Religious Literalism and Fundamentalism:
I sense much figurative truth in the Bible to commend, but little of literal truth, especially in this age of logic and empiricism. It seems tragic that the immense store of figurative truth is hardly considered, since intelligent people are put off by the “door” that is guarded by childlike literalists. I say childlike because they think they are taking the Bible literally and thus empirically, even though it communicates little that can make empirical sense to human experience. Indeed, to the extent adherents try to force literal sense out of that which is necessarily figurative, the Bible rapidly slips to a means for twisting minds into depravities.
What, in practical terms, is “heaven?” How can any sane person believe the Bible conveys a literal understanding or description of heaven in sufficient detail for any human being to envision it in material representation? What does it mean to say Jesus was both spirit and flesh? What does it mean to say salvation unto heaven is availed by believing in one’s heart that Jesus is at once God and son of God? Insofar as “believing” is apart from empirically “knowing,” how does one scale any measure of belief? Can some empirical method weigh whether one believes enough to believe in one’s heart? If no empirical measure is available, then in what sense can the formula for “believing in one’s heart” be taken literally? How could any human concept of a just God imagine that, to be saved, one must have heard of and accepted the Son of God? Does that mean son in a carnal sense or in a created sense? Precisely what is the substance that must be believed in order to pass the test? What if the only story one heard was that Juxom was created of God, turned water into beer, fed 200 people at a funeral 1000 years before one were born, was hung from a tree, on the 20th day was resurrected, and therefore paved the way for believers to be saved? If the story one heard had somehow missed one or more traditional details, would one’s “belief” be insufficient?
What I propose is that there is a God, there are grounds to believe in something like Judeo-Christian values, regardless of whether one had ever been exposed to the Bible, and those eternal grounds may well be what Jesus, in His day, was explicating. Those grounds are rooted in intuition, empathy, and reason. Admittedly, this is not a proposal than can be proven. But I don’t believe there is sufficient reason in empiricism or logic (bivalent or otherwise) to believe contrary to such grounds. Nor do I believe the proposal is trivial.
Regardless, until caretakers of religion make their doctrine more logically palatable and meaningful to adult thinkers, I expect doorkeepers will be appealing more to the unenlightened and easily gulled than to those who can and will undertake honestly to lead society and preserve decent civilization.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Missing Budget
Missing Budget -- Outline: Since elites now consider that federal authority holds legitimate power to effect wealth redistributions, even for purely crass political purposes, the next logical step is to fashion an expandable budget with means for redistributing wealth for purely political purposes.
Elite Reindeer Games --
Insofar as Americans have acceded to the constitutionality of a progressive income tax, we have acceded to federal power to redistribute income and wealth – for no reason of substance other than that whoever runs government has found it in their interests to acquire such power.
Of course, this empowers demagogues to play two-faced reindeer games. They can progressively tax the wealthy, gift to their base, and then fashion other taxes and means for pulling the redistribution back -- perhaps even allowing the pullback to be re-circulated as bonuses to corrupt and wealthy cronies, who keep the “give back” game recycling.
Since elites now consider that federal authority holds legal, legitimate power to effect wealth redistributions, even for purely crass political purposes, the next logical step is to fashion cyber means for redistributing wealth for purely political purposes.
The national (or international, corporate, inter-corporate, or international mafia) government or authority could simply buy influence from gullible and cheaply bribed muggles and future serfs by promising to make redistributions. It could choose to extend redistribution favors in whatever fashion it desired – to any among undocumented workers, residents, citizens, corporate workers, reparation-worthy persons, unions, or political (or foreign?) allies.
For example, governing authority, whether central or internationally elite, could decree that every person of age 18 or more is entitled to open a government or corporate “redistribution account” at any bank or corporation whose deposits are federally insured or whose market or political influence makes it "too big or too influential to fail." To whatever extent elites then deem necessary, favored groups could periodically be favored with “stimulus deposits,” to be decreed and effected at the flick of whim and computer entry. Each periodic stimulus deposit would be equivalent to printing money (or corporate coupons?) and giving it to favored groups. Whenever a politically acceptable transferee of such cyber payola wanted a representation in more tangible form, he could exchange his cyber money for a print-out at any properly certified outlet.
Of course, this reindeer cyber gift game would inflate the money supply, so it would take awhile for the populace to take it to the bosom of their full faith and credit. However, once a system of political capital “redistribution accounts” were implemented, anytime a stimulus panned out not to have been enough, central governors could simply and periodically inject more. If inflation (or politics?) began to lean out of control, the regime could invent means for reducing the money supply or for replacing and revaluing existing legal tender (sort of like an elite college can go back and add 0.333 to every graduate’s grade point average).
Obama-rules for accounting could be fundamentally rewritten, so we would have the expandable version of budgeting (sort of like Haggar pants). Indeed, once a Haggar-like budget were written, it may not need revision except in increments like 5 year plans.
Elites claiming such power would argue that they must be appointed for life or via non-politicized channels. After all, it would be too dangerous to have so much power depend upon the kind of promises contenders may find it expedient to make during the near erotic heat of electioneering.
Of course, similar “bright” elite ideas and techniques have always caused great turmoil and suffering. However, so the argument goes, such techniques have never been implemented “correctly,” on a coordinated, worldwide basis. On that account, elite economists (from Princeton?) may sell Haggar-budgeting to the hoi polloi -- sort of like the big bad wolf dressed up for Christmas in loose and cuddly granny clothes.
Elite advocates will say they could not be tempted to abuse such power, since their own wealth would necessarily depend upon nurturing a healthy and strong work force. However, what would not be mentioned by advocates for ruling the global economy by a NWM (new world mafia) of elites is that the quality of life for the work force – in terms of defense against fascists, longevity, leisure, and autonomy for the hoi polloi to pursue their own interests and opportunities – would be of little consequence to elites. Also not mentioned would be that, in the real world, elites would not act as a harmonious group of angels, concerned only to spread the greatest happiness to the greatest number.
Simply put, mankind has no power to change the world to remove the sting and motivation of competition, nor power to change the inherent, spiritual need to serve a purpose higher than serving the pleasure of fat-headed elitists.
Fundamentally, Agenda 21 and/or NWO are lies. They are not benign. They are inescapably meant to empower a NWM – one whose members consider the spiritual life of the little guys to be worth precisely zero.
Elite Reindeer Games --
Insofar as Americans have acceded to the constitutionality of a progressive income tax, we have acceded to federal power to redistribute income and wealth – for no reason of substance other than that whoever runs government has found it in their interests to acquire such power.
Of course, this empowers demagogues to play two-faced reindeer games. They can progressively tax the wealthy, gift to their base, and then fashion other taxes and means for pulling the redistribution back -- perhaps even allowing the pullback to be re-circulated as bonuses to corrupt and wealthy cronies, who keep the “give back” game recycling.
Since elites now consider that federal authority holds legal, legitimate power to effect wealth redistributions, even for purely crass political purposes, the next logical step is to fashion cyber means for redistributing wealth for purely political purposes.
The national (or international, corporate, inter-corporate, or international mafia) government or authority could simply buy influence from gullible and cheaply bribed muggles and future serfs by promising to make redistributions. It could choose to extend redistribution favors in whatever fashion it desired – to any among undocumented workers, residents, citizens, corporate workers, reparation-worthy persons, unions, or political (or foreign?) allies.
For example, governing authority, whether central or internationally elite, could decree that every person of age 18 or more is entitled to open a government or corporate “redistribution account” at any bank or corporation whose deposits are federally insured or whose market or political influence makes it "too big or too influential to fail." To whatever extent elites then deem necessary, favored groups could periodically be favored with “stimulus deposits,” to be decreed and effected at the flick of whim and computer entry. Each periodic stimulus deposit would be equivalent to printing money (or corporate coupons?) and giving it to favored groups. Whenever a politically acceptable transferee of such cyber payola wanted a representation in more tangible form, he could exchange his cyber money for a print-out at any properly certified outlet.
Of course, this reindeer cyber gift game would inflate the money supply, so it would take awhile for the populace to take it to the bosom of their full faith and credit. However, once a system of political capital “redistribution accounts” were implemented, anytime a stimulus panned out not to have been enough, central governors could simply and periodically inject more. If inflation (or politics?) began to lean out of control, the regime could invent means for reducing the money supply or for replacing and revaluing existing legal tender (sort of like an elite college can go back and add 0.333 to every graduate’s grade point average).
Obama-rules for accounting could be fundamentally rewritten, so we would have the expandable version of budgeting (sort of like Haggar pants). Indeed, once a Haggar-like budget were written, it may not need revision except in increments like 5 year plans.
Elites claiming such power would argue that they must be appointed for life or via non-politicized channels. After all, it would be too dangerous to have so much power depend upon the kind of promises contenders may find it expedient to make during the near erotic heat of electioneering.
Of course, similar “bright” elite ideas and techniques have always caused great turmoil and suffering. However, so the argument goes, such techniques have never been implemented “correctly,” on a coordinated, worldwide basis. On that account, elite economists (from Princeton?) may sell Haggar-budgeting to the hoi polloi -- sort of like the big bad wolf dressed up for Christmas in loose and cuddly granny clothes.
Elite advocates will say they could not be tempted to abuse such power, since their own wealth would necessarily depend upon nurturing a healthy and strong work force. However, what would not be mentioned by advocates for ruling the global economy by a NWM (new world mafia) of elites is that the quality of life for the work force – in terms of defense against fascists, longevity, leisure, and autonomy for the hoi polloi to pursue their own interests and opportunities – would be of little consequence to elites. Also not mentioned would be that, in the real world, elites would not act as a harmonious group of angels, concerned only to spread the greatest happiness to the greatest number.
Simply put, mankind has no power to change the world to remove the sting and motivation of competition, nor power to change the inherent, spiritual need to serve a purpose higher than serving the pleasure of fat-headed elitists.
Fundamentally, Agenda 21 and/or NWO are lies. They are not benign. They are inescapably meant to empower a NWM – one whose members consider the spiritual life of the little guys to be worth precisely zero.
Charitable Foundations Run By Elites
Progressives have already infiltrated to take over Congress, courts, journalism, entertainment, education, AARP, etc. Now they're on their way to taking over the most significant charities. Tie this in with the Church of Secular Humanism and the coup of rule under communist theology will be all but complete.
But ask: How many sacrifices of character must be made, on the road to becoming a billionaire? When these philanthropists say they are funding foundations as "charities," it would bear looking into what they mean by "charities." After floating to the top of a system, what is the temptation to devise ways to control the system itself? What is the temptation to "improve yourself" by pulling up the ladders, as opposed to improving the system? Even if you believed that all they really want to do is to give the world a hug, what would lead you to believe that they have the least clue about how to do that? Are you better off in a system that allows you to make your own way, or in one that gives you shackles ... for your own good?
But ask: How many sacrifices of character must be made, on the road to becoming a billionaire? When these philanthropists say they are funding foundations as "charities," it would bear looking into what they mean by "charities." After floating to the top of a system, what is the temptation to devise ways to control the system itself? What is the temptation to "improve yourself" by pulling up the ladders, as opposed to improving the system? Even if you believed that all they really want to do is to give the world a hug, what would lead you to believe that they have the least clue about how to do that? Are you better off in a system that allows you to make your own way, or in one that gives you shackles ... for your own good?
Purpose and Pursuit of Fulfillment
PURPOSE AND FULFILLMENT: If consciousness is fundamental to identity, then, within a single universal holism, how could there be more than “sum-whole” or “one collective unconscious?” Must each of us be a perspective of God? Must we each play a part in the purposes of God? Is the main purpose to reconcile God’s existential angst? How is that done, except by means of diversion, i.e., pretenses and appearances of smoke and mirrors and performance art, i.e., investing perspectives of identity in resolving aspects of “the Other,” i.e., one’s counter identity, i.e., the good vs. the bad, the beautiful vs. the ugly, the harmonious vs. the discordant, the truth vs. the deceit, the cooperative vs. the competitive, the creative vs. the destructive, the companionship of the whole vs. the parts vs. the sum, and the reconciling of the constraints of the complete with the continuous with the constant? Is it the main purpose of God to learn from how the parts that are us come to suffer, strive, and succeed? Is that how God and we pursue meaning and fulfillment, together, synchronously?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
In Whom Do We Trust?
To my intuition, mortals share what may as well be conceptualized as an unresolved and unknown set of unconscious fuzz (Jungian collective unconscious?). That Source (God?), which is fuzz to us, is the origin of all that synchronizes before us, in sequential manifestations of patterns, shape, focus, matter, and logos. Our varying, individuating perspectives constitute that which we consciously experience in meta sequencing, after that of which we are unconscious, i.e., the origin of our Will, has already designed and “decided.”
The reality we share -- as inferior, mortal perspectives of an encompassing, eternal whole -- is a constant, yet continuously changing, synthesis of subjectivity and objectivity. “Behind” that which we individuate, there abides a real synchronizing Source of reality, in respect of which the entire combination of all that we experience – subjectively and objectively – unfolds and finds expression. That which we experience and appreciate feeds back to, and affects, the Synchronizer. In that way, the Synchronizer cares for, relates to, and participates in, our experiences.
If so, what may that entail, in terms of math and bivalent (true vs. untrue) logic? How may the universe of the subjective relate to the universe of the objective? How may purpose, point of view, and context or frame of reference combine and react in order to allow us to communicate meaningfully about that which is assumed to be (1) indifferently random, (2) appreciably chosen, or (3) physically determined? Is any sequence “really” random, chosen, or physically determined – or do such concepts only convey meaning depending upon purpose, perspective, and context?
Does any valid conception of reality entail more than bivalent truth and non-truth? Ultimately, does matter reduce to Logos? Are there partitions and individuations of truth that depend upon purpose, perspective, and context? Is there a kind of “truth” or “non-truth” which abides only to the extent one approaches, or recedes from, that “Other,” which one pursues as fulfilling to oneself? What is the “truth” about running from the evil, ugly, or noisy in order to pursue and communicate about the good, beautiful, or musical?
Must a perspective, to be “scientific,” confine one with a subjective mind to bivalent truth values about a reality one must assume to be entirely reducible to “physics,” but which one may not prove to be so? Well, the “how” of technological advancement sometimes seems to dictate so. But the “why” of choices about how best to sustain a morally meaningful civilization does not. Therein lays a rub between those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the bivalent measurability of science versus those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the feedback-fluxing and ambivalent history of civilization.
Intuitively, God means to facilitate closer appreciation for how communication and appreciation are synchronized and fed back and forth between the perspectives of the whole and of the parts. By what process of design is this done? Through an evolutionary and recycling process that entails experiences of perspectives of birth, growth, demise, and death ... and rebirth.
This cycle of growth, corruption, and demise applies to all forms for expressions of consciousness and concepts, even to institutions and nations. The matter of America is being corrupted and changed before our eyes. The Idea of America will be steeled by the experience, and the Idea, in due turn, will return closer to its Source.
Is there a standard of morality that can save us from the despair engendered by radically relativistic (anarchic) or arbitrary (totalitarian) moral values? I think, yes. That standard is this: Be decently empathetic to one another in respect of a meta-Synchronizer. Stated alternatively, cooperate to assimilate and sustain civilization by which family friendly values can be meaningfully communicated among generations.
****
How we relate to God affects how God relates to us. But we are more than our bodies and brains. The Identity -- for each of us -- stretches in consciousness well beyond the apparent physical limits of our skins -- not magically or omnipotently, but in due course and time.
When we love, respect, and honor God, we believe. When we do not, we cause unnecessary pain for everyone, including ourselves. This is because our consciousness cannot flourish apart from the collecting consciousness of God. God uses the logos of carrots and sticks to help guide us back. Until we learn logic, God relies on superstition. Until we learn empiricism, God relies on logic. Until we bring intuition to consciousness, to fill holes that cannot otherwise be filled in reason, God relies on empiricism. Until we firmly accept God, God relies on intuition.
Regardless, the potential of that which we intuit as the Collective Unconscious seems trinitarian: Its holistic aspect is constant; its individuating aspect is continuous; its relational aspect is reconciling.
How may reasoned intuition suggest that the Judeo-Christian narrative is closer to the truth about God than the Mohammedan? Consider: Is God's purpose to guide us, to the extent we have been gifted with thinking minds and free will, to appreciate God as God abides and is intuitively pertinent? If so, God's pertinence is readily intuitable, in respect of God's being: existential accompanier; art communicator; empathy experiencer; care inspirer; civilizing performer; and synchronizer of feedback in meta relations among wholes and parts.
***
For seeking collective rights and duties, we can look mainly to God or to Big Gov. To the extent we unnecessarily replace God with Big Gov, we tend to increase problems. For assimilating or collectivizing mores, we ought to look more to traditional ideas about God that have worked well in history to assimilate happy, flourishing, and defensible civilizations.
