote for such a situaton hold little value for freedom of mind, because they have little mind to lose; the minds of aristocrats who come to rule such a situation will degenerate from inbreeding and propensity for rewarding corruption and evil. The hierarchy to be syndicated will force that result. Thus may the human mind sink back into slime. Once middle class freedom of mind is stifled, the avenue that will remain for "pursuing happiness" will be limited to mindless diversions: drugs, rap, and video games.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Conservative Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance among conservatives often seems not much less than among progressives. To my taste, too many conservatives want freedom of political and economic advocacy, so long as any advocacy of values that has a religious connection is tightly constrained. Too many dislike hierarchical collectivism, but find little need to regulate hierarchical corporatism -- even corporatism that goes international to the point of undermining our politics at home. Too many want defense of our borders, but have little concern for how to constrain free trade from enriching existential threats to our values for political, moral, and religious expression. Too many want to draw down the centralized and elitist power that is exercised in the beltway, but seem oblivious to any connection between disproportionate political power and disproportionate accumulation of wealth, for international powers and corporatists to buy and sell governments as commodities.

If all other countries were like the individual states of our union, perhaps the mainline conservatism that is extant would make more sense. But the world is not like that. Rather, the world presents an existential challenge between diametrically opposing philosophies – one of law for promoting individualism, the other of despotism for promoting collectivism. For either one of these models of civilization to invite too much of the other within its homeland is to ingest increasing risks of fatal poisoning.

Simply put, it is insane to fashion free trade or an “open society” that carelessly tolerates that which is intolerably bent upon the destruction of the homeland. It is insane to choke off homeland production of energy in order to rely on, and enrich, diametrically opposed foreign producers. It is insane to expect to preserve anything above lip service for “one man one vote,” while leaving Congress with notorious loopholes for prostituting its wares.

Whatever the quality or quantity of our current attempts to regulate ordered liberty, decent corporatism, smart trade, and control over how our representatives are chosen, much falls short. A good example of good intentions run awry was the attempt at campaign finance reform. How much of our politics is influenced by the Chinese? But I have not seen a worthwhile comprehensive reform. Rather, every attempt by our untrustworthy Congress to impose any kind of “comprehensive” reform tends to give me a case of the red a$$.

Maybe we could find better piecemeal solutions if we at least began to name and acknowledge some of the sources of duplicity and cognitive dissonance. Good start: Look to who benefits in the current manner of exchange of currency and trade between the U.S. and China. Don't rely only on free trade shibboleths; look also to human depravities.

Friday, September 24, 2010


Re:   Teleology -- deriving “ought” from the existential nature of consciousness of the Source

From the Source, and from the character or nature of IT’s manifestations: What “should” one draw, in order to sharpen and strengthen one’s appreciation of IT, within one’s own self image? Which of IT’s manifestations should one seek to promote, alter, or defeat? What may the Source Itself be seeking to sharpen and strengthen? What is IT’s purpose or meaning? Is IT’s purpose to shape and condition us with means of empathy, for us, acting individually and collectively, to communicate and feed back in appreciation and respect of IT? Does IT desire our coerced and dumbly submissive worship, or does IT desire, as much as may decently be availed, a free and informed dialogue, which is respectful of the perfection of the whole and of the dignity of each particular perspective of IT?

Should empathy be understood to entail appreciation and respect for IT, while enmity entails struggle against various imperfect manifestations of IT? If so, empathy consists in being receptive to incomplete expressions of the Source in oneself, in others, and in the informational background. Empathy consists in appreciating aspects of oneself as expressed in others. As such, empathy may find expression not just in love, but in humble and respectful communication, cooperation, competition, and worthy conflict.

In respect of others, apart from the Source ITself, empathy may also find expression in enmity. In respect of the Source, empathy may sometimes find expression in remorse, self loathing, even loathing of the Source, as it is expressed in oneself. In other words, God may feel remorse, yet have little choice but to carry on. In carrying on, through each of our perspectives, God will experience and identify with varying, cooperating, and conflicting parables, metaphors, interests, skills, motives, models, and sciences. Each of us will interpret our own perspective of good and evil, beingness and nothingness.

