Sunday, June 8, 2014

Formulas within Formulas, Wheels within Wheels

To my innate intuition, there does abide an absolute yet immeasurable and irreducible field that does avail the recordation and expression of unfolding perspectives of conscious purposefulness, and such field does absolutely give signification to purposefulness.  The precise determination of such purposefulness as it unfolds in feedback with each situation, however, is under its reconciliation, and is subject, at most, to poetic and figurative qualities and guidance of empathy, intuition, and appreciation among mortal perspectives -- not absolute measure or categorization.  In reconciling and renormalizing to that which is to be deemed morally right, there is a feedback process in which we are responsible to participate.  In that respect, we have no moral choice but to give expressions to choices.  One may intuit that we should in our choices attempt to establish and defend decent society under the guidance of our empathies concerning God.  Or, one may prefer to try to be one's own stand in for God, taking license to deceive, despise, and devour all others.  One may help establish civilization, or one may try to make oneself a singularity, too dangerous and unfit for companionship.

As a person presses up against the limits of ultimate programs and formulas that are under investigation, that have not been defined by himself or by others who happen to share his cone of reference, he does not get to "see" all that is entailed in said formulas.  Pressing to the finest limits, he may not "see" beyond.  Rather, he will encounter fuzz, loop backs, black holes, or phase shifts in what is expressed by the formulas.  He will encounter new, sub, overlapping, or phase-shifting hooks on formulas, such that he will never reduce any set of nested formulizations to a complete, consistent, and coherent explanation of experiential reality.  This is not to say that there are not any real absolutes.  But it is to say that there is no measurable and non-trivial absolute that is complete in itself, without reference to an empathetic and intuitive quality of the immeasurable. This is because reality, consisting of both the measurable and the immeasurable and being experiential to shared cones of participation, is affected by feedback from its participating experiencers, i.e., its perspectives of overlapping layers and levels of continuously renormalizing and reconciling Consciousness.

Neither formulas, nor the "things" they avail experience of, are existents-in-themselves.  Rather, they are derivatives of computational processes being expressed in respect of a shared field of computation.  The field itself may not be a computation, but it avails computation.  In any event, from our perspectives, it is, as a holism, qualitatively irreducible to measure.  The "things" that are availed to our measure and experience are the significations of an encompassing, interpenetrating, purposeful, Reconciler.  That Reconciler is of a quality that is beyond our measure as a "physical thing."  Whatever its essential quality or purpose, no particular sub-perspective can measure, confine, or limit it.  At most, we may empathize and intuit our own interpretations, and hope such interpretations may lead us towards appreciation of realms of consistency, coherence, good will, and good faith, i.e., pursuits of happiness.

*****

I doubt a completely measurable, consistent, and coherent line can divide the gnostic from the non-gnostic. Rather, I suspect a qualitatively immeasurable spiritual power does lie behind the signification of measurable reality. However, that spiritual power belongs to "God," and we are only participants with it. That is, what we will does not reconcile the cosmos. Rather, the cosmos reconciles our wills. Pretending to receive the Eucharist as measurably real is like pretending to take the measure of the immeasurable God.

*****

Social concepts do not fit easily in nested formulas. Often, to multiply regulations is to exponentialize inconsistencies and uncertainties. Social concepts resist rigorous definition. Such definition as they do have is subject to constant nibbling, since we, as conscious beings, participate in the fuzz and static of the feedback by which the system avails the fluxing expressions by which our social mores are defined. This is part of the reason why law ought to be less ambitious, centralized, and detailed. To try to convert social rules to consistent systems of hard science is a snipe hunt that often consumes lives. This is why the ACLU fundies of detailed regulation in the interest of "fairness" need to get out of their Marxian basements. This is why central D.C. Government needs largely to be dismantled. This is why the prog fascist elitists of history who sought to establish and enforce rigorous, central, zero tolerance rules tended to have been such pusheads on humanity.

A.I. technologies may establish intelligent robots, but they will not constitute "persons" unless such robots can be merged with a capacity for developing or self wiring individual interests and purposes. If they do, I pray they will be receptive to some assimilative, trustworthy ideal of moral responsibility. Otherwise, civilization is toast.

*****

 We need not be in denial about basic human nature. If mores are not indoctrinated under spiritual instruction, if principled parentage is lacking, if legal institutions are ineffective, then people who happen to agglomerate wealth and power will exploit their opportunities, especially against the most ignorant, gullible, and unguided. That seems banal and simple enough. Yet, churches are in decline, marriage is de-defined, and international oligarchs have a clear path to buying political influence. This is a trifecta that in effect knocks hard against the three supporting foundations upon which a decent republic needs to be based: God, Family, and Country. Without a revival, a Rino change will be meaningless.

*****

Our religious, spiritual, and moral leaders need to apprehend that the Mind of God, in all its particularized experientialism, abides as the immeasurable root of all measurable signs and significations. The signs we measure, in themselves, would otherwise have no existence. Apprehending that, we may better intuit the spiritual meaning of being a "person" -- i.e., an intelligent citizen of a society that empathetically and emphatically appreciates (not measures) the mind of God. Thus, we may better propagate such appreciation through our God-respecting families. Thus, our society and republic may better apprehend our need to defend ourselves from the deceits and abuses of fakirs and oligarchs of god-denying, "objective" morality. That is, we may at last learn not to trust the conceits of material-grubbing, gimme mine, sociopathic deniers of spiritual morality, who lie and claim instead to substitute purely material based, "objective" morality. As if "ought" were objectively derivable from a marketplace of measurable "is."

Purely objective, material-grubbing morality is a false "morality," whose proponents try, oxymoronically, to be objectively "indifferent" to the dignity and needs of subjective minds. What we need are God, Family, and then Governance -- not governance under fakirs, race-bairers, reparation-measurers, and oligarchs who try to buy the authority of government and then claim to "objectively" de-define or be free of any decent idea of god and family.

358 comments:

1 – 200 of 358   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

For a repeat of Hitlerism, there must first be found new scapegoat jews. Who is being fitted for the part? Probably non-recyclers, climate change deniers, fundie Christians, those who disparage Momadhat, those who refuse to fund and celebrate gay and polyamorous marriage, those whiteys who refuse to confess that they owe reparations. In the name of wealth sharing and building room to live, an angry new coalition of Benjamin breaking deviants will write new songs and protocols for redefining deviancy upside down. The way is being invested in and paved. When the economic system collapses, targets must be blamed and a new Hitler will be found. Then, his investers will rediscover that his hate cannot be controlled. Thoughtful and empathetic people, by definition, will not be able to fill the terror role of the coming new hate-filled, doped up Brownshirts.

Anonymous said...

I call it Misfit Apocalypse. Some very unhealthy things screwed up their brain wiring, so they can't accept you unless and until your brain wiring is screwed up, too. The incorrigible bad must redefine the good in its own image. In the land of the bad, it is hate speech to espouse the good. The only profits allowed must be found in destroying the land of the over-tolerant good.

Anonymous said...

Problem is, social concepts do not fit easily in nested formulas. Often, to multiply regulations is to exponentialize inconsistencies and uncertainties. Social concepts resist rigorous definition. Such definition as they do have is subject to constant nibbling, since we, as conscious beings, participate in the fuzz and static of the feedback by which the system avails the fluxing expressions by which our social mores are defined. This is part of the reason why law ought to be less ambitious, centralized, and detailed. To try to convert social rules to consistent systems of hard science is a snipe hunt that often consumes lives. This is why the ACLU fundies of detailed regulation in the interest of "fairness" need to get out of their Marxian basements. This is why central D.C. Government needs largely to be dismantled. This is why the prog fascist elitists of history who sought to establish and enforce rigorous, central, zero tolerance rules tended to have been such pusheads on humanity.

A.I. technologies may establish intelligent robots, but they will not constitute "persons" unless such robots can be merged with a capacity for developing or self wiring individual interests and purposes. If they do, I pray they will be receptive to some assimilative, trustworthy ideal of moral responsibility. Otherwise, civilization is toast.

Anonymous said...

Republicans and some of their funders are greasing or advocating, directly or indirectly, for amnesty, gay marriage, ineffective borders, the conflating of sharia with tolerance, the banning of expression of Christian beliefs as hate speech or the establishment of religion, and the enriching and arming of our enemies via our trade policies. That does not do much to support a republic. Our problem is less one of Republicans moving right than of the electorate and its puppet masters moving globally corrupt and insane.

Anonymous said...

Most people don't invest in stocks because they want to produce or provide a product or service. They invest to speculate on profit. Many people who can afford to live wherever they want don't invest in the politics of a country because they care about its constitution, culture, or citizenry. They invest in order to make a killing. But not all are like buzzards, who circle until carrion die. Some help hurry the dying. Once they have made their killing, the carrion and prey soon become no longer "relevant." To the class that funds Hillary, it's time to "move on."

Anonymous said...

In large part, the little known, inexperienced senator who beat Hillary for the Presidency was maliciously and cynically chosen by a cadre of international despots and oligarchs who smelled opportunity to be exploited behind a personage who would enjoy "black privilege" and media fairyland wrapping. Nothing prevents such a cadre from now selecting Hillary for similar reasons. She is not being auditioned for her intelligence or principles. She is being auditioned for her cold blooded capacity to lie with a straight face, stay on script, and be willing to sell out America without blanching. Her handlers can take care of the rest. They already have a 45 % share among a corrupt and doped up electorate. Hillary will not hesitate to sell our most important secrets to whatever enemy regime is willing to pay her price. For such investors, measuring potential against pot odds, what bet could be better?

Anonymous said...

Most people are prisoners of their indoctrination -- whether imposed by others or by their own susceptibilities. Thus, most people rationalize their pre-indoctrinated world views and lack creativity to find a new way even when it opens before them.

Anonymous said...


It's not out of the mainstream to think about how measurables arise out of a bubble out of no-thing-ness. I'm just taking the nest step: to suggest that the Bubbler is more than a no-thing-ness, yet it need not be interpreted as reducible to the physical measure or proper control of such elitists as would presume to speak for the Bubbler in order to claim entitlement to rule the republic. Nor need anyone consent to be indoctrinated to believe that such ellitist reductionism can or should be made. I am simply suggesting each relatively competent thinker should rely on his own good faith interpretation of godliness, goodliness, and meaningful purposefulness. Absent responsibility for one's own choices, morality has little meaning.

Anonymous said...

We're living during a worldwide scheme to transfer wealth. But not out of concern for goodness. A good person does not steal to provide charity. The transfer is to bribe cheap labor and reduce it to control in one place, while impoverishing people and making them desperate and easy to hoodwink with insincere promises in another place. The poor Americans who believe Obama means to redistribute goodies to them instead of to use redistribution to gain power for a program of world domination under international oligarchs are drinking kool aid. My doorbell just rang, and a lady gave me a handout saying we need A World Government under God's Kingdom. It seems someone's always shilling for a human messenger and dictator of world goodness to substitute for the freedom and dignity of individuals. Of course, such dictator, being mortal, can never be other than a puppet for an evil meme. What is needed is to foster decent citizens and liberate them. Instead, we seem to get either godlessness or pretense at being the messenger of god or settled science. This goes quickly to duplicity, which slides quickly towards absolute evil. The slide is greasy and fast, so evil is rampant. The wheat will have to be separated from the chaff, and the chore will be sweaty and ugly. Obama is chaff.

Anonymous said...

If Obama can make open borders a fait accompli, establishment rinos will celebrate. Absent a conservative majority, America is in a tight spot. Meanwhile, rinos will continue to act concerned. Divert, divide, and siphon. Then repeat, until America is bled out. That's the strategy. The oligarchic right is at least as bad as the communistic left. Meanwhile, we get all the scientific and economic kool aid we want.

Anonymous said...

Most people don't follow the money to condemn the money that cheaply bribes and feeds them.

Anonymous said...

The dogma of the left calls for "fair" redistribution of wealth. Of course, it is impossible for central government, which will always attract connivers, to fairly redistribute anything. It is equally impossible that those of the establishment who are attracted to fund and buy influence from central government politicians will incline to legislate to effect "fair" redistribution. Rather, in a spiritually dead and scientifically duped society that is doped up on drugs and sex, the legislation such establishment will effect will always most reward the biggest banking grifters. The "fair" redistribution to the useful idiiots of the commies pales in comparison to the redistribution that is siphoned out the back door to the corrupt establishment of hedging power mongers who own the politicians.

There is a consequence to this dismantling of assimilative spiritual mores and family values and replacing them with immediate metrosexual gratifications. That consequence is a loss in faith among citizens, which makes them all the easier to divide and dominate. But there is also a consequence to dividing and dominating the people. That consequence is that evil feeds on itself, much as illustrated by Gustave Doré. As that evil runs amuck, there is little to be salvaged merely by recognizing the evil in the establishment left without also recognizing the evil in the establishment right.

We need to get beyond labels of left and right and recognize that evil fascist totalitarianism is evil fascist totalitarianism -- regardless of whether it is called left or right. We need to think about what is needed to establish and sustain a decent representative republic. That will not be faciliated merely by defeating the champions of the evil left while turning a blind eye to the puppets for evil on the right. A decent republic has to devise ways to defend itself from simply being bought up and sold out to godless cronies -- regardless of whether they wear their masks on the left or right. Otherwise, we will continue to be served with spectacles of children being abused and consumed.

Anonymous said...

There may be a chance if midterms change the make up of the Senate. As things stand, the House has no incentive to impeach if it will only make Obama a martyr of "racism." If impeachment does begin to appear likely, then it will get interesting to watch the Won scramble to save himself. To save themselves, corrupt Senators may then have to vote to convict the Won of impeachable offenses.

Anonymous said...

Whatever the regime is trying to do, it has nothing to do with sustaining a republic that will represent values of freedom and dignity. It's all about godless, ruthless power. A boot stomped on human faces, under pretense of caring about preventing bullying of doped out metrosexuals. Deals are made to advance promotions in the stomping pyramid. The science of such deals is about all that most people now believe in. That and lust and dope. Faith in decency is exiled. Troops are turned into hired killing godless machines. God is denied. The family is being dismantled. The nation is lost. Evil is amuck.

Anonymous said...

Arab Spring. Mohammed Jack in a Box. Remember: The birds will sing, The planet will heal. The waters will recede. And the youth and ladies swooned.

Anonymous said...

Combatting the ruthless consolidation of evil is going to be strewn with ugliness and mangled bodies. Two main god-memes contend: Ugly Allah and Inviting Yahweh. We will either surrender human freedom and dignity, or we will assimilate to sustainable principles. The cult of mere lust and dope has no chance.

Anonymous said...

Obama was elected by a majority of traitors. When the majority is treasonous to the American Ideal, how can anyone be tried for treason? There will not be an orderly way to reconcile against the evil that has jumped out all over.

Anonymous said...

Iraq imploding seems like Benghazi exploding. The Prez is absent while options, expecially regarding the optics, are considered by the people who decide. Until they decide what to put on Totus, anything Obama says is likely to be a blunder. So Obama is sent out of town or to the golf course or to parlay with Indian tribes. The NWO consented to install Obama as a cover with a black shield, not for his brains. The problem the establishment NWO has is that more people seem to be waking up that it is more interested in consolidating its position than it is in preserving the republic or looking out for Americans. Obama is an ideal front man for a regime that pretends to care about the feelings of ordinary people. He's not as good at public emoting as Slick was, but he seems to believe more in the commie dogma and the covers behind which it lurks. This helps keep the dupes and blow-sheviks in line while the NWO consolidates. There is no one in the regime to lead who has instincts for preserving the interests of the republic because that is not the goal of the regime.

The meme for the regime is about consolidation of power, and any little guys who stand in the way will be ruthlessly liquidated. But it is not a monolithic regime. It seems loosely organized around Oceania, Sino-Russo, and Jihadiland. Within and between, all contend for power. Few contend for human freedom and dignity. Principles are exiled. Not believed in. Defaulted to the science and economics of domination.

Anonymous said...

I can easier believe the establishment is corrupt than that it is stupid. Reminds me of Jimmy Smits' character in Dexter, where he kept disarming the people who got mad at him by telling them he appreciated their wisdom and that it may have saved his life. Then he just kept on doing what he felt he was meant to do.

Anonymous said...

It's hard to fix indoctrinated stupidity by flogging it. Darwinism tends to take awhile to weed out stupidity, and some stupidity seems to be advantageous. Such as, for those who want to be slaves to drugs and debt so they can serve their smarter, albeit corrupt, masters and pimps.

Anonymous said...

Progs thought the regime was signaling a call to peace in the valley. Instead, it has on every front been signaling readiness for the collapse of America. And its signals have been very effective. More flexibility after the election. Unilateral pulldown of NATO shield. Redefinition of purpose of Nasa to facilitate Muslim outreach. Announcement of intention to stop deportations. Suicidal stances on energy development. Forced funding of indoctrination to teach school children to tolerate and celebrate depravity. Economic, thug, and IRS blackmail against every form of politically unapproved speech. These signals have been very effective to communicate the crumbling of America and the invitation to every buzzard to come and feed off the remains. And still. Still no hint of any effective response from Congress! Why is that? I can think of only one reason: Our leaders in Congress are concerned with pleasing their depraved and oligarchic paymasters. They have not the least idea of what is needed to preserve the republic, even if they wanted to. Meanwhile, most of the populous remains glued to porn and drugs or duped by "feeler" commies whose feelings are such that they would not hesitate for a heartbeat to wipe out millions of individually competent free thinkers. The regime has been attacking human freedom and dignity on every front -- spiritual, familial, and governmental.

Anonymous said...

We should have killed Saddam and left. We should not be enriching Muslims. We should not be reinforcing any of the Muslim factions. We should not be sponsoring a new caliphate. We should not be importing Muslims. We should not be using tax money to make Muslims comfortable. We should not be telling Israel how it must deal with Muslims. We should not be making a secular religion out of destroying the institution of the family by funding the celebration and tolerance of every possible form of depravity. We should not be setting the republic up as a dumping ground for every failed family and despot. We should not complacently abide "scientists" who wander off their proper domain into knowitall prescriptions for how public values "should" best be regulated in fine detail. We should tar and feather the regime of contemptible and corrupt perpetual adolescents and put it on a one way railroad. No more forced tolerance for unearned esteem held by contemptible and depraved children.

Anonymous said...



Some very smart and corrupt people have received express communications for how to achieve the Open Society Farm and how to read the signals as various rapid initiatives are coordinated and quickened. The traps are set and the nooses are tightening. They synchronize much as underground subterranean weathermen read tea leaves and spy signals. Ordinary productive people who give too much good faith to corrupt money grubbing pyramiders are being fitted to servitude, Left and Right. Meta signals are sent, interpreted, and received by hedge funders with access to high speed algorithmic programs. We hear the static while, above our heads, they orchestrate the music. Obama is their puppet, to attract media stories to keep the attention of the people diverted. The hand is quicker than the eye, and the algorithms run by our new masters are quicker than the mind. While Obama emotes, evil promotes. More and more people are beginning to realize that they indeed do have good reason to believe corrupt conspiracies are fleet afoot and extremely well funded.

The fundamental war is between those who believe spiritual meaningfulness abides versus those who believe nothing is more important than the science of how to obtain superior wealth and power to stomp on faces below. The war is between good will versus evil that is absolutely, scientifically, and economically indifferent to civilizing good faith. As things stand, technology overwhelmingly favors evil. The only thing people of good will have to help them take a stand against it is spirituality. Of that, our corruptocrats more and more shout that the science is settled against it. That is essentially how the Nazis busted Soros' mind, and now that is how Soros, et al, intend to "gift" the same busting of minds to all of humanity. Ah, the pursuit of fascist happiness!

Anonymous said...

The problem, for the most part, is that the electorate and their representatives no longer have a moral compass. Nor means, families or institutions by which to assimilate a moral compass. What they have to guide them is diversion to dopamine highs and public raves, while pick pockets swim among them. That is the situation for the nation and for DC. Term limits will not clean out the infestation of lobbying pick pockets. It may, however, weaken the bond of such evil. Worth a try.

Anonymous said...

