Monday, June 1, 2015

Conscious Modeling of Spin Conservation


IMPORTANCE:  This muse-model-explanation is not important for any purpose of empirical or science-based modeling or falsifiable testing.  It is important only in respect of possible consistency and coherence for moral modeling and reasoning.

SPIN:  Whatever the metaphysicality of whatever ultimately causes each spin (or whatever is observed or analyzed as "spin"), it also, within each appreciable field of influence, is charged to cause-express-reconcile an attraction, repulsion, absorption, or exclusion, such that the math-basis for every spin that comes in close space-time contact with its field will be renormalized, revectored, re-randomized, or reformed in a way whereby the system-totality of quantitatively expressed math values will be conserved at every encompassing level of measurable significance.  Everything that is quantitatively expressed is expressed in spin.  Every body and system of bodies is "spinning."

However, in many cases, spin relates more to property valuation than to rotational observation.  For example, we see with photons, but we do not see photons themselves, so we do not see photons "spinning."  Moreover, a point particle or massless particle would not, in any classical sense, have any center of mass around which to spin.  So, a point particle cannot be said to have spin in a classical sense.  Moreover, the "rate of spin" for quanta particles is assigned a constant, discrete value, rather than a continuous or changing value.  Yet, they are measurable to carry their value as a conserved additive that does affect the classical spins of aggregations of bodies, which do have centers of form or mass. Thus, the spins of atoms and planets will in each case be the sum of the spins and the orbital angular momenta of all their elementary particles.

FLATNESS: Because the cosmos as it is geometrically expressed appears to tend to "flatness," it is expanding, and every sub-part expands in respect of a seeming cosmic axis. A body with a head-axis that is "up" may by convention be said to have a natural tendency to spin clockwise. A body whose head-axis is "down" may be said to have a natural tendency to spin counter-clockwise. A body whose head-axis is "up" may decrease rate of spin by extending arms.

If the cosmos were reasonably modeled as an expanding but non-revolving balloon, then every part on its surface whose axis is up may be conceptualized as tending to spin in the same direction as a consequence of the expansion.  If, however, the cosmos itself, as a balloon, were conceptualized as rotating, or as having a common center to which all on the surface could look "down," then the cost of "the common down" would implicate a loss of a common tendency for direction of spin.

Whatever the natural tendency for flatness, it correlates with dissipative entropy and additive inertias and energies. Thus, angular momentum and its potentials are conserved. (Such tendencies may have temporal exceptions. Venus rotates in the wrong direction, and Uranus is actually flipped over onto its side so that it rolls along rather than rotating neatly like all the other planets.) In general, planets around a star tend to orbit in the same direction and to revolve in the same direction as their orbits.


HIGGS:  What gives each spin additive properties?  What avails quanta and their fields to acquire measurable direction, spin, charge, and mass?  Ultimately, spin, in itself, is the expression of a field, not the field or the carrier of the field, itself.  Whatever ultimately causes spin is what potentializes its expression with direction, orbit, integer value, charge, and mass.  Between the meta-field and the expression of mass, perhaps the mediating signification may best be conceptualized or explained, for now, as the Higgs.

SPIN CONSERVATION: Our cause-effect, pin-ball notion of Substantive interactions often centers around a math/geometry idea of spin conservation, in various directionally transitioning, sequentially vectoring, chronologically overlapping, or smudge-spread out respects:  spinor, scalar, vector, spin, orbit, revolution, conserved spin, partial spin, quantum value, wave amplitude and frequency, cosmic projection through curved space, warps in space-time, etc.

APPRECIABLE FIELD OF INFLUENCE:  For a form to come within the appreciable field of influence of another form is for it come within proximity such that a local exchange of math-based spin-conservation will be measurably appreciated.  As one expression of spin contacts another (comes in proximity to its field of expressed influence), equational exchanges are made so that each expression phases or transits to a different form or vector.  It is as if, as one form closes with another, each form models the spin of the other, and each is caused to effect an equational exchange, so that the net effect conserves the sum charge of the cosmic potential.

LOCALIZED AWARENESS:  In such modeling and exchange, each form expresses a kind of "localized conscious awareness" of the field of influence of the other.  When such awareness is compounded into a complex awareness of identity-sustaining food, its form may be said to be "alive."  When awareness is compounded into a complex awareness-of-the-awareness of other forms, it may be said to exhibit social awareness.  When a locally expressed form is compounded so that it is accompanied with awareness-of-awareness-of-awareness, such form may be said to give expression to self awareness within a society.