In absolute terms, it is "good" that God should identify with, evaluate contextual feedback of, and experience, such opportunities and arts. In self evident terms, it is "good" that the conscious will of each of us should respect that the fundamental characteristic of God is "good." In absolute terms, at most fundamental level of conscious will, the seed of goodness is in each of us.

In relative and subjective terms, each of us will experience differing kinds, degrees, qualities, and quantities of self image and respect for varying and fluxing contexts and events. In relative terms, each seed of conscious will may encounter challenging vortexes of informational organizations, which may bind, couple, or twist one into evil loathing of self, others, even of God, even to pretend an unreal and artificial zombie of a G_d, as if to "liberate" (or damn?) G_d , if God "dares" to protest. However, even those encounters may help the general Field of consciousness to sharpen and strengthen IT's sense and appreciation of art, meaning, and purpose.

Thus go forth, to the glory of God. Thus bring all senses for measuring and storing information -- of emoting, appreciating, remembering, representing, seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting, counting, balancing -- under sway of the one superior sense of consciousness of being, being the sense that is beyond direct or complete measure or control. Laugh, both at those who pretend to confine God to an artificial model, as well as at those who pretend there is no God who is superior to themselves. Dance in empathy with the consciousness availed by God, in the feedback between the whole and the parts, in coupling and identifying with your body, a body that avails expression to each particular decision a split sequence after its brain has already been instructed by the field, and which field synchronizes each next parameter-availed expression, as it evaluates feedback from its particles. Thus is causation circular, not derivative; thus is superior logic Trinitarian, not bivalent; thus ought you to appreciate God.

Particles of conscious will may condense and couple with ordinary stored energy, to leverage and form a focused front for an organic perspective of intelligent consciousness. With every flux, Something is synchronizing and deciding, beyond measure, until IT's work can be indirectly measured, as feedback after the fact, from various points of view and frames of reference. Thus, the quality of consciousness with respect to feedback between the field and its particulate expressions is being continuously fluxed and synchronized.

Each new synchronization of choices for the unfolding of the eternal present fluxes and brings forth -- subject to ongoing qualitative and quantitative evaluation -- the appreciation of all preceding information. Thus is God with us. Perhaps, information for God's qualitative evaluation is under aegis of a field of stored consciousness, while information for quantitative analysis is stored under aegis of a field of stored energy. Regardless, whether the field of stored energy is derivative of, or on a par with, the Field of stored consciousness may simply be unnecessary to enlightened philosophy within the mortal present.

Why, then, is God of import? Because one's philosophy of God, or lack thereof (or poor substitute therefor), unavoidably permeates and affects one's every act, decision, and moral evaluation -- consciously or subconsciously. What are the "higher values" of an atheist? A secular or atheistic humanist, who seeks with bivalent logic to derive "ought" from "is," would merely (and inadequately) substitute an over-reaching and secular priesthood of bureaucrats, lawyers, and scientists for a "Church of Big Gov" for God. In so doing, he would intimidate or steal from individuals their dignity for respecting their own consciences, in fidelity to anything higher than the gross, grubby, and grasping priesthood of a collectivizing government. And a militant enforcer for any priesthood for any so-called "messenger," who claims hierarchical authority from God to demand and make laws and government, would be but a servant of a would-be despot, seeking to intercede between each person and God, thereby affronting the dignity of each human being whose self image is derivative of God, not of any would-be intermeddler.

Unless members of a general citizenry and electorate enjoy a strong sense of personal connection with higher Consciousness (God), they often become easy prey for State bureaucrats and secular and religious despots. They become in peril of submitting and surrendering their moral dignity and liberty before God to hierarchical institutions of corruption and to fraudulent and foolish sociopaths. They fall prey to forces that would obtain peace by rotting minds.


