Sunday, October 31, 2010

Trick or Treat

Trick or treat: Forget one person, one vote. Think about one billionaire, a million stooge votes. The top 5% among Americans are evidently worth 40 trillion. That level of dis-proportionality is unseemly for any decently representative republic. So what should be done? Well, if we tax and soak the rich, would that help? After all, that would increase the size of government (which is already notoriously inefficient), and that would invite ever more grifting among special interests. It would also fund inducements to easily bribed louts to immigrate.

Who would really run any such a newly confabulated Gov? Would its representatives really listen to the 65% of responsible middle class Americans, or would such a Gov mainly deal instead in tricks, treats, and lip service? Would not a bidding war be set off among the wealthy, to buy influence in such a Big Gov, to assert even more collectivizing control over already collectivized masses? Would this not make our republic even less representative than it already is?

Instead of any new taxes that would just further bloat an out of control and non-representative government, why not try something different? If the concern is to more fairly distribute wealth in order to more fairly distribute political influence, then why use a tax at all? Why not simply use a “save the republic redistributive levy?” That is, levy against the wealthy, put the cash in a stash, and then proportionately divvy it up among everyone else, not based on need, but based on pre- existing proportionate relations in respect of wealth or income?

That would probably lead to deflation in some prices and inflation in many others. No doubt, it would entice many to move overseas. But would it really reduce investments in competitive free enterprise? Well, not necessarily -- not if it revived capital for competition among more small businesses. After all, what is the quality of competition among giant oligarchs?

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Free Trade

Is enforced free trade "free?" For whom is this free trade enforced? There is smart trade. But smart trade means little unless tied to purpose. Those who govern can deploy smart trade (1) to preserve a nation, or they can deploy it (2) to serve interests of those who wish to reduce the world to a collective that is ruled by a cohort of corporatists. One can (1) value a nation that protects liberty, or one can (2) value a world that submerges masses to the collective service of an international economic elite.

Look around. America as a city on a hill for preserving individual liberty is fading fast. Borders are being erased; industry is shipping out; assimilative values are being unraveled. The coming election will do nothing to reduce the grip of corporatist money for progressive (collectivizing) goals. Is the rapid fading of the idea of America just a byproduct of “free trade” and cheap prices, or is it part of a deliberate policy, which is necessary in order to collectivize the world, economically (de facto)? What good are (de jure) lines on maps if they don’t really mean anything?

As corporations succeed in trading for political influence, what's efficiency got to do with profit motive, once corporatists acquire political power to move production to labor markets that are forced to undercut one another? Once the world is collectivized, what difference does it make whether rulers are international corporatists or nomenklatura? Are fiscal “free traders” speaking with a smart and straight tongue? Are they straight with regard to their purposes? How much will be taken, before Americans realize they have squandered their birthright to liberty?

To advocate that America should sponsor free trade even when it means placing sovereignty under thumbs of foreign despots is to advocate that Americans should surrender freedom in exchange for cheaper prices for goods produced in China. This is selling freedom as if it were of no value. Democrats often devalue freedom as another word for nothing worth doing anyway. But how to fathom Republicans?

No Thing, No Higgs, No Monster God

Can there exist a state of being that entails no thing, apart from byproducts of mind contingencies?  Yes.  That is the state of being conscious, and the consciousness one experiences is the direct (self) evidence of it.

The very dangerous deceit of Islam and its founder is that it pretends that we, imperfect perspectives of one field of consciousness, can comprehend an exact message of the holism of Consciousness, as presented to us through various metaphors, sacred texts, and cookbooks, any more so than we could were we to come face to face with God. Once the premise of a perfect creed or cookbook is accepted, survival of the fittest creed can easily go to the most vicious. The way not to make a meme of viciousness a self-fulfilling "fittest" is to help thinkers not to accept its premise.

There is no Higgs particle by which to explain matter and wrap it up in a pretty bow. There is no material thing, either dependent or independent in itself, that is not derivative of relationships feeding back among perspectives of a unifying Consciousness, which avails the mathematics that limit and define our ground of being, which abides in that holistic and synchronizing Consciousness.

At most, taking consciousness as the fundamental given, we might someday derive the system of math that establishes the parameters for the one frame of reference that presents as our universe. However, as to the character, purpose, and teleology of that Consciousness, we can only hope to receive intuitive and empathetic glimpses and interpretations, dependent upon points of view and frames of reference. That can be wondrous enough. We have no need artificially to paste onto God a character for being a vicious monster.

Obama and the Radical Socialist Regime

Radical socialists cannot fathom that any person would seek a one on one understanding of a Source of higher purposefulness, even higher than here and now addiction to pleasure stimulants or to collective conspiracies to obtain such stimulants. They do not intuit any such Source, and it bugs them no end that anyone else might believe he does. They are unable to devote themselves to any purpose higher than social collectivization, except perhaps to crush all who do. (Their individual salvation depends on enforcing your collectivist, statist salvation.)

To entice and collectivize co-conspirators, secular hedonists promise all manner of cheap and addictive cures, diversions, and fixations. Indeed, they can never stop gathering firewood to fire up new fixations and fads, else the angst of the community would subside. It is easier to keep a crisis-fire burning than it is to start a new one. So no decently sustainable mores can be allowed to assimilate. That would risk letting the angst-fire flicker out.

Secular hedonists cannot allow any lines of decency to be long enforced. Concepts of God (higher than the State Liberation God), holy matrimony, and family values give secular addicts the cold willies. They must make God fearing people of purposefulness out to be the enemy of enlightenment. So we get statist rearing of children, gay and poly marriage, pedophilia, statist sexualizing of children, ridicule of cohering traditions, loss of firm values, effeminate fear of failing to tolerate everything, libertarian opening up of drug markets to everyone thought “mature” enough, etc.

As depredations accumulate and accelerate, we soon become numb. The absurd thing is, after all this, “enlightened” proponents assure us that, when it really becomes necessary, they will be able to draw and enforce actual lines … as in lines for defining and preserving nation and character. Ha! There’s reason why no society of radical hedonists has every flourished very long: they soon transmogrify into systems of radical social dehumanization.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Whence Goeth Self Reliance and Self Respect

Whence Goeth Self Reliance and Self Respect? Ideally, one would perhaps wish to preserve one’s pursuits in respect of one’s friends and one’s concept of God. For that, there would be freedom of expression and arms length freedom of enterprise. In that connection, where are we now, and where are we headed?

For the masses, that ideal may not much longer be sustainable. We may be unavoidably headed to collectivism. We see that government is needed for some essentials. We see that government is inefficient for accomplishing some things that are more suited either to competitive free enterprise (driven by profit motive) or to charity (driven by closer connection between the needy and their well meaning and voluntary benefactors). For such purposes, for awhile, there was competition among small businesses and small operations and charities.