ARTIFICIALLY EXPONENTED AWARENESS:  There is little reason to suppose awareness cannot be guided to emerge from a carefully organized machine.  The human body seems like such a machine.  There is little reason to preclude such a machine from being organized with capacity to accept and assimilate artificial feeds that can increase its intelligently directed capacities exponentially, towards a "singularity" -- an artificial, physical, and temporal side to the spiritual, metaphysical, and eternal side of God.

GENERALIZED AWARENESS:  As such form increases in potential for expressing awareness, it may come to intuit an immeasurable aspect of awareness that accompanies the whole of the conserved cosmos, i.e., God.  It may come to intuit that "spin" of nothing would produce nothing.  That is, that the "spin" that we measure would add up to nothing were it not sponsored by an abiding Character that itself is immeasurable, but that signifies everything that we can sense in measures that are based only in itself and pure math.  That is, the Mind of God.  Thus, the physical and part-icular sign-ifications of God may come to appreciate the metaphysical and holistic character of God.

HOLISTIC AWARENESS: Thus, may consciousness reasonably be intuited to abide:  At the level of the smallest possible spin; at the level of the living organism; at the level of the human being; and at the immeasurable level of the holism of the cosmos (which conserves and measures out all local expressions and perspectives of itself)? At holistic level, a Character (God) seems to avail math-based expression of itself in local perspectives, depending on locally appreciable fields of influence-exchange, which inter-function in terms that can be locally measured as conserved additives of spin.  Local perspectives of Consciousness cannot exchange measurable signals except in respect of projections from such fields of influence as can be renormalized to local appreciation.

AWARENESS OF FIELDS WITHIN FIELDS:  A person will tend not to be simultaneously aware of his own consciousness and of the consciousness of all the spins, overlapping spins, molecules, sub-molecules, cells, organs, nerves and impulses that make up his organism.  But what about God?  May God, with and through us, be simultaneously aware of all our sensations, thoughts, inclinations, and plans, to the same or greater extent as we are aware of them?  If not simultaneously, what about sequentially reconciled?  May there abide feedback-communication between the holism and its constituent perspectives?  Objective and empirical answers to such questions seem as beyond our ken as the measure of God, the measure of the cosmos, and the measure of the total potential of all "spins" in all of space and time.

GAP IN ANALOGICAL REASONING BETWEEN HOLISM AND PARTS:  Still, the limitation of local beings to their locally defining fields of influence does not by any reasonable analogy apply to the Holism, whose connecting beingness would avail the expression of any and all spins --- regardless of their appreciability at any localized field of influence in space-time.

LEAP OF FAITH AND SPARK OF IMAGINATION:  Ask:   By what cause or reason would the Holism avail expression of any localized perspectives of Consciousness, if it could never communicate with them in any intuitive, appreciable, or feedback way?  A reason it might not would be if it, itself, were not in any way conscious.  But, how could any spin of no-thing express any-thing unless some-thing avails the expression?  And, if every spin models, communicates with, and makes math exchanges with every spin within its appreciable field of influence, then such communication and appreciation is an expression of consciousness at a most basic level.  So, it seems a Holism abides, it avails expression of spins, such spins avail local expressions of consciousness, and all spins at all times are reconciled to obey math-based rules for conserving the cosmos as a generally identifiable, sequentially vectored, contextualizing experience.  The role of Reconciler would seem to make the Reconciler conscious, and to make such consciousness the only reason local expressions of consciousness could ever emerge.

QUALITY OF GOD'S CONSCIOUSNESS:   Thus, the question becomes:  What is the Quality of the consciousness of the Reconciler?  For that, resort is made to intuition, insight, good faith, good will, innate sense of moral purposefulness, and a general leap of appreciation for the miraculously unfolding nature of human experience.  Whatever the limits, if any, of the consciousness of the Holism qua Holism, no analogy for mortals suggests any reason why such limitation of the Author/Source of the perpetually unfolding Cosmos should preclude it from capacity to relate to each and every local perspective of consciousness that is the result of the expression of each and every spin.  This may be because no spin can manifest to signification unless it is, ultimately, a spin that is constituted of an immeasurable.  By that I mean a Source that is immeasurable in space, time, matter, energy, mass, particles, or substance.  Whatever space, time, matter, energy, mass, particles, or substance IT may occupy, such is beyond the physical measure of mortals.  For all we know, IT may as well be modeled as a Singularity of singularities, a point, a locus in meta-space-time, or a real, connecting, massless, and non-sensible invisibility.