Does either God or Nature have free will, random potential, or pre-determined knowledge regarding a pre-set path for the unfolding of our experience of the universe? Well, it is beyond my capacity to comprehend meaningfully how God could be either all powerful or all knowing. How could God have all power and free will to choose to do anything, if God already knew everything that was to come to pass? To me, it is only comprehensible that God may have all the power and all the knowledge that are allowed to be had, in relation to any context of the here and now. Beyond connection to information accumulated to the here and now, it may be that not even God necessarily knows what God shall or should do. It may be that possibilities "exist" in potential, which may have aspects beyond present knowledge or appreciation. For all we can appreciate, perhaps God's teleology is only to pursue happiness and fulfillment.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

How to be an American

Would that there were classes in how to be independent minded Americans.  But that would only bring derisive choruses and pimped howls of "Nativist!"  There is too much momentum and money in erasing borders and falling to international corporate collectivism, as if all intelligent people should view collectivism as the enlightened wave of the future.  So, whatever has distinguished America is to be dissolved.  Meantime, elites "forget" to mention how much of the rest of the world that we are dissolving into has already traded individual liberty for the collective feed lot.  This is not based in principle.  It's based in pimpery.  The last force between us and the feed lot is the American middle class.  But its influence is at local levels.  It cannot very well compete with pimped up forces at the national and interntational level, which is where all power is being siphoned.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Serial Meddling Elites

The way I see it, Elites tend to be serial meddlers. This especially concerns Obamites, Reidites, and Pelosites. But the tendency afflicts everyone whose sense of self worth depends upon concept of eliteness of self. Voters went for one of their own, who wants to rein in elitist governance. No doubt, there are better candidates, but they did not run. So now we get behind one of our own, or we sniff.

We must stop serial meddlers before they meddle further. Look to El Rushbo (no college degree, no less). He is the bane of valuephobes, normphobes, heterophobes, and everyone who devalues the dignity of each adult's independent accountability before God or Nature-- free of tyrannical, "redistributing" force and intrusive meddling of any mosque, church, or state. Cuddly Rush seeks to empower volunteers and individuals; non-cuddly, race-baiting Progressives (Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow) and resume-baiting Elitists seek to empower elite secular and sectarian agents and gangs of the state, operating under pretense that their in-your-face exertions of gang style force are all for the good of the (gullible) masses. America-hating acts often belie their speech.

65% of Americans want little more from their government than that it behave decently and no more intrusively than needed. Problem is, their voices get only lip service, as they are divided by corrupt elites who rule ignorant Dinos as well as elite Rinos. IOW, we are surrounded and beset by an unholy alliance of ignorance and greed. The ignorant probably comprise about 50%. Of them, the default position for perhaps 2/5 is one of gullibility; for 3/5, the default position appears to be one of political ADD. They prefer to delegate their care to seemingly caring or professing elites. This is the propensity upon which collectivizing elites capitalize and seek to build their spheres of influence and petty empires in all institutions – news, education, politics, religion, even science.

In their care and feeding of the Ignorants, Elites (though not usually Krauthammer) often soothingly propagate a message, by express and subliminal rationalization, which consists in the following: We are superior; we care; we know, based on science, what is best; you can trust us; in most significant respects, you are not able to care for yourselves; you are entitled to better care; centralized power facilitates efficiency; we are imbued with such ideals that you need not worry about us being corrupted by power; people who are not closely regulated by us will befoul the common environment; most of those who have more wealth and power did not meritoriously earn it; all religious metaphors and cultural traditions that encourage self reliance are for losers; America is fundamentally flawed and must be opened to being populated by a majority of voting anti-capitialists and values atheists; any group or cult that can immigrate and undermine the American notion of liberty for individuals should be welcomed; freedom’s just another word for being kept down by the white man; and white men who fail to repent of their individualism are devils, bigots, racists, misogynists, and plain boobs.

Among those Ignorants most easily divided are those who buy into the message that no coherent value system need be assimilated under traditional institutions for promoting the decency among individuals that is requisite to sustaining a society -- even if government were to be made smaller. They imagine that infants need little in terms of assimilating moral inculcation which would not be availed under a virtual state of nature. They imagine that they would have unconsciously assimilated behaviors that comport with common decency, even without having been nurtured within a common culture that itself was nurtured under traditional religious metaphors and cultural values that encourage self reliance and individual accountability.
Being divided and losing faith in American individualism, we have lapsed into grave danger of being reduced, to be ruled under an unholy alliance of elite, godless Marxists and ignorant, despotic Islamists. In this state of affairs, why should any pretended leader of conservative opinion lecture the American people that they should have nominated a more elitist candidate?

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Climate Change or Warming?