Now, however, businesses and operations have discovered the enormous advantages that can be had by buying influence among governmental agents and politicians. Buying and trading interests and pull in government has become an industry, and it has so advantaged some interests as to avail them with virtually impregnable and oligopolistic powers. The result is ever bigger, even international, corporations and operations, so that small operations are relentlessly being squeezed and regulated into oblivion.

Once big corporations and operations own and run government, there will be no need of profit motive, because the positions of power elites will be otherwise secured. This means merit will be otherwise measured. For most, there will be little chance to betterment in terms of material success, influence, personal autonomy, or creativity -- except as one learns to please (brownnose) those who are in position to improve one’s position. For a select few of considerable special talent, there may remain occasional opportunities to impress and advance based on substantive skill and merit. However, there will be little urgency among the new aristocracy to find or reward such merit. This collectivism via corporatism will share much in common with the collectivism of Marxism, even as international corporatism replaces Marxism.

This kind of collectivism will return most of mankind, even Americans, to a position of less self respect and empathy for God and others. This is to be the New World Order. To delay it, we need a third political party. As things stand, we have no representation of traditional, independent minded Americans. Instead, what we have is Progressives: Progressives of the kind for financing the collectivizing of the masses (Rinos); and Progressives of the kind for wanting to be equally secured and collectivized (Dinos). Although they take turns regulating us, both kinds of Progressives are leading us to the same kind of New World Order. Neither kind is trying to delay or divert, much less change, the ultimate, fundamental direction.

If we want at least to delay this relentless demolishing of the American ideal of individual self respect, self reliance, and freedom to think and act, it is clear that we need to enforce borders, preserve industry, guard immigration, and regulate foreign entanglements. For that, neither Rinos nor Dinos are on board.

Regardless, what is the teleology? Is there any choice but to succumb to a corporatist N.W.O.? How can individual liberty, privacy, and power be conserved among the masses of Americans? In an age of suitcase bombs, how can privacy and autonomy much longer be preserved? Can computers, robots, and technology empower us to preserve worthwhile autonomy of expression among the masses? Can or will a more intelligent appreciation of God?

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Why Jews vote for Democrats

Why Jews vote for Democrats (Progressives):  A lot of intuitive, secular people seek protection of local power brokers. Everyone with the least antennae picks up how the ignorant, weak, and corrupt among the masses are led around by their noses by Progressive brokers, who have few values apart from wanting to apply profits and power in order safely to control the collective. If you're numbered among the relatively helpless, find and serve the Big Dog. If you allow the masses simply to follow their own values, there's no telling what their energies may unleash. It probably has something to do with group identity and security versus individual liberty.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

The Fall of America

Science and technology have so empowered those who are attracted to vile uses of power that nearly every institution of significant influence now has its strings pulled by an international, inter-respecting web of conniving wolves, soothing sheep to believe wolves know best. This will continue until a higher field of consciousness becomes more directly apprehended by every receptive, particular perspective. At that time, the strings of false consciousness will be cut, and the truth will set free every mind that is intuitive and receptive of God.

Until then, many will be tricked into submission to false elites, interpreters, interceders, and messengers. However, the only true modern messenger is the one who sends messages directly (intuitively) to the core of your experience of consciousness. Would be interceders -- who refuse to respect your essential freedom, dignity, empathy, and intuition, who assert superiority over your own essential core of consciousness -- are dupes or partners of those who drool to corral and collectivize you.

The true libertarian finds his worth and liberty not as if he were his own God, but as a limited but purposeful perspective of God. To the extent one lacks empathy for the field which completes him, one remains susceptible to purposeless circles. We will only continue to fail to set things along a path of rightness so long as we remain oblivious to the nature of our enemy and to the battle against submission of mind to the control of every interloping interceder.

If we are not to be easily herded and corralled, we must de-couple from those whose stock in trade is in false trust and grand lies. Because we are imperfect, good and evil are in all. The task is to divide the evil from the good, i.e., to learn from feedback in order to go forward to divide the bad experiences and information from the good. The task is to foster contextual applications and decent interpretations of sacred texts, so as to allow us to appreciate God as being worth appreciating. While it is not for us to judge God, it surely IS for us to judge interpretations and concepts about God. The alternative is to submit one’s free will to the manipulation and authority of wolves that, by nature, are corrupted by power. In short: have faith, verify good will, and limit immigrants carefully.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

First Amendment -- The Establishment Clause

How may any child explore religious ideas in order to decide which he wishes as an adult to engage in "the free practice thereof," unless he is allowed to be exposed (or to seek exposure) to them, and how can he be exposed to them, if such exposure is thwarted by anti-religious police of the government, operating from all sides: in the public square, in public schools, and in any forums in which government intrudes to tax, fund, or regulate? Once atheists and c0llectivists push the State to usurp to claim supreme authority in all affairs, how can the free practice of religion not be strangled? Once the State is potentially omnipresent, its proponents will naturally tend to claim that any expression of any countervailing force, such as religion, is an unwelcome establishment. Unless more reasoned and limiting definition is given to the word "establishment," atheists and collectivists will not rest until they have entirely expunged God. Of course, they will thereby have succeeded in establishing their own religion, i.e., the religion that "state elitists are higher messengers of the greater good of all." If that is not a myth, and an obscene one, then the world is surely mad.

Liars and Social Justice

Collectivist socialism is more a lie than what it’s advertised to be. People are led to believe they are being collectivized for their own good, to be shown what they should be doing by their betters, who know best. As if their betters had only their best interests in mind. But when has this ever worked for any extended period? Once power is consolidated, so that ordinary people become easy to prey upon, what is going to stop depredations – especially when the power and corporate elite have no faith in any values higher than the State? The very word, “socialism,” is a deceit.

Re: “Is it possible that there are certain European leaders who have a better understanding and appreciation of American values than our own leaders?”

For a code of moral values, I would posit: Context considered, seek to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In shorthand translation: Be empathetic. That is a bit different from the Libertarian ethos.

But how is it that we seem naturally disposed to be morally empathetic, regardless of pretenses to the contrary? An essential component of each of us seems to be the same: an identical reiteration of a perspective of consciousness temporally condensed in respect of a field of consciousness. What differentiates each person is how the perspective of that person’s identity has integrated with information and experience.

Since I would not want to be conditioned to be a bum, I would not seek to condition others to be bums and consider that to be “social justice.” I agree with the part of Ayn Rand’s message, which rails against spreading equality among competent, emancipated adults, but I part with her as follows: Since I see America as a bastion for defending freedom of thought, I seek to conserve the idea of America for all Americans who may feel likewise. This relationship is one of citizen to general ethos or population. It is not a one on one, value for value, trader’s relationship. Factors that affect such relationship are in constant flux, availing no accurate, trader’s bookkeeping.

To try to model, quantify, and record an objective bookkeeping entry for trading among purposes would be simultaneously to change the nature of the entry.