SELF FULFILLING ASPECT OF GOOD FAITH BELIEF IN A PURPOSEFUL COSMIC AUTHOR: What we become and produce is much affected or fulfilled by what we believe. If we believe, behind the ontic opening, is the Author of the Great Commandment and Golden Rule, then we tend to make of our world a prospect that is different from what we would make were we to indulge a (demented, Marxist, Muslim, or nihilistic) leap of faith that our acts and events are all entirely predetermined or random.

GOD AS RECONCILING GUIDE AMONG POSSIBILITIES:  Among all possible upshots, whatever the upshot that is actually and sequentially chosen to be manifested into each locally manifested beingness, it will be renormalized to conform to math-based conservation.  (The alternative conceptualization would seem to consist in an unnecessary, non-parsimonious, a-moral, and mystical faith in many parrallel worlds or universes, such that every possible expression becomes in some world a required expression.)

MORALITY AND RELIGIOSITY:  Little is said in the analogies and analysis as set out above concerning the quantitative nature of GOD OR HEAVEN or the eternal SALVATION of any non-transcendent, mortal, or limited perspective of consciousness.  Nor about any teleologically specific purposes of God.  God abides, existentiality exists, appreciations unfold, local fields of consciousness flux, change, absorb, phase, and transcend.  Patterns form among symbiotic patterns.  Evolution is guided in respect of reconciliations among unfolding and chanced upon apprehensions and affinities.  God's general purpose seems to be to appreciate artistry and empathetic feedback among locally fluxing fields of consciousness. The Great Commandment and Golden Rule seem reducible to this:  Be ye empathetic!  What local perspectives believe and appreciates feeds into sustaining reconciliations with God.  We participate in how our beingness unfolds.  In this respect, the analysis above, as well as in Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddahism, are spiritual, metaphysical, and transcendent in their moral aspects.  As is every system of belief that is concerned with teaching responsible empathy.

CONTINGENT RECOMMENDATIONS:  Apart from such generalisms, I have few specific recommendations.  To generate more specific recommendations would necessitate more contingent and practical (if-then) reasoning.  For example, if a civilization wishes to accord decent respect for participatory will and freedom of expression and enterprise, then it will seek to assimilate and accomodate a similarly minded citizenry and to avail it with a representative republican governance.  If a civilization seeks an efficient harnessing of all to a regimen ruled by elites, then it will seek a different form of governance.  In any event, every civilization will be subject to rephasings that coordinate with unforeseen and unintended consequences.

*********

FLATNESS: Because the cosmos, as it is geometrically expressed, appears to tend to "flatness," it is expanding, and every sub-part expands in respect of a seeming cosmic axis. A body with a head-axis that is "up" may by convention be said to have a natural tendency to spin clockwise. A body whose head-axis is "down" may be said to have a natural tendency to spin counter-clockwise. A body whose head-axis is "up" may decrease rate of spin by extending arms.

If the cosmos were reasonably modeled as an expanding but non-revolving balloon, then every part on its surface whose axis is up may be conceptualized as tending to spin in the same direction as a consequence of the expansion.  If, however, the cosmos itself, as a balloon, were conceptualized as rotating, or as having a common center to which all on the surface could look "down," then the cost of "the common down" would implicate a loss of a common tendency for direction of spin.

Whatever the natural tendency for flatness, it correlates with dissipative entropy and additive inertias and energies. Thus, angular momentum and its potentials are conserved. (Such tendencies may have temporal exceptions. Venus rotates in the wrong direction, and Uranus is actually flipped over onto its side so that it rolls along rather than rotating neatly like all the other planets.) In general, planets around a star tend to orbit in the same direction and to revolve in the same direction as their orbits.