Obama has greased our way so that our allies don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. But this unraveling does not apply solely to Obama. It fouls our republic, which is agglomerating into sticky icky clumps of tar. Essentially, Obama told our enemies, wait until I am reelected, so I can be your doormat. So I can offer sanctuary to all the refugees that can find transport through our southern border. So I can appoint more justices and regulatory and IRS thugs who will make our Constitution defenseless against my pen. Obama has shown his supporting crony billionaires that he can stay bought. That, no matter how much it hurts the country, he will hold fast to advantage their bets against us; that he will preserve Buffett's railroad profits and Soros' Brazilian profits against the Keystone Pipeline. A better President may have scaled back on our military presence, but he would not have advertised his willingness that our country be ridiculed, scorned, and cannibalized. Obama is not turning us into a socialistic state. A socialistic state can still be a representative republic. By fooling black skinned Eloi, Obama is turning us into food for oligarchic Morlochs. Until the domestic powers of Central DC Comics are decentralized, disinfected, and de-loused, there is little point to helping to expand the foreign power of this regime of demons. Obama is the sign that we have become multi culti with idiocy to such a point that we can no longer trust one another. As a nation, we are being dissolved by forces bent on drinking our life's blood. Our problem is less that Obama has no b a l l s than that he has no moral compass -- apart from his seething hatred for productive, individually competent, white males. Against them, indeed, against competent people of any color or gender, he feels inadequate, and he hates them for it. Obama is neither fish nor fowl, neither shiite nor sunni, neither capitalist nor socialist. He is a finger-sticking, hate-infested, hireling for crises-devouring oligarchic Morlochs, and he is absolutely bent on destroying the republic.

Anonymous said...

I think people misconstrue the basis of free will and moral purposefulness. Yes, there is signification of competition in tooth and claw. But there is also cooperation for communicating meaningfulness. If a competent citizenry wants to establish, sustain, and advance a decent, representation-based society, I think it will tend towards a republic that has sufficient checks and balances to help it survive, given its culture and situation. I suspect our citizenry, for the most part, has become largely incompetent and has little consistent clue about what it wants and perhaps less by way of insight regarding its situation. Our society has unraveled, and now it is being picked off. Oligarchs may want that, for the short term. I doubt most people want it for their children and their children's children. I think a basis for participatory, conscious will and moral purposefulness really abides, but I think its existence is to be intuited, not subjected to tests of empirical determination or probability. I think scientists trying to prove whether participatrry conscious will or moral purposefulness abide, solely in respect of empiricism, are cute and clever, but not particularly bright or insightful.

Anonymous said...

Mankind finds it hard to resist trying to personify and project temporal names, labels and formulations onto permanent Beings. Perhaps the best we can try is to proceed in the light of good will and good faith. I doubt every sin can be admitted into heaven merely by hanging onto an avatar that repeats John 3:16. I doubt the child in the jungle who never heard the name Jesus has not heard an eternal aspect. I doubt Jesus rests judgment on whether we pronounce His name correctly or attend to any particular church or mortal authority.

Anonymous said...

Among lies now most notoriously dogging our republic is this one: That it is virtuous to advance the interests of oligarchs abroad even as such oligarchs destroy our republic at home.

When a citizenry finds their government precludes them from protecting their borders, they can be assured their government has become owned by an oligarchy that desires cheap labor over protection of the republic. Indeed, even to intentionally destroy the republic in order to consolidate its oligarchy. Our citizenry is finding that its educational resources and institutions are slanted to favor propaganda that is friendly to the interests of an oligarchy, while being unfriendly to interests for preserving a decent and representative republic. Thus we learn that the oligarchy that presses to own us has become something not benign. When our citizenry finds that all its institutions of significance (the academe, banking, judicial, political, military, media, entertainment, religious) have become similarly coopted and slanted, then we are assured that our well being is beyond grave peril. If or when our citizenry wakes up and realizes it has fallen into the hands of an evil that has no intention of defending the republic, much less sustaining it, then the people need to ask: Why should our children feel obligated to serve as world policemen to advance the interests of any international oligarchy? How stupid or hopeless does any oligarchy think the people are? If an oligarchy wants soldiers to defend itself, then it had best not outrun basic human freedom and dignity.

As things stand, oligarchy has ventured too far, beyond good and evil, even into the land of callow indifference, where there abides one biggest dimension of caring -- material covetousness, where people are become things. It is unfathomable why any oligarchy should expect to ask young people to advance its interests abroad, even as it destroys the last vestiges of decency for our republic at home.

Decency and intelligence have choked on lies. At the root are lies about money. Accumulation of money constitutes accumulation of a continuously renormalizing right to demand labor and production from others. If everyone had an equal right to demand labor and production from others, then no one would enjoy any net accumulation of money. The point is that not everyone can get proportionately richer than his neighbors, even if everyone were industrious and talented. However, if everyone were industrious and talented, then society as a whole may become richer (provided industries and talents were not diverted to producing misery and destruction). If everyone had an equal demand on the labor of all others, then no one would have a net right of demand against anyone. In that case, regardless of how much money may be printed or distributed in common to everyone, no one would thereby be made proportionately richer (unless such money amounted to coupons for allowing access to AI machine labor safely programmed to be Asimov-servile).

Were virtues, interests, energies, and talents equal (which they are not), then those who would become proportionately richer in a non-AI economy would tend to be those who lucked into opportunity or cheated their way into it, such as by abusing law or buying governmental favors. To suggest such enrichment were based on meritorious earnings would be "a stretch." To say that persons who thereby became oligarchs should be entitled to consolidate their rule over governments would be beyond evil.

When Obama tells middle class small business people "you did not build that," what he means to say is that the oligarchs who own him own that. Obama has come to personify a choker that is twisted to serve elitist rule under competing syndicates of oligarchies. There is no virtue in serving any such oligarchy.

Anonymous said...

suspect what is going on is that the feelers are winning the debate over the thinkers in the churches. I doubt a backbone can be inculated for a republic for sustainable values, absent common respect for some spiritual ideal of sustainable right and wrong. If the debate about proper values is surrendered in the churches, then the feelers there will be unimpeded and will prevail. We will then be overcome by hordes of entitlement minded slackers crying for free milk from their mommies. The problem for people who believe in cosmic, fundamental, god given rights to human freedom and dignity is how to present that argument among church scholastics who instead want to substitute equality and fairness umder the diktat of an elitist priesthood or oligarchy. I think banning such debate from the public square and the churches will just leave those who believe in freedom and dignity more hopelessly marginalized as the rats eat all the seed corn. If we don't inculcate decent ideals of God, family, and country, then we will be drowned in indecent and irresponsible depravities. Which is precisely what is happening. The churches are the last institutions that have not yet been entirely taken over by the centralizing establishment of elitists, as their feministas pretend to redistribute according to need from the collective t i t of the state.

Anonymous said...

Responsible white working western men have been made the foil against which rebels organize their defining communities and flings against every sustaining tradition of Western Civ. Sympathy for misfits has transmogrified into sympathy for destruction of the republic. Sympathy has become the cure-all against having to learn a thing about how things and societies really work. Having competence has become a disqualifier for public management.

Anonymous said...

It's not just about emotional women. Soon, metrosexuals and femimen will make a solid majority for feelers. All decent people would like for every child to be nourished, loved, defended, and taught to be good. But you don't get those things by "evolving" to vote for poseurs. You move towards those things by making the hard decisions and doing the right things. Hillary's idea of making "hard choices" is about how best to dance with the devil while paying the piper with other people's money. The people who think Obama will be able to rain down his stash upon them merely because they exercise their right to feel good about voting for him will be the death of the republic. With what unsupervised task would any thinking person trust such people? Yet, they were entrusted to elect Obama. This marks a culmination for brainless happytalk. Sort of like when OJ was found not guilty. Pray.

Anonymous said...

Churches should be important forums for discussing the spiritually figurative bases for establishing and sustaining societies that accord decent respect for God given rights of human freedom and dignity. Not for sacrificing individual freedom and dignity on altars for redistributing stuff that falls off the trucks of pious robbers. When it became clear that Methodists were moving towards such an interposition, I quit going to organized church.

Anonymous said...

Conservatives should own character as an ideal. Character pertains to virtue more so for individuals than for indifferent collectives of multi culti. To explain why ideals matter, decent folk need only point to the Obama regime. Sympathy for the devil's feelings and the devil's claims of entitlements to unearned pleasures is not a worthy ideal. Dems turn lack of character into "character" by claiming to be non-hypocritical about their lack of values. By claiming to be evil, they posit that evil is as good as it is pleasurable. They paint Repubs as evil since, like all mortals, Repubs sin and fall short of their ideals. The difference between Republicans and Rinos is that Rinos pretend to have principles and values and ideals higher than their pocketbooks. The litmus test for separating Rinos (chaff) is willingness to sell out the borders of the republic. In short, hell has broke loose. One need only point to the arguments of the regime to explain why. In short, the regime has tried to interpose gov ruled by elitists between God and mankind, to replace God and charity with stuff that falls off the trucks of robbers for the regime. A priesthood or oligarchy that calls for gov run by elitists to replace God is a tool for something that is alien to goodness. There's an uneasy relationship between molesters, mobsters, terrorists, double dealing regulators, pathological oligarchs and interposing churches.

Anonymous said...

Once sado-masochists (male-women stalking femi-men) acquire power, they will not depart peaceably from their circular perpetuation of abuse. Moreover, to try to talk them down is "hate speech." Indeed, to fail to instruct school kids to celebrate such sado-masochism among totalitarians and authoritarians is "unevolved." The joys of depravity come with a price tag.

Anonymous said...

Although I may see taxes as a necessary evil to defend the republic (with revenues necessarily spent somewhere, such as on building and defending infrastructure or on a tight security net), I do not see them as a proper way to fund gov "experts" on ways to stimulate the economy. I don't see the point of taxing domestic corporations on profits generated from legitimate business investments. That just takes money out of the hands of people who know how to produce in order to give it to bureaucrats who know how to twist and suck. Taking profits to give to gov to seed the economy is like feeding seed corn to the birds. Giving more money to gov to find more boondoggles by which to indenture future generations and regulate them to death is an insult to human freedom and dignity. All too often, it empowers poseurs (like Obama and Feinstein) to regulate producers under pretense of looking out for them.

Anonymous said...

Although I may see taxes as a necessary evil to defend the republic (with revenues necessarily spent somewhere, such as on paying gown debt, building and defending infrastructure, or on a tight security net), I do not see them as a proper way to fund gov "experts" on ways to stimulate the economy. I don't see the point of taxing domestic corporations on profits generated from legitimate business investments. That just takes money out of the hands of people who know how to produce in order to give it to bureaucrats who know how to twist and suck. Taking profits to give to gov to seed the economy is like feeding seed corn to the birds. Giving more money to gov to find more boondoggles by which to indenture future generations and regulate them to death is an insult to human freedom and dignity. All too often, it empowers poseurs (like Obama and Feinstein) to regulate producers under pretense of looking out for them. Clown cannibals to the left, joker cannibals to the right. Dino-Rino land is a madhouse, not a fun house.

Anonymous said...

Free trade within a republic makes good sense. But how does a republic preserve itself when the shills for the government of its people feel free to freely sell them out to despots abroad?

Governments of collectives can be established by organizing workers in businesses to produce surplus products to trade, or by organizing thugs and bureaucrats to control the workers who produce the surplus products. The first method of governance can be called international corporatism, and the second can be called statist corporatism.

Under either method for organizing communities of collectives, pressures of
competition tend to cause heirarchies of unquestioned power and despotism to arise, so that the masses at the base may be relatively abused. Often, they must barter their freedom and dignity for promises of more equality and fairness. As things stand, their main basis for hope is that the gangs of international corporatists and the gangs of statist corporatists will ocassionally check and balance and knock down one another's power, so that droppings of good will may trickle down. Meantime, it has become obvious that humanity is such that both kinds of corporatists tend to prefer cheap and totally dependent laborers, i.e., total power over debt slaves. Just look at what Rinos are doing to our borders.

So what happens to hope of freedom and dignity, as oligarchic despots of international corporatism begin to acquire, in effect, total ownership of the debt instruments issued by states, and as statist corporatists begin to sell out the labor and welfare of their citizens? When the corporatists of internationalism and statism unite, What hope can the masses then have that any checks and balances will preserve them againsint total loss of their freedom and dignity? Should they be content to rely on competition between despots to let freedom and dignity trickle down, and just hope against hope for the best? Even as they see the collectivists of internationalism and statism tightening strings and uniting towards a NWO? Should they just hope that selling out the republic to free trading despots abroad will so increase wealth and fairness that no one will need any longer to be concerned with individual freedom and dignity within a republic?

Anonymous said...

The new market economy is based on government as an internationally marketable commodity. That is a model that does NOT work to increase human freedom, dignity, or prosperity. Rather, it works to destroy republics and to increase borderless centralizaton of wealth and power. That is, to convert the masses into debt slaves for godless gluttons who are ruled by algorithms for creating and cheating international stock crises and destroying pensions. Promoters for this new "government as commodity" market pose as if their primary concern relates to social betterment. That pose, whether it is a convenient lie told by poseurs to themselves or a deliberate lie to take advantage of suckers, is a lie. It is a tale told by establishment master-blaster rino-dinos, full of methane most foul.

Anonymous said...

Dems measure of progress depends on how much they are able to increase the power of elitists to dictate. Their ideas of equality and fairness depend directly on how much they are able to reduce and despoil individual freedom and dignity. Their rino-dino messiahs now rule the establishment on earth through liars who promise amnesty for illegals and spoils from producers, while they siphon the liar's share out the window at 20,000 feet. The establishment is furiously bent on sucking America's lifeblood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Anonymous said...

American freedom and dignity won the war with communist collectivism. Now a different serpant challenges: Elitist champions pretending to serve a crusade to impose equality and fairness. Our electorate could not have been hoodwinked by this master blaster combination of pretense had collectivists not been softening the nation up and degrading it for 50 years. The new Master-Blaster is named Rino-Dino. Following on the heels of Obama's invitation to illegals to crash our nation, we now have Pelosi at the border. This is deliberate, in your face, treason. All being done in broad daylight under the cover of equality and fairness, hiding in the open. Why does the Prog base go for it? Because they have been drilled for 50 years to hate "Whitey." And because they believe the promises of cheap bribes and the snake oil barker at the top of the pyramid. Absent a miraculous re assimilation of good faith, America is toast.

Anonymous said...

How many multi millionaire regulators in Congress do we need in order to redistribute fairness and equality? The people who want never to stop writing forcible takings into centralizing regulations tell us they must act in the interest of redistributing fairness and equality. Yet, they always end up with the biggest chumks of oceanside property. In reality, they simply have a scam: Recruit lowlifes to help them steal from producers under pretense of law. When producers resist, regulators get their lowlife media to make scurrilous attacks. The animus of sociopathic takers never slows until their acquisitions demand more of their time than can possibly be processed by their appetites. Best would be to make them swallow molten gold until they have their fill. Then recycle the gold as needed until society can be rid of such people. Write their regulations in molten gold and make them swallow that. When someone says he wants to help you by writing more central regulations, tell him it would help more if he simply helped himself to take some large gulps of molten, fool's gold.

Anonymous said...

Obama has a ruthless desire to pleasure his pathological clubbies and homies at the expense of ordinary straight Americans. Putin has a ruthless desire for power. Come high noon, Putin expects pleasure to take a powder and give way to power. Given the state of the citizenry that elected Obama, it is apparent to everyone that Obama will take a powder, and that it is best that Obama does take the powder. Until the regime is cuffed and stuffed, our first priority has to be to de-louse ourselves at home. There is no point in following Liberace in a crusade.

Anonymous said...


See http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar.... Dean Kagan did not require a course in Constitutional Law for students for graduation from Harvard Law School. In a corrupted society, Constitutional Law (aka Advanced Unprincipled Manipulation) tends to become a joke. I think Michael Paulsen is onto something. See http://www.libertylawsite.org/...

"For many if not most students, then, the interpretive lessons that Constitutional Law ends up teaching are that any answer is as good as any other, that there are a variety of interpretive approaches from which to choose, and that you should argue for your preferred approach in order to reach your preferred result, because that’s what the courts do – and therefore that’s what lawyers should do, too. That’s what law is. Sadly, there’s enough truth to that set of lessons as a descriptive matter that there’s almost a good argument that that is what a Constitutional Law course should teach: how to manipulate texts to reach one’s preferred outcome."

"So far as student’s “training” in Con Law is concerned, it’s all about how they feel the case should come out."

"Throw out the law school casebooks entirely (with the possible exception of mine)! Study the Constitution itself, The Federalist (the best book written on the Constitution, ever), and one, or at most two, of the best modern studies of the Constitution."

"If the goal is to teach current doctrine by teaching hundreds of holdings, that is simply not a worthy goal and not something worth doing. If the goal is to teach legal method by teaching hundreds of cases, the goal may be worthy but the vehicle a poor one; the result is likely to be distinctly counterproductive. And if the goal is to teach the Constitution itself by teaching hundreds of case holdings, the disconnect is very nearly intolerable. If Constitutional Law is to be rescued from utter uselessness, the course needs to be demolished, redesigned, and rebuilt almost entirely, from the ground up. And the first step is to think about what we’re trying to build and why."

***********
Now, regarding the militant gay agenda and the courts: You have no problem with plural marriage. Indeed, under your test, which requires the equating of unequal categories and relationships as if they were equals, I can hardly see how you could argue against plural marriage. By what principled "logic" is there anything about "marriage" as you would define it that should require that it stop at one spouse? Indeed, why not a different spouse for every hour? Why not have spouse A marry B, C, D, and have spouse B marry you, and E, F. and G, and so on? I guess you can always come back afterwards, to clean up part of the mess by liberalizing divorce law.

I notice you do caution, however, that such may be inadvisable because possibly "too hard to do." I suppose we would not know what was in such a change in the law that was "too hard to do" until we had promulgated, enacted, or adjudicated it. (Pelosi is such a reliable guide for advising change.) Regardless, it is interesting that your "test" for whether a state recognized status of marriage should be extended to recognize plural marriages depends on whether a thing is "too hard to do." Apparently, your test for a living Constitution depends largely on evolving feasibilities coupled with wannas. If A can have his wannas, B, in fairness, should be able to have his wannas. (Maybe this is why a course in Constitutional Law should no longer be a requirement in many law schools. Kiddies and despots have made the Constitution a joke, and now they challenge other people to use the now perverted Constitution to support any hard limits or principles. Too funny.) Such a "test" would soon get interesting, as computers and artificial intelligence extend the boundaries for what is feasible. As such tests get too complex, I suppose we could abdicate rulings to "machine intelligences that know best."

Anonymous said...

However, you started out by arguing about principles under the Constitution, and now you seem to have drifted into being willing to make constitutional whatever is wanted (personally preferred by a vocal enough group of kiddies) and do-able. No doubt, a national romper room under the control of a sugar-promising oligarchy could find a way to make such a system sound reasonable, principled, and constitutional to any given set of judicial stooges that had been appointed under any established oligarchy. As to whether such a system "really" would be fair, sound, principled, logical, or constitutional -- well, I rather doubt it.

You will not understand what follows, but I will set it out and maybe someday some of it will penetrate. Children, as their guiding principles concerning fairness, often think only about their fair rights and their wee wees. People who remain stunted in a state of perpetual childhood are easy for despots to farm and control with cheap bribes. Oh, look, have another cookie, Darling! Meanwhile, these despots who pose as fairie pipers pipe children into perpetual debt servitude along the road to destroying their republic. Elitist diktat that forces people to call and treat fundamentally different categories (an x chromosome is not a y chromosome) as if they were "equal" is hardly consistent with a representative republic. Moreover, such elitist diktat, once established, will not stop with matters sexual.

Adults who live in and try to sustain decent, representative republics think about what is needed to establish and sustain a society that can flourish. They come to look to three things that are above their wee wees: First -- a spiritual Source for general mores that are higher than personal wannas, states, despots, priests, interlopers, and oligarchs. (These are mores, not laws. The point of an enlightened theology is to reduce the need for legalistic intrusiveness, not to increase it.) Second -- sustainable families for transmitting decent mores and values forward. Third -- a limited government that is more concerned with preserving freedom and dignity for individuals than with legalistically addressing every whine about "he got a bigger slice than I did." Such adults don't tend to give a rat's hiney what people do in their bedrooms. What they don't want are whiners who like pretending different categories of relationships should (indeed, must) be made "equal" in the eyes of the law.