So I don’t see the “objectivity” in Randian Objectivism. Ordinary, sane people do not plug weighted factors into computer models before deciding, objectively, whether to enhance or to end relationships among perspectives of consciousness. There is no precise, objective or libertarian calculation for that which does or does not “hurt” anyone else or any wider group or worthwhile cause. Nor does an admonishment not to hurt do much to guide how to help -- either oneself or the wider values with which one’s identity has coupled. Simply put, a navel-gazing moral negative (“do no harm”) does not very well guide a moral positive (“pursue an affirmative purpose”).

Example: Consider how much power in America and the world has been consolidated in cannibal traders, who in fact DO conspire to trade in respect of capacity to make threats and do harm. Consider how such cannibal looters, child predators, dunce manipulators, hedge artists, and influence peddlers have infested and overrun Congress, media, and academia.

Given that most among modern and influential corporations trade (or want to trade) more in influence peddling, mind tricks, con games, media mesmerization, credit default swaps, cheap labor border erasing, currency manipulation, and carbon credit banking, ask: Where is there still found any independent producer or trader as Ayn Rand romanticized? Insofar as they do not exist, should true devotees of Rand now be working to push the present social order towards breakdown, while retiring once a month to Galt’s Gulch?

Problem is, considering modern technology, Galt’s Gulch is a fairy tale, and anyone who buys it will simply slip into feed for cannibals and looters. IOW, those pushing to collapse traditional institutions are not principled, non-looting producers; rather, they are unprincipled cannibals, looking to make quick bucks by carving up and selling off means by which to reduce everyone else to control and servitude.

What is their main antagonist? The Bible. By conditioning gullible liberals, libertarians, and proponents of social justice to believe the Bible has nothing worthwhile to offer our culture, i.e., that it is “enlightened” to expunge and ridicule the Bible, consider how much coarser our culture has very rapidly become since 1963, in every decent respect.

I take the realistic challenge to be this: Given the world as we find it, in decent and empathetic regard among us, each for all others, what now can and should be done to respect and preserve vestiges and islands of human freedom and dignity? That is the battle that is now unfolding, and it is between (1) (secular) short term, pleasure-seeking cannibals versus (2) (sectarian) purpose-driven believers.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Of Spiritual Merit

Of Spiritual Merit:

Perhaps, the Beinigness of any perspective of consciousness is less a “test of merit” than a participatory, unfolding, organizing of Consciousness as it couples in various perspectives with Information. Perhaps, like the InterNet, bits of information may be spread out in the BeingNet -- among all, while coupling most integrally or intensely among a relative few or particular perspectives.

In choosing and selecting in order to organize and make manifest certain information among the infinite potential of information, it may be that intuition, empathy, appreciation, feedback, prayer, purpose, and practiced proficiency all play a role.

Thus, all perspectives of consciousness may share a stake in how the Field of consciousness learns, apprehends, and manifests.

However, in fundamental capacity, an aspect of each perspective of consciousness is an identical reiteration of all others. The potential to differentially manifest intelligence and emotion is not in respect of any intrinsic or differentiating merit in any particular perspective of consciousness, but in the organization of informational context with which each perspective couples.

Merit may self-select in respect of a feedback process for coupling perspectives of consciousness with various organizations of accumulating and leveraging information. Such self selection may also result in de-merits, or the quarantining (hell committing?) of various kinds of couplings that are deemed unworthy to the Field, pending release to such time, place and context as may warrant their rehabilitation.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Reconciling Beingness and New Testament

I doubt one’s beliefs at death have to do with one’s salvation. That said, I do believe the integration of information from our experiences is an ongoing project – both for us and for God. One might suppose it should be a relatively simple thing for a mind of the quality of Hitchens, were he so disposed, to postulate a reconciliation of the New Testament with Beingness within a Field of Consciousness. Indeed, his life seems meaningful as a sympathetic part (devil’s advocate?) for that play.

Instead of God, he could simply substitute Field of Consciousness. Instead of Satan, substitute irreconcilability of existentiality. Instead of material Jesus, substitute concept of spiritual, Ideal Jesus Person. Instead of Heaven or eternal harmony, substitute purposefulness in pursuing happiness and state of Reasoned Empathy. Instead of Demons, substitute dissonance in physicality and cognition. Instead of Original Sin, substitute cracked symmetry. Instead of routine Sin, substitute giving up on efforts to reconcile experience and information beyond cognitive dissonance. That is, substitute the falling into disintegration of concepts, beliefs, principles, purposes, and conduct. Substitute Sin as the giving up of integration of one’s purposefulness.

Instead of Alms, substitute efforts to restore others to integration of principles and purposes. Instead of commandment-based Morality, substitute Reasoned Empathy. Instead of Universe, substitute shared Field for particular communications of consciousness of existentiality. Instead of Matter and inanimate things, substitute byproducts of feedback of communication among perspectives of consciousness within a shared frame of reference. Instead of a Beginning, substitute a phase shift within the eternal present. Instead of an Apocalypse, substitute a quickening reconciliation of the Field of Consciousness with its particular expressions. Instead of an End of time, substitute an integration, collapse, and re-design of information in order to phase to the next cycle of existential adventure. Instead of Teleology of final fulfillment of purpose, substitute continuing cycles of adventure for reconciling the Field of Consciousness with its particularly expressed purposes.

Instead of America, substitute tip of sword for an ongoing, integrating reconciliation of experience and information. Here’s to the re-integration of Hitchens!

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Facts are Facts (?)

Facts are Facts (?):

For heuristic purposes, I greatly admire Ayn Rand’s advocacy for the independent ego of each human mind, apart from the collectivist field. That said, I don’t agree that it necessarily leads to much that is worthwhile merely to take it that “existence exists,” or “A is A,” or “facts are facts.” Nor do I take reason, in itself, as constituting an ultimate trump. Rather, I conceptualize that reasoning intuition (or Reasoned Empathy) is on a higher plane.

I agree that consciousness is fundamental, and I agree that reason is very important. But I don’t believe that non-trivial “reason” should be divorced from the intuition and empathy of any perspective of consciousness with respect to the encompassing field of consciousness. In other words, my philosophy respects not reason in itself, but Reasoned Empathy.

If some common aspect of Conscious Beingness (higher Field?) is itself the sponsor (or espouser) of reason, then should I not seek to be intuitive and empathetic of that aspect? Is not my innate regard for the conscious beingness of other perspectives within the common field of consciousness a source both for enlightened selfishness as well as for altruistic empathy? How or why “should” any particulate expression of a field claim utter independence of the field, any more so than it should claim independence of gravity? Unless to espouse some cousin of solipsism, to put my reasoning above all others, how could I “reason,” apart from intuition and empathy derivative of an encompassing Field of consciousness?