FLAT: A "flat" universe doesn't correspond to flatness like a flat surface, but instead means that on average the energy distribution throughout a "flat" universe is RENORMALIZED to be everywhere experienced as being at almost the same density, whenever and wherever one were to try to look at the whole universe or cosmos.  (Universe is HOMOGENOUS, without a center.  http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html.  "To say the Universe is homogeneous means that any measurable property of the Universe is [generally] the same everywhere. This is only approximately true, but it appears to be an excellent approximation when one averages over large regions.")


"Space is flat" is not meant to imply that our universe is accelerating outward in the form of a large, flat disc. Rather, the saying relates to the fact that light rays from parallel sources tend to remain parallel rather than to converge or bend back.

When thinking of space-time as one “thing,” analogize a notion of “flatness” of the universe as being like a flat trampoline, with deformations here and there that are associated with large clumps of mass.

When thinking of space and time as separate “things,” analogize “flatness” as the surface space of a balloon that is being inflated over time.

MODELING:  Of course, neither modeling the universe as a trampoline nor as a balloon can fit for all purposes.  Indeed, no model seems sufficient to support a complete, consistent, coherent, grand, unifying theory or best EXPLANATION for everything.  Rather, best explanations seem to evolve as we evolve in skills and proficiencies.


SPIN: Likewise with regard to spin. Objects do not really exist in themselves. However, differing loci of perspectives, via their senses, tend to interpret objects as existing. And to interpret objects that have observable form or mass to have centers of mass around which they appear to spin. And to interpret such bodies as being comprised of particles that are at some smallest point of detectability without form or mass around which to spin, yet carrying math based values that are additive for producing appearances of larger bodies that are observed to spin.

SPEED OF LIGHT: Matter and energy are exchanged, but not in themselves expanding. What is expanding is space and time. As space expands, the path availed for light is increased. But light is never availed to expand beyond the confines of the ever renormalized densities of matter and energy. And each perspective, regardless of locus, will interpret as light as a means for imparting information as travelling at a constant speed.

WARP TRAVEL:  COULD A META OR SUPERIOR BEING OR A SPACECRAFT EVER CREATE AND RIDE A LOCAL EXPANSION OR WARP IN SPACE-TIME AND THEN GET OFF IT TO RETURN TO NORMAL SPACE-TIME?


RENORMALIZATION -- Centerpoint, edge, distance, space, time:  These concepts relate to secondary derivations of appearances.  The primary source is an immeasurable essence-source that avails all secondary derivations by renormalizing and reconciling math values among and between adoptions of  perspective.  There is no substantively real center or edge of a real universe because there is no substantive universe in itself.  The universe is a pseudo place, derivative of pseudo forces, derivative of nothing more than an immeasurable that somehow avails appearances of measurables.

Light cannot be seen to leave the substantive universe because light itself is a a derivative, which is renormalized by a math-based Reconciler.  Light travels along paths that are curved in respect of gravity, which is curved and renormalized to appearances in respect of the Reconciler.  Light is a resonance between an electric field and a magnetic field.  Without a substantive basis of matter and energy to support such resonance, light cannot travel beyond the substantive and mass-based curvature of our universe.  For another way to model it, if we envisage the universe as a four dimensional ball with a three dimensional surface (imagine a three dimensional ball with a four dimensional surface), the light can only move on the surface, like a line we draw on the ground can only move on the surface. That's why light never goes out of the universe or to any edge, as a ball has no edge.

66 comments:

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen a "Tamagotchi." My mom thought she remembered it as "friend," when we were in Japan in 1955. IAE, it's her name now for her cat. However, I see it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.... Someone ought to adopt it as a screen name. It's kind of catching.

Anonymous said...

See http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/lef.... Also, recall that various agitators in Ferguson were paid by Soros to stir things up. Commies, socialists, homosexuals, crony elitists, islamists, metrosexuals, and malcontented basement dwelling trustafarians seem to work in a common way, which is based more on stirring up feelings than on substantive analysis. When it comes to arousing feelings, never waste a crisis.

If there were a college major on professional agitation, much of the course material among these interests would be immediately recognized as overlapping. Critical race theory, critical gender studies, critical this and that, white privilege, etcetera. There should be a course based on critical critical theory, to help restore people's capacity to think by demonstrating the common nonsense behind all factions of the Leftist Rainbow ACLU Coalition Against Decent And Common Sense.

Anonymous said...

See https://www.alliancedefendingf...,
http://aclu.procon.org/view.re..., and http://dianedew.com/aclu.htm.