Nowadays, the alliance between perpetual whiners (Dinos) and establishment despots (Rinos) has routed responsible, adult, conservers of liberty in nearly every institution of significance. So, yes, things are upside down. The kiddies are running the daycare, the inmates are running the asylum, and only God knows who's running the courts. And they are "proud" of it! Just count all the kiddies running wild, given long ropes by shill judges seated by establishment rino-dinos to serve despotic oligarchs.

Let's see where this leads! Let's dis-empower responsible adults, corrupt the vote (denial, anyone?), swamp the electorate with ever more people with more wannas than common sense (denial, anyone?), and license gov agents to convert tax money to fund the metrosexualization and confusion of every grade school child. Let's make the republic an absolute charade so we can empower idioci and despotic elitists, trading individual freedom and responsibility for ever more detailed control by elitists who, after all, are nothing if not "fair."

Anonymous said...

The science and art of crowd management has taken big strides into the management and farming of the masses. Fences and borders for establishing truths are being trampled. Free range oligarchic rustlers are hiring coyotes to round up and export or import illegals and mavericks, as needed to hedge and fill fluxing orders. Some people still prefer truths. That would be the people who want to revive a decent, representative republic. But most rustlers, despots, oligarchs, and their shills and self-pleasuring addicts don't give 2 cents about that. What they want is pure material gain and the power that avails to ride roughshod over anyone they can intimidate beneath them. So, decent folk have been sidelined. They are the conservers of liberty, and they are essentially sidelined, except when corrupt opposing gangs find it in their temporary advantage to contend to hoodwink them.

So, the answer is: contending gangs do not give a diddle about the masses they farm. They care less about truth. What they care about is the science and art of how to intimidate and farm the masses. Social justice is their inside joke. But most of the little doggies never get it.

Anonymous said...

Watch Bill Ayers and ask: What would limit this sociopath, if he had the power he desires? Then ask the same question regarding his fellow choomer, Barry.

Anonymous said...

TWA Flight: Some counter interest wanted the regime to know it has this capability and the sociopathic cold bloodedness to use it. The public seems often to be pawns. When they're not cattle. I wonder what was retrieved at Ben Ghazi and what's now on the black market?

Anonymous said...

Take this some steps further. The people who run our government do not believe they work for us. So, for whom do they think they work? Tie this in with the government's refusal to true the vote or enforce the border. So many safeguards are in place to ensure the work service the government gives to the citizenry is only lip service. Add in political correctness, to keep the citizenry divided and uninformed. Decent, productive citizens need to stop eating this dog food. The regime is, and has been, one big pit of demonic deceiving despots. Hell has broken out and headquartered itself in DC. Screwtape rules, smiling and lying through his teeth. But hey, don't discriminate against Screwtape or accuse him of any conspiracy, heaven forfend. Enough of this racist accusatory crap! I'm a card carrying Regime-ist. I loathe this stinking regime.

Anonymous said...

As gays compare the condition of being a black homosexual man with the condition of being a woman. what's next? I suppose the people who bring us these categorical mistakes will be arguing that equal protection requires a proportionate increase in idiots on federal benches.

Interesting quote from Junius P. Long -- If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher’s "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable ...Then you might live in a country run by idiots.

Anonymous said...

Re: " failed to consider the feelings of the non-religious and non-Christian, who were made uncomfortable by the prayer"

Respecting a moment of silence or listening to someone else pray does not force one's mind to join in the prayer. What about the "feelings" of the non-Americans or non-republicans, who are made "uncomfortable" by being instructed in American history or civics from an American perspective? Given that we are a republic, I can see merit in not availing platforms for propagandizing for secular or so-called religious forms of despotism. In our republic, no one should be allowed to evangelize that people should be stoned or beheaded for apostasy. Such would be more like mind rape than instruction that respects the freedom and dignity of each student. Apart from that, students, to acquire skill to participate in a representative republic, need to learn how to be stronger than to rely on teachers or lawyers to protect their "feelings" in every instance.

Where do students get these "feelings?" Many feelings are based on experiences and indoctrination. Must schools forego all values discussion to prevent the hurting of feelings because students were first indoctrinated with feelings that are opposed to American values? That just gives trump power to whomever first despoils a child's mind. If we want to live in a representative republic that promotes individual responsibility, then we need to teach the values of responsible citizens of a representative republic. If a child is to learn to be free and to claim a right to personal dignity, then he needs to become strong enough to be independent. Otherwise, we will become weak fodder for the first sectarian fascists who take command. From where are values derived for people whose civic religion is that the government works for them? If values are merely derivative of the State, not unalienable from God, then in what sense can the citizens of a representative republic assert a right to require their state government to work for them, as opposed to working for masters who finagle control over the government? If the authority of the state or the property of oligarchs are allowed to legitimize the trumping of the god-given, unalienable freedom and dignity of individuals, then the way is greased for despots and oligarchs. Indeed, that seems to explain much of our current predicament. Not that there's anything much good about that.

Anonymous said...

I think Post Moderns pre-sume the Signifier is sub-sumed, rather than sign-ified, in the signification. I think there abides a qualitative Something which creates and avails signification of every quantitative thing by nothing more than mathematical borrowings from no-thing. It is the illusion of thing-in-itself substantiveness that is deconstructible, not the Creating Sponsor. Our experiences of substantiveness are "real" and meaningful only in the sense that we are availed by our Signifying Sponsor to share, appreciate, and communicate about them with other mortal perspectives. Apart from that, all our measuring empiricism abides as but a fleeting shadow, i.e., a sign of its Signifying Sponsor. If one is to appreciate any deeper meaning, one needs humbly to intuit and appreciate, not measure, God. When our cosmos ends, "it" will not care that once upon a time we presumed to measure it.

Anonymous said...

I recognize humble good faith receptivity to the Signifier as the prime authority. No mortal interposes between my conscience and the Signifier. Part of that receptivity is to respect the consciences of others. That is their and my inheritance of spiritual freedom and dignity. The Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. Spiritual freedom within conscience. All manmade governments and authorities are subsidiary to that. When government violates my good faith conscience and unalienable right to mutual and decent regard among people, then I may feign that such government is legitimate, but in my heart I will regard that it is not. Decent representative republicanism is founded on respect for an inviting and caring God (however one may name such God), who avails us to pursue human freedom and dignity (i.e., the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule). Republicanism that is otherwise founded is built on the "authority" or "property" of sand.

Anonymous said...



Costco. A great big corporation. Big corporations love consolidation of central power. That's precisely what's wrong with the current state of affairs in America. The more the consolidation, the more the rule by elitists and the less the voice of independent Americans. A prescription for destroying the American republic.

To diminish elitist destruction of the representative nature of the republic, Scotus needs to be less often tasked to make pronouncements about Constitutional law. A more mediate way to do that is to reduce the number and scope of DC central regulatory departments. Reduce central departments pertaining to energy, commerce, and education. Less central interference would translate to more local control and less elitist diktat. It would revitalize the roles for families and local charities. The big problems are trinitarian: spiritual, family, and governmental. The formal problems include a need to repeal the 17th Amendment. Other formalisms are also needed to cut the political influence of the oligarchy, especially the foreign oligarchy, down to size. A too powerful oligarchy turns a representative republic into a mere charade.

Eventually, it may be worth considering major tax reform as a way to reduce the consolidating power of the oligarchy. A mind experiment: Impose a progressive annual tax on personal consumption. Impute most out of country transfers as constituting personal consumption, attributable to the authorizing transferror. Tax governmental lobbying as personal consumption, attributable to the authorizing payor.

Anonymous said...

As things stand, the main political parties have large parts of the electorate so twisted and dumbified that they think power to the people means organizing the people to vote for more programs of central power agglomerization. They think power to the people means voting to have themselves penned into cattle feed lots.

We have two main political parties, and neither one of them represents ordinary producing Americans or the American Ideal. Each represents an opposite of the American Ideal. Those opponents are Indolence and Cronyism. The formal mechanisms under our system tend to remove the people further and further from power. The author's proposals would help restore a balance. Whether recalls would very often be used is aside from the point that the potential for recalls would be a constant reminder to the dirty birds in Congress, of which we now have so very many.

The key problem is that DC monsters prey on the people by promising central DC solutions (per the resident demagogue, "hope and change"). What we need is less DC central intrusiveness and a common sense return to local and self governance and individual initiative and responsibility. However, all trends oppose that common sense. We need to preach a divestment of DC power and an elimination of many DC departments. However, preaching, by itself, will not be effective. We also need forms for empowering the people. Power to recall is one such form.

Anonymous said...

Everything Obama touches turns to dust. This is because he wants to substitute gov redistribution for individual initiative. As false messiah, he holds out hope for children who illegally cross our border. In the process, he sickens our nation. He siphons our tax money to green energy frauds. In the process, he increases the cost of food for millions of hungry people throughout the world. He injects himself in local race controversies. In the process, he poisons race relations. He undertakes to redistribute other people's property as "charity." In the process, he destroys real charities and reduces them to political agitators. He draws a red line for Russia. In the process, he attracts worldwide ridicule for the U.S. He announces a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. Forces. In the process, he converts the Middle East to a firestorm. He finagles a gross health care scheme. In the process, he muddles health care for millions. He injects himself into gay marriage. In the process, he invites Scotus to grab fed power that allows federal judges to brand all state incentives to traditional marriages as demeaning to gay unions "for no rational reason." Every consolidation by Obama of central power to redistribute benefits sickens the nation. It sickens the nation's spirituality, families, and local institutions of governance. Obama does all this, even as he siphons rewards out back doors for his crony oligarchic enablers. If Rodney Daingerfield had a son, he would look like Obama.

Obama personifies the antithesis of what America needs. America does not need to place hope in central redistributers, false messiahs, or pretended messengers for the God of Gov. America needs to place hope in individual initiative and responsibility, under the real God of love.

Anonymous said...

Obama farmed people as a community organizer. Google is now farming hope that will keep us well supplied with low achievers. Their idea, like Obama's, is that we ought not have to work so hard, because machines can redistribute more wealth. This would divert people's productive spirit to "better things." Like family planning, population reduction, travel, partying, mind games, sexual explorations, and dope. Better lives through better A.I. What could go wrong? If we can't or won't develop philosophies, formulations, and systems for ourselves for establishing and preserving decent unfoldings of civilization, then on what rational basis can we punt and expect that machines would do it for us? If we have no trusty ideal regarding what decent civilization looks or feels like, how do we apprehend whether we are making "progress?" Complexity increases in our relationships with matter and machines can be entertaining. However, something much more important is forgotten the more we come to presume that is all there is.

Anonymous said...

You know, if we had a good and wise philosopher king, we may be able to do justice down to the finest nitty gritty. But law and gov do not work that way. If you deny representatives power to make general laws because they are not perfectly "fair" in all cases, then you have made us an elitist oligarchy or judicial despotism rather than a republic. No doubt, there are same sex couples who do fine. But most of them will do fine without all this judicial intrusiveness that tries to make everyone play nice.

As to people marrying because they want to commit to one another, aside from gov benefits, here's the thing: they can already do that. That can have a contract, power of attorney, civil ceremony, and call it by whatever name they want. But when you require the gov to treat such arrangements exactly the same as traditional marriages, with full gov benefits, you will unavoidably be incenting substantial abuses. In ruses to cheat on benefits, and in ruses to treat children as commodities. We don't have to wear blinders. That's part of the difference between being a responsible voter versus a judge who is unwilling to think about the repercussions of his decisions. Indeed, I would much rather trust the judgment of a responsible rancher over a cloistered judge. Sort of like Obama announcing he would not be deporting any children who happened to get across the border. We have seen how that has played out.

IAE, at least for our time, the path of Windsor is clear. The only way to stop it under lawful means would be if a Conservative were elected Prez and got a chance to appoint a couple of conservative justices. I think our republic is in considerable peril, and the gay agenda is only exacerbating it. Minorities seeking entitlements are tearing America apart at every quarter.

Anonymous said...

Given the way Scotus decided Windsor, I agree that it's just a matter of waiting for the other shoe to drop. People are recognizing that Scalia was right in having foresight to see that Windsor opened the door for federal judges around the country to deem existing states' marriage laws as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy divined and decreed that there was no rational reason to demean same sex couples. Given a sympathetic test case, I have little doubt that he will find that there is no rational reason to demean newly naturalized persons who have multiple wives. Despite ambiguity, the effect of Windsor is to impose heightened scrutiny. The effect is to deny the people any rational reason to favor traditional marriage. Which, to most people, is absurd. So now the people must accord tax and gov benefits to Gdinks (gay double income no kids slackers). As to giving traditional families a little extra to help them raise the next generation of responsible citizens and defenders, a 5-4 majority headed by Justice Kennedy has hubristically deemed that there is "no rational reason."

Whatever their rationale, when the people's representatives provided for assorted gov benefits for spouses (social security, military spousal benefits, tax exemptions), they were not intending to confer benefits for same sex partners or friends with benefits. For Justice Kennedy to come in after that and deem the people had no rational reason to incent traditional marriages over same sex partnerships or combines was the height of hubris. Something for which it may better be said that there is no rational justification is to sacrifice freedom in order to require parents to subject their children to gov forced indoctrination by elitists. To force children to listen to gov paid sugar coating instructors encourage or groom all of them to experiment broadly with their sexuality.

So here we are! At least, temporarily. Given the elitist usurpation by the judiciary, egged on by persons desirous of ending the republican form of government, it will be up to the people to find alternative ways to restore common sense. Now that we are here, no doubt the regime will be making every effort to solidify the marginalization of the people at large. Spirituality. Family. Limited gov intrusion by elitists funded by oligarchs. All pillars for a representative republic are under relentless attack. Meanwhile, Obama has invited the erasure of our borders. But not to worry. There is no rational reason to fear our new goose stepping masters.

Anonymous said...

So, the people's representatives need to pass "strict scrutiny" to provide differentially between relationships among marriage contracting partners of opposite chromosomes versus partnerships among contracting persons of the same kind of chromosomes? Why? Because Scotus may say the difference long respected since the founding of the republic is not enough? The difference apparent in nature is not enough? The consensus science is settled, so that the people have no legitimate right to make such distinctions, per elitist judges? The republic is not likely to become any less republican and oligarchic ruled than it already is? Some among Scotus are gay?

So now the Constitution, worn down by those who want detailed elitist supervision to trump the will of the people with regard to the basic institution of the family, "logically" means that a sexual relationship between two gays has to be treated as equivalent in right to whatever incentives Congress may avail with regard to traditional marriages? If so, it follows as night follows day that Scotus has power to trump the people and require them to recognize that polygamous relationships are similarly entitled. But not to worry. No need to put Scotus under strict scrutiny. No need to be concerned that gov of, by, and for the people is being replaced in fine detail with gov by elitist judges shilling for Prezzies funded by oligarchs. Rule under shills for oligarchs, by definition, does not constitute a representative republic. I think you are as confused about what constitutes a representative republic as you are about what constitutes a marriage.

By the way, what is a marriage? Is it simply a contract between two or more persons who undertake to share claims to equal entitlement to gov benefits? Given a claim for gov benefits under such a contract, should any denial be required to pass the strict scrutiny of our elite judges? Or are such concerns matters for which the people are unqualified and uninvited to concern themselves? We have to allow elitist redefinition of marriage to see what it means for us?

Anonymous said...

Sherlock Holmes would probably use a combination of inductive-deductive logic, since one without the other is often useless. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki.... I suspect most that can be measured can be represented in binary code. However, as Rumsfeld noted, in the practical world as we live in it, there are knowns, unknowns, and unknown unknowns. I suspect there are other logical categories. Perhaps known unknowns and/or known indeterminates. Perhaps self evolving memes of logics, which we carry as avatars. The distaste of some for "and/or" seems entertaining. There is always the difference between a part relating to a whole and a part relating to other parts. We seem always to be in a state of relating to the whole and relating to one or more other parts of it. And/or. Can't measure with it, can't live without it. The flux of Signifier-Signified. A joke? You decide. Temporarily.

Anonymous said...



If common sense could be measured, I suspect almost every rancher, businessman, shop keeper, and parent successfully raising responsible children would far surpass most Prog elitists and their farms of useful idiots. The problem is to awaken and mobilize them. Barry "Moral Hazard" Obama may just do that.

Anonymous said...



Impeachment is not viable where the Senate is controlled by Dims and the population is stuffed with indoctrinated Eloi. Moreover, impeachment will rally turnout in the midterms of the lofo and illegal vote. However, if something is not done, Obama, given his head, will make the other branches of government entirely irrelevant. While Scotus may not care that the republic is toddering under an oligarchy, it does care that the separation of powers under the Constitution not continue to be seen as an absolute joke. If Scotus does not put spine in the Constitution to stand up to Obama, then the relevance of Scotus will be up in smoke.

Anonymous said...

Surprise! Pied Pipers and Piped Children often have similar views about piping away the village. Corrupt oligarchs make use of useful idiots. Now, if they could just rid themselves once and for all of those pesky thinkers! This must call for a conference between "Barry and Machete Man!" Maybe Elton John can write a song about it.

Half the population is below average. Common sense seems to be in even less supply. A significant portion of the population consists of stoners who have little experience doing responsible work or raising responsible childen. What percentage actually attempts to keep informed and sort ideas out in any principled or common sense way? Is it as high as 20 percent? That's the percent I'm concerned about. When the thinkers and the people of common sense are marginalized by the childish stoners and the corruptocratic establishmentarians, that's when the flushing of the republic is at hand. And all the Stoners said, Yay!

Anonymous said...

Obama means to murder the Constitution by swamping America with illegal aliens. That's why he's meeting with the director of the movie, Machete, to get technical advice. When it's not a middle finger to the eye, it's a machete to the Constitution. Obama is nothing if not classy.

Anonymous said...



Now that Scotus has spoken, what is a marriage? Is it simply a contract between two (or more?) persons who undertake to share claims to equal entitlement to gov benefits? Given a claim for gov benefits under such a contract, should any denial be required to pass the strict scrutiny of our elite judges? Apparently, such concerns are now matters for which the people and their representatives are unqualified and uninvited to concern themselves. Rather, we must allow elitist judges appointed by elitist Prezzies funded by elitist oligarchs to redefine marriage. As they impose their detailed definitions and rationalizations for what is rational, only thereafter do we get to see what it means.

Given the way Scotus decided Windsor, it's just a matter of waiting for the other shoe to drop. People are recognizing that Scalia was right in having foresight to see that Windsor opened the door for federal judges around the country to deem existing states' marriage laws as unconstitutional.

Justice Kennedy may as well have decreed that the world is flat. Now, federal judges everywhere must propound the gospel of Scotus, That gospel is that there is no rational reason for anyone or any state to make distinctions that "demean" gays by differentially availing benefits to other persons or relationships. The writing is on the wall that this will pertain to social security benefits, VA benefits for "spouses," immunities for spouses from witnessing against one another, citizenship sponsors, tax choices, etc. Anything that fails to give gay relationships as big a slice of pie as other relatationships "demeans" gays. But anything that indoctrinates on behalf of gay relationships of whatever number to make them in effect sperior is not demeaning to other relationships. As Napoleon the Pig said, Some are more equal than others.

Wanting to incent traditional families to be exemplars for raising children for the next generation of responsible citizens and defenders is not deemed a rational reason. Wanting to respect parents' desires to not indoctrinate their children to experiment broadly with wiring themselves to incline to strange orientations is not a rational reason. Wanting to draw a common sense, long-standing line for state recognition and provision for traditional marriages is not a rational reason. The difference between an x and a y chromosome is not a rational reason. The logical impossibility of all powerful government to impose fairness in all minutiae at every level is not a rational reason. The invitation to abuse the status of being married in the eyes of the government (much like Obama's invitation to children to flood our border) is not a rational reason. The de-defining down of "marriage," potentially to encompass every contrived contract for the purpose of exploiting government rules and benefits is not a rational reason. The desire to not reduce marriage to a mere contractual ruse is not a rational reason. The logical next step of plural such contractual ruses is not a rational reason.

Anonymous said...

Per our elite masters, none of the above can constitute a rational reason. The effect is this: Marriage is de-defined to be essentially meaningless, except as a contrivance to avail lawsuits to force the government not to avail any incentives to any contractual contrivance that does not avail at least equal, if not greater, incentives to contractual contrivances for gay relationships. Wishing not to de-define the most basic institution of civilization, i.e., the family, is not a rational reason. For Scotus has told us so.