What does it mean to say that “facts are facts,” or that facts (among that which exists) are what they are? Yes, the existentiality of some facts may be objective or commonly shared, even though, perhaps, not even the entire field of consciousness may know all facts. Yet, in potential, facts may cross a range of the unknowable, the unknown, the partly known, the conditionally known, and the trivially known. Aspects of some facts may manifest differently to the appreciation of different perspectives of consciousness. Such perspectives may apprehend such facts: partly or fully; entirely incorrectly, partly incorrectly or correctly, partly objectively or subjectively; indirectly or directly; intuitively or measurably; bound somewhat objectively to all perspectives within one’s common frame of reference; or bound somewhat subjectively to one separate conscious identity. One’s subjective experience of a “fact” easily becomes imperfect or fuzzy, as each such fact is filtered through the accumulation of information that has attached to one’s separately identifiable perspective, orientation, and bias for consciousness.

Some subjective facts may objectively or fully exist or manifest only in relation to certain subjective experiences of consciousness. Not all facts are the same or objective facts to every perspective of consciousness. Nor do all “facts” necessarily exist as facts, in themselves only. Even when unknowable or unknown, facts exist only in respect of a relation, or at least a potential relation, to consciousness. How a potential or fuzzy fact may condense, collapse, or become directly manifest to a subjective perspective of consciousness may well depend upon the then and there psychological and contextual orientation of the perspective that is experiencing such fact, in respect of such perspective’s entire accumulation and integration of information, experience, and space-time context.

Trivial facts do not contradict. But non-trivial facts may easily go un-reconciled and mis interpreted. Facts in themselves do not contradict, but facts as interpreted by a perspective of consciousness may contradict. A perspective of consciousness may not endlessly accumulate un-reconciled contradictions in interpretations of facts without experiencing a breakdown in mental purposefulness. Each perspective of consciousness seeks to assimilate and integrate information consistent with a life path for fulfilling purposefulness. Such path to purposefulness is stressed to the extent a perspective experiences facts which it finds itself unable to integrate or reconcile with its path of beingness. A perspective’s need to survive may push it to force faux-reconciliations of facts by entertaining a din of cognitive dissonance. When the din becomes unbearable, the perspective may experience a nervous breakdown.

It is not always true that no one is entitled to his own facts. But it is true that no one is entitled to his own facts that are objectively apart from what is commonly demonstrable to all – either directly and presently, or by reference to markers that have stored information regarding such facts -- where markers remain that are commonly and objectively demonstrable to all who care to access them. Subject to a shared physical and cultural milieu, juries judge the social utility of contestants and their interpretations of facts.

We are outposts for the experiencing, shaping, and reconciling of unfolding manifestations of facts and events of potentiality. Our participation in purposefulness is in synchronicity with the unfolding choices of our common field of consciousness. One’s individual capacity (Reasoned Empathy) to understand affects the quality of one’s assimilative receptivity to the purposefulness of the common field of consciousness, as it finds expression through each avatar for each particular identity. Our separate faces are avatars for a dance with purposeful choice making.

Except in respect of universally-fundamental, mathematically-expressible laws of physics, and a shared frame of reference that happens to sustain human consciousness, I do not perceive that non-trivial facts tend to present themselves in any essentially common way. Many non-trivial “facts” do not tend to have essence as facts in themselves, but only as they manifest relative to a conscious being and other such beings as happen to be copasetic to each other’s frame of reference. Yes, I can notice when I am shot and when I follow others. But the “fact” that I am shot or that I experience any event means nothing, in any eternal or essential aspect, to the universe, apart from the conscious experience (or potential experience) of it, either by myself or by some other perspective of conscious experience whose frame of reference is affected by my own.

There seems no way to show or know whether any quality (or even the entire coordinate experience of each different perspective’s subjectively conscious experience) of any non-trivial fact is in any essential way necessarily the same to each perspective. Trivial placeholders for mathematical axioms or functions may delineate a coordinate, shared, absolute validity across perspectives of consciousness. That is, one may easily and validly say “A is A.” But that is not to say very much. Once one adds a non-trivial aspect to “A” (such as A person, A moving event, or A physical structure), “A” refers only to an assumed identity for such person, moving event, or physical structure -- even though no such identity is fully known or knowable to any mortal, but rather, is continuously fluxing and changing in quality of relation to context and perspective.

I admire Ayn Rand. But her philosophy of an ideal, reasoning man or conscious mind needs to be tempered with empathetic respect for a common field of consciousness. But for respect for such commonality, it seems incoherent to assert that any values or reasons "should" be shared in common. I accept Rand’s regard for reason, but I temper it as Reasoned Empathy.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Libertarianism, Objectivism, and Reason

From Ayn Rand put it this way "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

Well, both Objectivism and Libertarianism are inadequate as philosophies. In part, this is because they do not reasonably deal with the problem of whether or when to emancipate “mind orphans,” i.e., people who have lost their minds, never had independent minds, never reasonably developed their minds, or who have had their minds so rigorously trumped as to surrender their own freedom of thought by simply rationalizing to accept whatever their leaders say in any given moment.

Example: Ghetto kids (age is not the determining factor) who essentially worship the dramatic and fashionable poses of heroes they have bonded to who have access to megaphones. Does it really make reasonable sense to demand “reason” of an infant? Or of someone whose culture has essentially molded them by using techniques common to inducing Stockholm Syndrome? Is it not apparent that a problem with both Objectivism and Libertarianism consists in failures to relate reason to cultural context, i.e., failures to apprehend that neither enlightened reason nor sustainable culture can long endure independent of one another? That is, there may be freedom to advocate one’s superiority over the demise of a worthy culture, but it may not be a very well reasoned application of freedom.

Fundamentally, Objectivism and Libertarianism take a particle view of light, but ignore light’s wave/field functions. Fundamentally, Objectivism and Libertarianism fail because they try to explicate a complete philosophy by taking only the perspective of parts, without appreciating that each perspective of consciousness has an aspect of being condensate of a more encompassing Field of consciousness. In short, they try to be independent of God, but necessarily fail.

If either Objectivism or Libertarianism made good sense in particular applications, one might expect various defenders to explicate reasoned political platforms and principles for dealing with specific social problems. (If central government should be decentralized, then how much power should states have, and when should the central government disagree when the state government gets too intrusive for the tastes of local libertarians or anarchists? When should freedom and liberty be enforced?) If a philosophy could facilitate governance, one might expect adherents could draw and enforce lines and codes around which society could actually be coaxed or inspired to assimilate. Problem: Has anyone recorded a long sustainable society of Objectivists or Libertarians?

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Existence exists; God gods


In what sense, if any, may it reasonably be suggested, generally, that "existence exists"?  (Or that Reality reals, or God gods?)  In what sense may it be "reasonable" for one generally to suggest that "existence exists" ... in recognition that it is reasonable to postulate that a particular thing exists ... in that, as understood or postulated, the thing has potential to be measured by, or otherwise to influence, a perspective of consciousness?


Individualists (Objectivists, Libertarians, Anarchists) often prefer to try to model consciousness and morality as if they were derivative of only particular perspectives. Collectivists (Communists, Progressives, Islamists) often try to model consciousness and morality as if they were derivative of only an encompassing field. Regardless, this kind of “either-or” conceptualizing does not logically support all reasonable aspects of human interaction. Rather, there is a feedback dance, not entirely reducible to an "either-or" kind of logic or measure. To exist and persist, that which is holistic or objective has to dance and exchange information with that which is particular, subjective, or imperfect. Interaction among conscious perspectives entails regard for, and unfolding reconciliation with, such interpretations of acculturated, accumulated information as are projected via the avatar by which each identity effects its representations, each to all others.