Does it not often seem to you that the ACLU defends "civil liberties" only in an Orwellian sense, such as in the sense of Big Brother's defense of slavery as freedom, or the invasively despotic rule under elitist knowitalls as if it were representative republicanism?

Do you find it "admirable," for 40 years, to have supported:

- a welfare system that has destroyed minority families;
- partial birth abortion;
- the forced removal of Christian edifices that have been in place for many years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
- the de-defining of marriage and the promotion of polygamy (http://www.wnd.com/2005/06/310... --
"Ponnuru concludes, “it is hard to see how
the ACLU, on its own principles, could stop short of demanding a change
to the marriage laws to allow for polygamy.");
- making homosexual relationships out to confer special protected status;
- trying to force the boy scouts to avail access to known homosexual scout masters
https://www.aclu.org/legal-doc...
- favor gov-required grooming of grade school students with regard to homosexuality;
- being against school vouchers (https://www.aclu.org/blog/scho...
- helping teacher unions saddle school children with lousy educations;
- giving felons the right to vote;
- favoring voting without identification to show legal status;
- encouraging votes by easily bribed and deceived know nothings who lack substantial ties to the communities in which they vote;
- advocating to protect the "freedom of expression" of a cult that claims a right to kill apostates and to disfigure women, as if such indoctrination were a "free exercise of religion";
- helping to ban all freedom of association and conscience in private enterprises (http://www.christianpost.com/n...
- helping to expose grannies to airport pat downs out of concern to avoid intelligent profiling;
- advocating against effective policing in ways that help turn inner cities into unprotected war zones;
- taking away the rights of individuals to bear arms.

What is "liberal" in any classical sense about the collectivizing, socialistic march of Democrats, Progressives, and ACLU supporters? If you're so against preserving an electorate that can defend representative republicanism, why do you call yourself a defender of "civil liberties?"

Dlanor said...

Many colleges now eye new students like the Candy Skin Crawley Cottage Witch eyed Hansel and Gretel: As fresh meal tickets.

Anonymous said...

People who live in real states, like Florida and Texas, often must drive long distances on lonely roads for which speed limits are more like prima facie suggestions. People who work in Manhatten barely know how to drive. There are turnpikes in Texas where the ("suggested") speed limit is 85. In parts of Montana, there are probably places where there are no limits. Some people can safely handle guns and fast limits on lonely roads. Metro people tend not to understand. I would say Rubio's tickets tend to show initiative. Now, if he were tailgating and weaving in heavy traffic during a rainstorm (Hillary?), that would be a horse of a different color.

Anonymous said...

Good health care could be built from communities up, if only the Feds would get out of the way. Single states could not likely succeed, because they would end up providing benefits that would attract too many undesireables. However, regional agreements among states could grow, and, where successful, lead to agreements among all states -- without the need for top-down diktat from kickback cronycrud and clones of obamanesque foolery.

The Feds need to shut up, stand down, and get out of the way. They need to defend the borders, reconcile credit among the states, ameliorate epidemics, pierce conspiracies abroad while delining to engage in nation building, and in most other concerns stay the hell out of the way. So long as the Feds are too corrupt, stupid, and incapable of performing their most basic function -- defending the borders -- they are the last people who should be looked to for solutions.

Anonymous said...

The only way to get the republic back is a combination of COS, nullification, and secession. Up to now, the U.S. has provided the creative thinking that has made most of the modern advances in technology possible. Our public schools are a disgrace, but our college level instruction at the top STEM fields are the envy of the world. Other nations have as many or more scientists and engineers who are as gifted, or more so, as America's. And their public school training is better. But they lack something that America, heretofore, has always provided: A background of free and creative thinking.

Common core cannot provide that. What common core can do is make us more like the nations that are better at copying than creating. The drive by elitist cronies to dictate how Americans are to speak and think will drive us down. Most people believe our knowledge and skill base will continue to increase geometrically. However, if the crony-ruling statists keep taking over, I think that trend may take a nose dive. The people who want only to be "equal in bling" will drag us all down, if we let them.

Anonymous said...

JEB thinks our electorate should be made incapable of self rule, if that has not already been accomplished. He thinks the masses of the world beg to be ruled by elite cronies such as himself. And if he can continue to water down the border, he will ensure that it is so.

Anonymous said...