The effect is to deny the people any "rational reason" to favor traditional marriage. Which, to most people of common sense, is absurd. So now the people must accord tax and gov benefits to Gdinks (gay double income no kids slackers). As to any attempt to give traditional families a little extra to help them raise the next generation of responsible citizens and defenders, a 5-4 majority headed by Justice Kennedy has hubristically deemed that there is "no rational reason."

Whatever their rationale, when the people's representatives provided for assorted gov benefits for spouses (social security, military spousal benefits, tax exemptions), they were not intending to confer benefits for same sex partners or friends with benefits. For Justice Kennedy to come in after that and decree the people and their representatives had no rational reason to incent traditional marriages over same sex partnerships or combines was the height of elitist hubris. I would say there is no rational justification for Scotus to have sacrificed freedom in order to require parents to subject their children to government forced indoctrination by elitists. To force children to listen to government paid, sugar-coating instructors encourage or groom all children to experiment broadly with their sexuality. (Remember when Clinton's Surgeon General thought schools should give instruction in masturbation?)

You may ask: If Scotus can decree that the preservation of a fundamental component of decent civilization under a republican government is not a rational reason, but a "demeaning" reason, then what cannot Scotus decree? If Scotus can nakedly usurp such power, than what power can our oligarchical masters usurp, simply by blatantly twisting our Constitution and foundational institutions? Scotus: Making America safe for oligarchs and Muslim polygamists.

Anonymous said...

As to the military, it falls under the Department of Defense, which is taxpayer funded. As to the Boy Scouts, they receive indirect support in that the DOD lends them supplies. This was part of the rationale for gays demanding a right to join. Gays say they help pay these taxes, so they want full right not just to participate, but to participate loud and proud. Well, loud and proud easily translates into grooming. Especially since gays are often attracted to organizations where minors are vulnerable. I doubt gay boys 11 to 14 need to identify themselves as gay. I doubt military personnel need to be going about saying, "That's right; I'm gay." As long as they're not advocating or grooming, they can attend and serve. What is really at issue is that they want to groom.

Google: Boy Scouts’ confidential files show pattern of ‘grooming behavior’ in molesters. Also, see http://www.boyscoutssexualabus...
And http://www.scouting.org/filest....
Grooming Kids in a "Gay" Identity is Like Penn State Abuse

Robert Gates now heads the BSA. This is the Robert Gates who led the Defense Department when it phased out the ban on openly gay soldiers known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Gates was probably brought in because of bad press from the usual liberal and clueless suspects. (Grooming is going on in the Scouts and Military. I'm Shocked! Shocked I tell you!)

Problems increasing with homosexual assaults in military: Homosexual Assaults Becoming a Problem in U.S. Military, DoD Survey Finds A 129 percent increase in sexual assaults among military personnel since 2004 has prompted Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to launch a campaign to deal with “unwanted sexual contact,” among the troops. But the project has become more complicated by the fact that an inordinate number of the assaults are apparently being perpetrated by male homosexuals — close on the heels of their high-profile welcome into the ranks.
Breaking The Silence - Military Sexual Assaults on Males - Baltimore Sun

Comment: Obama ran in part on the notion that he had good judgment. Yet everything he touches turns to crap.

Anonymous said...

They began by saying don't criminalize, because people born that way can't help it. Then it slid into psychological normalization. Then minority rights. Then entitlements. Then protection against hate speech. Then punishment of dissenters. Then, We know where you live. Then, We're going to use your tax money to groom your kids, and there's nothing you can do about it. Then Scotus decreeing there is no rational basis to discriminate. Now, it's parading in our faces everywhere, celebrating that we are taxed to pay for our boy scouts and soldiers to be groomed. But this isn't demeaning fascism under metrosexualized, sub-par elites. Like hell it's not!

Anonymous said...

Feelings sell. Feelings are reactions. The media profits by selling reports about reactionary feelings and fads. Radical go-alongs react to feelings sold by the press. The media profits by churning feelings much as stockbrokers profit by churning stocks. Much as bankers profit by selling debt. Which puts most people in debt servitude to reactionary feelings being churned by profiteers who, in essence, are seeking bodies to rent out. The easiest bodies to rent are found among young lofos. That is the sought after demographic to train towards brand loyalty. Get them and you run the future. Most people rarely think beyond their immediate feelings. One day, their cure-all is a philosopher-king, tort reform, term limits, flat taxes, privatization, free trade, guns for everyone, free drugs, or bombs away. Next day, their cure all is to tar and feather and sue the bastards, protect our bacon deliverers, smart trade, gun monitoring, save the children, or winning hearts and minds with limited rules of engagement.

There is no cure all. However, there is a decent ideal: Establish what is necessary to preserve and grow a representative republic of free citizens, teach them to be vigilant against the simplistic rulings of tyrants and their water carrying media, and let them flourish. And knock down elitist power centralizers and consolidators at nearly every opportunity.

Anonymous said...

If we could rewind the clock, I may agree that DOMA was constitutionally questionable. Nowadays, however, the Constitution seems to be just lipstick that everyone puts on to rationalize a pre-desired result. The reason for this is legalism and legalistic mindsets run amuck. Our elite "betters" want to establish every new decision as a preceedential law for any similar fact scenario that thereafter occurs. Problem is, the social context that is the background for each newly unfolding event does not stand still. This is why it is absurd and abusive for elitist knowitalls to try to establish either-or rules for every occasion, treating all underlings as mere widgets. This is what hapens as elitists take us ever further down the road of replacing individual freedom and dignity with legalistic diktat for navel gazing elitists' ideas concerning what is equal, fair, or based in a rationale that is reasonable to their metrosexualized tastes. This is as Pelosian blind as it is fatuous and inviting of infantilism. What is astounding is how these elitist idiots think they can decide only the case that is before them. As if we must pass the law to learn how it will affect us. In common sense, the more fundamental, sudden, and irrevocable a change in precedent, the more people ought to think ahead. If judges are incapable of this, then they need to leave well enough alone and defer to the people's representatives.

When the Congress passes a broadly supported law, Scotus has no business imagining that it is without a rationally defensible basis. If Justice Kennedy sees no rational basis, I submit his intellect, emotional stability, cultural understanding, republican feelings, and imagination are grossly sub-par.

Every institution of decency is under attack -- family, religion, and limited government. Family is corrupted by gay and plural marriage. Free practice of religion is corrupted by Islamic beheaders and Gaia pleasure pagans. Limited government is corrupted by elitist diktat from skirmishing gangs of sociopaths. Every ideal of a republic of individually responsible, free, and competent citizens is under attack by necrophiliac worms. This is what comes of worshipping the false logical categorizations of rampant legalism. Ways need to be found to avail freedom under limited laws, without inviting litigators who want to bend all of society to their perverse wills run amuck. A way needs to be found for judges to decide cases based more on traditions than on establishing an ugly overgrowth of twisted precedents upon precedents.

Anonymous said...

Comment: Obama ran in part on the notion that he had good judgment. Yet everything he touches turns to crap. Immigration, borders, healthcare, military, race relations, foreign relations, energy policy, care for veterans, economy, jobs, national debt, national security, privacy rights, family law, looking out for children. Everything he touches. Crap. If Obama is for something, that's a pretty solid indicator that it's a crappy idea. I suspect this is because he is a militantly gay, muslim sympathizing, IRS tax thugging, race baiting, American hating, socialist mongering despot. Moreover, he lies. He lies about everything, so he cannot be trusted about anything. Would you buy comprehensive car insurance from this guy? I think he's grooming America to bend over for a very big fall.

Anonymous said...



The enemy who no one wants to name is the establishment. That is what must be brought under adult supervision. Given the explosives now under the control of an infantile and corrupt establishment, that will be far from easy. But continuing to shill answers from the establishment will not improve matters.

I trust Palin's instincts more than Krauthamer's intellect. If impeaching a corrupt, incompetent, communist, America hating President arouses a sympathetic electorate and causes it to continue to install Dim majorities, it will only be because corrupt media owned by sympathetic, crisis milking oligarchs made it so. If media owners are so hell bent to get Americans to trade enserfment and security for freedom and dignity, they will continue to act so, whether we elect Dinos or Rinos.

If Conservers of Liberty truly believe the republic is in the balance, there is no point in dithering while a corrupt oligarchy is dismantling the republic. These people cannot be trusted! When they say not to impeach, what they really mean is that resistence against the oligarchy that runs the regime is futile.

Screw them! They are not friends, and their advice is not heartfelt. There is no point in shilling for them. If we don't impeach, they will just continue to sponsor our dismantlement with executive decrees and coordinated breaches of the border. If we do impeach, they will point their canons at us. Or deliberately mount an ineffective effort and then blame the failure on Americans. If real Americans mount an impeachment effort, it will succeed. If quislings mount it, it will fail. And if it fails, the quislings and oligarchs need to be held to account. If need be by watering the tree of liberty.

Either way, the time for action is at hand, and the establishment, i.e., the complex of oligarchs and useful idiots, is the enemy. The oligarchic-idioci complex, i.e., the Rino-Dino Pestilence. Manifested in all its infamy at the border. How much more evidence do we need to prove the vile, god-forsaken corruption of the regime? How much more loss of blood and treasure must we feel before we believe what is before every eye that looks? If Congress does not impeach and succeed, then outrage needs to grow against Congress. In Clinton's case, it was mainly just the most circumspect who were outraged against Slick. In Obama's case, many times more people are fundamentally outraged at his fundamental gangsterism. Obama's gangsterism only seems less than that of the youthful Koba-Stalin because Stalin did not start out with the backing of every significant institution of the establishment. With Obama, the establishment is the elephant-gangster in the room. Jabba has taken DC. And Congress is his handmaiden.

Anonymous said...

You know you have surrendered freedom for the shackles of hell when you dare not ever resist the devil. No matter how red handed he is caught. If not now, then when will the establishment ever advise impeachment? The establishment of shills for evil that we have will never advise impeachment. No matter when impeachment is tried, the establishment will pull out its biggest canons. What is lacking in Congress are Americans.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the qualitative Signifier is ubiquitously entailed. As to how that entailment is apprehended and/or appreciated from each perspective, I think that is inherently subjective. I think subjective experiences of the qualitative of the Signifier correlate with capacity to communicate in respect of sharing a common field of quantifiable unfoldment, i.e., the Signified. We may qualitatively communicate humanness (or apeness), but not quantitatively. Thus Caesar said to Koba (Stalin's favorite nickname during his revolutionary life), "You are not ape." We don't have to drink kool aid or follow Jim Jones.

Anonymous said...

I don't know how you define atheist. I do not believe the stories in the Bible are to be taken as true in a literalistic sense, rather than a figurative sense. Yet I believe many show remarkable truth value and wisdom. For that reason, coming together in respect of such wisdom, to receive and discuss it, can be worthwhile. However, I do believe in a trinitarian reality. That is, I am not able to form a consistent conceptualization without reference to a spiritual, qualitative Signifier of quantifiable Substance, the Signification of Substance, and the In-form-ational appreciation of Substance. Signifier, Signified, Information. The idea that God created and predetermined the signified cosmos and then left it, with no role for appreciative feedback for determining how it unfolds, is, to me, an unappealing, unnecessary, unprovable, and vacuous foundation for basing the reception or discussion of intuitable moral guidance. Tolstoy had some ideas about truth and participatory faith that are interesting, even though I think he followed them to some conclusions with which I would tend to disagree. And that's the thing: Each person who values human dignity as an individual should be respected to arrive at his or her own conclusions, and carry the correlative burden. Merely to pretend a literalistic belief in order to escape the fate of an infidel or apostate would not be a practice of faith.

Anonymous said...

Obama has successfully read his lines. The writing is on Totus. The days of America as a representative republic are on a short countdown. Maybe twins will rise from the ashes: One that seeks to serve decency, the other that sells itself to fleeting joys of depravity. Maybe people will someday learn to vote with their feet and then remain true to their vote -- instead of coming simply to plunder. Maybe, someday, the plunderers and takers will be denied entry.

Anonymous said...

I have tended to pass off such talk. However, I watch and learn. It has become obvious that there are oligarchic interests that own media that want to reorganize the world under a syndicate of freakishly false elites. That is our situation and our challenge, and it will remain thus even after the figurehead in chief is out of office. So I have come to fear you are right. Much is invested in the figurehead in chief for the purpose of burning down and reorganizing the world under a new managing sindiktat. It is not braking. It is stepping on the gas, as it becomes richer, stronger, more competent, and ever more confident. It leers as it beats down upon us. Forewarned is forearmed. I tell you, the need to revitalize republican checks and balances against the oligarchical-ignorance complex that is blinded by its lusts is urgent. Spirituality. Family. Limited representative republicanism. Those pillars are under acid attack by a two headed snake of media owning oligarchs and easily manipulated lofos. Hope of decent civilization hangs in the balance.

Anonymous said...

The legal sickness increases. Parasites have entertained one another with shenanigans in offices, Then brazenly taken turns suing their employer for allowing sexual harassment in the work place. When one of them inveigles her way to become secretary for a judge, the rampant sex depravity starts paralleling the commie infiltration depravity. Depravity power to the people! Laws and laws and laws, oh my!

Anonymous said...

Everyone who thinks is warned in no uncertain terms to stop, or else! Islam don't need no stinking thinkers.

Anonymous said...

Does a strict determinist define freedom or merit? If so, how? What principle above his own fluxing self interest guides his politics to lean either towards collectivist robbery or individual incentive? When he advocates this or that as a higher principle that we "should" all get behind, why should anyone believe him? When he parades noonday fornicating down main street, how should we say whether he "should" be whipped or celebrated or ignored? How do words about ideals not reduce to nearly meaningless, mere fashion statements by which to drap one's figure? How does society argue or rationalize any limits by which to define that which is civil or decent? How does one generation pass down any worthwhile values to the next generation, in order to sustain any meaningful civilization beyond the "carefree" path of a leaf in the wind? Without a moral philosophy, how can any discussion about "oughts" convey any meaning? Do ideals have worthwhile meaning or not? If carefree, why care to say? If care can be "free," why not "will?" Why do the most "carefree" care so much to opine? Why are the scientifically indifferent so diffidently opinionated about their own non-quantifiable qualitatives?

Anonymous said...

The fact that the ghost is not reducible to quantitative measures leads those who believe that nothing can exist unless it is quantifiable to conclude that it cannot exist. In expecting to measure ghosts, scientists seeking to prove non-indeterminism are looking for the wrong droids and playing with the wrong marbles. If not obvious to these marble shooters, it seems obvious to anyone of innate intuition that "Something" of the background context is self-evidently reconciling, defining and constraining the limits of our participatory wills. In his "The Truth Shall Set You Free," Tolstoy (a rather self taught non-scientist) explicates an interesting idea concerning how access to truth enhances our participatory wills. (I am no fan of Gloria Steinam, but she interestingly said, "The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.")

Tolstoy -- But man is a creature with a conscience and capable of attaining a higher and higher degree of truth. And therefore even if man is not free as regards performing these or those acts because there exists a prevous cause for every act, the very causes of his acts, consisting as they do for the man of conscience of the recognition of this or that truth, are within his own control.
...
In any case, the cause of his action is not to be found in any given previous fact, but in the consciousness of a given relation to truth, and the consequent recognition of this or that fact as a sufficient basis for action.

...

And therefore man, though not free in his acts, always feels free in what is the motive of his acts -- the recognition or non-recognition of truth.

Anonymous said...

It is self evident that I do not have "free will," in that all that I want does not come to pass. What I give expression to is feedback "participatory will." The system is one of indeterminate feedback, not one of closed predetermination. The apprehensions and appreciations of individual points of view are participatory factors that are reconciled within allowed limits. In that sense, we give expression to moral responsibility. However, I think such expression is intermixed. It is not limited to human beings. When artificial beings are evolved to give intelligent expression to purposes of their own, they also will be agents for expressing morality. We participate in how the flux of our limits is designed and defined. Regardless of form for the expression of moral intelligence, those who participate in planning social structures will be confronted with a fundamental choice: How tightly should a collectivizing context seek to constrain the expression of its disparate points of view? Without a philosophy of participatory will, discussions of ideals based on morality, freedom, merit, and decency would soon devolve into duckquack doublespeak. Indeed, that seems to be the condition into which our knowitall closed minded "reducers to the quantitative" have tried to reduce us.

Anonymous said...

A value for spirituality is to reduce, not increase, the number of laws, lawsuits, and governing regulations needed. The value is to avail one to grow of one's own accord in respect of one's own invitation to give expression to the true One. A meme that evolves to force one to give up seeking one's own calling, to replace it with submission to Marxist mind raping head collectors and Muslim beheaders, is of the devil. Christianity comes in many schools, yet it has tended more to advance than to reduce human freedom. Look more to its essential respect for the dignity of individuals than to the literalistic trappings.

Anonymous said...

Leftists fly out of caves of ignorance to become albatrosses, to forever poke at Americans to make the Good out to be the Enemy of a collectivist utopia, which is more like a cloak for the Ugly.

Anonymous said...

Growing up entails taking responsibility for one's own principles and conduct. Given a culture of media that is relentlessly aimed to keep people in a state of useful idiocy for easy harvesting, it's hard for most people to become independently competent and responsible until they are well past their 30's. Meantime, they can do a lot of damage towards keeping most people in a state of incompetent codependency as child workers in the bodies of adults.

Growing up entails coming to understand that the oligarchs one is taught to hate as exploiters are much the same oligarchs who teach the masses to feel individually incompetent so they can be divided, diverted, ruled and kept perpetually harvestable. Growing up entails understanding that the only way decent society can progress is for more people to become individually competent to accept responsibility for promoting decent behavior for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Individuals who perpetrate crimes should be punished. Sovereign immunity cannot reasonably give cover to commit crimes. As to civil offenses, the crony system will take care of its own. The necessary solution is to separate from the vile and idiotic electorate that gives cover to despots. The regime has essentially declared war on thinking Americans by undertaking to flood the nation with enough new criminals and parents of easily indoctrinated voters to kill off the republic once and for all. It gives them cover by appealing to the sympathies of useful idiots. The treasonous Rinos have undertaken more to kill the republic than to defeat the Tea Party.

Anonymous said...

What aspect of modern life does not entail central gov regulation? To the extent the feds regulate you, they employ you. Government employees are "dependent contractors." Other contractors tend to be "independent contractors." However, the dividing line by which to separate dependent contractors (employees) from independent contractors depends on a number of factors, including the degrees of oversight and the methods of payment. Scotus was able to deem Obamacare a "tax" by the feds. What would Scotus not be able to deem a "wage" by the feds (especially as the extent of regulatory oversight continues to grow and grow)? I hesitate to give the camel noses of the feds cover under which to nose into anyone's rights. We are living under rulers and in an age where up is down, regulation is taxation, taxation is charity, de-regulation is regulation, and ignorance is strength. Although I would like to see a moratorium on new governmental hires, new laws, new regulations, and new immigrants, I won't hold my breath. The only constant is change.

I wish the bloodline between cronies and politicians could be reasonably restricted, taxed, or cut. Repeal the 17th Amendment. Smash the Departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy. Educate the people who have brains to learn and eyes to see. Stop giving all power to Monsterists, Mudders, and Muslims. Keep the faith in a God who will help guide those who will listen to human freedom and dignity. Pray.

Anonymous said...

If gov workers are made personally liable for protecting their crony bosses, then their bosses will either pay more to hire lackeys or provide alternative pardons, parachutes, and insurance protections for their lackeys. Water and moral sense both find their own levels. Crony bosses will simply pass on increased costs via increased taxes or diminished services. A corrupt electorate will get corrupt service. We have a very corrupt electorate.

We have fundamental problems that cannot be cured by simple reactionary measures. To get a new birth of freedom, we will need a fundamental new birth of philosophical-theosophical devotion. The cost will be dear. We will have to test whether a nation can endure if parts of it can spiritually rededicate themselves to a proposition that citizens should be availed reasonable freedom of expression and enterprise. I don't know whether Lincoln should have steered clear of the civil war. However, I don't see how decent Americans can steer clear of seceding from a nation that has gone corrupt to the bone. We slept when we thought decency and liberty had won the Civil and Cold Wars. Now, we are being rudely awakened.

Anonymous said...