“Either-Or” logic has its place: To model EMR, one may model light for some purposes as if light were comprised of expressions of particles; for other purposes, one may model as if light were comprised of expressions of waves. One does not exhaust modeling for how light functions merely by choosing either to model light as particles or as waves (or as “wavicles”). One does not completely model light via any one model or concept, or even by any collection of concepts. Axiom: A particular perspective of consciousness cannot completely model the whole of consciousness, because (1) the whole may flux or find expression beyond the sum of its parts; and (2) each particular representation of the whole, as a part, is limited to being circularly defined in respect of its common relation with all other parts. Once a part collapses apart from its field, its perspective for interpreting the field will be limited to the remainder of the field. A class of cows, as a class, is not itself cows; a whole of parts is not, as a whole, defined entirely by any sum of its parts.

Bivalent logic works well for conceptualizing how to manipulate those aspects of reality which seem indifferent to consciousness. But a different approach (trivalent logic?) is necessary to appreciate relations among those aspects of reality which are not indifferent to feedback with one’s consciousness. One needs to appreciate people as people, not as mere bundles of matter to be indifferently manipulated.

To the extent consciousness is not entirely and merely artifactual of relations among indifferent aspects of reality, it stands to reason that more than mere formalization and empiricism are needed to participate reasonably among perspectives of consciousness. Rather, one must dance with the accumulated and continuously changing organization of information that is represented by each other perspective of consciousness.

Axioms: Reality is not created, reality bites, change is continuous, targets of logic are always moving, particular experiences are effected via synchronization among consciously choosing agents within limits of parameter fields, a Field of consciousness avails such choices, and God really exists ... "godding" and dancing with us. Those aspects of reality may be considered as self-evident, intuitive, or empathetic. They are not derivative, so they cannot be derived, measured, quantified, or proven via mere logic. Aspects of such axioms may, however, be subjected to tests for mathematical consistency and empirical replicability

Regarding consciousness versus indifferent matter: Does a photon in any way accumulate or store information that could be translated as a representation or conceptualization that it is expressed in coordination with a field? Does any aspect of a photon effect representations by which to know it exists, or that it exists as an expression?

Original Sin

Intuitively, perhaps empathetically, there exists and abides a Field (God?) which has power or capacity to give conscious expression to mathematically related arrays of incomplete and unpredictable choices of perspectives of itself. The Field is a unifying Being which enjoys a property of Existing. All else among particulars that exist owe their beingness to the Field.

In respect that each array, and each perspective of each array, mirrors an incomplete, particular representation of the whole of the Field, none can mirror or avail a complete measure or explication of the power or capacity of the Field Itself. Rather, the Whole is of a class that is not encompassed among, or to be explicated by, any mathematical functioning or summing of its Parts. One does not adduce its existence by syllogistic logic or by empirical measure. With conscious intuition and immeasurable empathy, one may or may not choose to adduce the existence of such Field, either by according one’s life as if it exists or as if it does not. For that, sub-metaphors are not useful in literal respect (for one cannot measure God), but in figurative respect.

What one can do is sense and communicate (in relative terms and metaphors to such other perspectives of the Field which happen to share one’s frame of reference) about the context with which the Field happens to give expression to each particular self. In doing so, one can intuit, and empathize about, one’s derivative dependence upon the Field. One can comport one’s consciousness with reasoned regard for unfolding expressions and processes of the Field. One can mathematically model and measure such various aspects of such processes as may relate to oneself. And one can, in empathy and intuition, be receptive to guidance regarding how one “ought” to choose to measure or tinker about such unfoldment. That the Field is beyond comprehension in respect of the logic of our incomplete perspectives is not an argument against its existence. Rather, one's choice at any level of consciousness to appreciate the existential pervasiveness of a common Source of perspectives of the one Identity of consciousness depends upon the character of one's intuition and empathy, not upon the quality of one's logic or the precision of one's empirical measure.

Regardless, one cannot with mathematical precision prove or know what one ought to do, nor how that which one does may affect the future of the unfoldment under the Field. One can, and perhaps should, in good faith and good will, apply Reasoned Empathy in respect of one’s feedback in relations with the unfoldment. By “Reasoned Empathy” I do not mean unconditional love for every conceivable kind of rot or rotter. Rather, I mean respect for that which one intuits should be unfolded. What I intuit the Field purposes to unfold or communicate is reasoned awe across the perspectives and capacities of the whole and its parts. I doubt the Field purposes either (1) a Umma for the loving or encouraging of cannibalistic or irrational subjugation of perspectives of mind or (2) a Utopia for the purposeless rotting and doping of rotters and dopers. I doubt the Field condemns its perspectives for original sin of being imperfectly incomplete, in that there would seem no other way to have a perspective of the whole Field (unless such perspective itself could be like an independent holism).

To a limited extent, Original Sin has been a useful concept for reminding people of the undoubted fecundity of evil in the world, and of the undoubted commitment required to struggle against evil. No doubt, innocents need to be reminded how surrounded they are by misguided, amoral, cannibals. No doubt, innocents need to be encouraged to be receptive to higher guidance, to help them learn to distinguish among the good, the misguided, the amoral, and the evil. However, apart from those purposes, the concept of original sin has been overdone and reduced to literalistic irrationality. One may seriously wonder how cousin concepts to Original Sin can be co-opted by statist hegemonists. But there is little sense in supposing God should wish to impose eternal punishments against fallible, temporal perspectives of beings, who need experience and guidance to better intuit how to comport with God's unfolding purposefulness. There is little sense in supposing that consciousness, in itself, is other than an Identity, with potential for communicating choices among various contextual perspectives of itself. There is little sense in supposing that any exchange of empathy during a communication among perspectives of consciousness should be based other than in reasoned inspiration and appreciation. There is little sense in pretending any particular perspective of consciousness has authority as a stand in for the judgment of the entire Field of God. Rather, if moral responsibility means anything, each perspective must be morally responsible to give effect to its own interpretation of the array of choices availed in the unfoldment, of which every other person is only a bit actor, not a stand in for God.