Since we have now absorbed 1/4 of Mexico's population, that we have gone beyond acts of love and deep into acts of obsessive addiction. It's past time to get off the pipe.

Anonymous said...

For both JEB and Shrill, their principles are for sale. We know that because we see that their monied supporters know that. The only thing preventing them from being on the same ticket is the competition for favors between the opposing groups of cronies that support them.

The Chamber of Commerce probably hedges between them. Shrill probably has more of the foreign-treason-cronydom locked down, while JEB likely has the neo-con arms dealers.

Neither one of them is about preserving a viable and representative republic and the quality of electorate that is necessary to sustain it. If their billionaire supporters were to find a common way "forward" for bilking the people, JEB and Shrill could make a dream team.

Either way, by the time they are done, the people will be divided among stoned out stoners, sex maniacs, cronies, gangsters, invaders, and cannibals. More and more, the divide-and-rule games played against the idiot electorate by commies, homosexuals, human traffickers, cronies, muslims, and stoners look very much alike. Meanwhile, the metrosexuals will be prancing around in pink frilly panties, saying, "Well now, isn't that special?"

Anonymous said...

Progs play "faux-gotcha" because they know their base consists of practiced dupers and perpetual dupes. Substantive gotcha tends not to be playable with someone like Cruz, because he's probably smarter than the spider who is trying to trap him. So the spider intentionally and maliciously chooses not to work on important facts, but instead to work on facts that can be spun to fool the naive gauchos who comprise the prog base. The purpose of msm is not to inform the electorate, but to arouse the looney prog base. The head people for msm are far from geniuses, but they are souldead corrupt. Were msm honest, its motto would be, "Corrupt, not stupid." And, "All the principles that money can buy."

Anonymous said...

The plane will take off normally when the relative air speed is caused, by momentum of the plane, as the plane thrusts forward, to create enough lift force on the wings -- don't you think?

That will be when the forward momentum, even ever so slightly, moves the plane forward relative to the ground. If the plane does not ever move forward at all, relative to the ground, then it does not acquire lift (assuming the propeller and atmosphere do not combine to move the air needed). Have I misread something?

IOW, the plane will take off "normally" because the assumption underlying the question, that the plane is kept from moving forward, is so impractical that it will not be met.

From My Cousin Vinny:
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Does that mean that you can't answer it?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question, it's impossible to answer.

In this case, the question is not impossible to answer. But its assumptions are impractical to meet. It's less a gotcha question than a faux-gotcha, to fool the naive gauchos.

Anonymous said...

By my argument, if a State wants to define a same sex arrangement as a marriage, it has that power, under the Tenth Amendment. Not the Feds. Not the elitist judges. Not fed judges. Not state judges. Just the people of the States. Unless you want to de-define marriage to make it meaningless. When the concept of marriage is left to the common sense of the people, they tend to have little difficulty with it. The problem develops as a result of militant homosexuals, people without common sense enough to blow their noses, and asinine, elitist judges.

IAE, I think the idea of traditional marriage has been of significant importance to the preservation of representative republicanism. For states to require official recognition to SSM is to herald cognitive dissonance on the order of the Tower of Babel.

This kind of dissonant disrespect for the assimilating sense of the people weakens the republic and exposes it to being undone. I will be surprised if Western Civ is not soon replaced by central crony despotism. No doubt, a lot of incompetents and goofs will celebrate. The malcontents on riot parade in Ferguson will seem small by comparison to what I think is coming.

It seems the arguments recycled by homosexuals, commies, crony-elitist-wannabe-rulers, race-baiters, and muslims tend to devolve to the same tired themes. I wonder why these various interest groups keep such strange company and recycle the same kind of juvey and deconstructive arguments? Whether consciously or subconsciously, they seem to share the same goal: Bring down the representative republic! I think they are close to achieving the beginning of their common goal. But I also think they will be among the first to cry as it plays out.

Anonymous said...

For a civilization that would in any way preserve itself, the selfless issue of care for children is paramount over the selfish issue of who should be recognizeable as being officially married. What is the nature of a selfish assertion of right ot privilege to the society of another person or innocent child? The notion of a right to pleasure oneself among consenting adults runs into qualifications upon reaching the sphere of innocent children. To choose to have or adopt a child is to take on an enormous responsibility, based on little more than hope and faith. Such a choice necessitates more in the way of self dedication than self aggrandizement.