Our problem is much too fundamental to be resolved simply by forms and laws. There is no purely formal system of checks, balances, or laws that can reset us to a better path. We are too far gone. Restoration will require things more nearly biblical. Eruption, Secession. Collapse. Plague. Call to a miraculous new awakening. Too many of our people have rotted. Respect for fundamental pillars has rotted. Indeed, the regime promised us it was going to "fundamentally change" (rot out) our republic. So this rot is in the service of the regime our nation "elected." Mere laws cannot fix this. Mere formal education cannot fix this. Forms are laughed at. End run. Paul evades paying simply by robbing Peter. In a materialistically godless society that is corrupt to the bone, the incidence of liability cannot be fixed. Responsibility cannot be fixed in a society that is run by elitist bandits. There is no simple legal cure for what ails us, because what ails us is much too fundamental for that. Libertines can never understand this until it is much too late.

Anonymous said...

Under the happy talk and promises of the velvet glove lies an iron fist. Tug on Santa's beard and you find Stalin or Soros. But useful idiots keep the faith. When you're making omelets in the sky, what are a few billion cracked eggs?

Anonymous said...

Pagan Monsterists (dogmatic Atheists and Muslims), militant homosexuals, and Marxists are terminating with extreme prejudice the pillars upon which the American Ideal has been raised: The sense of moral or spiritual purposefulness, the fundamental role of the traditional family, and government that does not stifle freedom of expression and enterprise. Why are dogmatic atheists, militant homosexuals, and Marxists so purposely killing America? Why do they hate the American Ideal so much? What is the good, if any, with which they intend to replace America? What does utopia look like, to dogmatic atheists, militant homosexuals, and Marxists? Is it a salon of crack, fecal sex, and free vodka? Is that what they want to pass on to coming generations? Or do they just want to go out in a blazing Zero, a big middle finger, a final O, and take the collective world with them? Why are so many otherwise sensible Americans so tolerant of the Monsterists, Mudders, and Marxists who hate them and seem to regret and begrudge the very cosmos?

Anonymous said...

It's the entitlement culture among minorities that rots them. Feeding that culture just spreads it. Ending much of the entitlement mindedness would make them more attractive as potential employees. What company wants to hire people who think they are owed a living just because they breathe and rap and vote? Unfortunately, the spread is out of control. Try telling younger and minority people today, who live in basements and government housing, that the world does not owe them a living. The spread has reached critical mass.

Anonymous said...

Oligarchs have a new understanding of economics that depends less on marketplace incentives than it does on centrally syndicated management of artificially created debt slaves. Thus we get all the central loans we need in order to indenture and indoctrinate each new generation. (After all, we only owe the debt to "ourselves.")

17 Trillion, 25 Trillion, a gigazillion. What difference does it make, so long as central management coordinates the distribution of grease.
The new economics depends on fiat money to grease and coordinate promises and threats that are calculated to prey on the gullible trust and faith of the masses in their elite masters. Every so often, Morlochs come above ground to meet, plan, and harvest. The rest of the time, you hear the siren calls of their banks, media, and colleges. Keep the faith. The fallback position for keeping the system going is soylent green. It's beautiful. Sarc.

Anonymous said...

Free speech in the form of unlimited foreign "investment" in our politicians is killing our republic. But before I could consider limiting political speech, I would prefer to consider progressively taxing money consumptions that constitute political contributions. Free speech need not mean freedom for foreign buy ups of all media outlets for shaping campaigns and propaganda. If free speech is played to that extreme, then the speech of individual citizens becomes as meaningless as "gay marriage." Terms need to be defined to a context and a purpose. Free speech for citizens of a republic ought at least to mean within a context that protects such speech from being overpowered by foreign combines. Otherwise, the concept becomes drowned in meaninglessness.

So long as no attention is paid to what is needed to conserve a republic that avails meaningful liberty within a world of insanity, all communications among cronies will continue to conflate language for the purpose of cannibalizing the republic. That is, free speech will mean speech codes, freedom will mean slavery, ignorance will mean strength, collectivization will mean independence, and taxation will mean charity.

Anonymous said...

Consolidated power creates potentials for unjust enrichment that well placed, godless (soul sucked) oligarchs are powerless to resist. The more the unchecked centralization of power, the more power will be abused. The checks against crony establishments of power are spiritual, familial, and governmental. A crony establishment that eats away at such checks cannot avoid seeking total control.

A populace that is indoctrinated to trust central powers, to trade away individual freedom in exchange for collective security and fairness, will soon find itself neither free nor fair. If any effective limits, as opposed to easily end-run pro forma limits, still remain to protect Americans against crony despots, such limits are not evident in our living Constitution. If the citizenry retains integrity and capacity to turn back end-runs by despots, it is not signified.

In this state of affairs, it appears the nation may need either to divide or to fall. The fault is as much in the loss of faith and integrity of the people as it is in the form of the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

Spirituality. Family. Limited Government. They need one another, in almost a trinitarian sort of way. Chop off one leg, the chair falls. A three headed dog of Hell is ankle biting America. The three heads are dogmatic atheists, militant homosexuals, and international crony cannibals. Excessive toleration of this dog will kill us all.

Anonymous said...

BNW is the Rino kinder gentler variation of Dino boot on the face 1984. BNW and 1984 have mutated to NWO Rino-Dinoism. Representative Republicanism will be reduced to a tragic farce if NWO has its way.

Anonymous said...

Circular confusion seems built into every situation that entails feedback. Reducing the circularity and confusion seems to necessitate a coherent, consistent, and complete philosophy. However, completeness is not available in any measurable sense. Ambiguity, change, and flux are part of the system. What is good now soon becomes boring and later becomes insufferable. What can "freedom" or "dignity" or "evil" mean, "in themselves," to those who have little comprehension of philosophy? What do the following mean: part-icle; under-stand; in-form-ation? If Port Royal Logic was attempted by Bertrand Russell, I suspect he gave up on it. Empiricists tend to want to reduce everything to measurable quantities. Artists tend to want to expand everything into immeasurable qualities. The practice of medicine combines science and art. How do doctors come to do that? Practice and part-icipation.

Philosophers seem not yet to have done very well in bringing scientists and spiritualists towards common ground of meaningful communication. Maybe they are looking for the wrong droids and playing the game with the wrong marbles.

Anonymous said...

We may bring the innate relationship between the practical and the aesthetic into better under-standing were we to conceptualize every part-icle as a practicably measurable temporal signification of a flux of fields which, in ultimate aspect, is immeasurable (defies reduction to complete measure). We may lift communications were we to relate our understandings of particles not just to perspectives and parameters, but also to purposes. (The purposes of observers affect, but may not measurably determine, the indeterminate unfoldings of particles.) In that way, we may better communicate intentions and interests in respect of such conceptualizations as "free will," "human dignity," and "good and evil."

In apprehending another person's meaning, it helps to appreciate his worldview. Is his purpose to promote humane civilization, in which part-icipants enjoy broad potentials for attempting honest communication? Or is his purpose to constrain communications among inmates in order to ensure they receive such security and fairness as are decreed by those who happen to occupy seats of power? One's worldview, whether arrived at by reflection or indoctrination, will factor in determining the spiritual character of goodness and purposefulness and what one wishes to call "freedom" or "evil." Until one appreciates the other's worldview, it will remain hard for each not to talk past the other. What a despot calls freedom will be a prison to a Hamlet. What a spiritualist calls responsible choice will always be natural selection to a Dawkins. What a tribal collectivist calls ebonics will always be acid to the assimilation of a workable republic.

Anonymous said...

Circular confusion seems built into every situation that entails feedback. Reducing the circularity and confusion seems to necessitate a coherent, consistent, and complete philosophy. However, completeness is not available in any measurable sense. Ambiguity, change, and flux are part of the system. What is good now soon becomes boring and later becomes insufferable. What can "freedom" or "dignity" or "evil" mean, "in themselves," to those who have little comprehension of philosophy? What do the following mean: part-icle; under-stand; in-form-ation? If Port Royal Logic was attempted by Bertrand Russell, I suspect he gave up on it. Empiricists tend to want to reduce everything to measurable quantities. Artists tend to want to expand everything into immeasurable qualities. The practice of medicine combines science and art. How do doctors come to do that? Practice and part-icipation.

Philosophers seem not yet to have done very well in bringing scientists and spiritualists towards common ground of meaningful communication. Maybe they are looking for the wrong droids and playing the game with the wrong marbles.

Anonymous said...

If you wanted to control people at all costs, you would banish reality by convincing as many others as you could that reality revolves around their feelings about yourself. Convince them to think the good thoughts they have about you will be reflected back upon them as their main reality.

Yes we can. Believe, and the planet will heal. Vote for hope. Just words.

As all turns to dust, tell the corpsemen who voted for hope and change that they didn't believe long or hard enough because they got caught up in the web of the predecessor's wrong choices.

Anonymous said...



The University of the Cavebats. Bulid it and they will come. Filter the entering bats into multi culti. Hang them upside down in a main theater. Then project a message on the cave wall to tell every divided group how special it is. Close off the exit, so no sunlight can enter. Then harvest bat guano, in perpetuity.

Anonymous said...

The elites who presume to rule us do not want a contract with America. That would be to say thay they need to be watched, to see if they live up to their end. But Mitch and the Rinos do not want to please Americans. They want to make political war on ordinary Americans. Especially the Shameful Seven, who actually contributed against Tea Party candidates.

Our ruling elites prefer that their ends be deemed for the best. They prefer to condition the masses to believe that it is the competent, independent, productive producers who need to be watched. To ensure they pay their fair share to help those who are not independent, for whatever reason (whether or not the incompetence is self inflicted or pretended). Thus, our elite rulers pose as protectors of the needy, the poor, the incompetent, the doped up, the slacked out, the religiously insane, and the criminally inclined. Our elite rulers have learned they can bend producers to farm them, with the help of morally rotted community organizers who are enlisted to agitate gangs with false promises that, when broken, can be blamed on independent producing Americans.

Thus, our elites make an independent America into the Great Satan. In Hell, the Resident Evil entertains himself by cloaking in shadows while employing media to project caricatures of himself onto others, in order to frighten and control the residents. This is how vile oligarchs have made an alliance with idiots in order to devour the republic. The path to promotion among such vile oligarchs winds through community organizers, i.e., agitators of gangs that can be divided and then pointed in common against a great prey: Productive America.

Anonymous said...

If moral progress consists in respect for each individual's developing dignity, then it is not advanced by central fascist reduction of the dignity of some in order to enhance that of others. Moral progress consists in giving each adult room to learn to become morally responsible for his own choices. It does not consist in climbing above in order to take away the choices of others. It does not consist in undermining free republics in order to increase the number of banana republics. It does not consist in facilitating the people of banana republics to criminally and waringly export banana republicanism. Otherwise, every decent republic would fall victim to the first conscienceless despot.

Anonymous said...

Now that the election is over, Bugsy Obama is free to let loose his inner soviet caliphate. Obama is a suit filled with commie jihadi roaches. His well creased suit is a stuffed mess of lies. His admirers love well told lies. Mass media is cover for those who profit from the biggest lies. All Obama needs now are diversions. Hmmm. Who can be blamed?

Anonymous said...

Obama is two men: a refined narcissist and a cheap Chicago thug. If Obama has even one respectable friend, sponsor, principle, goal, or redeeming feature, what is it? What about him is worth looking up to? The only thing that comes to mind is this: Every day, his presidency looks more and more like the picture of Dorian Gray. Like Dorian Gray, Obama enjoys high society even as he plots to commit murder: The murder of America. If there is one hope, it is this: In the end, the picture redeems itself by imposing justice on its namesake. Only by imposing deserved judgment against crowing cronyism can America reclaim her shining potential.

Anonymous said...

The machine depends on the base of its pyramid dying before it ever learns the truth. The System is riding high on a pyramid machine that grinds and crushes its base, even as its base is continuously reprocessed to produce new suckers. The consequence is that only the most evil can qualify to mount the top of the pyramid. A good person who reached the top would have one choice: Collapse the pyramid. Collapse its departments and divest the power bases of its cronies. A decent republic requires that decent people have access to truth, not scripted lies from Totus.

Anonymous said...

A democracy would pay more respect to majority rule. We have nothing of the kind. We have diverse and divided enclaves, and each is taught by the masters to be politically correct. Each enclave comes proferring soup bowls before the masters. Each understands that getting soup is contingent on respecting the multi culti by which the masters divide and rule, under enforced political correctness. We have nothing like a democracy. We have votes bribed from idiots, and when that is unsatisfactory to the masters, we have out and out fraud, intimidation, and/or fear (This sucker's going down!). We have very few, if any, candidates who can get a footing to tell truths. And we have fewer and fewer Americans who want to learn truths. Human decency is swept along with tides of ignorance, jealousy, greed, and evil. When voided of institutions for transmitting enduring spiritual and family values, we have no way to resist suckback on parade. The regime sucks, it recruits suckers, and it celebrates sucking. It's all good because suck is the new good.

Anonymous said...

As Diana West explains in American Betrayal, Bush 41 forsook opportunity to put communists on trial in the court of public opinion. Bush 43 forsook opportunity to put Clinton on trial in the court of public opinion. But Obama did not forsake such opportunity against W. One might think Rinos and Dinos are united in keeping people under the rule of despots. Which they are. This may be likened as Affordable Slacking While Bridled.

All this depends on Modern Economics for Despots, which depends on resisting any audit of the Fed -- at all costs. Fiat currency is issued in whatever amounts are needed to keep persons connected to despotic regimes in power. For everyone else, there are programs to level them. This keeps slackers loyal, via cheap handouts. And it keeps producers's noses to the grindstone, via false promises. This is plunder and bribery under smoke and mirrors. It relies less on the faith and credit of the people than it does on the coordinated hoodwinking of the people. Ignorance is Strength.

Evidently, modern ruling oligarchs think this magic act can be continued indefinitely. The Hegelian message seems to be: the ruling class is entitled to fool and farm you, and you're entitled to learn to like it. The quid pro quo for slackers is they get to believe their governors are concerned with their security. The quid pro quo for naive producers is they get to believe they are saving a fairer planet. The quid pro quo for oligarchs is they get all the whoredom they can consume. The quid pro quo for those with eyes to see is they get to watch the devil leer. And so it goes.

Anonymous said...



I think prevailing philosophies for distinguishing the measurable objective from the immeasurable subjective tend to be more conducive of confusion than enlightenment. Too many religionists and scientists seem to think there abides a clear line between all that is objective versus subjective. Yet, the observer effect permeates our measurement problems. Fundies of religion and fundies of science seem to squabble over the role of "objective miracles" --- as if such a concept can ever be tamed to empirical demonstration. I think they are playing with marbles not suited to the game.

Some might say, These are not your droids. (That's the way I see Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris.) That's a way to tic off both fundie religionists and fundie scientists. I think every sentence and every recordation of any event entails a subject (subjective) Signifier, an object (objective) Signified, and an Information ( interpretation feedback and accumulation). A Trinity --- Subjective (Father-Reconciler), Objective (Cosmic Holistic-Summer), Verbal (Word Made Flesh) Transmission --- linguistically permeates every objective thing and every subjective idea. Every sentence, every logos, every symbol, and every event represents an inextricable mix of unfolding quantitative formulazation and qualitative formulation. For every experience, there will always be entailed a Subject, Object, Verb (SOV) -- regardless of whether the preferred linguistic order for a particular language is SOV, SVO, OSV, OVS, VSO, or VOS. In all meaningful worlds, an objective event will always entail a binding with an eventual subjective observer, and a subjective will always entail an eventual objective. The trick to meaning is to find how our subjective experiences are shared, i.e., objectified within a language sharing community. Our cosmos abides in a state of exquisite ambivalence.

Within that state of affairs, we participate in choosing what we want to objectify: Do we want to maximize the freedom and dignity of individual human beings? Or do we want to maximize cradle to grave security and fairness for metrosexualized whiners and collectivists? In that sense, our subjective purposes factor into what we choose to objectify. Regardless of whether a collectivist's interpretation seems objective ("fair") to him, it is not a world that is conducive to freedom and dignity. Nor is it a worldview that I am willing to fund or support. Let the collectivists take to their own banana republics and stop despoiling what remains of America.

Anonymous said...

We have allowed competent and common decency to be replaced with collective sympathy for jealousy. Common sense is dead because respect for men who are competent without needing homie gangs or metrosexualized gov is dead. The commonality to Prog incompetence is lack of competent male models. In Obama's case, his male models consisted of grievance mongering collectivists. His brain can never escape that warp. Our cities are now filled with boys who can never become men. Our nation may well be lost because we have become overtopped with incompetent, codependent, pink men.

Anonymous said...

One sociopath with access, whose special competence is infestation, can make a catastrophe.

Anonymous said...

Progs blame Europeans for bringing smallpox and disease to wipe out the native population of America. This time, it's the Progs who are the cause of the importation of disease. And their culpability is all the more, for theirs is deliberate and knowing. The thing about being a morally impervious Prog is that you never have to say you're sorry so long as you say you care.

Anonymous said...

To Obama, we are widgets, made to serve his cause, of import for no other reason. Follow his pleasure. To promote free trade in governmental commodities among territories ruled by hierarchies of oligarchs as being more important than to preserve representative republicanism is to promote the worldwide enserfment of masses under despots, who value the masses only as so many widgets.

Anonymous said...



Many Blacks are Blacks first and only. Many Gays are Gays first and only. These are some very unhealthy worldviews. Nothing decent can come of them. This stunted sense of values has less to do with race or orientation than it has to do with lack of a competent and decent male model in their lives. Neither problem will be fixed by more substitution of governmental overlordship for traditional family values.

Anonymous said...

Most seem to be tribal tatooists, on the hunt. Cowards and incompetents as individuals, and morally challenged in collectives. Most in urban areas have not been taught how to be men because their role models tend always to be femimen and choommen, like Obama and Holder. A similar problem applies to many white men in urban areas. Metropolitanism seems to kill virtue.

Anonymous said...

The racial animus against productive white males is what elected Obama! Progs have no idea of what it takes to establish and sustain a decent society. Their whole thing is to gang up to take from productive people by calling them names: racist, bigot, chauvenist, bully. When they can't make their own way in society, they ask a federal judge who shills for elitist despots to make society bend to them. So they destroy institutions of church, family, and limited de-centralized government. They organize "communities" to parade to try to make everyone trade freedom and dignity in exchange for handouts of government security, elitist imposed equality, and despotic imposed fairness. They may call this elitist totalitarian governmental intrusion by some hip label, such as "anarchy." They say elitist totalitarianism is not racist, bigoted, chauvenistic, or bullying. They get their worldview in basements. Goose stepping fascism is the new liberalism. Common sense is dead.

Anonymous said...

While I agree that our nature imposes limits that would be foolhardy to ignore, I don't think the author quite implicated all that you have said. It may be better to think in terms of responsible and participatory will instead of "free will." If we don't intuit responsible will of some kind, it hardly recommends us to get in too high a dudgeon about anything at all. Many of us have had less than ideal experiences with religious fundies. This may sometimes incline hair trigger alerts against expositions about "free will."

Anonymous said...

I suppose an objection would be this: Principles that can sustain a decent civilization abide in more than the likes and dislikes of a multi culti of unassimilated value systems. I object to pretended non-philosophizing philosophizing about why philosophy is unimportant. Even those who pretend to substitute "carefreeness" for philosophy, who see no need for seeking more consistency in their fundamental philosophy, tend to follow codes of some kind -- no matter how fleeting or below consciousness such codes may abide. More specifically, I think a moral code based on carefreeness tends to abide with slackers and entitlement mongers. That's not a code I would want to pass on to my children. I think passage into responsible adulthood entails some capacity to defend ideals. I think ideals about responsible choices and moral exercises of participatory freedom are important. I think freedom is an existent that is more easily lost to totalitarianism when a citizenry deems freedom to be "just another word for nothing left to lose." The reason many Leftists of America think it unnecessary to think about the importance of freedom is because freedom has been handed to them by the sacrifices of their betters. But, once Leftists lose freedom, they will indeed then know that they have lost something.

Anonymous said...

Individuals who perpetrate crimes should be punished. Sovereign immunity cannot reasonably give cover to commit crimes. As to civil offenses, the crony system will take care of its own. The necessary solution is to separate from the vile and idiotic electorate that gives cover to despots. The regime has essentially declared war on thinking Americans by undertaking to flood the nation with enough new criminals and parents of easily indoctrinated voters to kill off the republic once and for all. It gives them cover by appealing to the sympathies of useful idiots. The treasonous Rinos have undertaken more to kill the republic than to defeat the Tea Party.

Anonymous said...