The reality we share -- as inferior, mortal perspectives of an encompassing, eternal whole -- is a constant, yet continuously changing, synthesis of subjectivity and objectivity. “Behind” that which we individuate, there abides a real synchronizing Source of reality, in respect of which the entire combination of all that we experience – subjectively and objectively – unfolds and finds expression. That which we experience and appreciate feeds back to, and affects, the Synchronizer. In that way, the Synchronizer cares for, relates to, and participates in, our experiences.
If so, what may that entail, in terms of math and bivalent (true vs. untrue) logic? How may the universe of the subjective relate to the universe of the objective? How may purpose, point of view, and context or frame of reference combine and react in order to allow us to communicate meaningfully about that which is assumed to be (1) indifferently random, (2) appreciably chosen, or (3) physically determined? Is any sequence “really” random, chosen, or physically determined – or do such concepts only convey meaning depending upon purpose, perspective, and context?
Does any valid conception of reality entail more than bivalent truth and non-truth? Ultimately, does matter reduce to Logos? Are there partitions and individuations of truth that depend upon purpose, perspective, and context? Is there a kind of “truth” or “non-truth” which abides only to the extent one approaches, or recedes from, that “Other,” which one pursues as fulfilling to oneself? What is the “truth” about running from the evil, ugly, or noisy in order to pursue and communicate about the good, beautiful, or musical?
Must a perspective, to be “scientific,” confine one with a subjective mind to bivalent truth values about a reality one must assume to be entirely reducible to “physics,” but which one may not prove to be so? Well, the “how” of technological advancement sometimes seems to dictate so. But the “why” of choices about how best to sustain a morally meaningful civilization does not. Therein lays a rub between those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the bivalent measurability of science versus those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the feedback-fluxing and ambivalent history of civilization.
Intuitively, God means to facilitate closer appreciation for how communication and appreciation are synchronized and fed back and forth between the perspectives of the whole and of the parts. By what process of design is this done? Through an evolutionary and recycling process that entails experiences of perspectives of birth, growth, demise, and death ... and rebirth.
This cycle of growth, corruption, and demise applies to all forms for expressions of consciousness and concepts, even to institutions and nations. The matter of America is being corrupted and changed before our eyes. The Idea of America will be steeled by the experience, and the Idea, in due turn, will return closer to its Source.
Is there a standard of morality that can save us from the despair engendered by radically relativistic (anarchic) or arbitrary (totalitarian) moral values? I think, yes. That standard is this: Be decently empathetic to one another in respect of a meta-Synchronizer. Stated alternatively, cooperate to assimilate and sustain civilization by which family friendly values can be meaningfully communicated among generations.
****
How we relate to God affects how God relates to us. But we are more than our bodies and brains. The Identity -- for each of us -- stretches in consciousness well beyond the apparent physical limits of our skins -- not magically or omnipotently, but in due course and time.
When we love, respect, and honor God, we believe. When we do not, we cause unnecessary pain for everyone, including ourselves. This is because our consciousness cannot flourish apart from the collecting consciousness of God. God uses the logos of carrots and sticks to help guide us back. Until we learn logic, God relies on superstition. Until we learn empiricism, God relies on logic. Until we bring intuition to consciousness, to fill holes that cannot otherwise be filled in reason, God relies on empiricism. Until we firmly accept God, God relies on intuition.
Regardless, the potential of that which we intuit as the Collective Unconscious seems trinitarian: Its holistic aspect is constant; its individuating aspect is continuous; its relational aspect is reconciling.
How may reasoned intuition suggest that the Judeo-Christian narrative is closer to the truth about God than the Mohammedan? Consider: Is God's purpose to guide us, to the extent we have been gifted with thinking minds and free will, to appreciate God as God abides and is intuitively pertinent? If so, God's pertinence is readily intuitable, in respect of God's being: existential accompanier; art communicator; empathy experiencer; care inspirer; civilizing performer; and synchronizer of feedback in meta relations among wholes and parts.
***
For seeking collective rights and duties, we can look mainly to God or to Big Gov. To the extent we unnecessarily replace God with Big Gov, we tend to increase problems. For assimilating or collectivizing mores, we ought to look more to traditional ideas about God that have worked well in history to assimilate happy, flourishing, and defensible civilizations.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Obama's Base
Obama's Base:
African-Americans: Many black citizens support Obama because their worldview is: society victimized them; society must pay; they are now and forever entitled to be paid; and Obama understands their material entitlements because he is black.
Other Hyphenated-Americans: Many hyphenated citizens from South of the border and the third world support Obama because their worldview is: American style capitalism has imperialistically victimized them; America took matters that should be theirs; America is too weak to stop them, collectively, from taking it back; and Obama understands that capitalism and America’s power are illegitimate.
Collectivist Americans: Many collectivist-minded religious fascists and social-libertines (aka, useful idiots) support Obama because their worldview is: capitalism has victimized the world; capitalists take what is not rightfully theirs; capitalism is morally weak and illegitimate; and Obama understands that capitalism is materialistically unfair and morally and environmentally indefensible.
Narcissists and Sociopaths: Many elite narcissists and sociopathic opportunists support Obama because their worldview is: do-gooders are easily robbed and enslaved by pretending to feel their pain; there would be more reliable security for themselves and less turmoil in the world were its material wealth to be carved into corporatist territories, to be milked and ruled by a hierarchical syndicate of elites; science and natural selection dictate that the most ruthlessly elite must rule the easily deceived meek; and Obama is a prince among deceivers.
Obama’s Base: That’s Obama’s ideological base: Blacks, hyphenated Americans, useful idiots, and sociopathic opportunists. Factually, this materialistically envious base will always suffer setbacks under Obama-like rule. This is because Obama-like rule is fundamentally based on a lie, i.e., that there is no transcendentally existent basis for assimilating values and empathies higher than crass materialism. Nevertheless, the greater part of Obama’s base will always remain ideologically blinkered and envious. Defeating the Obama base will remain a herculean task for the foreseeable future. Obama will come and go. But the materialistically blinkered and amoral base for which he is a façade will long lurk in shadows and under rocks ... even as, in hyphenated pretense of being "Americans," they presently run most of our institutions.
African-Americans: Many black citizens support Obama because their worldview is: society victimized them; society must pay; they are now and forever entitled to be paid; and Obama understands their material entitlements because he is black.
Other Hyphenated-Americans: Many hyphenated citizens from South of the border and the third world support Obama because their worldview is: American style capitalism has imperialistically victimized them; America took matters that should be theirs; America is too weak to stop them, collectively, from taking it back; and Obama understands that capitalism and America’s power are illegitimate.
Collectivist Americans: Many collectivist-minded religious fascists and social-libertines (aka, useful idiots) support Obama because their worldview is: capitalism has victimized the world; capitalists take what is not rightfully theirs; capitalism is morally weak and illegitimate; and Obama understands that capitalism is materialistically unfair and morally and environmentally indefensible.
Narcissists and Sociopaths: Many elite narcissists and sociopathic opportunists support Obama because their worldview is: do-gooders are easily robbed and enslaved by pretending to feel their pain; there would be more reliable security for themselves and less turmoil in the world were its material wealth to be carved into corporatist territories, to be milked and ruled by a hierarchical syndicate of elites; science and natural selection dictate that the most ruthlessly elite must rule the easily deceived meek; and Obama is a prince among deceivers.
Obama’s Base: That’s Obama’s ideological base: Blacks, hyphenated Americans, useful idiots, and sociopathic opportunists. Factually, this materialistically envious base will always suffer setbacks under Obama-like rule. This is because Obama-like rule is fundamentally based on a lie, i.e., that there is no transcendentally existent basis for assimilating values and empathies higher than crass materialism. Nevertheless, the greater part of Obama’s base will always remain ideologically blinkered and envious. Defeating the Obama base will remain a herculean task for the foreseeable future. Obama will come and go. But the materialistically blinkered and amoral base for which he is a façade will long lurk in shadows and under rocks ... even as, in hyphenated pretense of being "Americans," they presently run most of our institutions.
Hedge Fund Cons
Hedge Fund Cons:
Are we in the era of hedge fund bubbles? Is this the sure path to hedge fund profits: Invest in every side of a situation, roil it with division and uncertainty, and have politicians on the payroll ready to take a dive in whatever audacious direction the most profits are to be made. Right now, how many trillions are to be made by keeping America roiled and ready to tip? Hedge fund connivers may be good with the smiles and the pretense, but are they really looking out for "hope and change" for the little guys? Maybe roundtable guys who got burned by Obama just aren't ready for the level of corruption that is regnant in the regime.
Are we in the era of hedge fund bubbles? Is this the sure path to hedge fund profits: Invest in every side of a situation, roil it with division and uncertainty, and have politicians on the payroll ready to take a dive in whatever audacious direction the most profits are to be made. Right now, how many trillions are to be made by keeping America roiled and ready to tip? Hedge fund connivers may be good with the smiles and the pretense, but are they really looking out for "hope and change" for the little guys? Maybe roundtable guys who got burned by Obama just aren't ready for the level of corruption that is regnant in the regime.
Whore Media
Whore Media:
From A.T. -- What a succinct explanation of Olasky’s concepts of disguised subjectivity and strategic ritual! Such concepts are essential because subjectivity and objectivity are so inherently interwoven, to present a wide assortment of contexts. To the extent a publication is profit centered, its point of view will slant to make its readers and advertisers want more. To the extent a publication is ideologically centered, its point of view will slant to make its owners and standard bearers want more. To translate news in clearer context, it helps to appreciate each publication's readers, owners, and political causes. To discern that, it helps to read from a diverse variety of sources.
For decent conveyance of news, there is an ongoing war. That war is between a libertine philosophy and a decent conservative philosophy.
The libertine philosophy promotes mindless entitlementarianism and hedonism, while rationalizing repression of individual, responsible thought under collectivist secular (communist) or sectarian (Islamic) regimes, which demand abject subservience to elite, self-justifying stand-ins for State or God. The conservative philosophy honors individual expression under traditions that assimilate sustainable respect for human dignity under a conceptualization of transcendently existent values (aka God).
To hope to translate news in any way that is fair, balanced, or principled to decent civilizing purposes, it helps to respect a philosophy for what is needed in order to comprise a decent civilization.
From A.T. -- What a succinct explanation of Olasky’s concepts of disguised subjectivity and strategic ritual! Such concepts are essential because subjectivity and objectivity are so inherently interwoven, to present a wide assortment of contexts. To the extent a publication is profit centered, its point of view will slant to make its readers and advertisers want more. To the extent a publication is ideologically centered, its point of view will slant to make its owners and standard bearers want more. To translate news in clearer context, it helps to appreciate each publication's readers, owners, and political causes. To discern that, it helps to read from a diverse variety of sources.
For decent conveyance of news, there is an ongoing war. That war is between a libertine philosophy and a decent conservative philosophy.
The libertine philosophy promotes mindless entitlementarianism and hedonism, while rationalizing repression of individual, responsible thought under collectivist secular (communist) or sectarian (Islamic) regimes, which demand abject subservience to elite, self-justifying stand-ins for State or God. The conservative philosophy honors individual expression under traditions that assimilate sustainable respect for human dignity under a conceptualization of transcendently existent values (aka God).
To hope to translate news in any way that is fair, balanced, or principled to decent civilizing purposes, it helps to respect a philosophy for what is needed in order to comprise a decent civilization.
Transcendent Moral Order
Does a Transcendent Order based in Logic implicate inherent Consciousness?
What, if anything, can account for the existence of logic? Can non-logic account? Or must logic always have existed? Has existence been, tied to a quality of logic, only insofar as logic has been in being?
If logic has always existed, it did not have an author – either conscious or non-conscious. But, may that with which logic abides, of which logic is an aspect, be either conscious or unconscious?
Is choosing whether to conceptualize consciousness as a necessary aspect of existence, is such choice of conceptualization a function of intuition, perspective, and/or experience? If a function of intuition, what is “intuition?”
Ask: But for laws of logic (such as pertaining to identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle), could a “rock in itself” exist? Well, one may assume it could. But, the assumption could be more in respect of a concept of a rock-in-itself than an actual rock-in-itself. In either case, a “rock-in-itself,” by definition, would have no knowable identity, beyond conceptual intuition or assumption. The only way the concept of a rock-in-itself can be expressed is with a statement (whether spoken or thought), appreciable to a mind, which respects superior laws of logic.
Regarding that which provided and continues to provide the superior laws of logic: Is IT, for moral purposes, best conceptualized as (1) nothingness, (2) inanimate existent randomness, or (3) consciousness? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EYQHd4LeKU&feature=related.
What concepts of morality may reasonably be derivative of a concept of eternally existent consciousness?
What, if anything, can account for the existence of logic? Can non-logic account? Or must logic always have existed? Has existence been, tied to a quality of logic, only insofar as logic has been in being?
If logic has always existed, it did not have an author – either conscious or non-conscious. But, may that with which logic abides, of which logic is an aspect, be either conscious or unconscious?
Is choosing whether to conceptualize consciousness as a necessary aspect of existence, is such choice of conceptualization a function of intuition, perspective, and/or experience? If a function of intuition, what is “intuition?”
Ask: But for laws of logic (such as pertaining to identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle), could a “rock in itself” exist? Well, one may assume it could. But, the assumption could be more in respect of a concept of a rock-in-itself than an actual rock-in-itself. In either case, a “rock-in-itself,” by definition, would have no knowable identity, beyond conceptual intuition or assumption. The only way the concept of a rock-in-itself can be expressed is with a statement (whether spoken or thought), appreciable to a mind, which respects superior laws of logic.
Regarding that which provided and continues to provide the superior laws of logic: Is IT, for moral purposes, best conceptualized as (1) nothingness, (2) inanimate existent randomness, or (3) consciousness? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EYQHd4LeKU&feature=related.
What concepts of morality may reasonably be derivative of a concept of eternally existent consciousness?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Afghanistan
What is Obama's purpose in Afghanistan? What is he advancing? He has no purpose to advance America's interests. How can good American troops hope to achieve anything honorable under this CINC? Obama does not believe in a representative republic. He believes in feeding illegal throngs of new voters with massive disinformation under state controlled media. Afghanis are not stupid. What is their regime learning from Obama's? What are our troops being used to spread and prop up? Does it not appear that our Marxist Muslim in Chief is merely helping Afghanis to make a better mix of communism with Islam? What does Israel or Western Civilization get out of this deal? Well, we get our economy broken and our good Americans depleted. This is a deal made for the devil. There is very little we can do until we sweep the ProgCommies out of D.C. Everything else is a holding action. In his bones, McChrystal probably knew that.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The Little Girl Who Wanted to Replace God
The Little Girl Who Wanted to Replace God:
The Source of Beingness consists of an essence which expresses an aspect that is qualitatively different from the material universe which it sources. The “Source sources;” that is, God is both a noun and a verb. That qualitative difference makes it meaningless to speculate about what material may have “caused” God to materialize. God can be conceptualized as consisting with a meta aspect that is beyond the limits of material perspective or empiricism.
Given that we postulate a first sequential entry (“Big Bang”) of the identity that is our material universe, our notion of science or material based empiricism provides no assistance for measuring or sequencing that which came before that which appears to us as space-time occupied by “our” material universe.
It is oft said that we are the stuff of stars. Fair enough, as far as that goes. But what is the stuff of stars? Ultimately, is it not intuitive that there is a Source of stuff that is “beyond stuff?” If so, does it have a qualitative aspect that allows it to resonate, participate with, or be empathetic with us, whatever we are, whatever consciousness of identity is? If IT could source the universe, why suppose IT does not participate with us?
Material, cause-based reasoning can hardly answer such questions, nor answer the probability or provability of any “theory.”
So, for choosing that which we “should do,” what are we left with? Some are left with an intuition of a meta identity or consciousness of which each of us is only a perspective, which desires or supports that each of us should be duly empathetic and respectful of the other, and which desires that we should seek to promote and defend civilization that is sustainable to such purposes. (Sounds close to mainstream Judeo-Christian values.)
So, for such purposes, which ideal of government is best suited: An ideal of (1) a collectivized population, forced under color of law imposed by elites, or an ideal of (2) representative governance, under which decent, experienced, and wise adults, guided by faith, empathy, and charity, seek to promote good will among each generation of mankind?
Between those two ideals, what should be done by government (elite oligarchists and their bureaucrats), and what should be done by individuals (decent people free to choose their representatives)? Is not ideal number 1 compatible with worship of matter (faux moral rationalization based on material empiricism, as if “the greatest material good for the greatest number” were actually measurable!), while ideal number 2 is compatible with worship of God? What lines and standards of decency, if any, will be assimilated or respected by one who idealizes number 1? That is the choice Whittaker Chambers struggled with: Man or God; Communist dictate or representative freedom?
Once dictate is chosen or rationalized, so the trump is always that which the elite hierarchy “knows” to be best, then how can a non-elite’s life have any substantial or comparative value? Indeed, how could the lives of even 20 million non-elites be worth slowing a Stalin, Mao, Fuhrer, Fidel, or Dear Leader? Indeed, how could “character” be reduced to empirical, material measure, without turning the concept of character into an upside down obscenity?