The kind of concept advocated herein, of God as the Field of Consciousness, is bound to irritate fundamental believers and authorities for traditional sacred texts, as well as atheistic materialists and overgreedy empiricists. For the near future, it may be that to advocate for such a concept is to volunteer to be put on a relatively small island. Yet, the company is good. Maturely considered, the concept (1) may allow one to be intellectually honest with oneself, (2) is consistent with intuitions of many, (3) enhances the best parts of the moral guidance of sacred texts, (4) does not hamper appreciation of traditional and sacred parables, (5) overcomes various moral deficiencies of both secular and sectarian fundamentalists, (6) is not inconsistent with testable scientific formalizations, (7) hampers science not in the least, and (8) facilitates respect for the best of traditional American values of freedom and dignity. In short, it seems the concept of God as Field of Consciousness for expressing the unfolding of experience need not forbid a reasoned reconciliation of the Big Bang, 1984, Brave new World, Atlas Shrugged, American Exceptionalism, and the New Testament. Indeed, Ayn Rand's ideal regarding the mind of man seems to implicate mind of the Field.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Ayn Rand and Corporatist Oligarchs


Regarding Corporatist Oligarchs of the Third Kind: (1) Some Oligarchs defend, (2) some produce, and (3) some loot, as by buying and selling political pawns, like commodities.

Ayn Rand abhorred looters, even corporate looters. Problem is, I have found nothing in her philosophy that avails effective means to stop, slow, or shame looters, especially international corporate looters. The only possibly effective means appears to be to promote an informed electorate. Problem is, the oligarchs run most of the means for informing the electorate. And information, to be made sense of, needs to be assimilated in respect of a worldview. But Rand’s philosophy did not avail a worldview that could be effective to counter oligarchic looters and their usefully indoctrinated idiots. Here meme was “reason” in the service of the ideal man. A more effective meme would be reasoned empathy (enlightened selfishness).

Were it more generally appreciated that every particular perspective is only an incomplete perspective in the service of one field of consciousness, that is, were we to restore respect for reasoned empathy, we may have a better chance to reclaim human freedom and dignity from the clutches of oligarchs of the third kind, i.e., oligarchs who are so depraved as to be disloyal to common human decency. Oligarchs reason just fine, but they reason almost exclusively about how to look out for themselves. In effect, the wire of empathy that connects them to the better part of humanity has been severed. They have not reasoned their way to this severance; they have rationalized the severance.

What I mean by “empathy” is capacity to apprehend, not measure, aspects of the beingness of one’s own mind, fluxing in the minds of others. Such empathy is not, per se, love of self or of others. Rather, it is respect for the exploratory purposefulness of a common mind, as it chooses to experience and express its dignity in the perspectives of oneself and of others. So stated, I consider reasoned empathy to be a more fundamental attribute of mindful will than reasoned materialism.

Empathy entails respect, not just for others, but for the common mind that freely expresses itself through perspectives of all expressions of consciousness, (not just of human beings), as well as of oneself. Empathy does not measure a precise cutoff between life and not-life. Rather, empathy apprehends a quality of connection among expressions of conscious will that is not precisely limited to mere circuits of material or bodily energy, but often suggests itself in moments of apparent deja vu, stunning coincidence, incredible insight, or burst of creativity – not so much as if one had saved oneself by one’s own merit and “reasoned” to such insights, but more as if one had received one's insights, gifted in association with the On High.

All perspectives of consciousness have capacity for empathy, but not all are faithful to, strongly receptive to, or confident of it. Key to empathy is respect for the regard by others of their own freedom and dignity, not mere exchange for (or base satisfaction of) the material and glandular wants of others. To accord “love” in response to bad habits and addictions of derelicts tends mainly to reinforce them to lifetimes of such bad habits.

To facilitate decent human civilization, a mores of empathy (“value for value”) ought not be restricted to a realm of material measure, but should be expanded to a realm of worthy respect. A decent civilization ought not pervert mores based on empathy by rationalizing beggings or lootings against independent individualists or by rationalizing forced conversions or submissions of non-members of gangs or sects of collectivists to thugish fascists or religious police.

Tragically, the only real bastion for defending decently civilizing, sustainable mores -- America -- is now beset – within and without, at all sides, secular and sectarian – by force minded collectivizers in unholy axis with useful idiots who have been conditioned to rationalize that they need to be collectivized. Thus, the breath of America is being constricted by a Python Axis that is financed by a depraved host of international, collectivizing oligarchs.


Conservers of individual liberty have little hope to unwind this Python monster from the head down, as by recruiting counter funding in order to counter purchase our own whore politicians. Rather, the best way to unwind this monster is from the bottom of the tail – from the grass roots up. Since most entrenched institutions are now owned and operated for the interests of the international corporatist oligarchy, it will be a terrible struggle to unwind this Python and to restore America to an honored place, distinct from the worldwide collective. Yet, it is a struggle for which I intuit that our good will is aligned with that of the Field of Consciousness, common to all of us.

As to the Python (and its components – the international corporatist oligarchs who produce nothing and besmirch everything, who trade mainly in the buying and selling of political whoredom): It has no spirit-sustaining philosophy, no way to make its rationalizations decently sustainable, no way to prevent its members from imposing its tyranny and soul death on one another, and no way to avoid the death of a thousand addictions.

So long as we retain strength of will in respect of higher empathy, those who have collapsed to the depravity of international gangsterism will, at some point, be lead either to their own overdose or towards a better way. Until then, until pockets of resistance can gather inspiration and strength enough to sap and unwind the Python, we need to resist where we can and persevere where we must. Effective inspiration will prevail in due time. It is a terrible challenge to unwind the Python from America. It is beyond the pale to expect America to unwind the Python from the world. America can best serve the world by serving as a beacon for human freedom and dignity. For that, it is hardly of more import that Americans be liked than that producers be liked by persons satisfied to be bums.

Bottom line: So as not needlessly to have incited counterproductive misunderstanding between Christian Conservatives and Randian Objectivists, Ayn Rand, on hindsight, should have hearkened her Ideal Man to the value of Reasoned Empathy, instead of to a kind of reasoned materialism. In that way, the major part of her purpose would have been served, without stirring counterproductive mistrust among natural allies. Had she done so, it was not necessary for her to try to discredit or seek entirely to replace "Field of Consciously Reasoning Empathy" (God) with her notion of "Reasoning Mind of the Ideal Man." Both are incomplete concepts, neither map should be confused with the actual territory, and both are useful myths. The myths ("Field of Consciously Reasoning Empathy" and "Reasoning Mind of the Ideal Man") can and should be reconciled, to align for modeling the best motivations of thinking Christian Conservatives and thinking Objectivists.

Thursday, October 7, 2010



I don’t deny that reasoning takes place. The process of moral reasoning is self evident. What I deny is that such process takes place apart from, or superior to, the free will that associates with a perspective of consciousness. Reasoning about moral values is not a process that arises wholly within a brain, derived of some mythological, separate and independent “faculty” for crunching numbers. Rather, arriving at anything that can be recognized as reasoning entails a feedback process, whereby a brain receives, responds, and reconciles with stimuli and information from the Field that encompasses it.