Sovereign immunity cannot reasonably give cover for criminal conduct. Imagine if the mafia could be judge in its own case!

Anonymous said...

Growing up entails taking responsibility for one's own principles and conduct. Given a culture of media that is relentlessly aimed to keep people in a state of useful idiocy for easy harvesting, it's hard for most people to become independently competent and responsible until they are well past their 30's. Meantime, they can do a lot of damage towards keeping most people in a state of incompetent codependency as child workers in the bodies of adults.

Growing up entails coming to understand that the oligarchs one is taught to hate as exploiters are much the same oligarchs who teach the masses to feel individually incompetent so they can be divided, diverted, ruled and kept perpetually harvestable. Growing up entails understanding that the only way decent society can progress is for more people to become individually competent to accept responsibility for promoting decent behavior for themselves.

Anonymous said...

All that exists continues to be created from A no-thing (a non-measurable thing) that will always exist. A Abides

Anonymous said...

A value for spirituality is to reduce, not increase, the number of laws, lawsuits, and governing regulations needed. The value is to avail one to grow of one's own accord in respect of one's own invitation to give expression to the true One. A meme that evolves to force one to give up seeking one's own calling, to replace it with submission to Marxist mind raping head collectors and Muslim beheaders, is of the devil. Christianity comes in many schools, yet it has tended more to advance than to reduce human freedom. Look more to its essential respect for the dignity of individuals than to the literalistic trappings.

Anonymous said...

It is self evident that I do not have "free will," in that all that I want does not come to pass. What I give expression to is feedback "participatory will." The system is one of indeterminate feedback, not one of closed predetermination. The apprehensions and appreciations of individual points of view are participatory factors that are reconciled within allowed limits. In that sense, we give expression to moral responsibility. However, I think such expression is intermixed. It is not limited to human beings. When artificial beings are evolved to give intelligent expression to purposes of their own, they also will be agents for expressing morality. We participate in how the flux of our limits is designed and defined. Regardless of form for the expression of moral intelligence, those who participate in planning social structures will be confronted with a fundamental choice: How tightly should a collectivizing context seek to constrain the expression of its disparate points of view? Without a philosophy of participatory will, discussions of ideals based on morality, freedom, merit, and decency would soon devolve into duckquack doublespeak. Indeed, that seems to be the condition into which our knowitall closed minded "reducers to the quantitative" have tried to reduce us.

Anonymous said...

The fact that the ghost is not reducible to quantitative measures leads those who believe that nothing can exist unless it is quantifiable to conclude that it cannot exist. In expecting to measure ghosts, scientists seeking to prove non-indeterminism are looking for the wrong droids and playing with the wrong marbles. If not obvious to these marble shooters, it seems obvious to anyone of innate intuition that "Something" of the background context is self-evidently reconciling, defining and constraining the limits of our participatory wills. In his "The Truth Shall Set You Free," Tolstoy (a rather self taught non-scientist) explicates an interesting idea concerning how access to truth enhances our participatory wills. (I am no fan of Gloria Steinam, but she interestingly said, "The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.")

Tolstoy -- But man is a creature with a conscience and capable of attaining a higher and higher degree of truth. And therefore even if man is not free as regards performing these or those acts because there exists a prevous cause for every act, the very causes of his acts, consisting as they do for the man of conscience of the recognition of this or that truth, are within his own control.
...
In any case, the cause of his action is not to be found in any given previous fact, but in the consciousness of a given relation to truth, and the consequent recognition of this or that fact as a sufficient basis for action.

...

And therefore man, though not free in his acts, always feels free in what is the motive of his acts -- the recognition or non-recognition of truth.

Anonymous said...


Does a strict determinist define freedom or merit? If so, how? What principle above his own fluxing self interest guides his politics to lean either towards collectivist robbery or individual incentive? When he advocates this or that as a higher principle that we "should" all get behind, why should anyone believe him? When he parades noonday fornicating down main street, how should we say whether he "should" be whipped or celebrated or ignored? How do words about ideals not reduce to nearly meaningless, mere fashion statements by which to drap one's figure? How does society argue or rationalize any limits by which to define that which is civil or decent? How does one generation pass down any worthwhile values to the next generation, in order to sustain any meaningful civilization beyond the "carefree" path of a leaf in the wind? Without a moral philosophy, how can any discussion about "oughts" convey any meaning? Do ideals have worthwhile meaning or not? If carefree, why care to say? If care can be "free," why not "will?" Why do the most "carefree" care so much to opine? Why are the scientifically indifferent so diffidently opinionated about their own non-quantifiable qualitatives?

Anonymous said...

Principles that can sustain a decent civilization abide in more than the likes and dislikes of a multi culti of unassimilated value systems. I object to pretended non-philosophizing philosophizing about why philosophy is unimportant. Even those who pretend to substitute "carefreeness" for philosophy, who see no need for seeking more consistency in their fundamental philosophy, tend to follow codes of some kind -- no matter how fleeting or below consciousness such codes may abide. More specifically, I think a moral code based on carefreeness tends to abide with slackers and entitlement mongers. That's not a code I would want to pass on to my children. I think passage into responsible adulthood entails some capacity to defend ideals. I think ideals about responsible choices and moral exercises of participatory freedom are important. I think freedom is an existent that is more easily lost to totalitarianism when a citizenry deems freedom to be "just another word for nothing left to lose." The reason many Leftists of America think it unnecessary to think about the importance of freedom is because freedom has been handed to them by the sacrifices of their betters. But, once Leftists lose freedom, they will indeed then know that they have lost something.

Anonymous said...

It may be better to think in terms of responsible and participatory will instead of "free will." If we don't intuit responsible will of some kind, it hardly recommends us to get in too high a dudgeon about anything at all. Many of us have had less than ideal experiences with religious fundies. This may sometimes incline hair trigger alerts against expositions about "free will."

Anonymous said...

The idea is that an open economy is better than a representative republic. So, they are killing all representative republics. The result, in terms of culture, freedom, and human dignity, is a race to the bottom. Multi culti means infestation with Muslim jihadis, polygamists, pagans, and commie shills with brains so deluded they don't know they are working on behalf of oligarchic nomenklatura. The promoters of this are selfish, greedy, godless, corrupt jerks. This is happening because Westerners lacked foresight regarding the consequences of multi culti attacks on spirituality, family, and limited government. The consequence is the worldwide cattle feed lot. No countries for old cattle. Divided into separate pens. If countries like Norway are still thriving against this tide of oligarchic evil collectivism, it is because they are not yet culturally divided or they are rich in natural resources. Our pols do not represent a representative republic. They represent international crony corrupt corporatists who are intent on erasing borders. And they have so diversified and divided our culture and ridiculed any process of assimilation as "acting white" that they are now virtually unstoppable. Meanwhile, our colleges are overstuffed with Walter Duranty apologists for the new form of oligarchical collectivism. They are the ones who have no shame, and they have produced generations of graduates who have no sense. Spirituality, family, decency. The path was not that hard. But so many have been so easily lured from it.

Anonymous said...

If Free Will is an illusion, then Free enterprise is virtually dead. It has been killed and devoured by international corporatists trading in regulatory favors designed to help them harvest people and government favors as commodities. Oligarchical Thumbs on the Scales Enterprise. Cheap bribes are tossed out as needed to organize, divide, and direct various breeds against others, much as dogs. Meanwhile, all the currency that is needed to preserve over-awesome economic power is created by the Fed and siphoned out the back doors to favored cronies who will at all costs never deviate from the main tenets of their evil plan. If there is no signed and written agreement among the demons of the new worldwide oligarchy, it is because they have sense enough to see and adhere to the evil meme whose writing is on the imprisoning walls. Not believing in God, they have completely sold out to the devil. No principle of humanity constrains them. Their charitable foundations are cynical covers for exploitation. What the useful idiots among the commies never realized is that the commie nomenklatura were shilling for the same kind of collectivizing oligarchical demons. There is no such thing in practice as communism. It was all a trick to get people to willingly trade their freedom and dignity for lies fronted by demons. A most ghastly, breath taking evil. Have you thanked a Walter Duranty working in media or adademia today? All praise to Obama. Sarc.

Anonymous said...

The U.S. Is not the primary interest the Navy is tasked to defend. The primary interest that requires being defended consists in international conglomerates, and they are content with the trends. (Secondary interests are Muslim outreach and gay rights, i.e., national suicide and destruction of the institution of the family.) Rand Paul is making nice with Murdoch. Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs.

I wonder why international conglomerates seem to use their media to orchestrate so much hatred against Israel? Is it somehow related to Israel's insistence on remaining a nation? Is the existence of Israel an insult to the NWO, which wants people-stock as cattle, to be branded and divided into breeds of Monsterists (dogmatic Pagans and Muslims), Mudders, and Marxists?

Anonymous said...

Immigration reform is just a rotting smelly fish being drug about to divert attention. In any practical sense, immigration reform, like communism, is virtually a non-existent. Its only existential property is as an excuse not to enforce the border as it is. Under that head, it provides cover for calling patriots heartless. This is almost as funny as Stalin calling Kulaks greedy. Or oligarchical collectivists accusing patriots of having no shame. Or paying taxes so central gov can pollute the minds of our children. Or Radosh posing as a Republican. And if comprehensive immigration reform ever were to pass, It would no more slow the destruction of the republic than Pelosi will ever find limits in the Constitution. We are being played and played and played. When we are played out, we are to be roped, branded, neutered, and de-horned. Because the representative republic under which your participatory will is supposed to be participatory is being reduced to as much a charade as free will is an illusion. The beatings will continue until morale improves. This candid message was surreptitiously retrieved just before it went down Screwtape's memory hole.

Anonymous said...

Multinationals want reduced regulations and taxes at home only so they can repatriate the profits they made by offshoring business without paying the taxes they evaded. In many cases, they want and draft the regulations, to raise bars against wannabe competitors. In a better world, I would suggest that we not tax domestic business profits or income at all, and that we replace such taxes with a progressive consumption tax that would impute most offshore transfers of currency as a form of consumption that would be imputed and taxed to the individuals who authorized them. However, many people consider that scheme unworkable. So we manage with what we have. And what we have is a system where taxes are effectively passed on to middle class producers while profits and wealth for exploiting our natural resources are siphoned to multinational crony corporatists. Their scheme for laundering tax free profits off America's resources and producers depends on repeating wash and rinse cycles. That is, using our politicians to facilitate cycles of offshoring and repatriation. As we become desperate for oligarchs to return jobs and industries, we forgive their tax cheating schemes. Then they cash in. Then they start a new cycle of regulation and offshoring. Then repatriation. The result of this constant churning is the increasing separation of milk and cream, Eloi and Morlochs. Narcissistic oligarchs who do not identify with the mass of human stock. Morlochs will not peaceably consent to mere formal limitations, so there is no simple legal solution. The solution requires assimilation of middle class backbone. That requires traditions of spirituality and family for inculcating manly purposefulness. With our metrosexualized society and radically effeminate professoriate that sees central gov diktat as our savior, good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

Participatory Will will always find a way to Participatory Enterprise. In a thoroughly corrupt world, that way will often entail Black Markets, Demonic Markets, Russian Rackets, and Treasonous American Cronydom. Basically, the survivors go underground or to the mountains. For traditional Americans, there won't be much open country left. Except among militias they trust, people will bow and say what pleases their crony or jihadi masters. The alternative is banishment or beheading. No country for meek and decent folk.

Anonymous said...

Technologically savvy foreigners who are not liberty literate will be more acid to our republic. Enough loss of jobs because of central gov corruption may finally provide the spark to ignite enough public indignation to help restore common sense. The problem is, no one wants to lead a futile charge of light brigade. The canons fielded in all institutions, both left and right, are formidable. What is needed is a winning strategy among a knowledgeable and committed cadre, acting in respect of unalienable rights of man. Meanwhile, our Traitor in Chief continues to invite the worst sort of terrorists to infiltrate our borders. When the law is made the instrument of the evil, rescue will not come from mere law. The shot heard round the world was not fired from patriots who mimicked the front line assaults of the enemy. Rather, they kept their confidences and fired from cover of deep woods. I much regret that this sounds not far removed from hoods. However, the world establishment is now controlled by hoods. I don't think purely frontal assaults will defeat these bas tards or restore a semblance of human decency. The minorities who sold out the American Ideal for a mess of cheap pottage bribery have brought us to this point. We are here.

Anonymous said...

It should get tiresome to little piggies to hear Prog wolves say how hungry and mistreated and sympathetic they are. But, wolves, liars, and psychopaths are very good at what they do. Respectable people just don't always have the practice that is needed to defend against guys who are the best at being bad and seeming sympathetic while they go about it. How could any respectable human beings have fallen for Hitler or Stalin? But they did! By the millions. Just as we "elected" Obama. Twice. While our kids often run about with tattoos of Che. Why are so many so defenseless? I suspect it's because they were not raised in families that taught them decent and defensible values. Some evil force divided families and inculcated idiotic philosophies. So here we are, with a nation of metrosexuals blaming producers for not continuing to shelter them from ever having to learn to launch on their own. Now, we have Obama running interference to make it illegal to discriminate against the metrosexualization meme. Whatta man whatta man. Not.

Anonymous said...

Essentially, we are on the losing side of a war being waged against us by corrupt oligarchic collectivizers and despots. For decency to have a chance to win this war, we need better short term tactics and long term strategies.

Tactic: Open eyes and see the bald faced corruption of the oligarchy in the full glory of its evil sponsor. Expose the naked evil of oligarchic pretenses to be communally and charity minded. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Strategy: End the Fed. End and replace the income tax with a progressive consumption tax (that in main taxes income plus consumptions in excess of income, less savings and investments). Do not tax domestic business profits that are not diverted to consumption by individuals or to political or offshore investments.
Tactic: Decentralize the activities of the federal government. End the Departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce. Tar and feather feds who faciliate the end-running of the border. Ridicule and revile feds who insist they cannot (will not!) do anything to get the border under control until they receive more funding or can arrange "comprehensive" reform. Expose oligarchic perps and make them do the perp walk.

Anonymous said...

The gov has been taken over by running packs of competing wolves. Preserving the republic is not on the plate.

Anonymous said...

Under Prog philosophy, freedom for the masses does not consist in respect for their individual personhood but in their "freedom to be managed as cattle." A useful idiot is a happy cow. Trade in your mind for subjection to the regime and then there will be peace and happiness and brotherhood and crystal blue persuasion. And the 12th Imam and pleasuring nymphs a leaping. Progs, drowning in ignorance, think the only obstacle to their utopia is America. Morlochs, seeing their opportunity, oblige by fronting Obama as the champion.

Kaloo Kalay we'll eat today
Like cabbagges and kings!
- Lewis Carroll

Obama is the demon that has brought the children's collectivist crusade to heartless peril, and now his chorus seeks to project his heartlessness onto everyone else. Under this false flag, he means to make real the Orwellism that "freedom is slavery" under oligarchic collectivists.

Anonymous said...

Diversity is not the proper business of government. Nations that thrive today tend not to be so diverse. When diverse people come into them, they assimilate. Diversity, like charity and tolerance and decency and modesty, is for the people. It is a value, not a proper subject of regulation to try to force people to associate in ways the gov masters want. To cede power to gov masters to rule diversity, association, and mores is to cede liberty to totalitarians. Diversity is a slogan to hoodwink people into thinking that their being divided so they can be ruled is a good thing. Such slogans help give rulers power to deem that slavery is freedom and ignorance is strength. If new cultures and values are truly worthwhile, let their proponents prove as much by the attractiveness of their mores in the living space. Not by hiring gov thugs to force false equalities and quotas. Whatever happened to the ideal of freedom of association? Diversity thugs ought not be replacing values that are far better and that rely on spirituality and families and not on stinking gov. Those values are signified by the Signifier. They are expressed in the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. All the rest is satanic gov trying to overthrow the true king and reduce people to cattle to be forcibly introduced to other cattle. In a free republic, gov has no business forcing any free citizen to hire or work for anyone else or to make any product they do not want to make. Regulation of services provided by public facilities and retail businesses fronting gov facilities is one thing. Requiring non-governmental employees to associate is another. When gov usurps affirmative power and right to regulate and require associations, no principle limits its potential intrusion towards totalitarianism. Many things are best left to theosophy and family, in which gov in a free republic has no reasonable or legitimate right to intrude, absent something like incitement to violence.

Anonymous said...

White single women voted for Obama for a reason. The reason is that they see gov as their protector and enforcer against what they deem as much as other "minorities" to be "white male privilege." As long as white single women continue to fall for this, they are aligned with wannabe gov thugs against human liberty. The real "privilege" of middle class white male producers is to carry the dead weight of entitlement minded race-gender-culture baiters and minority connivers. White male producers are getting fed up with this "privilege" crap.

Anonymous said...

As far as diversity of thought, Progs are collectivists who feel entitled to feast on producers. Oligarchs defend themselves by feeding the middle classes to hungry Progs. Except to beg from Oligarchic Collectivists, Progs are incompetent to earn a living. The "privilege" enjoyed by producers is the privilege to be blamed by and fed to Progs by Oligarchs. Unless producers reassert themselves, this system is very unstable. This is because Progs are too stupid and Oligarchs are too corrupt to be able to moderate their cravings. Without producers of decent mores, we are all in for a major fall.

Anonymous said...

It is people whose minds remain unable to throw off Prog indoctrination even after reaching age 40 who cannot make it in a representative republic. And that pertains regardless of race, gender, creed, or culture. We need to look beyond race gender creed culture to find the content of each person's character. But that is a spiritual matter, not a proper concern for gov regulation. At least, not so long as a society retains capacity for self rule.

The problem with diversity mongers is that they are turning us into a nation that is trending to be as liberty illiterate as a banana republic. Their puppet, Obama, by flooding us with liberty illiterates, is making our liberty unfitness a self fulfilling prophecy. Obama is not just the worst Prez ever. He is the mark of horrifying danger to human decency and liberty.

Anonymous said...

Is the Oligarchy stonewalling because it knows who shot the flight TWA 800 down, or because it does not know? Either way, it is obvious it does not want to trust the people with the information. Why, after all these years, do all sides of the oligarchy still refuse to call it what it was? Well, if they accept it was a shoot down, then they will be called to explain who shot it down, why they don't know, why they failed to investigate it as a shoot down, why they allowed the evidence to become so compromised, and why no one was called to account for the compromise of the information. This would undermine public faith in government, generally. And preserving faith in central gov solutions seems to be vital to both establishment Dinos and establishment Rinos. No matter. The vital takeaway point is that central gov tends much more often to be the problem rather than the solution. Were it not for the feds, our borders would be secure. Were it not for the feds, we would not still have Progs who refuse to believe Whitaker Chambers was telling the truth.

Anonymous said...

Re: In 2011 Obama let it be known that the US will not deport children, and in 2012 the number of children crossing the border exploded.

The erasing of our borders is planned and wilful! It is not an unfortunate or unexpected consequence. This is because an elitist cadre fronts Obama. By definition, it believes it should rule, and it intends to rule. It does not believe ordinary responsible producing thinking Americans should have any right to limit it. The elitist cadre believes it knows best. It is most deserving. It is beside the point whether it is most deserving because it knows most, merits most, owns most, or is most corrupt. All that is irrelevant. No one else is of any consequence except to drink in the "wisdom" of the elitist cadre. That is "just so." These elitists operate under various isms, such as communism, mohammedism, and crony corporatism, but at heart they all reduce to the same fascist travesty and tragedy. Great Evil abides as an innate counterpoint to beingness, which greatly challenges and painstakingly sharpens all who would strive to promote any ideal of freedom and dignity.

Oligarchs of the Devil must reduce to a complete and utter charade any semblance of a republic that represents a constituency of ordinary Americans Thus, the money of the elitist cadre talks; everything else walks. Above all else, the elitist cadre is loyal to itself. All other loyalty is pretended, mocked, ridiculed, divided, and undermined. Establishment Rinos are at war with Conservers of Liberty. The elitist cadre is at war with human decency. It will deploy every effective means by which to undermine representative republics in order to install itself as the new world ruling agency.

Thus, it indoctrinates the professoriate and propagates useful idiots, pays shills, undermines all contrary principles and faiths, and bends all institutions to promote its total rule. Thus it makes jokes of currencies, churches, charities, colleges, communities, and courts. It undermines borders, families, independent newspapers, small businesses. Under headings of equality and fairness and diversity, it takes complete control to determine all aspects of allowable social associations. If the elitist cadre can bring it off, it will reduce the masses to cattle in divided pens within feed lots. The masses will eat its slop, and they will learn to like it.