Once someone, such as Obama, deems himself wise, good, and anointed enough to justify his headlong, headstrong forcing of his “moral” regime on as much of Western Civilization as possible, what is his true “character,” if not an obscenity? What is the “character” of Islamic dhimminization and forced mind reduction, if not an obscene outrage against the human mind and spirit? What is the “character” of our Dino and Rino Progs who fail to put a stop to a continuing course of insults and Obamanations by our Marxist Muslim Imposter in Chief, who has not the least clue nor appreciation for what it means to be an American?
The Source of Beingness consists of an essence which expresses an aspect that is qualitatively different from the material universe which it sources. The “Source sources;” that is, God is both a noun and a verb. That qualitative difference makes it meaningless to speculate about what material may have “caused” God to materialize. God can be conceptualized as consisting with a meta aspect that is beyond the limits of material perspective or empiricism.
Given that we postulate a first sequential entry (“Big Bang”) of the identity that is our material universe, our notion of science or material based empiricism provides no assistance for measuring or sequencing that which came before that which appears to us as space-time occupied by “our” material universe.
It is oft said that we are the stuff of stars. Fair enough, as far as that goes. But what is the stuff of stars? Ultimately, is it not intuitive that there is a Source of stuff that is “beyond stuff?” If so, does it have a qualitative aspect that allows it to resonate, participate with, or be empathetic with us, whatever we are, whatever consciousness of identity is? If IT could source the universe, why suppose IT does not participate with us?
Material, cause-based reasoning can hardly answer such questions, nor answer the probability or provability of any “theory.”
So, for choosing that which we “should do,” what are we left with? Some are left with an intuition of a meta identity or consciousness of which each of us is only a perspective, which desires or supports that each of us should be duly empathetic and respectful of the other, and which desires that we should seek to promote and defend civilization that is sustainable to such purposes. (Sounds close to mainstream Judeo-Christian values.)
So, for such purposes, which ideal of government is best suited: An ideal of (1) a collectivized population, forced under color of law imposed by elites, or an ideal of (2) representative governance, under which decent, experienced, and wise adults, guided by faith, empathy, and charity, seek to promote good will among each generation of mankind?
Between those two ideals, what should be done by government (elite oligarchists and their bureaucrats), and what should be done by individuals (decent people free to choose their representatives)? Is not ideal number 1 compatible with worship of matter (faux moral rationalization based on material empiricism, as if “the greatest material good for the greatest number” were actually measurable!), while ideal number 2 is compatible with worship of God? What lines and standards of decency, if any, will be assimilated or respected by one who idealizes number 1? That is the choice Whittaker Chambers struggled with: Man or God; Communist dictate or representative freedom?
Once dictate is chosen or rationalized, so the trump is always that which the elite hierarchy “knows” to be best, then how can a non-elite’s life have any substantial or comparative value? Indeed, how could the lives of even 20 million non-elites be worth slowing a Stalin, Mao, Fuhrer, Fidel, or Dear Leader? Indeed, how could “character” be reduced to empirical, material measure, without turning the concept of character into an upside down obscenity?
Once someone, such as Obama, deems himself wise, good, and anointed enough to justify his headlong, headstrong forcing of his “moral” regime on as much of Western Civilization as possible, what is his true “character,” if not an obscenity? What is the “character” of Islamic dhimminization and forced mind reduction, if not an obscene outrage against the human mind and spirit? What is the “character” of our Dino and Rino Progs who fail to put a stop to a continuing course of insults and Obamanations by our Marxist Muslim Imposter in Chief, who has not the least clue nor appreciation for what it means to be an American?
Little Girl Minority Cultures
Little Girl Minority Cultures:
Obama's real rage is that anyone else should have more material possessions than he. To make sure that is rectified, he pretends to want to ensure everyone gets an equal share. However, by definition, those who have wrested power and potential to decide what is equal already and inherently have an unequal share. Inequality in potential necessarily becomes inequality in manifestation.
Obama is not a do-righter; he is an intrusive, cowardly, effeminate bully. His only power is derivative of having gathered supporters among a massive throng of intrusive little girls and little girly men, raised by little girly elites. The technique in harnessing cowardly, envious people from a variety of co-dependent, effeminate cultures had been perfected long before Obama came along.
As leaders, women can be great. Little girls, not so much.
****
For Obama, everything is ideological. If a thing can't be used to push ideology, it isn't important. Any problem worth confronting is worth using for a comprehensive, ideological purpose. Big boys and girls grow out of this stage. But Obama and his die hard base are forever caught in the stage of being a little girl, playing with her dollhouse, making sure all her dollies are presentable and given equal use of all the facilities. We're his dolls, for his feminine side. Relax and enjoy the feeling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5OlolbLXvw
****
An independent, middle class person of faith does not ordinarily need to gang up in order to secure a meaningful life. Apparently, little children do, routinely. This is not right when unions do it. It is not right when special interest corporatists do it. This propensity to justify ganging up is what unites the collectivized class with those who collectivize them. It's why low class Dems may as well love their plantation elitists. If we want a decent, lawful society, we need to push childish adults in bodies only (AIBO's) and the cultures that harbor them to grow out of their girly, co-dependent complexes. The more AIBO's demolish the middle class, the faster we join hands and jump over a cliff. Girly co-dependents will remain inassimilable to American values so long as politics makes it profitable for them to hang onto their minority culture, gang-style divisiveness. The reduction of an independent middle class is the destruction of the American idea. Without a strong middle class, there will be no one to support the little girls who never grew up.
Obama's real rage is that anyone else should have more material possessions than he. To make sure that is rectified, he pretends to want to ensure everyone gets an equal share. However, by definition, those who have wrested power and potential to decide what is equal already and inherently have an unequal share. Inequality in potential necessarily becomes inequality in manifestation.
Obama is not a do-righter; he is an intrusive, cowardly, effeminate bully. His only power is derivative of having gathered supporters among a massive throng of intrusive little girls and little girly men, raised by little girly elites. The technique in harnessing cowardly, envious people from a variety of co-dependent, effeminate cultures had been perfected long before Obama came along.
As leaders, women can be great. Little girls, not so much.
****
For Obama, everything is ideological. If a thing can't be used to push ideology, it isn't important. Any problem worth confronting is worth using for a comprehensive, ideological purpose. Big boys and girls grow out of this stage. But Obama and his die hard base are forever caught in the stage of being a little girl, playing with her dollhouse, making sure all her dollies are presentable and given equal use of all the facilities. We're his dolls, for his feminine side. Relax and enjoy the feeling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5OlolbLXvw
****
An independent, middle class person of faith does not ordinarily need to gang up in order to secure a meaningful life. Apparently, little children do, routinely. This is not right when unions do it. It is not right when special interest corporatists do it. This propensity to justify ganging up is what unites the collectivized class with those who collectivize them. It's why low class Dems may as well love their plantation elitists. If we want a decent, lawful society, we need to push childish adults in bodies only (AIBO's) and the cultures that harbor them to grow out of their girly, co-dependent complexes. The more AIBO's demolish the middle class, the faster we join hands and jump over a cliff. Girly co-dependents will remain inassimilable to American values so long as politics makes it profitable for them to hang onto their minority culture, gang-style divisiveness. The reduction of an independent middle class is the destruction of the American idea. Without a strong middle class, there will be no one to support the little girls who never grew up.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Religious Mind Rot
Religious Mind Rot:
A Muslim who succeeds in framing another as an apostate likely acquires a kind of power, built on fear. Like a made man, or a "man of honor," who must not be messed with. So prey are looked for, even to frame, if necessary. But since the question of belief or apostasy is so inherently subjective, a predator must look for prey who can be easily defeated. Even though the proof is subjective, it is easier than proving a superstition, such as whether one is a witch who communes with the actual body of a devil. Still, if one accuses the wrong (more powerfully connected) fanatic, one may find the tables turned. So of course no Muslim will accuse an ambivalent President of apostasy.
The more objective question is this: What would Obama do any differently if he in fact were a Muslim?
A Muslim who succeeds in framing another as an apostate likely acquires a kind of power, built on fear. Like a made man, or a "man of honor," who must not be messed with. So prey are looked for, even to frame, if necessary. But since the question of belief or apostasy is so inherently subjective, a predator must look for prey who can be easily defeated. Even though the proof is subjective, it is easier than proving a superstition, such as whether one is a witch who communes with the actual body of a devil. Still, if one accuses the wrong (more powerfully connected) fanatic, one may find the tables turned. So of course no Muslim will accuse an ambivalent President of apostasy.
The more objective question is this: What would Obama do any differently if he in fact were a Muslim?
Sunday, June 20, 2010
False Liberty and Stimulation by Sirens
Libertarians, libertines, liberals -- and false liberty in being stimulated by Sirens:
We see problems in trying to police pleasure habits of long conditioned adults. So, must society sacrifice each succeeding generation to the unfolding pleasure whims of the previous? Insofar as science cannot find will or reason to justify moral limits, should spiritual insight or vision?
Should a culture encourage gay partners to adopt children? If the test were only whether specific children would be better off, it becomes easier to pass, especially once society has produced slums of pleasure addicts, many of whom see children as materials and fixes. As moral slums define deviancy down, should there come to be no lines? Who should say, from what authority? Is there authority, beyond small gods of material fairness and immediate gratification?
A culture without constraints in modesty that discovers pleasures (hormones, sex, drugs, sweets, adrenalin, power, or collective delusion) will indulge until depleted or satiated. The culture will rewire and rationalize itself, to “justify” assimilating increasing amounts of pleasure sources. But if pleasure is the justification, why should reasoning be needed? Even so, power will pass to the most passionate about the rightness of their pleasures.
As the needs of gland-driven denizens increase, more pleasure sources become needed to sustain increasing addictions. Inhabitants, looking to their most defining desires, will lose self control and sense of value or proportion as rewiring leads them to trade responsibility and freedom in exchange for every gland based pleasure. What moral assimilation can remain? What lines can stand sacred? What center of decency can hold to sustain or defend the next generation?
It makes no moral sense for libertine leaders to prescribe mainly as pleasure addicts prefer -- especially insofar as culture becomes comprised mainly of children in body or spirit, looking for approval from blinkered adults.
Absent respect for a higher and decent source of values, every culture of differently-wired adults will find little hope of sustainable happiness or meaningful purpose. There is no nice or rational cure for pleasure worship.
We see problems in trying to police pleasure habits of long conditioned adults. So, must society sacrifice each succeeding generation to the unfolding pleasure whims of the previous? Insofar as science cannot find will or reason to justify moral limits, should spiritual insight or vision?
Should a culture encourage gay partners to adopt children? If the test were only whether specific children would be better off, it becomes easier to pass, especially once society has produced slums of pleasure addicts, many of whom see children as materials and fixes. As moral slums define deviancy down, should there come to be no lines? Who should say, from what authority? Is there authority, beyond small gods of material fairness and immediate gratification?
A culture without constraints in modesty that discovers pleasures (hormones, sex, drugs, sweets, adrenalin, power, or collective delusion) will indulge until depleted or satiated. The culture will rewire and rationalize itself, to “justify” assimilating increasing amounts of pleasure sources. But if pleasure is the justification, why should reasoning be needed? Even so, power will pass to the most passionate about the rightness of their pleasures.
As the needs of gland-driven denizens increase, more pleasure sources become needed to sustain increasing addictions. Inhabitants, looking to their most defining desires, will lose self control and sense of value or proportion as rewiring leads them to trade responsibility and freedom in exchange for every gland based pleasure. What moral assimilation can remain? What lines can stand sacred? What center of decency can hold to sustain or defend the next generation?
It makes no moral sense for libertine leaders to prescribe mainly as pleasure addicts prefer -- especially insofar as culture becomes comprised mainly of children in body or spirit, looking for approval from blinkered adults.
Absent respect for a higher and decent source of values, every culture of differently-wired adults will find little hope of sustainable happiness or meaningful purpose. There is no nice or rational cure for pleasure worship.
Education of a Progressive
The Education of a Progressive:
Regarding truth in advertising and warranties: What is the main purpose that should drive education? Is it (1) to improve the lives of others, or is it (2) to facilitate temporary good feelings and highs among participants? If (1), then warranties would help diminish the ranks of snake oil artists.
If (1), then with hands on supervision, some can be satisfied with learning rote, mechanical, or productive trades -- and some cannot. Some can be trained further, to develop interests and capacities for lifetimes of exploring science or acquiring wisdom -- and some cannot. Apart from needing labs, those who reach that stage have more need for parlay among peers, but often less need for private tutoring. They can teach themselves from readily available resources in libraries and on the internet. If they lack such ability, they may well be wasting their time and money.
For those who have such ability, much of the gigantic cost of higher education seems wasted -- unless there are offsetting factors and purposes, such as learning mores for being accepted into a pack network for promoting members. Has the leading role for education become that of teaching wolf pups how to make the signs and compromises that are required in order to find their places in a party for managing and thinning the collective herd, as needed? How is it that wolves readily discern and promote their own?
Upon reaching beyond “how’s” and into moral “why’s,” one crosses from the science of materials into the wisdom of choices. There is no science of “best moral choices,” although there is wisdom to be acquired. Even so, there is money to be made in convincing dupes otherwise. That money vests in creating self interested institutions that lobby to require that only their certified graduates in “sciences” of art, education, psychology, sociology, politics, and law can be licensed or recognized for practice in their various vocations and professions. (Slogan: “science will win.”) The consequence is that aspiring workers and herd animals have no choice, if they wish to become licensed, but to pay to have others fill their minds, often with tripe.
This forces people to endure agenda-driven training camps, well into adult lives. This presents opportunities for political organizers, collectivists, activists, and those wolves who fund and use them. Philanthropists who endow education programs and pay lobbyists can mold and collect aspiring workers -- like dolls for dollhouses. It’s a way to reinforce feelings of security about one’s place in the pack.
Perhaps the best example is in the field of education, which has become more akin to a field for indoctrination into social collectivism (i.e., big gov entitlementarianism to do your own diversified thing so long as its “green”) -- minus higher or assimilating values. After all, who are more docile and less protected against being fleeced than those who have been prepped to accept Big Gov?
Regarding truth in advertising and warranties: What is the main purpose that should drive education? Is it (1) to improve the lives of others, or is it (2) to facilitate temporary good feelings and highs among participants? If (1), then warranties would help diminish the ranks of snake oil artists.
If (1), then with hands on supervision, some can be satisfied with learning rote, mechanical, or productive trades -- and some cannot. Some can be trained further, to develop interests and capacities for lifetimes of exploring science or acquiring wisdom -- and some cannot. Apart from needing labs, those who reach that stage have more need for parlay among peers, but often less need for private tutoring. They can teach themselves from readily available resources in libraries and on the internet. If they lack such ability, they may well be wasting their time and money.
For those who have such ability, much of the gigantic cost of higher education seems wasted -- unless there are offsetting factors and purposes, such as learning mores for being accepted into a pack network for promoting members. Has the leading role for education become that of teaching wolf pups how to make the signs and compromises that are required in order to find their places in a party for managing and thinning the collective herd, as needed? How is it that wolves readily discern and promote their own?
Upon reaching beyond “how’s” and into moral “why’s,” one crosses from the science of materials into the wisdom of choices. There is no science of “best moral choices,” although there is wisdom to be acquired. Even so, there is money to be made in convincing dupes otherwise. That money vests in creating self interested institutions that lobby to require that only their certified graduates in “sciences” of art, education, psychology, sociology, politics, and law can be licensed or recognized for practice in their various vocations and professions. (Slogan: “science will win.”) The consequence is that aspiring workers and herd animals have no choice, if they wish to become licensed, but to pay to have others fill their minds, often with tripe.
This forces people to endure agenda-driven training camps, well into adult lives. This presents opportunities for political organizers, collectivists, activists, and those wolves who fund and use them. Philanthropists who endow education programs and pay lobbyists can mold and collect aspiring workers -- like dolls for dollhouses. It’s a way to reinforce feelings of security about one’s place in the pack.
Perhaps the best example is in the field of education, which has become more akin to a field for indoctrination into social collectivism (i.e., big gov entitlementarianism to do your own diversified thing so long as its “green”) -- minus higher or assimilating values. After all, who are more docile and less protected against being fleeced than those who have been prepped to accept Big Gov?
Party Discipline
Party Discipline:
Suppose an attorney were representing a governmental entity in a personal injury, damages, or condemnation lawsuit. Say he let his opponent know he had some smoking information that could be passed on, or pursued, or not -- at discretion. The opponent hints it could be worthwhile to take a dive. Maybe even a Rezko-like back door real estate deal. Well, there tend to be other eyes, so I doubt that kind of thing is all that common in most venues.
In Obama's case, however, how many watchdog eyes from Congress are checking on him? How many ways does he have to "make offers that can't be refused" (knowwhutimean)? How many Chicago teachers does he have, to show him how it's done? How many "principled" believers in representative governance has he appointed to help him -- versus unchecked elitist collectivists, crisis opportunists, and ends-rationalizing comrades? It's all for the movement, comrade (and those who run it).