Were it true, man made, globe wide warming would be something everyone would have a stake in preventing.  But globe wide, variously fluxing, climate change is something else.  Once mankind unites to try to control and redistribute such climate changing, there is little reason to suppose that alliances and axis and cartels would not thereafter soon develop.  Instead of buying carbon credits, nations, cities, and corporations would be buying climate protection.  Now I wonder what sort of people would be attracted to that kind of protection racket? Hmmm.  Not to mention:  Doesn't this whole notion depend on an assumption, i.e., that the various climates for various parts of the globe can in fact be managed within sustainable parameters?  What logician or mathematican would ever admit to such a thing?  Is this science, or is it greed masquerading behind science, just like a moronabuser or childabuser can masquerade behind Islamofascism, government by science, or any other priesthood?

Monday, September 13, 2010

Lunacy of applying only Logic to explicate the Enigma of Existence


Regarding the enigma of existence and logical lunacy: It is perhaps a truism that, within the field of Consciousness, to attempt to measure “particles” of Consciousness is simultaneously to alter them. In essential aspect, Consciousness abides at a level that is beyond logical proof. The existence of Consciousness Itself is beyond explanation in “”Either-Or” logic. Consciousness just is.

Only those quantities and qualities which are secondary to Consciousness are subject to such leveraging power of logic and math as are availed to us. Our logic dances with an essential substrate (physics) that necessarily conforms to certain limits that are conducive to interactions for the purposeful patterning and leveraging of that which is measurable. Without limits, there would abide no logic; without law, there would be no freedom.

Either-Or reasoning can help one plan how to leverage control over such phenomena as are measurable. Either-Or reasoning will not avail proof that one “should” seek to give expression to any particular plan. There is no objective way to measure whether a desire, thing, or event accords with God or morality. So of course there is no objective way to measure whether the behavior of any group of atheists tends to be more or less moral than the behavior of any group of non-atheists. Nor will Either-Or reasoning help one to leverage control over that which is immeasurable. For that, one needs Will, i.e., direct, intuitive, receptive empathy.

To my sense, it has become apparent that Obysmalite Progressives mean to coerce everyone into a temporal collective of lost souls. Until all are confined, Obysmalites will remain unrequited. It matters little whether this spreads misery, for the miserable love company. Obysmalites are all about objective equality in misery, and all against individual dignity. To seek to be an individual is to be politically incorrect.

Anti-Obysmalites, via cultural and family-friendly traditions, as much as is decently possible, mean to free each human perspective of consciousness to grow and express its own unfolding sense of purposefulness. For Obysmalites, the purpose of the collective is to facilitate as much equality as is sustainable, regardless of affront to individual human dignity. In essence, Obysmalites view “progress” as moving from 1984 to Brave New World. For Anti-Obysmalites, the purpose of the collective is to facilitate as much freedom of expression and enterprise as is decently sustainable.

A kind of Either-Or reasoning does have an application to morality. That is, one either will or one will not respect that an unfolding and purposeful Consciousness abides, beyond proof in logic. One who intuits, empathizes, and respects that such Consciousness does abide will experientially sense an unfolding purposefulness. He or she will accord good faith and good will, subjectively, beyond objective measure as such. One who does not will despair of meaninglessness. He will see little point to good faith or good will. Until karma avails enough schooling in hard knocks, such a one may easily seek refuge in the temporal collective economy of lost souls, where consciousness is imagined merely to be artifactual of the “either-or” logic of physics and where trickle-up material abundance and the Higgs Boson are coming, as surely as the Great Flying Santa Claus Monster.

Bottom line: As to each particle or perspective of Will, to not profane due and mutual respect, one ought not subjectively to imagine or avail that Obama or anyone else should enjoy hegemonic rule over the economy of the collective, as if perfectly and objectively representative of the entire field or purpose of God or "Progress."


I don't think much about which among Judaism, Christianity, or Islam is closest to literal truth. As far as I can tell, none can be true in any literal sense. This is because God is beyond our literal description. For all, the truth value consists in whatever the figurative or representative sense that is meaningful to a participant in the then and there context. In that light, the more significant question is: which is conducive to decent civilization and which is not? In that, I think the answer is clear to any person of minimal experience, education, intelligence, empathy, and decency. In that respect, Islam is fundamentally antithetical to empathy, decency, beauty, and truth.