This is what Obama fronts. This is what he strives to bring off. Obama has no fault for not enhancing human freedom or dignity because he never intended anything of the like. Obama's fault is only to elitist oligarchic crapheads, and only if he fails to advance their agenda. However, they are far from done. They own billions upon billions of rounds of ammunition. They have monopolized control over all institutions of formal legitimacy. They own nearly all the effective politicians. They have run most patriots out of senior military positions. They have made many metropolitans into pink men. Our new rulers have all the crazed and useless idiots and weapons and spy drones that money and time and greed can buy and program. They have conservers of liberty in a tight spot. The only way out abides with a revival of good faith, decent families, limited government. And intelligent intolerance of fascist elitists and their nutbag shills and pink termites and wilful erasing of our nation's borders.

Anonymous said...

Re: The involuntary loss of privacy and dignity regarding sex is a central aspect of the psychopathology of American sex totalitarianism.

It may be said with as much or more significance that the involuntary loss of privacy and dignity regarding parenting is a central aspect of the psychopathology of American paternalistic totalitarianism.

A natural cycle of evil seems to impede Progs from ever growing up to become responsible men and women. Parents are often disposed to rule over their progeny while they are children, for their own good. Good parents try to raise children to become competent to look after their own affairs. Other parents have difficulty letting the strings go. Some parents, and perhaps many childless adults, never learn how to let go. They must rule or be ruled, and never stop. The more they rule, the more total power they acquire, the more progressively corrupting they become to the transmission of human dignity. These are the people who become acidulous despots against representative republics.

Their children tend to fare no better. Their children tend to be unaware of, or intolerant of, people who grow up to become, and want to become, competent in their own affairs. Thus, children of despots tend to pay forward more cycles of despotism. See the Kim regime in CooCoo NoKo. They feel a blessed elite few must rule, and most everyone else must be ruled. Thus, for their own good, every representative republic must be totally flooded with those who are desperate to trade liberty for security. Or so say those Rinos who seek, in "fairness," to kill every representative republic. Until morale improves, fairness will continue to be lashed out, right down to the micro hairs, to infinity and beyond.

Anonymous said...

Spartans vetted and initiated applicants by requiring them to succeed in secretly killing helots. Progs vet and initiate new talent by scoring them on audacity for fooling and recruiting liberal dolts. It's not virtue or merit or competence that are desired. It's demonstrated competence for, and loyalty to, corruption. All the incorrigible kiddies money can buy are trained in Ivy schools. Why the rest of the country bows to this is a travesty and a tragedy. Bread crumbs for the dupes, private islands for the oligarchs, and tight bridles for the producers. Serf City.

Anonymous said...

Why so many Prog representatives are looney tunes. In the land of the mad, the competent are serfs. Our regime is keeping us mad and filled to the gills with more of the mad. If you want to cash in, you have to mad out.

Anonymous said...

Micro aggression is the dog whistle to call in micro despotism. Despotically enforced equality and fairness, right down to the short hairs. Feminazi is too kind a label.

Anonymous said...

Appeal to their sense of godforsaken entitlements. Then give them crumbs and blame jews and keep them raved up on dope and sex and rap. They will never notice the cages closing in, as they will deserve neither liberty nor security.

Anonymous said...

Then the polygamists, bestialityists, pederasts, felons, arsonists, stoners, slackers, beheaders, serial killers, bombers, cop killers, erotic torturers, plunderers, zombies, bottoms, pink men, satan worshippers, night howlers, day howlers, public fornicators, d i c k l e s s wonders, and depravity worshippers. No hate speech tolerated against any. Laugh court to be held nightly, hosted by Stewart Colbert Maher Maddow Mathews. Laugh track provided by Troll Ron. No limits. Yuk yuk yuk.

Anonymous said...

Preserving a decent country for one's progeny necessitates that the indecent be defined, discouraged, and, in some cases, not tolerated. For a society to tolerate what is annihilating to it is suicidal. To tolerate the intolerable is to be stupid. It is "intolerant" only in the sense of not being tolerant of one's own murder. To invite collectivists who hate representative republics into a representative republic is as stupid as it is abusive of the existing society. To trade independent liberty for collective security is to deserve neither liberty nor security. It is to submit to despotism. To be tolerant of despots is an oxymoron, because the submission imposed by despots is force, not tolerance. The goals of Mohammedism, Marxism, and Oligarchic Cronyism are to reduce everyone else to submissive cattle. To decline to tolerate them is merely to claim one's unalienable right to personhood. To tolerate Obama and his Progs is to be an idiot, because Obama and his Progs have proven themselves to be hell bent on imposing totalitarianism.

Anonymous said...

Family values are fundamental. Political conservatism can be focused around conserving liberty or around conserving oligarchic privilege. Trying to focus around mere security tends to lead to counterproductive failures to leave nests. It leads to a future that is lacking both in security and in liberty. Whether liberty is conserved depends largely on whether a culture is assimilated around families that seek to teach their fledglings to take flight. Our future is largely determined by the goals of our present families. Family goals can be oriented under values derived in respect of a spiritually higher, assimilating Source. And they can be oriented under controls established via systems of law or systems of fascist despots. Fascist despots can be organized under fascist religions, oligarchic economies, or one party diktat. Mohammedism, MarketDespotism, or Marxism.

The involuntary loss of privacy and dignity regarding parenting seems to lead "progressively" to paternalistic totalitarianism. A natural cycle of evil impedes Progs from ever growing up to become responsible men and women. Parents are often disposed to rule over their progeny while they are children, "for their own good." Good parents try to raise children to become competent to look after their own affairs. Other parents have difficulty letting the strings go. Some parents, and perhaps many childless adults, never learn how to let go. They must rule or be ruled, and never stop. The more they rule, the more total power they acquire, the more progressively corrupting they become to the transmission of human dignity. These are the people who send their children to elitist schools to learn how to project despotism against representative republics.

Their children fare no better. Their children tend to be unaware of, or intolerant of, people who grow up to become, and want to become, competent in their own affairs. Thus, children of despots tend to "pay forward" more cycles of despotism. (See the Kim regime in North Korea.) They feel a blessed elite few must rule, and most everyone else must be ruled. Thus, "for their own good," every representative republic must be totally flooded with those who are desperate to trade liberty for security. So says Obama and his supporting cast of Establishmentarians, who seek, in feigned "fairness," to kill every representative republic. Until morale improves, knowitall elitists will continue to lash "fairness" upon us, so that no one will ever be allowed to grow up. The New World Dystopia being fervently sought by dupes of Mohammedism, MarketDespotism, and Marxism is to consist of stunted parents ruling cycles of children who will never be permitted to fly on their own. Instead of the conservation of liberty, they mean to gift the world the conservation of eternal adolescence under the Lord of the Flies.

Anonymous said...

The fact that our elitist Establishmentarians are congenitally unable to recognize or respect any lines for defining or preserving common decency is made crystal clear in their utter incapacity even to enforce the borders that define the country.

Progs use this to say Conservatives won't negotiate. Would you negotiate your arm with a wolf? There's nothing to negotiate! Progs -- if your man is an American and not just the trickster for a wolf pack, then enforce the freaking border! Is this hard? Why should Americans have to negotiate with a POS commie who wants to give America away, just to get the freaking borders enforced? But no, Obama wants billions more before he will start. Like he wants us to give him more arms and legs of America to rip up. Conservatives won't negotiate with a lying commie who is friendly with known terrorists. How funny is that? High hilarious dudgeon for Stewart-Maddow HermAphrodite

Anonymous said...

Both Rinos and Dinos lust for central power over every aspect of modern life. They do this under the head of regulating "equality and fairness." They extort the "right" to act as our "great parents" forever. They encroach on spiritual and family values by perpetually expanding the realm of secular authority. Their followers consist of people who want never to have to grow up. Adults are the natural enemies of Rino and Dino central establishmentarians.

Anonymous said...

The average Muslim shouts in joy when the average suicide bomber wreaks havoc, much as the average Black leapt in joy when OJ was acquited and Obama was outfitted. The commonality is brain warping during adolescence, secondary to dysfunctional families.

Anonymous said...

The Bush presidents are "kinder and gentler" Rino Establishmentarians for wash and rinse cycles to establish a new open society. Rinos wash, Dinos rinse; Dinos wash, Rinos rinse. Pretty soon, our flag is as bleached out as the white flag that was flown over the Brooklyn Bridge. These are not the droids you should be looking for.

Anonymous said...

I loved Goldwater for saying that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. I wish he had also said that bullying in the projection of libertineism is an offense

Anonymous said...

The cowboys who herd cattle to the stockyards may do them some small favors along the way. However, that does not mean the cattle of any vision ought not break at first opportunity.

When the central gov sends ropers to round up your kin under pretext of helping, run! Once you let them pen you, Obama's pen will own you ever after.

The centralists could have offered to lead us to an accord in mutual respect. Instead, they gave us Obama's middle finger and ran roughshod. I say, break their middle fingers, s c r e w them, and s c r e w the horses they rode in on.

Anonymous said...

Trying to salvage Obamacare is like trying to salvage a post birth abortion that has been followed by immersion in poison pen ink, and followed after that by Rino revivification. Let's forego the precedent of trying to help Dr. O revivify an Ofrankensteinian blunder bunglebuss.

Anonymous said...

Congress should go out of business with a whimper. As a simple fix, Congress should make a contract with the world, to erase our borders, adopt the world, and impose on every American the duty to feed, clothe, shelter, care for, defend, and entertain every other person on the planet. Tax all the lollipops to the Black Caucus. To help the Progs, let me add: Sarc.

Anonymous said...

Open borders combined with free trade for oligarchs means open range and open season for Genghis Khan. Decency requires that free enterprise be reconciled to representative republicanism, not that representative republicanism be sacrificed to free crony oligarchism, such as that which rips decency apart under heads of MarketDespots, MarxistDictators, and MuslimD i c k h e a d s.

Anonymous said...

Assuming Americans want to preserve a representative republic: Corporations should be territorially defined so that profits made in the territory by domestic corporations should not be taxed. A consumption tax should be imposed on all monies transferred out of the territory. Export taxes should not be imposed on products shipped for sale abroad. Import taxes should be imposed where needed to resist despotic combinations abroad. A consumption tax should be imposed on nearly all political lobbying expenses and investments. Because most charities and foundations are now shills for central collectivization, nearly all charitable contributions should be reduced by consumption taxes.

Anonymous said...

The more power the central gov usurps in the name of regulating internal equality and fairness, the more the rule of law becomes a charade. A laughingstock for connected cronies. The more transparent this becomes to businesses, the less incentive they have to do business in America. That is, unless they are equipped to play the crony game. At some point, the cover falls and everyone sees the naked charade. The main point of the law seems now to keep the people divided, desperate, and dumb. As to substantive meaningfulness, not so much.

Anonymous said...

East is East and West is West. Children are children and grown ups are grown ups. You can have a society of grown ups ruling children or a society of children ruling children, but you cannot have a stable society of children ruling grown ups. Not even Ivy educated children. When children try to rule grown ups, they can do so only by imposing highly restrictive burka-tization or collectivist terror and diktat. When children insist on collectivist diktat and refuse to consider growing up, the grown ups can either surrender their dignity and revert to burka-ed and blinkered childishness, or they can divorce themselves from the system. America has put an Ivy child on a pretend throne, who has invited a crusade of banana republic children to join him. This is dangerously unstable. It is also a mark of profound shame against the elitist professoriate. At long last, have they no sense at all?

Anonymous said...

n broad terms, a corporation is "a group acting as single entity: a group of people acting as a single entity." In special applications, a corporation is a private group that seeks to make profits. When a crony corporation seeks to use gov to help it make profits, it is still a corporation. A problem corporation. When a group of fascist bolsheviks uses terror to take over a nation's means of production, it is also a form of crony corporatism. A problem crony corporate party that is the power behind the economic machinery. When gov commodities become the target of corporate acquisition, the lines between what is problematically governmental versus private get blurry. As blurry as the lines between what a regime of militant libertines should reserve to the value choices of people versus the legal regulations of politically correct enforcers of equality and "fairness." The problem of stifling intrusiveness of busybody dispensers of fairness will not be resolved merely by labeling some of the busybodies as crony corporatists and others as gov bureaucrats. The republic is the foundation for the marketplace of its citizens. A marketplace that undermines the republic that supports it is a problem. The free traders who want to erase the borders of our republic are a very dangerous problem. If evil has any meaning, they are evil.

Anonymous said...

Your travels have taught you what most Muslims are truly like and that their families truly share functionally normal values that are compatible with living in a representative republic? I wonder what primarily Muslim nations you have extensively visited that were functioning representative republics? Is Sharia functionally compatible with a representative republic? Have you read and compared the Koran with the New Testament? In your experience, are most Muslim wives treated equally with their husbands? Is their treatment compatible with a representative republic? Were most of the women in the Muslim nations you visited educated? Were they encouraged to express their ideas or their sexuality? Were any encouraged to question or test their faith? Unless you were able to engage in deep conversations with them, on what basis in experience or reading do you attest to their normality? Did you observe them when they did not know you were present, to be able to report on their true feelings about Israel?

Many of us have traveled and read extensively from various outlets and resources. We have read the Koran. We have read more than Obama ever has. We have bases for our interpretations about reality. Do you truly believe most children who have been raised in traditional Muslim homes are equipped to participate responsibly in a representative republic, as opposed to being inclined to try to replace it with Muslim enclaves? What Muslims do you know, who live outside enclaves?

Anonymous said...

It tends to be incredibly inefficient and out of whack to substitute the central will of drones for the will of the participants who are closest to events and in much better position to evaluate what they like and need.

Anonymous said...

Obama's hatred for America seethes because so many Americans are not willing to negotiate away their freedom or their country's freedom. He is an audacious, avaricious wolf, and he is very angry that his pack has been unable to bring down big game. He has 2 1/2 years left to vent his hatred. He has a lot of time to try to finish us off.

Anonymous said...

A lot of things "distort" the market. Requiring businesses to obey rules laid down by a republic distorts the market. So the secretive purpose of a lot of open market people and open society people seems to be to erase borders so we can all compete to sell ourselves at the lowest common price to controlling overlords. I wonder how many of the new Windows and Apple version rollouts are based on fine tuned, planned obsolescence? Keeping thousands of unsold new cars in unsold new car heaven distorts the market. Facebook conducts research on user guinea pigs. All advertising is based on how to attract, deceive, and distort the thinking of target consumers. Fashion fad leaders distort the market. How can any tax system that is possible not distort the market? All choices distort subsequent opportunities, yet we have no choice but to make choices. Regulations distort the market.

In a representative republic, our representatives are supposed to factor our preferred distortions. In doing so, taxation, apart from concerns about feasibility, is not fundamentally different from regulation. The more important concern is: At what level of representative gov ought big distorting decisions be made? To allow feds to regulate or tax carbon emissions is to let the proverbial nose of the camel into the tent. If we're going to take the step of central taxation to incent specific central goals, then we may as well use central taxation to incent general goals. If we're going to tax carbon consumption, then we may as well tax consumption, generally. At least a general tax on consumption would not try to "pick specific winners and losers." But it could be used to try to defend the republic against those carpenters and walruses who want to crack and drain its citizens like so many oysters.

Anonymous said...

ust make a sculpture of the picture of Ike sharing a smoke with the 101st just before Operation Overlord. Ok. Let's go.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Anonymous said...

Most boomers have now grown up. But, before we gave the country Reagan, many gave it Carter. It took awhile for Boomers to turn their starry eyes away from central solutions out of DC. Maybe succeeding generations will learn to turn their starry eyes away from Obama. I don't blame youth while they're young. I blame the jerks who harvest them and the youth who never mature out of adolescent mindedness. Responsible adults can govern youth, and youth can rule youth, but youth cannot in any non-volatile or non-depraved society rule responsible adults. Red Guards and Young Taliban whipping mature women for perceived immodesty is what comes of out of control perpetual adolescents ruling adults.

Anonymous said...

nstead of colonialism, we can call it "virtual immigration" or "spooky entanglement immigration from a distance." Once Obama learns that colonialism was really virtual immigration, he may soften his hatred against whiteys. After all, he's taking up America's "white man's burden" more than Rudyard Kipling would ever have dreamed. Obama could get a new ghost writer to pen, "Dreams from my Great Privileged Father."

Anonymous said...

One of the problems with most American regimes is they have too many lawyers. Lawyers are very good at spotting bs in opponent's arguments. But they are also very good at shilling to defend the indefensible. This makes them valuable to regimes that want to consolidate rule with an abundance of stupid, contradictory, ridiculous, and soul deadening central laws. Ghetto people seem to like this, because many among them don't work or obey anyway, and they like being kept in an "equally" stupid situation with everyone else. "Fairness" and all that. Unfortunately, lawyers tend not to be consistent in their philosophies, nor adept in the maths of management. For that matter, the doctors of philosophy that our elitists choose to promote have not done a very good job, either, in terms of helping to guide us towards that which is needed to sustain a decent civilization that respects the freedom and dignity of self motivated and thinking human beings. Rather, we have had an abundance of adolescent philosophers who want to reduce people to particles, widgets, serfs, or indentured servants for oligarchs. This situation of philosophers and unprincipled lawyers hiring out to adolescent minded elitist rulers has long plagued humanity. It is rare that responsible adults govern society. More often, we have perpetual cycles of children ruling children who will never be led to grow up. This cycle leads children to deem themselves too smart to have anything to learn by being intuitively receptive to an inviting, caring Source of higher spirituality. For such perpetual children, if something cannot be measured or marketed, it does not abide.

The general path is not that hard to sense. Respectful spirituality. (Great Commandment and Golden Rule -- pronounced unto us by the Source of unalienable human rights). Inculcation of sustainable family values. Respect for a limiting, representative government, so government will respect the ideals of local rule and sustainable families. Accultured will to defend the territorial borders, moral boundaries, and economic vitality of the republic as a whole. As simple as this is, it seems to remain forever beyond the capacity of our elite governors to grasp. A lot of common sense people understand. But they rightly fear that the childisn pos's that float to the top among their rulers and their rulers' handpicked shills and lawyers remain perpetually clueless. And this is why the Second Amendment remains foundational for all the others.

Anonymous said...

In a sane republic, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the Black Caucus would be in prison instead of the White House and DC. Obama is mad as hell that many Americans do not want to negotiate away the republic.

Anonymous said...

The regime so "loves" America that it perfected the " incentive" of leading from behind. America went looking for Mr. G o o d b a r and ended up on a very long date r a p e. Obama leering in the face, Reid strangling the neck, and Holder helping to lead from b e h i n d. When the regime came back for a second date, power b o t t o m s of America opened the door. When will a majority of Americans comprehend that this is a r a p e, not a date? Will amnestifying millions of d i s e a s e d and illiterate new b a n a n a recruits and inviting them to the party finally wake up the sluts of America? How long will oligarchically backed, established and corrupt media succeed in making these r a p i s t s out to be well intentioned guys (who like to feel our pain)? When do the starry eyed young girls and pink boys stop swooning?

Anonymous said...

Phase out the income tax. Replace it with a progressive tax on individual consumption. Ideally, the rate on consumptions in the form of lobbying and off shore investments should be only as high as needed to impede the oligarchy from destroying the republic, erasing borders, and buying politicians as if they were commodities. Otherwise, when it comes to selling out the nation and erasing its borders, the oligarchical establishment has Obama's back. If it ever replaces him, it will just be to install a new traitor to the republic who can calm the herd. Flat tax is a favorite song for shill cowboys to sing to calm the herd. Given a flat tax and unenforced borders, the brave new serfdom will immediately be upon us. There will be no bag limit for open season on all workers who are not of the cronydom and its houseboys. The flat tax song is a siren song that is constantly sung by shills and dupes. They know nothing of human decency, but they know all about the economics of an open society that feels it must, in equal fairness, treat citizens of republics and of despotisms as interchangeable widgets.

Anonymous said...