BTW -- Why do Dems now have so much party discipline? Does it have anything to do with the fact that they have gone so far left as to be indistinguishable from communist party members and activists? After all, who has more party "discipline" (and less respect for representing the interests of the middle class) than true-believing commies?
Suppose an attorney were representing a governmental entity in a personal injury, damages, or condemnation lawsuit. Say he let his opponent know he had some smoking information that could be passed on, or pursued, or not -- at discretion. The opponent hints it could be worthwhile to take a dive. Maybe even a Rezko-like back door real estate deal. Well, there tend to be other eyes, so I doubt that kind of thing is all that common in most venues.
In Obama's case, however, how many watchdog eyes from Congress are checking on him? How many ways does he have to "make offers that can't be refused" (knowwhutimean)? How many Chicago teachers does he have, to show him how it's done? How many "principled" believers in representative governance has he appointed to help him -- versus unchecked elitist collectivists, crisis opportunists, and ends-rationalizing comrades? It's all for the movement, comrade (and those who run it).
BTW -- Why do Dems now have so much party discipline? Does it have anything to do with the fact that they have gone so far left as to be indistinguishable from communist party members and activists? After all, who has more party "discipline" (and less respect for representing the interests of the middle class) than true-believing commies?
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Elites, Agenda 21, and NWO
An adolescent, an egghead, and a “twelver,” each carrying a 9 mm Glock, meet in an alley. The egghead suggests they each, in a spirit of enlightened good will, lay down their arms, and offers to go first. What result?
The N.W.O. script propagates an adolescent misunderstanding of the limits of godless intellect for “finally solving” and rebuilding nations (even worlds) in the images of fantasies of egghead intellectuals and nether-world elites.
These “benevolent” elites are salivating -- in anticipation of their international, oligarchic, corporatist, despotic rule -- that they can and should drag into one tossed salad (potful of putrid slop) -- kicking and screaming -- all potential dupes, fascists, and despots (i.e., religious fanatics, collectivist sociopaths, Neanderthal slavers, environmental despoilers, libertarian stoners, and liberty loving conservatives).
Only adolescents and eggheads should imagine that spreading wealth and power to non-representative regimes is a recipe for meaningful harmony, as opposed to a fireball. Only adolescents and eggheads should imagine that the undermining of American representative or Israeli parliamentary republicanism avails a path for benevolent, meaningful, elitist oligarchy.
Does a wise person or parent of “enlightened self interest" sacrifice independence to, and give guns, money, or influence to, an obnoxious, incorrigible, self-entitling, thug child? No, but an egghead does.
The N.W.O. script propagates an adolescent misunderstanding of the limits of godless intellect for “finally solving” and rebuilding nations (even worlds) in the images of fantasies of egghead intellectuals and nether-world elites.
These “benevolent” elites are salivating -- in anticipation of their international, oligarchic, corporatist, despotic rule -- that they can and should drag into one tossed salad (potful of putrid slop) -- kicking and screaming -- all potential dupes, fascists, and despots (i.e., religious fanatics, collectivist sociopaths, Neanderthal slavers, environmental despoilers, libertarian stoners, and liberty loving conservatives).
Only adolescents and eggheads should imagine that spreading wealth and power to non-representative regimes is a recipe for meaningful harmony, as opposed to a fireball. Only adolescents and eggheads should imagine that the undermining of American representative or Israeli parliamentary republicanism avails a path for benevolent, meaningful, elitist oligarchy.
Does a wise person or parent of “enlightened self interest" sacrifice independence to, and give guns, money, or influence to, an obnoxious, incorrigible, self-entitling, thug child? No, but an egghead does.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Greedy Science v. Social Wisdom and Meta Intuition
Limits of Science v. Social Wisdom and Meta Intuition:
Re: “Science will win.”
Sigh. In what fields? The scientific method will advance our learning about HOW to manipulate measurable and predictable relations among physical materials. What science will not answer is WHY or for what purpose we should choose to design or manipulate anything.
When single minded, single dimensional individuals say things like “science will win,” it gives aid and comfort to those who are so frustrated with the seeming indifference of the material world that they want either to destroy it with anarchism or to reduce humanity to nothing but organic robots for experiencing glandular pleasures. Given no higher meaning, why strive for anything other than to “eat, drink, and be merry?”
This attitude gives a hook for elites to say they have studied every moral problem and determined “scientifically” what is best for the rest of us. Many folks, to contribute to science, become singularly focused and thus out of touch with wider aspects of beingness. They can make great scientists, but as to what is needed to assimilate responsible citizenry, they may have little clue.
All the realms that make human life worthwhile – the realms of man-made law, politics, economics, purposefulness, religion, spirituality, music, and art – are not based primarily in science. They are “soft or dreary sciences.” They can be enhanced by empiricism, but the questions pertaining to why and what we should choose to do in such realms will best be addressed not by “empiricists who know best,” but by individuals who are wisely receptive to their responsibility for participating in making their own choices and being accountable to their own intuitive sense of a higher Source or meta Standard. Even Hawking participates in soft wisdom, implicitly, although he seems prone not to publicly recognize it. That is, something more than mere empiricism drives Hawking’s purposefulness.
As to the vastness of the universe being “evidence” of no higher Conscious Source: Lol! What about the infinite vastness of potential beyond what is presented to our present experience? What a grand, squint-both-ways, non-sequitur posing as “evidence!” It is hardly surprising that such a way of thinking has been appropriated by someone who has devoted his life based on an assumption … for which he takes his existential predicament to be proof. What a grand example of the fallacy of proof by assumption!
But what if spirituality is not a matter of scientific, empirical, materialistic proof? What if, so far as we are concerned, spirituality is an intuitively experienced receptivity?
Re: “Science will win.”
Sigh. In what fields? The scientific method will advance our learning about HOW to manipulate measurable and predictable relations among physical materials. What science will not answer is WHY or for what purpose we should choose to design or manipulate anything.
When single minded, single dimensional individuals say things like “science will win,” it gives aid and comfort to those who are so frustrated with the seeming indifference of the material world that they want either to destroy it with anarchism or to reduce humanity to nothing but organic robots for experiencing glandular pleasures. Given no higher meaning, why strive for anything other than to “eat, drink, and be merry?”
This attitude gives a hook for elites to say they have studied every moral problem and determined “scientifically” what is best for the rest of us. Many folks, to contribute to science, become singularly focused and thus out of touch with wider aspects of beingness. They can make great scientists, but as to what is needed to assimilate responsible citizenry, they may have little clue.
All the realms that make human life worthwhile – the realms of man-made law, politics, economics, purposefulness, religion, spirituality, music, and art – are not based primarily in science. They are “soft or dreary sciences.” They can be enhanced by empiricism, but the questions pertaining to why and what we should choose to do in such realms will best be addressed not by “empiricists who know best,” but by individuals who are wisely receptive to their responsibility for participating in making their own choices and being accountable to their own intuitive sense of a higher Source or meta Standard. Even Hawking participates in soft wisdom, implicitly, although he seems prone not to publicly recognize it. That is, something more than mere empiricism drives Hawking’s purposefulness.
As to the vastness of the universe being “evidence” of no higher Conscious Source: Lol! What about the infinite vastness of potential beyond what is presented to our present experience? What a grand, squint-both-ways, non-sequitur posing as “evidence!” It is hardly surprising that such a way of thinking has been appropriated by someone who has devoted his life based on an assumption … for which he takes his existential predicament to be proof. What a grand example of the fallacy of proof by assumption!
But what if spirituality is not a matter of scientific, empirical, materialistic proof? What if, so far as we are concerned, spirituality is an intuitively experienced receptivity?
Center Cannot Hold
Center Cannot Hold:
From A.T. -- Tomas, Re: "That is not what is happening today. It appears that some one, the political elite or the corporate elite, are trying hard to destroy the hand that feeds them. Their motivation eludes me. What is occurring in this country and world wide is not logical. Or am I just too ignorant to discern the reasoning?"
Well, being unable to discern the logic or reasoning is not ignorant when there is no logic or reason to be discerned. Yeah, the logic is "hard." That's because, though logic may help, much of what ails us is beyond logic. Even oligarchs and billionaires panic, scheme, and give vent to emotions. What ails us is that there is no center that is holding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3daV5pu741o
This is because we have become too transfixed by science, useful though it often is. We have lost sight that, indeed, there is something decent and beyond, and we have lost sight that our shared receptivity to that something is our only ground for hope for peaceful assimilation and meaningful (non-trivial) communication.
Our ruling oligarchs have replaced the only real center with a false center. They believe science, dialectical materialism, and survival of the fittest are now the only reigning Gods. That is the spiritual environment from which much of the world is now drinking. So long as that is the case, without other vision or intuition, there will not be found in mere deductive logic or material empiricism any way to slow our rush to madness -- billionaires included.
From A.T. -- Tomas, Re: "That is not what is happening today. It appears that some one, the political elite or the corporate elite, are trying hard to destroy the hand that feeds them. Their motivation eludes me. What is occurring in this country and world wide is not logical. Or am I just too ignorant to discern the reasoning?"
Well, being unable to discern the logic or reasoning is not ignorant when there is no logic or reason to be discerned. Yeah, the logic is "hard." That's because, though logic may help, much of what ails us is beyond logic. Even oligarchs and billionaires panic, scheme, and give vent to emotions. What ails us is that there is no center that is holding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3daV5pu741o
This is because we have become too transfixed by science, useful though it often is. We have lost sight that, indeed, there is something decent and beyond, and we have lost sight that our shared receptivity to that something is our only ground for hope for peaceful assimilation and meaningful (non-trivial) communication.
Our ruling oligarchs have replaced the only real center with a false center. They believe science, dialectical materialism, and survival of the fittest are now the only reigning Gods. That is the spiritual environment from which much of the world is now drinking. So long as that is the case, without other vision or intuition, there will not be found in mere deductive logic or material empiricism any way to slow our rush to madness -- billionaires included.
Libertarian Smears
Libertarian Smears:
Well, what is so “limited” (?) about injecting and funding government to enforce and insist upon: (1) studies for derogating, in public schools, respect for higher, decent, and assimilating values; (2) promoting “science” as if elite practitioners should be trusted to divine “correct” answers to many interpersonal concerns that fall largely outside of, or beyond, the proper domain of science; (3) financing the breaking of traditional moral compasses and norms for respecting the family as the foundational unit for Western Civilization; and (4) funding the leveling of “gaps” in benefits between traditional family unions versus civil, plural, and alien unions?
I don’t find that kind of governmental taxation, funding, prescription, and intrusion to be “limited.” I find it to be repressive, radical, unsustainably expensive, and unsustainably myopic.
What is the main, driving force to governmental intrusion? I suggest it is the vacuum that is created as traditional assimilating values are demolished. In other words, defending decent and assimilating values is not the cause of big government. It is the destruction of such values that is the cause! In willingness to support vacuums and moral anarchy that lead to the crush of big government, Libertarians may as well be on the side of Progressives, Collectivists, and Islamists.
To my intuition, for each of our perspectives of consciousness, there is a holistic or wave aspect and a separate identity or countable-particle aspect. There is feedback between holistic synchronization and particular expressions of free will. That feedback is in constant flux and need of reconciliation. That necessitates receptivity from each perspective to the still quiet voice of guidance from the whole.
This is a dance. When one partner totally dominates, the dance becomes a tragedy or a travesty. To totally promote God (Islam), State (National Socialism) or Corporatism (oligarchical elitism) over all else is to create absurd, comedic, utter tragedy and despair. On the other hand, to try to promote individuals (Libertarianism) over all else is little better. What is needed is harmony, as in a dance between (1) receptivity to assimilating, civilizing, higher values, (2) individual liberty, and (3) a framework for growing a representative republic. For that, above all others, it is American Conservatives who are patriots in the forefront.
As to whether Conservatism tends to get smeared by Libertarians, Anarchists, Progressives, or Communists: Well, what would you expect?
Well, what is so “limited” (?) about injecting and funding government to enforce and insist upon: (1) studies for derogating, in public schools, respect for higher, decent, and assimilating values; (2) promoting “science” as if elite practitioners should be trusted to divine “correct” answers to many interpersonal concerns that fall largely outside of, or beyond, the proper domain of science; (3) financing the breaking of traditional moral compasses and norms for respecting the family as the foundational unit for Western Civilization; and (4) funding the leveling of “gaps” in benefits between traditional family unions versus civil, plural, and alien unions?
I don’t find that kind of governmental taxation, funding, prescription, and intrusion to be “limited.” I find it to be repressive, radical, unsustainably expensive, and unsustainably myopic.
What is the main, driving force to governmental intrusion? I suggest it is the vacuum that is created as traditional assimilating values are demolished. In other words, defending decent and assimilating values is not the cause of big government. It is the destruction of such values that is the cause! In willingness to support vacuums and moral anarchy that lead to the crush of big government, Libertarians may as well be on the side of Progressives, Collectivists, and Islamists.
To my intuition, for each of our perspectives of consciousness, there is a holistic or wave aspect and a separate identity or countable-particle aspect. There is feedback between holistic synchronization and particular expressions of free will. That feedback is in constant flux and need of reconciliation. That necessitates receptivity from each perspective to the still quiet voice of guidance from the whole.
This is a dance. When one partner totally dominates, the dance becomes a tragedy or a travesty. To totally promote God (Islam), State (National Socialism) or Corporatism (oligarchical elitism) over all else is to create absurd, comedic, utter tragedy and despair. On the other hand, to try to promote individuals (Libertarianism) over all else is little better. What is needed is harmony, as in a dance between (1) receptivity to assimilating, civilizing, higher values, (2) individual liberty, and (3) a framework for growing a representative republic. For that, above all others, it is American Conservatives who are patriots in the forefront.
As to whether Conservatism tends to get smeared by Libertarians, Anarchists, Progressives, or Communists: Well, what would you expect?
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Gangster Government vs. Middle Class
Gangster Government vs. Middle Class:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/is_the_goldmansachs_scandal_ma.html:
Any ordinary individual who thought he was too big to fail and that he could adopt a betting strategy for every situation based on “double or nothing” would be at moral peril. Those who took his bets would quickly learn when he had reached beyond his capacity to cover. At that point, they would own him (much as MSM is owned), and there would be no more individual liberty to bet. At that point, each owned citizen (serf, anchorman, professor, senator) would receive only in proportion to how well he begged to please his masters.
Something similar would apply to nations. Not, however, to nations that had already sold their loyalties and currencies to an Entity of private managers of fiat money. Such an Entity CAN adopt a double or nothing strategy. After all, its managers are betting with your money, based on power they have acquired to double your debts, as they please. Heads they win, tails you lose. A citizenry needs to be “educated” to have become too smart by half in order to deem such a system intelligent or “free.”
Any regulations The Regime passes will strengthen, not rein in, the Entity.
While usefully ignorant socialists were priming us for some variant of national socialism, Soros saw his opportunity by hedging with an extra-national corporatist operation. A President who would serve such a master needs really, really to hate America.
******
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/gangster_government_the_contin.html:
It's not just Gangster Government. It's extra-national government under Attila the Hut. Jabba the Hut, a work of fiction, was not at liberty to openly cross borders. But Attila the Hun, a work of reality, pillaged where he wanted, and he was actually at times made a general, even for those he pillaged. Soros the Corporatist, et al, goes where he wants and simply buys generals and politicians. Ahmadinijad the Whackjob goes where he wants to insult and laugh at us. Hussein the Hut does what he’s told in order to serve his Corporatist masters. Their agenda is to target, freeze, and reduce Whitey in America, level the middle and lower classes to serfs, control indoctrination worldwide, and to reward all serfs only insofar as they are useful to whichever syndicate of Corporatists conquers all others. This is not a national socialistic agenda, but an extra-national Mussolini corporatist agenda. However, the economic result for peasants will be the same. The political difference is that nations are becoming a fiction for serving an utterly ruthless, extra-national, corporatist syndicate. This is not a planned conspiracy. It's an evil quickening of professional courtesy among sharks. We have no hope to contain it unless we at least recognize it before it has contained us.
****
In a perverse way, I do feel "represented" -- as a member of the target class. That is, as a member of the middle class that is being targeted for extinction. This is being done by Corporatist Ainos giving votes to moral zombies (Dinos) and then buying their votes for mere promises of ... well, whatever it is that zombies can be led to think they want. Then again, that is not so different from the way America's original patriots were "represented" -- as bait for mercantilism, to make those who ruled their motherland wealthier. The middle class is being colonized for a kind of mercantilism. Maybe Chrissie could understand that the producing class refuses to be satisfied with second rate representation. Well, he could, if he wasn't owned.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/is_the_goldmansachs_scandal_ma.html:
Any ordinary individual who thought he was too big to fail and that he could adopt a betting strategy for every situation based on “double or nothing” would be at moral peril. Those who took his bets would quickly learn when he had reached beyond his capacity to cover. At that point, they would own him (much as MSM is owned), and there would be no more individual liberty to bet. At that point, each owned citizen (serf, anchorman, professor, senator) would receive only in proportion to how well he begged to please his masters.