A concept occurs to me: That there exists a holistic perspective or field of consciousness, in respect of which there abide limits on that which any imperfect, incomplete, particular perspective of the entire field can be availed to comprehend.

However, from any perspective that is less than that of the entire field (universe), by definition, there is no way to know limits of that which is the potentiality of the whole, as the whole. There is no way a part, while a part, can know or apportion itself to the limits of the whole of potentiality, as a whole. Attempts by leveraging math and infinities to try to approach the whole, as whole, will always transmogrify (or switch peas) short of success. The most we may ascertain may be contextual limits for like situated perspectives. We can sum perspectives of parts, but such sums do not equal a perspective of the whole.

In consequence, each attempt from a particular perspective to try to model and focus its situational context in proportionate relation to the whole of potentiality will necessarily remain uncertain and fuzzy as it approaches the edges of its experiential capacity. Every interpretative model of a particular situation will necessarily break down, switch peas, or transmogrify as it switches across fuzzy limits among points of view and frames of reference.

It seems that a perspective of the Field may somehow be availing and apportioning us, but we have no means by which to know how we may apportion in relation to it. The wonder and potentiality of all that the whole may unfold to our adventure would seem to defy our imagination. We can choose in good faith to appreciate it together, or we can, in frustration, profess that it is entirely artifactual and instead seek mindless diversion in “moral surrender” to the good feelies of the sum of the abysmal collective.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Divided By Dogma

Divided By Dogma

No doubt, wordsmiths often hoodwink weak minded and weak willed people. This tends to be easily done by loading causes with examples that inspire passion in order to freeze out reason. Causes are thus rationalized under strange metaphors and dogmas, sometimes for the most perverse of purposes. Followings are attracted and religious and political dogmas and territories are jealously defended or expanded, often under quite ambiguous and non-explanatory contrivances. No doubt, that is a peril America’s Founders devoutly willed to inoculate us against.

In so willing, nothing suggests that the Founders meant to encourage disrespect for “Nature’s God” or the “Supreme Being” -- whatever its nature or character. They certainly did not mean generally to ban from the public square, or to erect a false “wall of separation” to preclude, the discussion of higher sentiments about the source of morality and meaningfulness.

The Founders knew what it meant to make law respecting an "establishment" of religion or of official salvation doctrine. They had before them the examples of Constantine, Mohammed, Charlemagne, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, King James, etc. Notwithstanding contributions of deists among them, the Founders surely did not intend or expect that each and every local populace and slice of culture should be repulsed in its will for celebrating or comparing sacred images or ideas in its public squares or in its school lessons in history, literature, or philosophy.

Indeed, why should “higher values” of atheists be availed a preferential monopoly in the public square over higher values of believers, who may reasonably believe in a general Field of spiritual consciousness? Does any respectable, thinking person suppose atheists’ values are based purely in reason and “science,” as opposed to intuition, empathy, emotion, and inculcation?

If anything, the “better angels” of the consciousness of America’s Founders wished to preserve avenues for all decent expressions of free will to interact. In that, they did not mean to license the entire subjugation of free will and liberty; rather, they meant to defend decent regard for individual liberty. They did not mean to require that liberty loving people must in all things tolerate those agents, cults, and conspiracies that are irredeemably bent against tolerating good will among all.

The Founders would never have condoned as a “religious right” that a secular minded cult (such as for Sharia law, Human Secularism, Radical Environmentalism, or Anti-Family Statism -- that was bent on forcing everyone to submit … on pain of being fined, imprisoned, beheaded, stoned, lashed, disfigured, diminished, marginalized, or stripped of free speech based on thin prevailing winds of political correctness) should be entitled to terrorize, intimidate, or monopolize the public square in order eventually to force everyone to submit to its consolidating, collectivizing, all-intrusive, salvation beliefs, diets, ceremonies, and intricate restrictions and regulations of dress, song, and acceptable behavior. Now, that’s what is meant by establishing religion!

Yet today, proponents of traditional family values and individual liberty, and guardians against the consolidation of all-intrusive, central power, who base their values on respect for a higher, empathetic Field of Consciousness (regardless of mode or metaphor), find themselves being intimidated and all but barred from the public square …under such ridiculous and logically bankrupt notions as: “You can’t legislate based on moral values” (as if there were any good basis for legislation that were independent of moral values!).