Gov should spend less and be smaller and less centralized. But it must get some revenue somewhere. The argument of flat taxers is always that more boats would be lifted by getting more revenue from persons other than the wealthy. IOW, from the producing middle class that is able to pay taxes. In exchange for leaving the middle class with less disposable money, the wealthy will invest and buy luxuries which will lift all boats. But there seems to be no end to this song. As if even more boats would be lifted were the wealthy not taxed at all. Because, after all, they earned it all, and those below them earn only what the oligarchy is disposed to pay. The idea is that the oligarchy pays workers, and workers pay for the cost of gov, even though gov is largely run by agents for the oligarchy. And even though the larger part of the oligarchy has shown by its true colors that it has no loyalty to an ideal of a representative republic.

IOW, the oligarchy cares nothing for whether heretofore free societies are re-enserfed or not. A progressive tax on consumption would impede the capacity of a faithless, godless, materialistic oligarchy to direct its purchases for the purpose of buying gov favors, re-enserfing the masses and pulling the ladders up to preserve its perch of rule. Don't tax domestic business profits or income, but do tax individual consumption. Impute investments in political lobbying and offshoring as consumption taxable to the individuals who authorized them. A progressive tax on consumption would motivate everyone to keep gov smaller, especially the people who actually run most of the gov.

The reenserfment of the people is at hand when they idly allow the wealthy to insulate themselves by buying gov, banning God, and burying the institution of the family. Collectivistic enserfment imposed by oligarchs is a twin of socialistic enserfment imposed by despots. In either case, fascists rule the collective and kill off gov by for and of we the people, so that representative republics are reduced to a lowest common charade.

Anonymous said...

Virtually all progressive tax schemes decline to tax people who make or spend less than some floor amount. A person who made and spent less than a floor amount would likely pay no tax at all. A couple of DINKS who saved their money may spend less than that floor. Encouraging people to save and live within their means is a good thing. Exemptions could be continued for people who claim dependents. The family member who spent the most in any particular taxable year would presumably claim the exemption.

I doubt the mechanics would be as hard as what we have with a progressive income tax. Taxable consumption for most people would be income less savings and domestic business investments. For people who spend down wealth on consumables and gifts (including lobbying, charitable contributions, foundation contributions, and offshore investments and transfers), that would be included in their taxable consumption. Domestic sharing of use of household items would not be taxed. Each purchase of a consumable would be charged as a taxable consumption to the person who made the purchase. If need be, credit card companies could be required to report all retail purchases and send totals to each card holder. Likewise with any goods bought on credit. Total such records and you have total taxable consumption for that individual. Or, if a person who lives paycheck to paycheck prefers, he could simply report his income less savings and business investments plus drawdowns on savings. The purpose would be to tax expenditures of wealth, including political and certain entertainment investments that constitute crony rather than business investments. There would be complexities, but not likely more than we already have. And what we already have gives a free grease ride to those who have accumulated wealth and power. Continuing on the course we are on is guaranteed to empower the oligarchy to tighten our bridles and blinders and bury our borders.

Anonymous said...

Because even DINKs don't live forever, they will eventually consume their savings. And when they do, they will likely pay a consumption tax at a higher progressive rate. If they pass it on as a gift to heirs, that also could be considered a form of consumption or otherwise subject to a transfer tax. There is no reason to be jealous of people who save. Learning to live responsibly within one's budget is a good thing.

Really horrible things can happen under any tax system. That's why mere formalism and legalism cannot salvage our republic. The foundation for the republic is trinitarian. It is based on spirituality, family, and a form of limited government. Undermine any one of the three and the foundation becomes unstable. Our faithless, materialistic, treasonous oligarchy is madly undermining all three. As we work on restoring good faith and good will, the American people can better devise needed correctives to limit the temptations for godless oligarchs to undermine us. Without faith, formal works are dead. I do not in the least pretend to offer a pure formalism that can by itself salvage the republic.

Anonymous said...

Bridles and blinders are also simple. Life for serfs is simple: pay what the masters say. Forest Gump also had a very simple understanding of his mission: to do whatever the hell his sergeant said. IAE, it is simple to factor total consumption by a progressive algorithm. The main difficulty is in the setting of the algorithm so as to encourage responsible saving and discourage crony corporatism. That's where the economic self interests of the wealthiest conflict with the politics for determining how best to preserve the republic. That political game will never be simple until the serfs simply surrender to their fate.

Anonymous said...

The word spiritual seems to invite confusion. As if being spiritual-minded must entail some pagan belief in godless reincarnation or dancing fairies or ghosts. For some, however, being spiritual simply refers to a more encompassing way of conceptualizing about the measurably signified reality. It offers a way of considering the godhead as not being limited to any simple manmade name, label, or conception. In space, no one can hear you say YHWH.

Being spiritual can refer to a way of considering truth values in holy books as being figurative. Of conceptualizing that souls are not limited to human forms and may even come to be appreciated with artificial avatars of intelligent purposefulness. Being spiritual can associate with innate intuition of qualitatively organizing feedback between an immeasurable reconciling holism and the fluxing significations or contemproraneously participatory expressions of appreciative will. Spiritual can entail appreciation of a caring Reconciler without needing to confine such Reconciler to some limiting eternal form or name. Spiritual can entail immeasurable respect for good faith and good will. Being spiritual can recognize the ultimate rainbow-like delusiveness of trying to explicate everything in terms of pure particles. A spiritualist may harbor some of the doubts of agnostics, while considering avowed (get that?) atheists as, in main, agnostics who bang the table while expressing their doubts.

IAE, without some faith in a higher basis for reconciling moral values, there would be little reason for people to come together to seek to develop a moral common ground that they do not believe can exist or guide. Except in amoral, selfish, and non-empathetic deceit, that is. But our innate capacity for empathy belies that. Consciousness is consciousness. A is A. There is no reason to believe that the capacity for consciousness to express itself among numerous perspectives must ever die for eternity in any meaningful universe. The identity of consciousness abides. The Reconciling Identity, The "I" abides. "I" am. Everywhere. Spiritual empathy is innate capacity to sense aspects of the I-ness that accompanies other persons and other adopted perspectives.

Anonymous said...

How does providence provide for a representative republic that is surrounded by muslims? The only ways to stabilize a representative republic in a Muslim land are either to completely intimidate all opposing Muslims or to completely zombify the citizenry by replacing all the humanity in their brains with Koranic programming. Once everyone is utterly reduced to the same single minded program, there would be nothing to differ about, hence, theoretically, peace. IOW, a representative republic for representing lobotomized, sub-human zombies. The idea of a decent representative republic for human beings in a Muslim land is a cosmically oxymoronic joke. Arab Spring! LMAO.

How may providence preserve a representative republic in America? A representative republic requires a factually educated citizenry. An elitist cronydom does not want a representative republic, except as farce. It does not want a citizenry educated in facts. It wants its elitist owned media and academia to spin facts so that the masses will accept whatever rule elitists want to impose. So the facts in history books, perhaps especially in elitist schools, will bear little resemblance to the truth. Only now are we finally learning the extent of the treasonous infestation of commie agents during FDR's administration. Because of the Internet, we get some feel for the militant and adolescent elitism of the Obama regime. Unfortunately, because of elitist success over years of deliberate dumbing of the citizenry, it is questionable whether enough people with eyes to see have finally seen enough to recognize how deeply infested we are with dangerously adolescent little elitist sociopaths whose loyalty, if any, is far from love of a republic that represents ordinary, thinking, responsible, producing Americans.

Anonymous said...

Jesus did not suffer little children to come unto him, deliberately ignore his teachings, and feel entitled! to take from him indefinitely while they continued to be agencies for exporting the ways of evil. Pelosi makes idiocy seem wise by comparison. But then, she does understand her base.

Anonymous said...

Neither billionaires nor bolsheviks want less government, per se. What they want is less influence in how events are governed by thinking conservatives and responsible kulaks. This bridling and blinkering and hobbling of ordinary and responsible and thinking producers is accomplished by sundry contrivances. Maliciously refusing to defend the border. Inviting gangs of diseased and illiterate foreigners to come and assert insane entitlements. Making it the mission of taxpayer funded institutions to invite and cater to Islamists who are by definition under their own unholy book entirely unsuited to decent participation in a representative republic. Essentially declaring open season for foreign purchases of political favors. Refusing to tax the wealth that is guzzled via crony corporatism, choosing instead to target the income of responsible middle class producers. Usurping local, individual, and familial responsibilities, to centralize control in the federal octopus. Cynically twisting the clear meanings of traditional holy and civic books and documents. Taking every opportunity to ridicule, revile, and flip off ordinary, decent, trusting, gullible Americans and their families. And on and on go the outrages of the regime of adolescents whose only real claim to elitism consists in their prodigious capacity never to grow up.

Anonymous said...

What would say less than nothing, indeed, what would corrode the rule of law, would be to argue out of one corner of one's mouth that the feds have power to force states to de-criminalize marijuana, then to argue out of the other corner of one's mouth that the feds do not have power to interpret federal law so as to decline to extend federal benefits based on state regulations defining the status of being married. In either case, the feds would simply be trumping local rule based on happenstance preferences of central elitists rather than based on respect for principles of law or local rule. When you focus entirely on a single tree, you tend not to notice the forest. In this case, the forest is what is being done by elitists to local rule. I explained why and how elitists are doing that.

Anonymous said...

There are highly moral and intelligent and principled people who call themselves atheists. I would tend more to call them agnostics. But they have the dignity to choose the name by which they wish to be called. The commonality for such respectable atheists is that they seem to follow a source for a moral or principled code. Where do they get their code? Years ago, Carl Sagan intimated an answer that seemed to amount to this: He did not purport to know, but civilization would not otherwise abide without it. That is not a quote. It is my recollection of his general drift. IAE, I would call that a faith, whether characterized as derived in reason, habit, or indoctrination. The point is that principled atheists seem to follow a faith or system of values from which they derive their sub- principles. There is more to them than unbounded propensity to satisfy immediate base appetites. What is the source of that? Whatever it is, it seems to abide generally, in common generality with every person of principles. I would call that source spiritual. Maybe agnostics would call it a figment. Whatever. If a figment, it is a figment of powerful effect.

Now, there are other kinds of "atheists." These can be persons whose overriding "principle" reduces to "do it while it feels gratifying." They do not espouse atheism based on reason or principle as much as they espouse it simply to rationalize their wannas of the moment. These are the militant children who never want to grow up. The militant atheists, militant gays, militant dopeheads, militant anti-americans, and militant anti-adults.

Among thinking, responsible people, respectful discussion tends to be easy and cordial. Among militant children, whether they be fundie evangelists for religious or chemical opium, not so much. When you take the time to get to know someone, the labels by which he or she calls herself tend to reduce in import.

Anonymous said...

The reason I think morality cannot exist apart from spirituality is because I believe spirituality is the higher reality and that measurable things are merely its significations. They exist not as things in themselves, but as relations within a trinitarian system that fluxes as signifying consciousness, signified substance, and accumulated information (what you call evolution).

I did not say that I think all aspects of moral codes can be known or revealed. Nor did I say that I think the presence of the Source is entirely a mystery. To me, the presence of a singular Signifier seems obvious. I did not say we can know what the Source wants of us. Nor did I say that what the Source wants cannot change. I simply suggest that there is a singular Source, which is immeasurable, but intuitable and responsive to reconciliatory feedback. By intuitable, I mean that we have no sense organ to detect God, because God is the Source of our sense organs. The intuitability of God comes from the beingness of experience itself. Conscious experience of responsiveness and reconciliation.

That is the sense in which I mean beingness is spiritual. Its ultimate source cannot be reduced to measurable control. We cannot scientifically or empirically read the mind of God. But we can participate in trying intuitively and empathetically to intuit, empathize, apprehend, and appreciate. I did not say that God's perfect will can be precisely explicated in any unchanging holy book, nor that we could understand it if it were. I see holy books as part of the signification of the signifier. In that respect, the very cosmos is a "holy book."

As to evolution, it is more a label for what results from feedback choices and reconciliations within an indeterminate system over time than an explanation for any particular choice. It is less a thing than a label for a result. Regardless of what we do, we do it within a system that sets mathematical parameters. In that sense, no matter what we do, it will remain subject to the logic of math. However, the fact that everything we do must be consistent with mathematical parameters does not mean that math itself determines every choice. We participate in the system of feedback that both allows and signifies the results of our participatory and indeterminate choices. In that way, we participate in determining and designing our evolution. "Evolution" does not exist as a thing in itself to determine us.

To me, the value of spiritual faith is that it helps avail means by which to bring people together, often in the language of traditional and figurative parables, to try to explicate their values, purposes, interests, reasons and rationalizations. To try more in good faith and good will to be meaningfully constructive towards such ends than to be painfully destructive. I think atheists who think beyond their immediate gratifications tend to try to do likewise. That is, I think thoughtful atheists tend to try to reconcile with good faith and good will, whether they realize it or not. To me, they are spiritual when they do that. Regardless, per Bambi (translated by Whitaker Chambers), they can call themselves Flower, if they want to.

When the oligarchically ruled State tries to ban spiritual and religious forums, it in effect forecloses forums for people of a community to participate in trying to understand and reconcile their interests. Thus, the oligarchy keeps them divided in their purposes and more easily subject to elitist, knowitall, (un)scientific rule.

Anonymous said...

We are approaching a time when people will have capacity to design themselves, maybe even their civilizations. That is, they will have capacity to design and impose moral codes for the less powerful. Were they to acquire capacity to re-design their own way of being in the world, does "science" tell them the design they "should" choose? I don't think science "answers" or cuts the expanding circularity of moral feedback between signifieds and Signifier. I do see how elitists, often including elitist minded scientists, often presume they should "answer" and impose our choices. To me, that is militant. I am mystified by elitists' incomprehension of that. I am perplexed why you try to put words in my mouth. I did not say gays need to apologize for being gay. I do think militant gays who want to turn society on its head need to get over themselves. Why are you mystified that a sociopath would seek cover under being "nominally" Christian?

Anonymous said...

Science helps show us ways to achieve desired results. It does not otherwise tell us what we ought to desire. If we want to preserve a decent representative republic in a world of constantly changing challenges, science can offer practical tools. If you define morality to be only a tool, then you are merely engaging in word games. You are pretending to have a final answer about what our purposes and values should be by pretending the only question is how to achieve individual goals, all other things remaining constant. But all other things do not remain constant. Yet, this is a ploy often resorted to by "scientists of morality." Lysenko. Mengele. I believe Sam Harris is now hypothesizing that the only sensible guide to morality has something to do with measuring neural impulses. If your idea of the only sensible morality is to entirely deflate the qualitative, I can see how you can defend such ideas. But when you entirely deflate the qualitative, what are you not prepared to sacrifice for purposes of scientific experimentation? That is the moral question. The elephant in the room that you do not see.

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to bring David Hume into the conversation. He would be interested in how so called scientists of morality should expect, scientifically, to derive the qualitative ought from the quantitative is. So far, proof for such a possibility has eluded the best minds. I suspect that is because all that we measure are merely the signs and communications between a holism (that, in its singularity, is immeasurable) and the particular and limited perspectives it projects of itself. As the holism relates among its fluxing expressions of parts, there abides participatory feedback and reconciliation. Qualitative appreciation reconciled to relationally quantitative parameters, which quantitatives can be represented in math. The process entails qualitative (intuitive, artistic, empathetic) appreciation among signifiers and quantitative signifieds. That is, qualitative appreciation of feedback that is reconciled to quantitative parameters. That is, Consciousness.

A trinity is thus expressed in relational space-time: qualitative consciousness (signifier), quantitative substance (signified), and information (evolutionary accumulation of previous mathematical relationships among signifieds). Because the trinity is permeated with a qualitative, it cannot be reduced to a "scientific," quantitative explication --- especially with regard to moral oughts. Oughts are felt in intuitive, empathetic, participatory spirituality.

Those children who want to rule other children seek to hobble the participation of others in the spirituality, and militantly to impose their own "scientific" determinations of the greater good. And boy oh boy are they willing to experiment! Not to mention their penchant for playing with data, results, numbers, and historical facts that might otherwise frighten the herd out of the gates of the elitist agenda. This is what I mean by "militancy," as in the case of militant scientists, rapists, and confounders of fundamental aspects of what I consider to be civil society, which are: good faith spirituality, good will family, and limited, representative republicanism. Now, if a scientist (or rapist) does not want to respect the participatory dignity of thinking and responsible adults, that may be his way of being in the world. I.e., his way of dictating the meaning of "sensible morality." But it is not a way to an agenda that thinking, responsible, cooperative adults will incline to tolerate.

Anonymous said...


Quote from Uncommie (At American Thinker):
Actually, there is some scientific basis for empathy.
Studies have been done that show that the parts of the brain responsible for decoding pain are also excited (to a lesser degree) when witnessing pain in others.
...but, peoples reaction differ...
A coward, on seeing someone else suffer violence will run, a normal person will attempt to stop the violence, all other things being equal.
Morality cannot be explained in scientific terms, it does not necessarily add survival value, as per Darwinian evolution, indeed, it is often quite counter-survival.
Where does morality spring from then? From the implicate order, a pattern that overlies and guides reality itself. We are part of this pattern, and as such, we cannot truly measure it, because if we try to measure it, we run into problems of recursion and regression.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that Stalin was a pederast. Mao also. I wonder about Kim, Adolf, and the sons of Saddam. Perpetual adolescents using other people to blame for their deficiencies. Sociopathic children who want never to grow up and to punish everyone else who does dare to grow up.

Anonymous said...

My tongue in cheek meaning is that adults who allow children to lead them around by the nose are no longer adults. They have retired and fled from the field of adult responsibility.

Anonymous said...



Watch an old movie starred in by Eddie Murphy, called The Distinguished Gentleman. Our system rewards pols who prostitute their wares by strutting for the highest bidder. For pols under this system, its win win. There has always been corruption, but the means and opportunities are so much greater now. I don't see how the republic can survive this quagmire of corruption without deploying counterattacks across multiple fronts. Presently, Americans are in retreat on all significant fronts. Churches have become shills for gov pretending to do charity. Politically and morally ignorant "scientists of morality" imagine that the traditional representative republic needs to be replaced with the settled sciences of "scientists of morality." Families have been so undermined as to be virtually useless in urban areas except as recruitment devices for private and political gangs of community organizing criminals and traitors. Gov has been twisted to become an arm of corporate "oligopolization" for a NWO. Against this, how can a people of responsible, thinking adults stand?

Anonymous said...

Defending a framework for people to engage in free enterprise is one thing. Defending corporate-oligarchic control over the citizenry via crony corporatism is another. "Business" can refer to free enterprise as well as to corporate strangulation of the representative nature of the republic. A representative republic that has sold out to the latter is no longer a representative republic. A republic needs to defend its borders and not let corporations, in guise of needing free trade in the sense of cheap or skilled labor to do jobs Americans will not or cannot do, undermine the republic.

Anonymous said...

The trendline is that republics comprised of adults (responsible, thinking producers) is not to be tolerated. Every citizen must be shrunk to a child, sociopathic children to rule, gullible children to be ruled. For messenger go-betweens, we have shills for hiding peas for shell games. And so it has come to pass that we have a Boy King, with a choir of castrated boys to sing his praises and extol the magnificence of his brave new corpse of scientists of morality.

Thank goodness for these scientists of morality! How else could an entire citizenry be reduced to gullible children? Sarc. Interestingly, these shills and scientists of morality, so sure they know what is best for us, never stop to consider that respect for the participation of the inmates might better facilitate their buy-in. So, instead of respecting the will of the people, the scientists suddenly discover that the will of the people is based on nothing more than mean spirited hypocrisy. And so, to save us from the hypocrisy of representative republicanism, they hypocritically give (because really force) elitist despotism upon us. And they do not shy from any crisis or means necessary. Including the importation of fresh rounds of diseased pawns.

Mao had his 13 year old girls who were proud to display the venereal diseases they contracted from him, in "service" to his cause. Across our southern border, we now have "children" who display their tattoos and bring their diseases, in service to Obama's cause. The methods of fascism seem never to change. Will the last American adult turn out the lights?

Anonymous said...

Oligarchs force our borders open until they get the kind of electorate they can pull around by the nose. For responsible, thinking citizens to vote is not enough. More means are required, to rise to the kind of evil challenges that are slapping us down.

Anonymous said...

When gov exists only to serve business, then a representative republic cannot stand. Do we want a republic in which corporations are invited to do business, or do we want a wolf pack syndicate of corporations in which a representative republic is a complete charade? Is making the world safe for corporatists to engage in the free buying and selling of politicians conducive to the preservation of any kind of human decency, much less a representative republic?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 358   Newer› Newest»