Something similar would apply to nations. Not, however, to nations that had already sold their loyalties and currencies to an Entity of private managers of fiat money. Such an Entity CAN adopt a double or nothing strategy. After all, its managers are betting with your money, based on power they have acquired to double your debts, as they please. Heads they win, tails you lose. A citizenry needs to be “educated” to have become too smart by half in order to deem such a system intelligent or “free.”
Any regulations The Regime passes will strengthen, not rein in, the Entity.
While usefully ignorant socialists were priming us for some variant of national socialism, Soros saw his opportunity by hedging with an extra-national corporatist operation. A President who would serve such a master needs really, really to hate America.
******
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/gangster_government_the_contin.html:
It's not just Gangster Government. It's extra-national government under Attila the Hut. Jabba the Hut, a work of fiction, was not at liberty to openly cross borders. But Attila the Hun, a work of reality, pillaged where he wanted, and he was actually at times made a general, even for those he pillaged. Soros the Corporatist, et al, goes where he wants and simply buys generals and politicians. Ahmadinijad the Whackjob goes where he wants to insult and laugh at us. Hussein the Hut does what he’s told in order to serve his Corporatist masters. Their agenda is to target, freeze, and reduce Whitey in America, level the middle and lower classes to serfs, control indoctrination worldwide, and to reward all serfs only insofar as they are useful to whichever syndicate of Corporatists conquers all others. This is not a national socialistic agenda, but an extra-national Mussolini corporatist agenda. However, the economic result for peasants will be the same. The political difference is that nations are becoming a fiction for serving an utterly ruthless, extra-national, corporatist syndicate. This is not a planned conspiracy. It's an evil quickening of professional courtesy among sharks. We have no hope to contain it unless we at least recognize it before it has contained us.
****
In a perverse way, I do feel "represented" -- as a member of the target class. That is, as a member of the middle class that is being targeted for extinction. This is being done by Corporatist Ainos giving votes to moral zombies (Dinos) and then buying their votes for mere promises of ... well, whatever it is that zombies can be led to think they want. Then again, that is not so different from the way America's original patriots were "represented" -- as bait for mercantilism, to make those who ruled their motherland wealthier. The middle class is being colonized for a kind of mercantilism. Maybe Chrissie could understand that the producing class refuses to be satisfied with second rate representation. Well, he could, if he wasn't owned.
Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage:
On gay marriage: I agree that feds need not intrude. So fed candidates need not take positions. But state candidates and state governments have no choice but to take positions when the issue is presented. In these times, in states where the issue is unresolved, I expect it will be raised, and the electorate will expect candidates, when asked, as they will be, to state their positions.
When proponents push the issue, I do not see it as minor or as something that should be compromised on. Either our civilization will base the raising of each next generation upon families and family based values or it won't. If we don't, I don't see the alternatives (government raised children, welfare raised children, government facilitated broken homes) as being "better." Indeed, much of the progressive agenda has likely advanced precisely because family values have slipped, challenged as they are by professors whose expertise is often confined to book learning.
I don't see gay marriage as a tolerance issue. I certainly don't care what adults do in their bedrooms. But I do see the issue as important. What sustaining values does government need to support (or at least not undermine), and how may that support be undermined by the state's sponsoring of gay marriage?
I don't think a state should just allow gay marriage "in the interest of fairness," as seen through the narrow or excited focus of gay activists. I think the issue should be studied. Although the issue is still somewhat novel, there are societies that allow gay marriage. We should wait, study, observe, compare, and carefully and objectively consider the data. We should give due consideration to the potential downside, rather than just assume there is no downside. That would be the reasonable thing to do. There may well be at stake larger repercussions to the fabric of society.
On gay marriage: I agree that feds need not intrude. So fed candidates need not take positions. But state candidates and state governments have no choice but to take positions when the issue is presented. In these times, in states where the issue is unresolved, I expect it will be raised, and the electorate will expect candidates, when asked, as they will be, to state their positions.
When proponents push the issue, I do not see it as minor or as something that should be compromised on. Either our civilization will base the raising of each next generation upon families and family based values or it won't. If we don't, I don't see the alternatives (government raised children, welfare raised children, government facilitated broken homes) as being "better." Indeed, much of the progressive agenda has likely advanced precisely because family values have slipped, challenged as they are by professors whose expertise is often confined to book learning.
I don't see gay marriage as a tolerance issue. I certainly don't care what adults do in their bedrooms. But I do see the issue as important. What sustaining values does government need to support (or at least not undermine), and how may that support be undermined by the state's sponsoring of gay marriage?
I don't think a state should just allow gay marriage "in the interest of fairness," as seen through the narrow or excited focus of gay activists. I think the issue should be studied. Although the issue is still somewhat novel, there are societies that allow gay marriage. We should wait, study, observe, compare, and carefully and objectively consider the data. We should give due consideration to the potential downside, rather than just assume there is no downside. That would be the reasonable thing to do. There may well be at stake larger repercussions to the fabric of society.
Jews and Minority Cultures
Jews:
Could one reasonably consider that one person's fame is another person's infamy, and vice versa, and that if you can't have one, you should at least try to have the other? If so, the conservatives and the liberals of any small group or ethnicity so inclined could thereby retain aspects of their cultural identity while commanding the world stage, for good or ill, to an extent disproportionate to their population. May a similar dynamic apply to most smaller or surrounded cultures that desire to preserve a separate heritage?
***
How would an economy find diversionary, productive, or worthwhile things for people to do and to keep them out of prison, once their waking hours are no longer baby sat in front of drones of indoctrination? How would society pretend to disburse money for their support in ways that are commensurate with their general merit or contribution?
Shall government employ battalions of fresco painters and roadside gardeners, to beautify the countryside? Shall charities seek millions of volunteers to sit inside auditoriums watching TV broadcasts 12 hours a day, to facilitate the scientific study of effects of extended immobility, looking to medical and interplanetary applications? Should exercise, sports, and theater parks be built, and competitions sponsored, to keep people mobile and toned up? Should free continuing colleges be encouraged, to keep people informed about events, politics, history, philosophy, science, and technology? Should government pay people to continue their educations as they deem best?
Should people be trusted generally and privately to find worthwhile pursuits for themselves for their extra hours? Or should government seek bids from corporatists and contractors, sort of like private prison farms, to avail appropriate facilities, training, and pursuits?
Could one reasonably consider that one person's fame is another person's infamy, and vice versa, and that if you can't have one, you should at least try to have the other? If so, the conservatives and the liberals of any small group or ethnicity so inclined could thereby retain aspects of their cultural identity while commanding the world stage, for good or ill, to an extent disproportionate to their population. May a similar dynamic apply to most smaller or surrounded cultures that desire to preserve a separate heritage?
***
How would an economy find diversionary, productive, or worthwhile things for people to do and to keep them out of prison, once their waking hours are no longer baby sat in front of drones of indoctrination? How would society pretend to disburse money for their support in ways that are commensurate with their general merit or contribution?
Shall government employ battalions of fresco painters and roadside gardeners, to beautify the countryside? Shall charities seek millions of volunteers to sit inside auditoriums watching TV broadcasts 12 hours a day, to facilitate the scientific study of effects of extended immobility, looking to medical and interplanetary applications? Should exercise, sports, and theater parks be built, and competitions sponsored, to keep people mobile and toned up? Should free continuing colleges be encouraged, to keep people informed about events, politics, history, philosophy, science, and technology? Should government pay people to continue their educations as they deem best?
Should people be trusted generally and privately to find worthwhile pursuits for themselves for their extra hours? Or should government seek bids from corporatists and contractors, sort of like private prison farms, to avail appropriate facilities, training, and pursuits?
Restoring Checks and Balances
Restoring Checks and Balances
If power moves to the Republicans, even to Conservative Republicans, that is where international monied interests will also move. (Cui bono?) So we have to find simple, clear, enforceable ways to define and defend the territorial and cultural sovereignty of the American people!
To do that, we need two essentials: (1) An intelligent system of checks and balances on levels of government; and (2) a citizenry intelligent and decent enough to respect and enforce that system. There is no such thing as one without the other. (Or, to paraphrase Franklin: "(1) We have given you a republic, if (2) you can keep it.") Those two essentials evolve together, under a guiding Providence. Insofar as we spurn the guidance of Providence, we have no hope. Arizona may be able to teach us about both of the above noted essentials.
Fortunately, we still have workable parts for both of those essentials. But we have grossly neglected their maintenance, so there is much work to be done. One, we need to restore the balance for how political power is distributed. Two, we must disqualify or politically neuter the poseurs, unprincipled sell outs, and brain-addled communalists among us. Otherwise, un-American monied interests will simply corrupt a new clientele of un-American politicians, and the mass of mankind will revert to its default, Hobbes’ian position.
Hobbes was wrong. Absolute power given to a king corrupts absolutely. Centralizing power does not ensure that life is made not solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. But it does ensure that every non-elite thought glances nervously under the boot of a tyrant.
If power moves to the Republicans, even to Conservative Republicans, that is where international monied interests will also move. (Cui bono?) So we have to find simple, clear, enforceable ways to define and defend the territorial and cultural sovereignty of the American people!
To do that, we need two essentials: (1) An intelligent system of checks and balances on levels of government; and (2) a citizenry intelligent and decent enough to respect and enforce that system. There is no such thing as one without the other. (Or, to paraphrase Franklin: "(1) We have given you a republic, if (2) you can keep it.") Those two essentials evolve together, under a guiding Providence. Insofar as we spurn the guidance of Providence, we have no hope. Arizona may be able to teach us about both of the above noted essentials.
Fortunately, we still have workable parts for both of those essentials. But we have grossly neglected their maintenance, so there is much work to be done. One, we need to restore the balance for how political power is distributed. Two, we must disqualify or politically neuter the poseurs, unprincipled sell outs, and brain-addled communalists among us. Otherwise, un-American monied interests will simply corrupt a new clientele of un-American politicians, and the mass of mankind will revert to its default, Hobbes’ian position.
Hobbes was wrong. Absolute power given to a king corrupts absolutely. Centralizing power does not ensure that life is made not solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. But it does ensure that every non-elite thought glances nervously under the boot of a tyrant.
Progress in Immateriality
Progress in Immateriality
From A.T. -- Redhawk said, "We cannot look to those in the Federal government to downsize the Federal bureaucracy because it is not in their interest to do so. Our only hope lies with the states. It will be the states that will have to force, if they can, the Federal government to give up much of its power. This is why what is happening in Arizona is so important. Arizona has lit the fire for other states to follow. This is the only thing that the left really fears, which can be judged by how hysterically they are reacting to what Arizona has done."
Indeed! We have to hit the statists where they're not ready. Take away the statist-fascists' central rudder to neuter their N.W.O. ship so it goes around in helpless circles; then housebreak it at discretion. That's the best alternative to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KecIdlEAKhU.
Human consciousness is such that it is continuously beset by cognitive dissonance of opposing aspects, which leads us to search to reconcile new truths with old metaphors -- even as we resist new truths insofar as they undermine old habits. Those opposing aspects find definition and expression in our moral parables and religious metaphors, so that we are presented with evolving religions of light (insight) and devolving religions of darkness (ignorance). Religions of light encourage us to evolve, to seek, know, and be freed to express ourselves to one another in respect of metaphors of truth. Religions of darkness force us to devolve, to abandon appreciation of truth and to enslave or slay all who resist the spreading of apologies for ignorance. In short, their pathology can't handle truth, so, like suicide bombers, they kill truth for all, even as they kill truth for themselves.
Conceptualize a model in respect of which there is no such thing as “material progress,” but only an unfolding of consciousness, operating in appreciation of mathematically availed symbols of feedback among perspectives. In respect that it can be coherent and consistent so to conceptualize, is it not hypocritical, absurd, even immoral, that materialists should take “material progress” on blind faith, as if all change were good in an evolutionary sense? After all, if there were coherent or consistent truth in faith-based materialism, then it becomes infinitely hypocritical for “Progressives” to deny that they themselves “should” be washed away (the sooner the better!).
Questions for Progressives: Why should we not seek to conserve only such change as seems consistent with nurturing decent regard for appreciating one another within a sustainable and civilizing republic? Why must Progressives idealize that power to judge change-that-is-good should be surrendered to some central, bureaucratic, soul stifling, responsibility-denying, material brain trust of computer-enhanced and robotically-conditioned “intelligence?”
For an otherwise functioning, credible adult to fail to comprehend that the right to think and express oneself freely cannot be sustained for the ordinary masses apart from a republican form of government, one needs to be a moron -- intellectually, emotionally, or morally.
What is the attraction for otherwise functioning people to advocate that the borders and laws necessary to preserve a republic need not be enforced in a world filled with moral barbarians? I get that morons fail to see that, but what about functioning, mature, experienced adults? What faustian sociopathy and sinisterism turns them to sell out reason and decency for the quick rush from cashing in on the credulity and bad dope that can be so cheaply purchased from morons?
For goodness sakes, Arizona, do not be turned by the morons now administering our federal government!
From A.T. -- Redhawk said, "We cannot look to those in the Federal government to downsize the Federal bureaucracy because it is not in their interest to do so. Our only hope lies with the states. It will be the states that will have to force, if they can, the Federal government to give up much of its power. This is why what is happening in Arizona is so important. Arizona has lit the fire for other states to follow. This is the only thing that the left really fears, which can be judged by how hysterically they are reacting to what Arizona has done."
Indeed! We have to hit the statists where they're not ready. Take away the statist-fascists' central rudder to neuter their N.W.O. ship so it goes around in helpless circles; then housebreak it at discretion. That's the best alternative to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KecIdlEAKhU.
Human consciousness is such that it is continuously beset by cognitive dissonance of opposing aspects, which leads us to search to reconcile new truths with old metaphors -- even as we resist new truths insofar as they undermine old habits. Those opposing aspects find definition and expression in our moral parables and religious metaphors, so that we are presented with evolving religions of light (insight) and devolving religions of darkness (ignorance). Religions of light encourage us to evolve, to seek, know, and be freed to express ourselves to one another in respect of metaphors of truth. Religions of darkness force us to devolve, to abandon appreciation of truth and to enslave or slay all who resist the spreading of apologies for ignorance. In short, their pathology can't handle truth, so, like suicide bombers, they kill truth for all, even as they kill truth for themselves.
Conceptualize a model in respect of which there is no such thing as “material progress,” but only an unfolding of consciousness, operating in appreciation of mathematically availed symbols of feedback among perspectives. In respect that it can be coherent and consistent so to conceptualize, is it not hypocritical, absurd, even immoral, that materialists should take “material progress” on blind faith, as if all change were good in an evolutionary sense? After all, if there were coherent or consistent truth in faith-based materialism, then it becomes infinitely hypocritical for “Progressives” to deny that they themselves “should” be washed away (the sooner the better!).
Questions for Progressives: Why should we not seek to conserve only such change as seems consistent with nurturing decent regard for appreciating one another within a sustainable and civilizing republic? Why must Progressives idealize that power to judge change-that-is-good should be surrendered to some central, bureaucratic, soul stifling, responsibility-denying, material brain trust of computer-enhanced and robotically-conditioned “intelligence?”
For an otherwise functioning, credible adult to fail to comprehend that the right to think and express oneself freely cannot be sustained for the ordinary masses apart from a republican form of government, one needs to be a moron -- intellectually, emotionally, or morally.
What is the attraction for otherwise functioning people to advocate that the borders and laws necessary to preserve a republic need not be enforced in a world filled with moral barbarians? I get that morons fail to see that, but what about functioning, mature, experienced adults? What faustian sociopathy and sinisterism turns them to sell out reason and decency for the quick rush from cashing in on the credulity and bad dope that can be so cheaply purchased from morons?
For goodness sakes, Arizona, do not be turned by the morons now administering our federal government!
Pseudoscience
I would qualify to call many a list of things "pseudoscience" only if their proponents called them science. If their proponents only called such things "arguments from acquired taste" (based on how they were conditioned or came to condition themselves), then I would call such things "arguments" -- not science, nor pseudo science.
As to tastes in politics, literature, and music, we can hardly avoid them. To me, the best beginning point from which to test or rationalize an acquired taste is to ask: does this threaten or further an interesting republic for decently civilized free thinkers? While I believe that a thing that furthers decent civilization is good, I would not claim its determination to be a matter of either science or pseudo science. Not all of good reasoning needs to depend exclusively on its amenability to precise empirical replication, i.e., science.