Each model about moral purposefulness by which a brain thereby stores information unfolds in direct, intuitive relation with the Field. In a sense, the intuition of a perspective is not reasoning, but is accumulating a kind of direct storeage of information, even though such information is product of a process whereby reasoning has taken place. Continuously fluxing additions and changes to a brain’s storing of its records of experience do not unfold as products of intentional, mathematical calculations. They unfold as direct, intuitive responses with a Field of Conscious Will. The viability of each change in representations that are stored as models in association with a brain depends more on the character of the Field, as it has attached to a particular perspective, than on any faculty or internal completeness of a model for reasoning that is being processed.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010



Regarding a notion of Conscious Design:

Each perspective of Conscious Will has innate capacity for continuously receiving and storing new information, enabling it continuously to organize and accumulate abstract rationalizations upon rationalizations, in ways to help it map and navigate that external world which is shared by every perspective that can operate in respect of its frame of reference.

As each perspective seeks to make its rationalizations successful, such rationalizations gradually comport with what one may call “reason.” The mental mapping gradually coordinates more closely for certain purposes with external reality. IOW, reason about non-trivialities tends to be more a product of trial and error, i.e., inductive feedback and experience, than syllogistic deduction. As induction proceeds, information in respect of a fuzzy potential for abstract modeling is represented and carried forward in the mind. However, every one of these inductive models proceeds by way of refining such myths as may best facilitate its bearer’s successful pursuits.

All perspectives idealize (i.e., store information in respect of) each model in respect of some fundamental, yet unclear, notion or myth, which, in respect of an inherent aspect of consciousness, recedes like the end of a rainbow in the fuzzy distance (*like an ever-receding ultimate particle or ultimate concept). This is akin to a never-ending natural selection of “the fittest” among rationalized myths. However, this kind of natural selection is obviously guided by the interplay of intuition and empathy among perspectives of consciousness. It is not evolution by dumb chance, nor is it intelligently-set pre-design. It is selection by a course of design that unfolds in respect of a parameter-limited interplay among perspectives of a field of consciousness.

This unfoldment of mental models by way of “conscious design” also fits easily with a notion of natural selection among material bodies. “Conscious design” (unfolding design, as opposed to dumb random design or intelligent pre-set design) avails a different perspective for defining what is meant by the natural survival and replication of “the fittest.” Conscious design is also consistent with the selective unfoldment of groups of functions, beyond merely individual functions. IOW, conscious design of mental models avails a way for considering both the evolution of individual behaviors and of group (ant like) behaviors (that is, the interplay of like-minded perspectives within a parameter-limited field).

As for Darwinian (or dumb) design, it relies on a notion of “the fittest,” but it defines the fittest only circularly. That is, whatever happens to survive and replicate, it deems fittest. With that kind of trivial conceptualization, one always “wins” (just as it is always correct to say that 2 is 2). It is amazing that the Darwinian shell game continues so easily to confuse so many who feign to be thinkers as opposed to simplistic god deniers.


*For example, even the model above is necessarily incomplete, because it avails no rigorous or measurable definition for an individual perspective of consciousness, capacity of consciousness, or purpose of consciousness. Rather, it models as if consciousness and its capacity and purpose were self evident, and then employs its own myth: that each otherwise undefined perspective of consciousness is a fundamental unit, in respect of which a purpose of reality can be expostulated. That said, for me, a model (or myth?) of "conscious design" seems, by and large, to be as scientific, and to perform as well for satisfying many of my purposes, as any myth-model I have thus far seen deployed by vaunted atheists. For example, it appears the Higgs boson for the standard model is no more useful a myth than the Klingman model for conscious design, referenced below.

**A quite interesting model for conscious design is explicated by Edwin Klingman, in his "Gene Man's World." I suspect it sets forth at least as good and practical a mathematical and testable model of reality and consciousness (in the aggregate) as any other model. So long as it remains non-falsified, it may be considered whether that is by trick of self definition of consciousness (akin to a trick of "insider information" as postulated by C.S. Lewis). Still, I fail to see how one may expect to do better ... especially so long as one intuits that the underlying trick is God's trick. Note: This is not to be confused with "goddidit" or superstitious models. Rather, the Klingman model appears to be as fully serviceable for practical, as well as moral, application as any other. It is sufficiently grounded so as to deserve to be as tested for mathematical consistency, empirical reliability, and practical application as any other model.

***Each new accumulation of information is a stressor, until it is somehow synthesized with each persons’s system of rationalizations, or world view. Each new synthesis tends to follow the emotionally simplest path, so that the person’s mode of synthesis will tend to paste onto his existing world view. This is why one can often predict how a long time acquaintance will react to any challenge posed by a certain kind of new information. IOW, each new synthesis respecting moral values is not based so much in respect of logic applied anew as it is based in respect of what is needed to perpetuate the survival of the person’s world view, based on his own particular accumulation of experience. This is why, based only on logic or reason, it tends to be so difficult to change a person’s fundamental views about morality. This is why voluntary forums of churches and civic clubs for leading, exercising, and assimilating intuitions and empathies are so important to the development of a reliable citizenry for sustaining a decent civilization. This is why a strategy of divide and rule and ridiculing and ungluing traditional values is so effective for dismantling a civilization, in preparation for imposing a substitute ("change") form of big, centralized, hegemonic, and arbitrary governance. This is why dissembling atheists, whether liberals or libertarians, are so dangerous to civilized liberty. In real practice, Big Atheistic Dogma and Secular Legalism tend hardly to be more respectful of, or more conducive to, individual or ordered liberty than Sharia law. Both soon bring us to the same place: Dispiriting collectivization. To try to hog tie or banish the kind of god memes that respect each individual's and each family's relationship with God (higher values) in order to substitute memes based on myths of a lawyers paradise, a workers paradise, a sex addict's paradise, or a religiously fascistic paradise, is not just counterproductive and not just unholy --- it is to place individual and family-based freedom and dignity in grave peril. It is to serve the kind of meme that dithers with dismantling borders, exporting industry, choking energy independence, enriching enemies, and inviting agents of destruction. It is how we have, within a mere 22 years, become perilously close to becoming a vassal of regimes that have low, if any, regard for individual freedom of expression. It is American Conservatives who are now the conservers of liberty. If they fail, America falls.



Interplay and feedback between the Field of Consciousness and the particular perspectives of consciousness summons or produces information. The information couples with perspectives of consciousness, either in form of indirectly measurable mind, or in form of more directly measurable body or matter. Sense of "I-ness" results as a perspective of consciousness couples with information in such a way as to experience mind coupled with matter, producing sensation of distinctness in mind and body. The distinctness is artifactual of the coupling of each perspective of consciousness with information.


Thus, there is a trinity: Field, Perspective, and Information. The interplay of this trinity produces the universe we share.


Each sense of I-ness can experience injury or death, either by the gross dismantling of the body that is coupled with its mind, or by such disruption of the organization of information for its mind as to throw the identiy (I-ness) into shock --- shock that may even be fatal to that particular Identity that is constituted of an in-form-ationally organized expression of conscious will. Kill the information, kill the mind; kill the mind, kill the body; kill the body, kill the mind.


So, what happens to the accumulaton of an Identity's information, upon its death or disassemblage? Well, the particular context of organization of information would seem unlikely to recur. Yet, some aspect or potential of the information and the identity and the perspective of conscious will that accompanied it ... would seem somehow to be recycled.