Here and now, we need to honor values that are suited for sustaining decent and viable society, and we need as much as reasonably possible that the central government and its power mad judges for life keep their noses out of local and state concerns related thereto. I agree that decisions are often forced to be made at some level of decent assimilation. But that level tends not to be the central, federal level at which officious, know-it-all power tends to become absolutely corrupt.

The battle before us is between those who believe there is a higher or spiritual basis that legitimizes empathy among our various perspectives of conscious free will versus those who believe our experience of consciousness is purely and only meaningless artifact of random natural selection among entirely dumb bits and patterns of matter. The battle is between those who respect a Field of conscious will that permeates versus those who want to “save” an inanimate planet. The battle is between those who honor the dignity of each perspective of free will versus those who want to consolidate, reduce, and absolutely subjugate each and every independent perspective of free will. The battle is to preserve decent regard for free will, not to utterly squash it.

In that battle, however characterized, those of good faith, good will, and fellow empathy are in the large majority. Yet, they have for many years allowed themselves to be led around by the nose by subjugation-minded “consolidation’ists.” How has this happened? I submit it has happened because large segments among people of good will have allowed themselves to be blinded and divided by dogma – dogma that has little meaning when taken literally. By that I mean the various prevailing dogmas are not subject to empirical or logical demonstration. None are logically consistent, coherent, or complete. This is not to say they have no value. Indeed, their value consists in the difference between meaningfulness and meaninglessness. Or, as Ed Klingman recognizes in a brilliant book, Gene Man's World (2008), chapter 15, Consciousness and Life, the philosophical difference in respecting a field of consciousness is "The difference between heaven and hell."

The value of prevailing spiritual modes for relating to higher consciousness consists in the utility of familiar and loved music and figures of speech for bringing us together in intuitive empathy to communicate appreciation for the higher Artist from whom each of our perspectives of will is but an imperfect, incomplete and particular derivative.

So how is it that we have come to allow ourselves and our common cause to be hurt and divided by Marxists and Mind Subjugators? Well, we too often lead the weak minded and weak willed among us to be prey to those who would use our various dogmas to divide us. Why else should we have been hoodwinked into giving the Conservative base over to nominate McCain over Romney? Why else would Romney’s Mormonism have been so effectively used against him!?

If anything, Romney’s religious upbringing made him a better man than he otherwise would have been. Yet, Romney was discarded, because prevailing dogmatists found his system for relating to the higher Field of Consciousness (God) too different from their own. So what did we get for allowing ourselves thus to be divided by dogma? We got as President the most radical, collectivizing, false promising, false facing, enemy of individual liberty ever elected to the position. I fervently pray we never again fall into that error!

Friday, September 10, 2010

Humoring Addicts and Primitives

There are entire societies whose members lack fortitude to be responsible for themselves, to make good choices. How many addicts have you known who reason thusly: "I have an illness. It consists in that I lack willpower to make good decisions. Since I cannot change and need help, I am entitled to help, and you are required to provide it. IOW, since I lack will, you must not interfere with my will." At some point, this "reasoning" morphs and becomes: "I have superior will. It is the will to make bad decisions. There is nothing you can do about it. Therefore, you must indulge me, or I will hurt myself and hurt you while I'm at it."

What we have with Islam is a similar situation. Islamists show little desire to advance philosophically beyond the seventh century, because Allah taught everything that one needs in the Koran. We have entire societies that are banned from many forms of entertainment. Their women tend to be kept even more uneducated, in the dark, often mutilated, largely dependent. Assume you're born in a society where the heat is unbearable, everyone is watching to see if you violate any religious strictures, most entertainment is forbidden, and you are encouraged to read, if at all, only one book. Well, you're probably going to be a little unbalanced and looking for a cause. Now add that those who run some of these societies are made fabulously rich. (By us!) Rich enough to buy western politicians and fund jihad at far, ignorant reaches of the globe. IOW, now we're paying throwbacks to try to bring the entire world down to their level. Sort of like spending all your money to pay a resident addict of religion, drugs, or alcohol to make everyone miserable, because the only will the addict has is the will to make bad decisions.