****
I hope the point is not that Conservatives should argue with Progressives about which side is most “scientifically objective.” I think that is a mistake. It is greedy to expect that materialistic-based science should provide objective answers to all aspects of human inquiry, even to moral, economic, and political concerns. While we may find consistent answers for a moral approach, I suspect that will be only in a general way. I doubt there will be found a “theory of everything” that can prescribe every detail for that which we should (must?) do -- although I suspect Progressives hope a ruling class of elites will suffice as a substitute.
To suppose there is but one best answer to every question would be inconsistent with a moral philosophy based on an appreciation of free will. So, I quite doubt that there is an objective (or normal) path to a pre-determined, materially evolving, teleology based in pure objective physics or science.
At crux is this: We have not resolved, and may not have capacity to resolve, how to delineate in fine between those concerns that are properly confined to the sphere of empiricism versus those concerns that are properly confined to the sphere of moral or meta intuition or Will. Rather, there is constant skirmishing at the front line between Empiricists and Moralists, with each side periodically arguing that the other is not sufficiently “scientific” or “intuitive.”
Usually, it has seemed that “progressive,” materialistic empiricists were the ones arguing that all concerns should be reduced as much as possible to the realm of objective (normal) “science.” If nothing else, it is refreshing occasionally to find Conservatives noticing, as Progressives overreach and adulterate their “science.”
As to tastes in politics, literature, and music, we can hardly avoid them. To me, the best beginning point from which to test or rationalize an acquired taste is to ask: does this threaten or further an interesting republic for decently civilized free thinkers? While I believe that a thing that furthers decent civilization is good, I would not claim its determination to be a matter of either science or pseudo science. Not all of good reasoning needs to depend exclusively on its amenability to precise empirical replication, i.e., science.
****
I hope the point is not that Conservatives should argue with Progressives about which side is most “scientifically objective.” I think that is a mistake. It is greedy to expect that materialistic-based science should provide objective answers to all aspects of human inquiry, even to moral, economic, and political concerns. While we may find consistent answers for a moral approach, I suspect that will be only in a general way. I doubt there will be found a “theory of everything” that can prescribe every detail for that which we should (must?) do -- although I suspect Progressives hope a ruling class of elites will suffice as a substitute.
To suppose there is but one best answer to every question would be inconsistent with a moral philosophy based on an appreciation of free will. So, I quite doubt that there is an objective (or normal) path to a pre-determined, materially evolving, teleology based in pure objective physics or science.
At crux is this: We have not resolved, and may not have capacity to resolve, how to delineate in fine between those concerns that are properly confined to the sphere of empiricism versus those concerns that are properly confined to the sphere of moral or meta intuition or Will. Rather, there is constant skirmishing at the front line between Empiricists and Moralists, with each side periodically arguing that the other is not sufficiently “scientific” or “intuitive.”
Usually, it has seemed that “progressive,” materialistic empiricists were the ones arguing that all concerns should be reduced as much as possible to the realm of objective (normal) “science.” If nothing else, it is refreshing occasionally to find Conservatives noticing, as Progressives overreach and adulterate their “science.”
Sissification of Military
As Obama sissifies the leadership of our military in order to curry favor with the metrosexual bases of the Prog parties, he is signaling our enemies that there is no better time to begin moving against the interests of America. Presently, there are none finer than our military men and women in the field. See [www.nragive.com]. So why does the leadership for this regime want to undermine them?
****
Was the information released by Obama about the number of U.S. nukes classified, so that it would have been criminal for anyone else to leak it? If so, how long, and why? What was the need or point for divulging it? If Reagan had divulged it, that would be one thing. There is the matter of trust. But what fool trusts Obama? So I have to ask: Why did he feel it necessary to divulge this "trivial" piece of information at this time?
Well, I suspect he is trying to soften up the public to accept a big scale back. And that I would not find trivial, nor would he be the one I would want to trust to do it.
This man is reducing our economy, reducing our borders, reducing our industry, reducing our independence, and reducing our access to information. I suspect he is "moving on" to the next reduction: In our defenses.
***
Ramos and Compean were put in solitaire for more than a year in regard to the shooting in the butt of a fleeing, border jumping, dope dealing miscreant they thought was armed.
But Ayers and Dohrn will go un-prosecuted by the regime now in power in America for having aided and fomented terror and violence against an American ally.
In the matter of “getting into people’s faces,” does the regime respect any points of decency? Does the regime consider it ok for its radical friends to help put worldwide propaganda in high readiness for triggering photo ops for mis-characterizing a loyal ally’s attempts to protect itself from sworn enemies’ known, repeated, vile, and coordinated efforts to gather boatloads of missiles for use against population centers?
Should not the regime’s failure to adequately investigate and/or prosecute Ayers’ and Dohrn’s involvement in this matter mark the regime as having a grotesque hatred for Western Civilization? Does the regime and its radical friends want Israel to act like a good little mouse, as it eeks out a living in a land beset with snakes of the vilest evil. Is there adequate saliva to put proper emphasis on this sort of chutzpah?! Or to wake up Americans?
****
Referring to boys wearing long hair, well, few care about that, per se. It’s the context. The long hair of the 60’s was in a context. I don’t think that context was a mere cultural fad. It became part of the regalia by which to distinguish social drop outs and rebels from the rest of society. It’s one thing to wear long hair to set yourself apart, as a free thinker (or even to look pretty, like Che). It’s another thing to hate your country, buy into Marxism, and advocate communal free sex and drugs in place of the family. I know, many of the long hairs of the 60’s did not go that far. But many did. And I suspect that bad boy image had something to do with stirring the fad. Still, recognizing that is not quite the same as getting “whipped up” about it. Indeed, I see nothing wrong about, nothing to get “whipped up” about, and nothing to get hung about, boys wearing long hair. (Davy Crockett had long hair, for goodness sakes.) But what is to get whipped up about is context.
For whatever reasons, many boomers (born 1946 to 1955, and thus children of the 60’s), thought society’s problems should best be addressed with communalism or collectivism, rather than with free enterprise and traditional American and family values. Those children and their attitudes never went away. Those people still hold power in many American institutions. And their attraction to collectivism is represented in Obama to this day. These are the kids who never had to grow up; they never had to become independent men or women. They remain sissified to this day ... sissified elites who react in horror if a first grader carries an inch long plastic replica of an old West gun in his back pack. I see that as a problem. I don’t expect acolytes of Ayers (a boomer) or Obama to agree. Insofar as there is a fundamental clash of values, we simply end up agreeing to disagree.
****
Was the information released by Obama about the number of U.S. nukes classified, so that it would have been criminal for anyone else to leak it? If so, how long, and why? What was the need or point for divulging it? If Reagan had divulged it, that would be one thing. There is the matter of trust. But what fool trusts Obama? So I have to ask: Why did he feel it necessary to divulge this "trivial" piece of information at this time?
Well, I suspect he is trying to soften up the public to accept a big scale back. And that I would not find trivial, nor would he be the one I would want to trust to do it.
This man is reducing our economy, reducing our borders, reducing our industry, reducing our independence, and reducing our access to information. I suspect he is "moving on" to the next reduction: In our defenses.
***
Ramos and Compean were put in solitaire for more than a year in regard to the shooting in the butt of a fleeing, border jumping, dope dealing miscreant they thought was armed.
But Ayers and Dohrn will go un-prosecuted by the regime now in power in America for having aided and fomented terror and violence against an American ally.
In the matter of “getting into people’s faces,” does the regime respect any points of decency? Does the regime consider it ok for its radical friends to help put worldwide propaganda in high readiness for triggering photo ops for mis-characterizing a loyal ally’s attempts to protect itself from sworn enemies’ known, repeated, vile, and coordinated efforts to gather boatloads of missiles for use against population centers?
Should not the regime’s failure to adequately investigate and/or prosecute Ayers’ and Dohrn’s involvement in this matter mark the regime as having a grotesque hatred for Western Civilization? Does the regime and its radical friends want Israel to act like a good little mouse, as it eeks out a living in a land beset with snakes of the vilest evil. Is there adequate saliva to put proper emphasis on this sort of chutzpah?! Or to wake up Americans?
****
Referring to boys wearing long hair, well, few care about that, per se. It’s the context. The long hair of the 60’s was in a context. I don’t think that context was a mere cultural fad. It became part of the regalia by which to distinguish social drop outs and rebels from the rest of society. It’s one thing to wear long hair to set yourself apart, as a free thinker (or even to look pretty, like Che). It’s another thing to hate your country, buy into Marxism, and advocate communal free sex and drugs in place of the family. I know, many of the long hairs of the 60’s did not go that far. But many did. And I suspect that bad boy image had something to do with stirring the fad. Still, recognizing that is not quite the same as getting “whipped up” about it. Indeed, I see nothing wrong about, nothing to get “whipped up” about, and nothing to get hung about, boys wearing long hair. (Davy Crockett had long hair, for goodness sakes.) But what is to get whipped up about is context.
For whatever reasons, many boomers (born 1946 to 1955, and thus children of the 60’s), thought society’s problems should best be addressed with communalism or collectivism, rather than with free enterprise and traditional American and family values. Those children and their attitudes never went away. Those people still hold power in many American institutions. And their attraction to collectivism is represented in Obama to this day. These are the kids who never had to grow up; they never had to become independent men or women. They remain sissified to this day ... sissified elites who react in horror if a first grader carries an inch long plastic replica of an old West gun in his back pack. I see that as a problem. I don’t expect acolytes of Ayers (a boomer) or Obama to agree. Insofar as there is a fundamental clash of values, we simply end up agreeing to disagree.
Open Borders
Supporting open borders is ensuring the replacement of representative governance by the rule of elite dhimmis serving despicable despots. Ahhh, peace for everyone. (sarc)
Regarding Cloward-Piven: What is served by opening our borders to appease howls for fairness? Answer: The destruction of representative governance — to make way for new rule, worldwide, by despots and their hired elites and dhimmis.
That is what is at stake in the political contest now underway between Progs (Dinos and Rinos) and Conservatives (Libertarians also want to preserve representative governance, but they can be confused about what is needed to accomplish that.)
Every time a Prog advocates for “change you can believe in,” you need to be like Cicero and ask: Cui bono (who benefits)? Or, like Deep Throat, follow the money.
Why do most Progs tend to favor opening America’s borders? Why do they want a flood of illiterate, highly dependent, easily bribed and duped new potential voters to jump our borders? Is it because Progs want to respect the wishes of new voters? Are you kidding me!
Progs want masses of new and easily controlled voters because those who pay Progs want control. Prog Puppeteers are very confident such voters can be controlled, in perpetuity. And why not? It’s so easy to bribe them! All you need do is to print money with one hand and pull it back from wallets with the other. Why, even a Yal-ard caveman could do it!
That, Dear Conservatives, is how Progs and ignorant abettors and starry eyed youth mean to pull wool over eyes of each new crop of voters. Does anyone think the wishes of new voters will be serviced? Are you kidding me!
Think. What is entailed? Once easily duped illiterates are enfranchised, there will never again be a majority of voters who will be able to demand that interests of the Republic, as a Republic, be represented. Your wishes, and your votes, will weigh as much as the wishes of your pet dog. If you’re lucky. You’d be better off spending the rest of your life on the Enterprise holodeck.
Regarding Cloward-Piven: What is served by opening our borders to appease howls for fairness? Answer: The destruction of representative governance — to make way for new rule, worldwide, by despots and their hired elites and dhimmis.
That is what is at stake in the political contest now underway between Progs (Dinos and Rinos) and Conservatives (Libertarians also want to preserve representative governance, but they can be confused about what is needed to accomplish that.)
Every time a Prog advocates for “change you can believe in,” you need to be like Cicero and ask: Cui bono (who benefits)? Or, like Deep Throat, follow the money.
Why do most Progs tend to favor opening America’s borders? Why do they want a flood of illiterate, highly dependent, easily bribed and duped new potential voters to jump our borders? Is it because Progs want to respect the wishes of new voters? Are you kidding me!
Progs want masses of new and easily controlled voters because those who pay Progs want control. Prog Puppeteers are very confident such voters can be controlled, in perpetuity. And why not? It’s so easy to bribe them! All you need do is to print money with one hand and pull it back from wallets with the other. Why, even a Yal-ard caveman could do it!
That, Dear Conservatives, is how Progs and ignorant abettors and starry eyed youth mean to pull wool over eyes of each new crop of voters. Does anyone think the wishes of new voters will be serviced? Are you kidding me!
Think. What is entailed? Once easily duped illiterates are enfranchised, there will never again be a majority of voters who will be able to demand that interests of the Republic, as a Republic, be represented. Your wishes, and your votes, will weigh as much as the wishes of your pet dog. If you’re lucky. You’d be better off spending the rest of your life on the Enterprise holodeck.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Has Hubble made God small?
From A.T. -- Re: "We actually have a lot of proof through the new knowledge through astronomy that the Hubble Telescope has provided to realize that the universe sooooo much bigger than anyone in biblical time knew."
Sorry, but to take this as "evidence" that individual perspectives of consciousness are not meaningful or spiritually important simply does not compute ... at least, not without undertaking some serious, front-loading assumptions and manipulations. One may just as well assume that each of us experiences perspectives of a same essential consciousness. Each perspective could be repeated in innumerable permutations. The innumerability may be less a signifier of meaninglessness for the underlying, essential consciousness than a signifier of its access to the power of math. In relation to the mystery of consciousness and its power in math, the vastness that is signified in Hubble photos may be infinitesimally puny.
Sorry, but to take this as "evidence" that individual perspectives of consciousness are not meaningful or spiritually important simply does not compute ... at least, not without undertaking some serious, front-loading assumptions and manipulations. One may just as well assume that each of us experiences perspectives of a same essential consciousness. Each perspective could be repeated in innumerable permutations. The innumerability may be less a signifier of meaninglessness for the underlying, essential consciousness than a signifier of its access to the power of math. In relation to the mystery of consciousness and its power in math, the vastness that is signified in Hubble photos may be infinitesimally puny.
Has America already been overthrown?
Re: Is America conquered? Is it lights out?
Suppose you and your corporatist homies effectively owned or ran several countries. Given the accelerating chasm that divides the power of corporatists versus the masses, and given that money talks and b.s. walks, would not your membership among the power elite drug you beyond moral reason? Would you not come to see serfs beneath you as ants? Have not long eras of slavery shown us how easily power corrupts most of mankind?
Having acquired taste for power, could you resist it, to give it up? Could you trust that others would give it up? How few have been the moments that history has produced a Washington? How does a non-Washington enjoy, exercise, and perpetuate power? Well, a non-Washington would use national media in each country to excite terror and loathing between residents of each. That way, little would limit his capacity for enlisting residents in all manner of wild, desperate, deranged, and abject servitude.
Think about it: When has terror from afar really been an effective strategy for a foreign cult or power to suddenly overtake a more industrialized country? When has terror been a successful strategy for such a purpose? If not often, then for whom and for what diversionary purposes is terror as a tool really employed? Does it not seem that terror is less employed to defeat nations than to gradually and relentlessly undermine the assimilation of peoples of nations? Until masses are intimidated into fearful and doped up multi culti, is that not what the “strongman” waits for, before he arrives with his corporatist cohort of thought police, to reduce and reorganize entire populations to abject subjugation and submission under his “religion or philosophy of communal peace or planetary salvation?”
What Napoleon has made more grandiose gestures than Obama? What Napoleon has watched idly as apocalyptic minded countries acquired weapons of hideous power? What use does Obama foresee in such gathering crisis? Can Obama and his cohort really be trusted to preserve America as a republic that is based on checks and balances of power? Are other despotic nations really aligned, as nations, against America, or does a more sinister organization of corporatists lie beneath, that is orchestrating a denouement of human freedom and dignity for all masses?
How can Americans join, to assert and reassert themselves as a republic, to opt out of terror strategies, without reducing the power of all external and opposing corporatists of no national loyalties to project their hoodoo? Well, no single nation can opt out, without being willing to incur the stirred-up animosity of those corporatist despots and their power-mad cohorts that run many other countries.
America’s mistake was to give a damn about what was thought of her by nations run by despots and quislings. Against prevailing odds, what sort of people can remain vigilant in willpower sufficient to preserve borders and freedom? Are we facing America’s finest moment, or our moment for the masses of America to whimper? Is it lights out for freedom of thought?
Bottom line: Do powers that be really want to defend American borders, stop dope inroads, and eliminate terror, or are we being played?
Suppose you and your corporatist homies effectively owned or ran several countries. Given the accelerating chasm that divides the power of corporatists versus the masses, and given that money talks and b.s. walks, would not your membership among the power elite drug you beyond moral reason? Would you not come to see serfs beneath you as ants? Have not long eras of slavery shown us how easily power corrupts most of mankind?
Having acquired taste for power, could you resist it, to give it up? Could you trust that others would give it up? How few have been the moments that history has produced a Washington? How does a non-Washington enjoy, exercise, and perpetuate power? Well, a non-Washington would use national media in each country to excite terror and loathing between residents of each. That way, little would limit his capacity for enlisting residents in all manner of wild, desperate, deranged, and abject servitude.