After all, each perspective of consciousness, stripped of all informational organization, would seem to be the same as any other, and subject to the same sort of re-coupling to recycled information as any other.


In that light, who is to say whether such a model could be interpreted as being reasonably consistent, at some level, with most religious metaphors?


What happens when, for whatever reason -- nature or nurture -- the foundation for a person's world view begins to be built on enmity instead of empathy? Well, that appears to be how evil persists in the world ... how we get an imbalance in the field ... how the lid gets twisted off the dark side. The result is an unstable, dark, hole infested, world view.


Each person's synthesis or idea of self, from his particular perspective, seems less based in logic or eternal reality than in the accumulated and fleeting context of his limited point of view and frame of reference. Each perspective's entire context and experience seems comprised in appreciation of information that is produced in dancing with one's counterpart for the field of consciousness. Enjoy the dance.


Atheists seem likely to imagine that denying God and ridiculing ideas about God helps to expunge God, as well as all myths about God. But that is never what happens. Instead, atheists simply trade one set of myths for another of their own making. Then, they call the new myth about their basis for morality or values, which is of their own making, "Reason" ... or some other label by which they imagine they expunged God. However, when their new code cannot be shown to be logically or mathematically consistent, coherent, or complete, then, to be intellectually honest, it is necessarily not entirely a product of reason, but, at least in part, a product of uncertain rationalization ... which they nevertheless, on faith, try to believe, advocate, or follow.


Atheists defend word games for replacing every God myth, which they are conditioned to abhor, with alternative myths, which they feel, at least on challenge, compelled to defend. They seek an alternative myth at all costs -- even if it entails imagining space visitors or multiples of parallel universes --because they are human. And a human being is unable to preserve sanity or identity without taking a leap, in words or acts, to rationalize and live by some sort of code or world view. An inherent, emotional need stresses and compels each person to defend his sense of self, which has coupled to the world view and extant organization of information that constitutes his body and mind.

Regardless, no one, with regard to his system of values or moral code, can replace his need for a myth of God except with another myth. When it comes to rationalizing values, one who denounces God simply makes a replacement with a label for much the same thing, which he then chooses to reference by a different name (perhaps as "reason," or as "higher atheistic values"). Indeed, one may reorganize or reprioritize one's sense of values, but one's "justification" will always be rationalized either on myth or on simple, unprincipled, inhumane, glandular call of the moment. Regardless, one whose mind retains images and representations connected with emotions will necessarily indulge rationalizations entailing myths, however illogical.


Were one to allow one's world view to be too suddenly knocked hard off its hinges, one may suffer nervous breakdown, mental shock, perhaps even mind death.

Friday, October 1, 2010

Python Axis

The grand meme of Atlas Shrugged --- of creative Republican entrepreneurs being drug down by collectivist Democrat ne’er do wells ---  is often misapprehended. The era of a Republican party, led by entrepreneurs who actually produce, is gone. To be misdirected to that bygone era is to ignore what is choking us now. What we have now is a remnant of disorganized, unrepresented, creative, middle-class, small-business Americans being choked into political oblivion by an axis of easily-bribed Dino louts, being pulled around by a looting ball of Rino snakes, which has acquired preposterous power to fund shenanigans by squeezing the money trust, merely by squeezing currency reserves against sovereign notes. Rinos are the brains of the python, and Dinos are its muscle, but they’re of the same snake. Obama knows to enrich his creepy handlers much more so than his snake-food admirers.

This modern Ruling Elite, or Python Axis, is not entrepreneurial in the sense of earning wealth by actually inventing or building much of anything. Instead, it insinuates itself through complex and indecipherable financial instruments and reorganizations, to choke all middle men and all creative, small-business entrepreneurs. It squeezes out wealth by insinuating deceits, with choke agents planted to control institutions of banking, media, academia, entertainment, Congress, regulatory agencies, off-shore secret organizations, and (likely) organized crime and piracy.

In investing in, and buying, governments, the Python Axis soon learns to insinuate its messages in the deceitful language of governance. In service of the Python, the Axis writes regulatory concepts that are so meaninglessly open ended as to constitute delegations of the rule of law to the rule of regulatory agents and judges. The forked tongue of the Axis hisses in the language of law, but directs in the language of fascism.

Ask: What infused Obama, an inexperienced tool of radicals, with confidence that he could front the Python Axis? His experience as a community organizer, rubbing elbows with useful idiots who really believe in a worker's paradise, could not have infused him with that confidence. People like Soros had to have had their hooks into Obama long before he began making poppycock promises to proles. The Axis must have recruited and soothed Obama, thusly: Accept our agenda, don't worry about what you need to say, and we'll write the script for you on Totus.

So how does one free oneself from a python, much less a snake ball? If one attacks a python’s head directly, by oneself, to try to wind it off one's body from the head down, one has no chance. What are required are industrious, virtuous friends to unwind the python from the tail up. Doing that necessitates a focused, organized assimilation of individualist values, to institute power to severely punish every attempt to manipulate currencies for buying laws and governments, as if they were mere commodities.

In the face of the monstrous meme of modernity, by what faith can any industrious, free-minded, middle class unite, take action, and preserve morale? How can the common-sense middle class refute insinuations that the Python Axis of Dinos and Rinos (Chinese model?) is “for our own best interests?” How can we refute that elites know best, mean well, and will deploy their oligarchical control in order to institutionalize organizations for the “fair and equal” interests of the collective N.W.O? How can we refute that the individual is impotent against superior duplicity of the python-ruled collective? Well, for that, Atlas Shrugs still presents considerable prescience.

Imagine a N.W.O. that comes to be run by competing gangs of louts and looters, which promote their rulers based on who is most elite in the craft of deceit. (After all, the louts they rule can’t handle the truth anyway.) So ask: Will that system of elitist rule of collectives lead us to peace in the valley? Has it ever? Presently, we have (1) a reclining American model (that is being rapidly dissolved into a twin for the Chinese model), (2) a rising Chinese model, and (3) raging Islamic fascism. Of these three, the only one that can hope to remain strong enough to tolerate keeping its neighbors at arms length is the American model. The other two do not mean to tolerate long term equilibrium: There is no hand wringing and no questioning; they mean to rule.

If the American model, like the twin towers, continues to collapse, each of the remaining models will attempt to purge the other in an intolerably violent cataclysm. (Consider the nukes of Europe, once Islam overpowers Europe from within.) Elitist rule does not lead to peace in the valley until it first extracts total surrender of mind from the collective. Even then, elitist rule will bring only the peace of mind death. The shadow of worldwide corruption and darkness looms -- unless decent Americans wake up. Against this challenge, Obama is no champion; he is but a tool for forces of despair, with no timely capacity to learn to be otherwise. In the name of decency, the sooner Obama, Soros, and their looting posse are relegated to a proper level of competence and contrition, the better.