This is what we finance, empower, and humor. Whether or not Korans are burned, this globular malady is worsening. Whatever leaders are doing, it is insanely ineffectual. Bloomberg is doing evil.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Parchment Worship

Our Constitution was and is the best governing document ever devised. That said, it is not worthy of "parchment worship." From its inception, it was deliberately handicapped to roll us eventually towards collectivized, consolidated control under a central governing oligarchy. For the myriad of ways in which that was accomplished at the behest of Hamilton, et al, read Hologram of Liberty, by Kenneth W. Royce, aka Boston T. Party. There is a fundamental dichotomy: Some (elitist Hamiltonians), often in good faith, believe the mass of mankind is simply unfit to have much say in its governance, apart from charades of relatively meaningless elections. Others believe a decently inculcated, educated, involved electorate should have political means by which to demand substantial respect. Unfortunately, the charade faction has all but won. And the great elitist consolidation under way now extends far beyond America's shores. If you believe in the essential dignity of all mankind, this is phenomenally tragic, for America is indeed the last stop before freedom and dignity for the mass of people perishes from the earth. There is much we can and should be doing. Throwing out bum fronts (Pelosi, Reid and Obama) for elitist promotion of Big Brother is a start, but only a faint start, for sympathizers with the cause of elitist consolidation abound also in the Republican Party. If you want ideas for more that we should continue to be about, read Hologram of Liberty.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Help Me

See videos at

These videos are beyond sickening. Man's capacity to be inhumane and depraved is appalling. But what is the guilt of those who bow to enrich and facilitate the spread of this moral sickness? Among us, there walk those who wish to impose an international consolidation, to be run by rulers and their so called elites. Call it Elite Liberation Theology, aka ELT. ELT requires that ordinary, middle class, decent folk be diminished.

We hear talk of dhimminization. But much of that work has already been done. Our electorate has been rendered appallingly misinformed, misled, agitated, divided, hyphenated, and largely blind to what is being directed by puppet masters operating behind the curtains. Yes, there is evil shown in the video. But the evil that is operating behind the curtains should be a thousand times more terrifying to all who sense it.

Unconscionably, Progs among us are using Islam to reduce the last institution that could help reverse our demise: religious faith in a source of higher dignity that avails to each receptive person. Some are beginning to see. There is only a short window of opportunity to bring decent folk to their senses. Regardless, many will be lost, to cry out in the dark afterwards, Help me! Help me! But they will be beyond help, having instead helped consolidators to fit them to unbreakable chains.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Of Royce's Hologram of Liberty

From A.T. -- Re: "The fa├žade of socialism has always been the same -- a phony banner for the acquisition of power." Sinisterists ... "hate divinely ordained liberty."

Hear, hear! For Obama, his individual salvation (rule?) depends on salvation of (rule over?) The Collective. From Ayn Rand's "Anthem": What is not done collectively cannot be good, said International 1-5537.

There is no such thing as a withering away of the State. However, there is such a thing as a withering away of the influence of an active and churning middle class. See North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, the expanding realm of Islam, and so on. When the influence of the middle class is reduced to mere form and pretense, devoid of substance, there comes totalitarian rule over the Collective -- regardless of whether under rule of Emperor, Despot (Marxist or Islamist), or International Cabal of Corporatist Rulers of the Collective. Any financial system, whether communist or oligarchically corporatist, that effectively wipes out the influence of a middle class will condemn humanity to a gross disregard of human liberty. Even as to rulers, they can hardly rule with unquestioned power without debasing their humanity. In Orwell's 1984, people did not really rule. It was only debased, impersonal, indifferent power that ruled. Humanity kneeled under an invention: Big Brother, with his boot on the face of humanity, forever.