Think about it: When has terror from afar really been an effective strategy for a foreign cult or power to suddenly overtake a more industrialized country? When has terror been a successful strategy for such a purpose? If not often, then for whom and for what diversionary purposes is terror as a tool really employed? Does it not seem that terror is less employed to defeat nations than to gradually and relentlessly undermine the assimilation of peoples of nations? Until masses are intimidated into fearful and doped up multi culti, is that not what the “strongman” waits for, before he arrives with his corporatist cohort of thought police, to reduce and reorganize entire populations to abject subjugation and submission under his “religion or philosophy of communal peace or planetary salvation?”
What Napoleon has made more grandiose gestures than Obama? What Napoleon has watched idly as apocalyptic minded countries acquired weapons of hideous power? What use does Obama foresee in such gathering crisis? Can Obama and his cohort really be trusted to preserve America as a republic that is based on checks and balances of power? Are other despotic nations really aligned, as nations, against America, or does a more sinister organization of corporatists lie beneath, that is orchestrating a denouement of human freedom and dignity for all masses?
How can Americans join, to assert and reassert themselves as a republic, to opt out of terror strategies, without reducing the power of all external and opposing corporatists of no national loyalties to project their hoodoo? Well, no single nation can opt out, without being willing to incur the stirred-up animosity of those corporatist despots and their power-mad cohorts that run many other countries.
America’s mistake was to give a damn about what was thought of her by nations run by despots and quislings. Against prevailing odds, what sort of people can remain vigilant in willpower sufficient to preserve borders and freedom? Are we facing America’s finest moment, or our moment for the masses of America to whimper? Is it lights out for freedom of thought?
Bottom line: Do powers that be really want to defend American borders, stop dope inroads, and eliminate terror, or are we being played?
The Race Card
I am prompted to think about this: Why are some human beings so prone to racism?
I suspect it has much to do with being conditioned or inclined to be undisciplined, not very bright, not very respectful, not very self sufficient, or having a sense of entitlement. If you were any or all of those things, you may look for others to blame or abuse. But that does not sound like middle class Republicans. It sounds more like collectivizers and those who are easily collected, i.e., Democrat Bosses and their political machines.
So how has it come to pass that Democrat Bosses and their political machines have hit on a strategy of calling Republicans racists? Well, it seems to be a bit of an evolutionary step in strategies based on indecency. There came to be an insufficient base to feed Democrats’ sense of being entitled, without trolling for votes from Republicans. So Democrats found the weakest links among Republicans, i.e., the youthful, callow, inexperienced, easily guilted, and easily stampeded -- especially soft-science professors disposed by fairy reasoning to believe they know best how to use other people’s money. In short, the Democrats found people of underdeveloped practical experience and moral compasses who could be easily intimidated when surrounded by mobs that seem to be passionate and aggressive in their expressiveness of self righteousness.
The irony is this: As human predilections, racism and bigotry are likely found most among Democrat collectivizers and their easily collected. Yet, Democrats have perfected a strategy based on, of all things, calling Republicans racists!
I suspect it has much to do with being conditioned or inclined to be undisciplined, not very bright, not very respectful, not very self sufficient, or having a sense of entitlement. If you were any or all of those things, you may look for others to blame or abuse. But that does not sound like middle class Republicans. It sounds more like collectivizers and those who are easily collected, i.e., Democrat Bosses and their political machines.
So how has it come to pass that Democrat Bosses and their political machines have hit on a strategy of calling Republicans racists? Well, it seems to be a bit of an evolutionary step in strategies based on indecency. There came to be an insufficient base to feed Democrats’ sense of being entitled, without trolling for votes from Republicans. So Democrats found the weakest links among Republicans, i.e., the youthful, callow, inexperienced, easily guilted, and easily stampeded -- especially soft-science professors disposed by fairy reasoning to believe they know best how to use other people’s money. In short, the Democrats found people of underdeveloped practical experience and moral compasses who could be easily intimidated when surrounded by mobs that seem to be passionate and aggressive in their expressiveness of self righteousness.
The irony is this: As human predilections, racism and bigotry are likely found most among Democrat collectivizers and their easily collected. Yet, Democrats have perfected a strategy based on, of all things, calling Republicans racists!
Responsible Empathy
When Churchill spoke of blood, toil, tears, and sweat, he was empathetic of what was most needed. Since then, however, the important word, "empathy," seems to have been cheapened. Khen Lampert (2005): "[Empathy] is what happens to us when we leave our own bodies...and find ourselves either momentarily or for a longer period of time in the mind of the other. We observe reality through her eyes, feel her emotions, share in her pain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy. Empathy ought to relate more to appreciating the situation of another, rather than to justifying it.
We need a word to describe a kind of intuitive feeling or insight that ought not to be considered equivalent to automatic or unearned sympathy or feelings of sorrow for every low life. We may endeavor to understand what another person feels without necessarily approving or feeling obliged to provide relief. In that respect, “responsible empathy” ought to apply more in the vein of “tough love.” It ought to pertain to sharing the feelings and emotions of another person for the purpose of helping the other to become a better person. It ought to pertain to sensing, intuiting, and respecting one’s own “I-ness” in others – not to give the other person what he wants, but to not, without good reason, deny him what he most needs -- which is opportunity to learn to pursue self reliance, self respect, social responsibility, and civilizing decency.
Spiritual empathy ought to relate more to how to facilitate paths for others to pursue becoming better adjusted beings. Empathy ought not be considered an excuse to water down the checks and balances in our Constitution. Instead, empathy ought to relate to helping the I-ness in others to express more responsibility and less beggarliness as citizens. Thus, a military DI may easily be more responsibly empathetic than a social-justice community-organizer of entitlement-minded, grievance-mongering, sympathy-sucking demolishers of our Constitution.
In short, there is a world of difference between responsible empathy and adolescent sympathy.
We need a word to describe a kind of intuitive feeling or insight that ought not to be considered equivalent to automatic or unearned sympathy or feelings of sorrow for every low life. We may endeavor to understand what another person feels without necessarily approving or feeling obliged to provide relief. In that respect, “responsible empathy” ought to apply more in the vein of “tough love.” It ought to pertain to sharing the feelings and emotions of another person for the purpose of helping the other to become a better person. It ought to pertain to sensing, intuiting, and respecting one’s own “I-ness” in others – not to give the other person what he wants, but to not, without good reason, deny him what he most needs -- which is opportunity to learn to pursue self reliance, self respect, social responsibility, and civilizing decency.
Spiritual empathy ought to relate more to how to facilitate paths for others to pursue becoming better adjusted beings. Empathy ought not be considered an excuse to water down the checks and balances in our Constitution. Instead, empathy ought to relate to helping the I-ness in others to express more responsibility and less beggarliness as citizens. Thus, a military DI may easily be more responsibly empathetic than a social-justice community-organizer of entitlement-minded, grievance-mongering, sympathy-sucking demolishers of our Constitution.
In short, there is a world of difference between responsible empathy and adolescent sympathy.
Multi Culti Rot
It won't be long before we'll have technology to make all ID cards superfluous. Machines will sense who you are by the shape of your eyes and nose, your fingerprints, retina marks, and dna. If you volunteer for it, your fingerprints will even become your debit card. Airport waiting lines will be eliminated. Think of the possibilities for efficiency! Oh, how that will be great!
Well, so long as only Conservatives of good sense are elected from here on out. Ought oh! Fat chance that will happen! All the efficiency that would help a benign, small government serve us will help a malignant, big government terrorize us. Once Big Sis is always watching, there goes creativity, initiative, privacy, brainstorming, freedom ... and happiness.
Problem is, declining a national ID is not going to stop the trend. Once the mind police and the jihadi zombies, twits, and pirates make it their business to expedite the last Imam by setting off nukes in order to kill off all independent thinking, countless millions will beg the new world mafia (NWM) to implement a worldwide ID network.
I think we have two choices: (1) Assimilate and defend a culture that is friendly to individual freedom and dignity, or (2) surrender and submit to international NWM totalitarianism.
I don't think there is a third choice. That is, I don't think we can have both multi culti rot and freedom and dignity. One or the other will prevail in America. If multi culti rot prevails, then it's off to the NWM with us. And once we pass that point of no return, a national or worldwide ID card will be superfluous ... because technology will advance so as to accomplish the same thing, sans the card.
Well, so long as only Conservatives of good sense are elected from here on out. Ought oh! Fat chance that will happen! All the efficiency that would help a benign, small government serve us will help a malignant, big government terrorize us. Once Big Sis is always watching, there goes creativity, initiative, privacy, brainstorming, freedom ... and happiness.
Problem is, declining a national ID is not going to stop the trend. Once the mind police and the jihadi zombies, twits, and pirates make it their business to expedite the last Imam by setting off nukes in order to kill off all independent thinking, countless millions will beg the new world mafia (NWM) to implement a worldwide ID network.
I think we have two choices: (1) Assimilate and defend a culture that is friendly to individual freedom and dignity, or (2) surrender and submit to international NWM totalitarianism.
I don't think there is a third choice. That is, I don't think we can have both multi culti rot and freedom and dignity. One or the other will prevail in America. If multi culti rot prevails, then it's off to the NWM with us. And once we pass that point of no return, a national or worldwide ID card will be superfluous ... because technology will advance so as to accomplish the same thing, sans the card.
Stoners
It would be interesting to do a survey, to find the relative percentages of stoners among Tea Partiers, Conservatives, Independents, Republicans, Democrats, and Progressives. I suspect a larger percentage of Rino and Dino Progs are stoners. If so, it would seem attractive to disenfranchise stoners. Sure, a few good voters would be lost, but the ranks of Progs would be most thinned. My head hurts from watching mjvoters sell America down the river. So I think I'll write my own prescription and see what I can do to de-legalize voting by stoners. Meantime, if the economy goes into a nose dive and food gets scarce, maybe mjproviders can figure out a way to make mj nutritious and digestible -- as an alternative to food.
****
For most "ists," their lives are about ruling over hated others. They have been instilled with little capacity to be responsible for themselves. They need do no hard work to serve a philosophy or theosophy that in itself shows a way to empathetic fulfillment, so long as they can substitute something to hate. The point of Islam is to hate and rule over "infidels." Without infidels, Islam would lose all meaning, and the contrivance of Allah would dissipate into nothingness. Muslims become slaves to their need to hate other peoples' business.
That is an obsession Muslims share with every cult whose members find no purpose or satisfaction in simply tending to their own gardens. Commie Igor would rather that the genie kill Ivan’s goat, than that the genie present Igor with his own goat. Obama supporters would rather that Obama equalize the American economy by destroying it, than that it be grown to the further enrichment of all. Because of that, all those who wish only to tend to their own gardens have no choice but to defend themselves from every kind of whacko cult that would contrive to “waste no crisis” in order to reduce or enslave them.
Problem is, too few God loving souls who deign only to tend to their own gardens appreciate that many others are not like them. So, they man their defenses too late. In the short run, evil and hate often win.
We cannot directly “fix this kind of stupid.” We have to sidetrack this kind of night train. Example: We know vodka-holics, chat chewers http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/feb/05/research.highereducation, hookah loungers, and mj dopers think like Igor, OBL, Whackjob, and Deadfish. It would help, once Conservatives restore adult supervision, to legislate blood tests before anyone could vote. No one with significant traces of alcohol or dope should be allowed to vote until they have sobered up. That simple fix would go a long way towards removing thugs from throats of decent society. It could “fix stupid,” indirectly.
****
For most "ists," their lives are about ruling over hated others. They have been instilled with little capacity to be responsible for themselves. They need do no hard work to serve a philosophy or theosophy that in itself shows a way to empathetic fulfillment, so long as they can substitute something to hate. The point of Islam is to hate and rule over "infidels." Without infidels, Islam would lose all meaning, and the contrivance of Allah would dissipate into nothingness. Muslims become slaves to their need to hate other peoples' business.
That is an obsession Muslims share with every cult whose members find no purpose or satisfaction in simply tending to their own gardens. Commie Igor would rather that the genie kill Ivan’s goat, than that the genie present Igor with his own goat. Obama supporters would rather that Obama equalize the American economy by destroying it, than that it be grown to the further enrichment of all. Because of that, all those who wish only to tend to their own gardens have no choice but to defend themselves from every kind of whacko cult that would contrive to “waste no crisis” in order to reduce or enslave them.
Problem is, too few God loving souls who deign only to tend to their own gardens appreciate that many others are not like them. So, they man their defenses too late. In the short run, evil and hate often win.
We cannot directly “fix this kind of stupid.” We have to sidetrack this kind of night train. Example: We know vodka-holics, chat chewers http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/feb/05/research.highereducation, hookah loungers, and mj dopers think like Igor, OBL, Whackjob, and Deadfish. It would help, once Conservatives restore adult supervision, to legislate blood tests before anyone could vote. No one with significant traces of alcohol or dope should be allowed to vote until they have sobered up. That simple fix would go a long way towards removing thugs from throats of decent society. It could “fix stupid,” indirectly.
Elites as cover for tyranny
Do elites belong on the Supreme Court? No. I'm starting to think elites don't much belong anywhere. In every important institution, we are now run by elites. Propaganda is that they know best and the rest of us just need to get out of the way. As Obama puts it, he doesn't mind cleaning up the mess we make; he just doesn't want us interfering with his clean up.
But are these elites really looking out for our Constitution, America, or even for us? I don't think so. Can an honest representative get elected to Congress? Can anyone get appointed to a significant position who has not networked among sell outs? I'm no longer confident of that. If these elites can only get appointed or elected by serving gate keeping trolls apart from the 65 percent of common sense Americans, then who precisely are these elites working for, in all institutions, and for what purposes?
Are they working to preserve America for common sense Americans? Or are they working to serve interests bent on consolidating international corporatist control under some kind of worldwide law?
As things stand, until common sense Americans address the real disease, I don't quite see how replacing Obama will accomplish squat. As things stand, we are not ruled or guided by elites, but by rats run rampant. Unless and until something catalyzes the attention of Americans, I don't know how we're going to disinfect D.C. Maybe some movement or consensus will build through town meetings, the internet, and Tea Parties.
Common sense Americans are going to need to coalesce at a grass roots level. Like an anti-union union, built on an ideal of liberty instead of entitlement. Obama is just one face among many two headed snakes with split tongues. Everytime a Yal-ard is appointed, the strong and reasonable presumption is that the appointee serves an international corporatist agenda that is anti-America and anti-liberty. Fed up enough yet? Stock up on disinfectant, i.e., writing, marching, protesting, and voting.
But are these elites really looking out for our Constitution, America, or even for us? I don't think so. Can an honest representative get elected to Congress? Can anyone get appointed to a significant position who has not networked among sell outs? I'm no longer confident of that. If these elites can only get appointed or elected by serving gate keeping trolls apart from the 65 percent of common sense Americans, then who precisely are these elites working for, in all institutions, and for what purposes?
Are they working to preserve America for common sense Americans? Or are they working to serve interests bent on consolidating international corporatist control under some kind of worldwide law?
As things stand, until common sense Americans address the real disease, I don't quite see how replacing Obama will accomplish squat. As things stand, we are not ruled or guided by elites, but by rats run rampant. Unless and until something catalyzes the attention of Americans, I don't know how we're going to disinfect D.C. Maybe some movement or consensus will build through town meetings, the internet, and Tea Parties.
Common sense Americans are going to need to coalesce at a grass roots level. Like an anti-union union, built on an ideal of liberty instead of entitlement. Obama is just one face among many two headed snakes with split tongues. Everytime a Yal-ard is appointed, the strong and reasonable presumption is that the appointee serves an international corporatist agenda that is anti-America and anti-liberty. Fed up enough yet? Stock up on disinfectant, i.e., writing, marching, protesting, and voting.
Consciousness as source of fuzz
I suspect empiricists tend to begin with an assumption: that most of that which is not perceived by themselves does not exist, except as inanimate and unconscious matter. This is troubling. It tends to discount that consciousness may subsist in various primitive, developing, evolving, and unfolding levels and relationships. It tends also to assume that whatever things empiricists perceive as being inanimate could not be byproduct of other features of the same things, which at some level are conscious. Having begun with an assumption, empiricists tend to contrive models that are consistent with it. Then they work backwards, as if the contrived consistency in models somehow proved the initial assumption.
I agree with a belief that some essential thing must exist, that is more than math, and that math in itself could not be the entire explanation for “the territory.” I believe that essential thing has incredible potency, charge, and potential. But I doubt that any particular perspective of it can contrive a complete explanation of it. I also doubt that any particular perspective of it can contrive even a partial explanation, that is both perfect in itself and non-trivial. But I do agree that we can contrive fuzzy explanations, tinker with them, and actually influence and build on our environment with them.
Re: “A muon is not a "feature". Nobody knows why it exists, but it definitely does exist ….”
Well, for modeling purposes, it is often pretty to think so. (Would a muon by any other name smell so sweet?) In any event, you’re not going to get a muon absent an environment in which it can survive (however briefly). IOW, a muon’s definition is not severable from its relationship with its environment.
The key word here is relationship: “things” exist in relationships. Relationships entail things that have capacity to relate to (“sense”) one another and react in recognition of one another’s features (i.e., properties). Relationships are measurably balanced, like equations. Surely, muons have properties, else how could one know a muon from a gluon?
I agree with a belief that some essential thing must exist, that is more than math, and that math in itself could not be the entire explanation for “the territory.” I believe that essential thing has incredible potency, charge, and potential. But I doubt that any particular perspective of it can contrive a complete explanation of it. I also doubt that any particular perspective of it can contrive even a partial explanation, that is both perfect in itself and non-trivial. But I do agree that we can contrive fuzzy explanations, tinker with them, and actually influence and build on our environment with them.
Re: “A muon is not a "feature". Nobody knows why it exists, but it definitely does exist ….”
Well, for modeling purposes, it is often pretty to think so. (Would a muon by any other name smell so sweet?) In any event, you’re not going to get a muon absent an environment in which it can survive (however briefly). IOW, a muon’s definition is not severable from its relationship with its environment.
The key word here is relationship: “things” exist in relationships. Relationships entail things that have capacity to relate to (“sense”) one another and react in recognition of one another’s features (i.e., properties). Relationships are measurably balanced, like equations. Surely, muons have properties, else how could one know a muon from a gluon?
Fuzz
REGARDING FUZZ:
Why and how is it that our existence permits us to build fuzzy-based new technologies on top of fuzzy-based new technologies? Is it because we, ourselves, solely by our inventive choices, are adding or changing the potential direction of Reality? Or is it because “God,” through us, is constantly and continuously relating and intervening in the unfolding feedback of Reality?
Intuitively, does it not seem that:
(1) There must be a holistic, meta clarity that necessarily supports our fuzzy operations and perceptions, whose Source consciously defines, synchronizes, and guides our unfolding choices, which IT limits to IT’s specifications, parameters, prods, designs, purposes, and teleology?
(2) In relation to the web of perceptions which is sponsored throughout by the Consciousness of such Source, IT’s holistic synchronizing of choices tends to coordinate gradual shifts in the phasing of parameters that are availed to our particular perspectives.
(3) Such phase shifts often occur in ways that lag behind our practical measure, kin, appreciation, or conscious feedback.
RESULT: Over space-time, changes are availed in potential directions for our tinkering, technology, and teleology. That is, the Source’s interactive choices about that which we are allowed to develop always affect the directions and limits for that which we are, in next sequence, allowed to develop. That is, our future technologies are to some extent affected by that which happens to comprise that which we experience as our past choices. But the choices which we experience, fuzzily, may well be apprehended by the Source, sans the fuzz. IOW, God has no need for us to clearly understand God’s teleology.
We have no choice but to pass through various quantities and qualities of fuzz. Insofar as we believe we can and should turn all fuzz into perfect clarity, it becomes easy for us to imagine that the perfect should be the enemy of the good. But that is a path to despair, madness, or suicide. The better task before us relates to how to make peace within fuzz, in order to pursue fulfillment within it. “Fuzz ‘r us.”
Why and how is it that our existence permits us to build fuzzy-based new technologies on top of fuzzy-based new technologies? Is it because we, ourselves, solely by our inventive choices, are adding or changing the potential direction of Reality? Or is it because “God,” through us, is constantly and continuously relating and intervening in the unfolding feedback of Reality?
Intuitively, does it not seem that:
(1) There must be a holistic, meta clarity that necessarily supports our fuzzy operations and perceptions, whose Source consciously defines, synchronizes, and guides our unfolding choices, which IT limits to IT’s specifications, parameters, prods, designs, purposes, and teleology?
(2) In relation to the web of perceptions which is sponsored throughout by the Consciousness of such Source, IT’s holistic synchronizing of choices tends to coordinate gradual shifts in the phasing of parameters that are availed to our particular perspectives.
(3) Such phase shifts often occur in ways that lag behind our practical measure, kin, appreciation, or conscious feedback.
RESULT: Over space-time, changes are availed in potential directions for our tinkering, technology, and teleology. That is, the Source’s interactive choices about that which we are allowed to develop always affect the directions and limits for that which we are, in next sequence, allowed to develop. That is, our future technologies are to some extent affected by that which happens to comprise that which we experience as our past choices. But the choices which we experience, fuzzily, may well be apprehended by the Source, sans the fuzz. IOW, God has no need for us to clearly understand God’s teleology.
We have no choice but to pass through various quantities and qualities of fuzz. Insofar as we believe we can and should turn all fuzz into perfect clarity, it becomes easy for us to imagine that the perfect should be the enemy of the good. But that is a path to despair, madness, or suicide. The better task before us relates to how to make peace within fuzz, in order to pursue fulfillment within it. “Fuzz ‘r us.”
Resetting Checks and Balances
Desperate times call for desperate measures. There is no reason a convention of intelligent, principled Americans could not devise a Rico-like procedure to redress the imbalance between them and unprincipled entitlement mongers, to rein in wealthy, international sociopaths. The procedure may be called “FOPMIS,” i.e., Forfeiture Of Power Made In Sedition. Every non-government attorney who is licensed to practice in federal court could be given leave to use it, as a legal bounty hunter.
Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of law!
Progs could hardly argue inefficacy. After all, they tend to find progressively more governmental regulation to be the answer to every economic, political, and spiritual concern. Due process could be retained, to require an examining trial to reasonably ensure a prima facie basis for further prosecution. Else, the prosecution should be dismissed, with court costs to be assessed against the bounty hunting lawyer. Checks could be built in, to protect most decent Americans, to preclude use of FOPMIS for purely political purposes (as opposed to use only for bounty purposes).
As things stand, our constitutional system of checks and balances between federal branches of government and the States and the people is broken. Some form of redress must be made, to restore direct power to the people. Ways ought at least to be considered for redressing the power of sociopathic, international billionaires that is leveraged out of ill-gotten wealth (as by feloniously purchasing political influence, as by, in effect, combining to purchase politicians and even governments).
FOPMIS should require proof of a number of necessary elements, such as: (a) that the culprit is an individual who is in America or who has funds or resources in America; (b) that his net worth is in excess of one billion dollars (or that he has used his access to more than two billion dollars to advance seditious purposes against America); (c) that he has used his wealth to act or to conspire to act treasonously or seditiously against America’s interests; (d) and that his conduct constituted a federal felony.
Even so, an action under FOPMIS should be civil, not entail punishment by way of incarceration, entail only a civil penalty (near complete forfeiture of wealth), and should require proof only by a preponderance of evidence.
An individual found worthy of attaching forfeiture under FOPMIS should be entitled to keep only such minimal resources as an ordinary debtor in bankruptcy would be entitled to keep, subject to appropriate oversight by a trustee. But if the FOPMIS target is exonerated (found innocent by unanimous verdict), then the prosecuting attorney should be debarred from further FOPMIS bounty hunting. No lawyer who is salaried in any way by the government should be licensed to pursue the procedure.
A FOPMIS Defendant should be entitled to take the Fifth Amendment where appropriate, only to protect against possible incarceration. Since the procedure should be civil, the Defendant should have to assert the Fifth to each element about which he is questioned. Each time he takes the Fifth, the finder of facts should be entitled to consider that the Defendant’s answer may have been adverse to his interests. Provided, of course, that there is other, independent evidence for each element that is necessary to the prosecution.
This sounds strange. We are in strange times. Those working to sink the liberty of ordinary Americans are working in feverishly competitive cabals. They ought at least to be given pause to fear ordinary Americans. Maybe it’s time to bring back the American cowboy / bounty hunter --- as a lawyer.
Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of law!
Progs could hardly argue inefficacy. After all, they tend to find progressively more governmental regulation to be the answer to every economic, political, and spiritual concern. Due process could be retained, to require an examining trial to reasonably ensure a prima facie basis for further prosecution. Else, the prosecution should be dismissed, with court costs to be assessed against the bounty hunting lawyer. Checks could be built in, to protect most decent Americans, to preclude use of FOPMIS for purely political purposes (as opposed to use only for bounty purposes).
As things stand, our constitutional system of checks and balances between federal branches of government and the States and the people is broken. Some form of redress must be made, to restore direct power to the people. Ways ought at least to be considered for redressing the power of sociopathic, international billionaires that is leveraged out of ill-gotten wealth (as by feloniously purchasing political influence, as by, in effect, combining to purchase politicians and even governments).
FOPMIS should require proof of a number of necessary elements, such as: (a) that the culprit is an individual who is in America or who has funds or resources in America; (b) that his net worth is in excess of one billion dollars (or that he has used his access to more than two billion dollars to advance seditious purposes against America); (c) that he has used his wealth to act or to conspire to act treasonously or seditiously against America’s interests; (d) and that his conduct constituted a federal felony.
Even so, an action under FOPMIS should be civil, not entail punishment by way of incarceration, entail only a civil penalty (near complete forfeiture of wealth), and should require proof only by a preponderance of evidence.
An individual found worthy of attaching forfeiture under FOPMIS should be entitled to keep only such minimal resources as an ordinary debtor in bankruptcy would be entitled to keep, subject to appropriate oversight by a trustee. But if the FOPMIS target is exonerated (found innocent by unanimous verdict), then the prosecuting attorney should be debarred from further FOPMIS bounty hunting. No lawyer who is salaried in any way by the government should be licensed to pursue the procedure.
A FOPMIS Defendant should be entitled to take the Fifth Amendment where appropriate, only to protect against possible incarceration. Since the procedure should be civil, the Defendant should have to assert the Fifth to each element about which he is questioned. Each time he takes the Fifth, the finder of facts should be entitled to consider that the Defendant’s answer may have been adverse to his interests. Provided, of course, that there is other, independent evidence for each element that is necessary to the prosecution.
This sounds strange. We are in strange times. Those working to sink the liberty of ordinary Americans are working in feverishly competitive cabals. They ought at least to be given pause to fear ordinary Americans. Maybe it’s time to bring back the American cowboy / bounty hunter --- as a lawyer.
Double-Think
Young Libs tend not to know that their political slogans are not paradigms. That is, their paradigms are not paradigms. Their slogans do not attach respect for limits and borders that are necessary if anything is to be explicated. Slogans, not math, are Libs’ forte.
Sure, you don’t have to be a mathematician to appreciate that physical relationships and changes entail measurable tradeoffs (fluxing equations). But … instead of understanding that, Libs tend simply to bounce from one unbounded slogan to the next. Such as: America is imperialistic; whites are racists; Conservatives are hypocrites, capitalism has failed; give them the wealth; power to the people; boundaries are not fair; discrimination is bad; all cultures are of equal moral value; American repression is the root cause of suffering in North Korea and Iran; Zionism is the root cause of Islamic jihad; Che was a freedom fighter; etc.
Many leaders and profs of Young Libs prefer not to teach them how to think critically, i.e., to respect systems and limits. Rather, Libs are like cattle, to be immersed in p.c., self esteem, entitlement theories, and proper slogans. Because only their handlers can be trusted to know best. Because their handlers have little regard for human dignity, self reliance, or freedom of thought. Like Mao, their handlers are invested in a material fantasy for themselves or for the planet, not bounded by reasoned respect for most other human beings.
Sure, you don’t have to be a mathematician to appreciate that physical relationships and changes entail measurable tradeoffs (fluxing equations). But … instead of understanding that, Libs tend simply to bounce from one unbounded slogan to the next. Such as: America is imperialistic; whites are racists; Conservatives are hypocrites, capitalism has failed; give them the wealth; power to the people; boundaries are not fair; discrimination is bad; all cultures are of equal moral value; American repression is the root cause of suffering in North Korea and Iran; Zionism is the root cause of Islamic jihad; Che was a freedom fighter; etc.
Many leaders and profs of Young Libs prefer not to teach them how to think critically, i.e., to respect systems and limits. Rather, Libs are like cattle, to be immersed in p.c., self esteem, entitlement theories, and proper slogans. Because only their handlers can be trusted to know best. Because their handlers have little regard for human dignity, self reliance, or freedom of thought. Like Mao, their handlers are invested in a material fantasy for themselves or for the planet, not bounded by reasoned respect for most other human beings.
Femimen
Ok, I just watched parts of "Fitna." Got the point. Entire populations are being trained much like pit bulls, solely to hate and, when put in the pit, to fight. Once a pit bull has been conditioned since a pup to that kind of existence, can it ever be retrained and made fit for decent society? With Muslims, are we dealing with morally zombiefied populations? Are we not deluding ourselves to think it possible to speak reason with them?
At the other extreme, we have bookish femimen and feminazis who have been sheltered their entire lives from practical experience, while getting "educated" in progressive Marxism. Are we deluding ourselves to think it possible ever to make them fit for the real world?
These people are drones from different hives. One hive is conditioned to saw off heads, the other is conditioned to throw tantrums. One destroys minds, the other tears things up. Neither allows themselves to think outside their conditioning.
George Washington was right. Why are we entangling ourselves with these people? Cui bono?
At the other extreme, we have bookish femimen and feminazis who have been sheltered their entire lives from practical experience, while getting "educated" in progressive Marxism. Are we deluding ourselves to think it possible ever to make them fit for the real world?
These people are drones from different hives. One hive is conditioned to saw off heads, the other is conditioned to throw tantrums. One destroys minds, the other tears things up. Neither allows themselves to think outside their conditioning.
George Washington was right. Why are we entangling ourselves with these people? Cui bono?
Socialism is a one word contradiction
There is no such thing as Democratic Socialism as a stable form of government. The only stable choices for government are either oligarchy or republic. http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D2_21-CJy9I. But without an informed and decent electorate, not even a republic is stable. Eternal vigilance by a decent and informed citizenry is the price to preserve a republic. This is why despotism under oligarchies is the default position for the governance of mankind. This is why "socialism" is a one word oxymoron. It is oligarchy, not socialism. This is why converting America to socialism will necessarily convert America to oligarchy.
Indeed, behind the curtain, that is what is happening. But this is not nation based oligarchy. It is a cross borders, international, corporatist based oligarchy. United Nations is a two word oxymoron. Independent nations do not unite. And international law is not law. (Not reliable law, anyway. Not in times of crisis, when it is most needed.) Indeed, we have a person now nominated to our Supreme Court who does not even think much of Constitutional law. So who will run this new international, borderless society? Well, what's the default? We will be under a worldwide oligarchy, i.e., an oligarchy of corporatists. Indeed, their grip is quickening. Who owns and runs: media, banking, political parties, regulators? And soon, our Supreme Court?
Once America's electorate becomes indecent or uninformed, the republic for which American patriots sacrificed countless lives will perish. And with it will perish human dignity, freedom, even freedom of thought. We will revert to a state of being that is more like zombiehood than the potential of being human.
The question that needs to be put to American Dems, who are so fond to consider themselves to be victims and entitled children, is this: To forcibly take for ourselves an equal share of wealth (or poverty), are we willing to blow out the light of liberty?
If there is no freedom to negotiate and compete for your own wages and prices, because the government has preemptively taken those functions, then what becomes of your capacity to pursue happiness for yourself? And what does history teach about the capacity of collectivist government to spoon feed your happiness to you?
Indeed, behind the curtain, that is what is happening. But this is not nation based oligarchy. It is a cross borders, international, corporatist based oligarchy. United Nations is a two word oxymoron. Independent nations do not unite. And international law is not law. (Not reliable law, anyway. Not in times of crisis, when it is most needed.) Indeed, we have a person now nominated to our Supreme Court who does not even think much of Constitutional law. So who will run this new international, borderless society? Well, what's the default? We will be under a worldwide oligarchy, i.e., an oligarchy of corporatists. Indeed, their grip is quickening. Who owns and runs: media, banking, political parties, regulators? And soon, our Supreme Court?
Once America's electorate becomes indecent or uninformed, the republic for which American patriots sacrificed countless lives will perish. And with it will perish human dignity, freedom, even freedom of thought. We will revert to a state of being that is more like zombiehood than the potential of being human.
The question that needs to be put to American Dems, who are so fond to consider themselves to be victims and entitled children, is this: To forcibly take for ourselves an equal share of wealth (or poverty), are we willing to blow out the light of liberty?
If there is no freedom to negotiate and compete for your own wages and prices, because the government has preemptively taken those functions, then what becomes of your capacity to pursue happiness for yourself? And what does history teach about the capacity of collectivist government to spoon feed your happiness to you?
Sacrifices of Progressives
When nature punished, Aztecs found human sacrifices --- not to throw under the bus, but to rip hearts out of and tumble down stairs. During the Bush admin and Katrina, “enlightened Progs” deployed a less violent version of this technique against Bush. Now that we have the “disaster of the hole,” Progs continue to find use even for the memory of Bush. However, that “medicine” is not working. So, when will Progs’ enlightened religion demand of them that they make a more tangible sacrifice, i.e., the current presidency? When will those who practice Prog enlightenment become the sacrifices of Prog enlightenment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