Regarding "liberty" and word idolatry: See Kenneth W. Royce's 1997 edition of Hologram of Liberty, in which one learns: The Articles of Confederation of 1781 so jealously protected local rights that they failed to avail power adequate to address local needs. After Shay's Rebellion, the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was called, at which the American countryside was not especially represented. Various of the famous revolutionaries (Jefferson, John Adams, Henry, Paine, Sam Adams, Gadsen) were not delegates because they were in Europe, refused, or not chosen. Hamilton was sure that there would be social anarchy unless a consolidated government could be maintained, independent of the will of the people. He believed man could be governed only by force or interest (apparently, not by his "better angels"). Eventually, the Constitution was signed by only 39 of the 74 chosen delegates. The Constitution was ratified by means other than popular vote; in Rhode Island, it was rejected by popular vote, by a margin of 11 to 1. Later, upon members knowing of a bill soon to pass to undertake for the federal government to assume the war debts of the States, paper was bought up at five shillings on the pound before holders learned Congress had already undertaken to redeem at par, so that mass sums were redistributed from the ignorant. Having facilitated wealth among speculators, Hamiltion acquired considerable influence. Upon seeing government being used to consolidate oligarchy to exploit the masses, Madison parted with Hamiltion. With Hamilton, the key to everything was "commerce." The point of Royce's Hologram of Liberty is not to trash the Constitution, but to step outside "parchment idolatry." He thinks the Constitution is still correctible ... even as he recognizes that Rhode Island succumbed to ratify the Constitution on May 29, 1790, only after the Senate had voted on May 18 to embargo all trade with "Rogue Island."

When the middle class sees its value and purpose only as shadows cast in a cave of the State, totalitarianism is the inevitable result. Only by Conscious Will's valuing of its divine source may its middle class representatives receive and preserve strength to resist the otherwise inevitable fall of humanity into word confusion and state imposed robotic mindlessness. If atheistic respectors of middle class values prefer to call that source "higher atheistic values" (chuckle) that is fine. For my money, a "conservative" conserves liberty; a "liberal" enslaves the collective to the sacrifice of liberty. Definitely, to label oneself "liberal" in order to justify enslaving the collective is indeed sinister.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Pax Hillarica

Re --Pandering to despotism: Hillary and Obama are wannabe agents of despotism. When Obama and Hillary speak, do you not hear the words of Equality 7-2521? Obama believes his “individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” Hillary believes “it takes a village.” Read from Rand ’s “Anthem,” of Equality 7-2521: “We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives. We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State. Amen.”

Such words promote unscientific, coerced faithfulness to perverse metaphysics, and damn any individual’s dignity and mind for daring to authenticate beliefs for himself. Such words frame beliefs fit for robots and zombies, not for human minds. In framing programs, rather than discussing beliefs, such words do not represent beliefs that can claim to be chosen as one’s religion. If God is words made flesh, then the words of Obama and Hillary are words made Hell. This is not hard: For an adult, a belief pertains to a map for guiding those values that one comes, of one’s own experience, to ratify and choose as a guide. Forced profession, whether from tyrant or bureaucracy, is not “belief.”

Progs are not content to regulate your acts to the nines. They mean also to regulate your inner space, even your thoughts. You are neither to be secure in your borders nor in your homes. You are not to express religious thoughts and beliefs beyond perimeters as allowed by the State. Since values are religious oriented, value beliefs are not to be expressed beyond constrictions against “hate speech.” Only values as permitted by the State are not religious oriented. No other values can be legislated. Only those moral values that are Prog values can be legislated. Prog-approved values are “scientific.” Only Prog values should be advocated -- either in the public square or for choosing representatives. All contrary values reflect sickness, phobias, and vast right wing conspiracies. They are to be condescended to, treated, fined, or prohibited. This is so the modern State can be run logically, reasonably, scientifically … without interference from independent-minded religious nuts, racists, bigots, phobes, or any other enemies of Hillary's Hive.

In effect, Human Collectivists like Hillary may as well be doing their dhimmi work against Jews and Christians on behalf of Islamists. Well, given the spread of oil money, many probably are, directly or indirectly. How can any sane American fail to recognize pandering to tyranny (UN Human Rights?) when it is immediately before our faces? How can any sane American think it “phobic” to be wary of proponents of forms of Marxism and Sharia? How can any sane American think it “bigoted” to consider that any book, under any auspices, that is generally interpreted as literally blessing and inciting the ongoing and outrageous mistreatment of “nonbelievers” is anything other than the continuing work of evil? Why should any American, under a twisted call for pandering to and tolerating the intolerable, be intimidated into professing that BLT and the Koran represent doctrines of peace? When truth becomes “hate speech,” we shall know we are close to the peace of Pax Hillarica.