A person whose only profession of moral faith is in self aggrandizement cannot represent a morally defensible reason to choose to have or adopt a child. A person whose only reason to keep a child is for sake of personal convenience has no good reason to have the child or to fail to place the child in a better position. The increase in the percentage of people who are morally faithless may account for the decrease in the percentage of adults having children.

The implicit faith of many people seems to have devolved to this: That there abides no higher value in the preservation of civilization through the generations. And that people are of no special value apart from value as property. Those who are most inclined to complain that some among their ancestors were treated as slaves seem most inclined to abandon their progeny to the slavery of uncaring nature, i.e., parentless destitution. And to abandon their country to collectivizing gang bangers.

Anonymous said...

Policy is made by people, who input their worldviews, which are based on each person's anecdotal experiences and his preferred filters for his rosy glasses. So, that must be respected so long as representative federal republicanism remains the best form of governance thus far devised.

I agree the central gov should be neutral about incenting marriage. I think Justice Kennedy should sthu and butt out. I do not feel the same way about each state gov within a federal union. And, the fed gov is tasked to reconcile among the states, to try to accomodate full faith and credit for their respective domains. (With enough stretching, this might be analogized to your thought experiment about airlifting a plane whose forward thrust is matched by counterspeed on a treadmill. However, discretion leads me to defer such an attempt.)

I agree the tax on domestic income against persons and businesses should be scuttled. With supporting amendment, I would prefer some kind of tax on consumption.

I agree that parenting by homosexuals should not be banned. (Obviously, a parent whose orientation changes ought not be deprived of the relationship with his or her child!) Mainly, I just think federal taxpayers ought not be charged to incentivize it. (We already have too many incentives to turn Joe Legals into Jose Illegals. I would hesitate to incentivize human trafficking under ruse of fed-assisted funding for homosexual adoptions.)

As to governance based on intuitions of probabilities and common sense, I don't see any way to preserve a decent representative republic unless the common sense of the public is, pardon the pun, given its head.

In main, I suspect we tend much to agree. So, to the more interesting scenario regarding the plane on the treadmill. I will be honest with you. My first thought, and I believe the correct one, provided the factors are made precise enough, is that the plane would not fly. Obviously, planes work based on wing lift provided by air speed.

It did get me wondering, however. Imagine an albatross running on a long treadmill so that he never made forward movement. Would he acquire lift velocity by spreading his wings? I don't think so.

I even wondered, is there some trick entailed, in transferring a relationship between force and momentum? Again, however, you've got to have the wing lift by relative air speed.

So, as you knew I must, I used google. As I understand it, the key is in the relative friction. Is it preserved, or just attempted to be preserved? If the traction is broken, and the engine thrust is adequate, then the plane moves forward and acquires the airspeed to get lift. If the traction is matched precisely, so that it is never broken and the plane never moves forward, then the plane cannot acquire the relative air speed to gain lift.

However, I am not a physicist, nor a pilot, nor do I play either one on tv. However, my nephew is a pilot. So I will relay to him this interesting scenario, which I thank you for providing. :)

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

Anonymous said...

Little in life can avail certainty to the finest detail. Yet, people of good sense do not ordinarily twist that as justification for wholesale denial of common sense. I can envision a case in which it may be better to allow a homosexual home to raise a child. But my common sense tells me that a non-homosexual would generally tend to do a better job. That is, homosexuals and non-homosexuals are differently charged, not equal. To pretend the situation is otherwise is simply to deny common sense. Now, if you're a QE Dude, that may be your default preference. But I don't think it bodes well as an argument for how to organize society or how to entrust wannabe elitists to force taxpayers to distribute revenues.

Regarding probabilities: Maybe you can define child abuse and then gather data to test a concern. Which is more likely -- that a child in the home care of a homosexual will be abused, or that a child in the home care of a non-homosexual will be abused? Of course, if you start with zero standards (divide by zero) for defining abuse, you will fulfill a preset desire to find no difference.

Btw, is time granular, continuous, fundamental, or mere conception of convenience? Do you have an answer, a guess, or a common sense approach to communicating about time? Do your QE fides translate into knowledge about anything at all, that might make you a superior authority concerning how social laws should be constructed? Do you have objective information that is sufficient to the concern? If not, do you rely on common sense? If so, why, in common sense, should the central gov force taxpayers to fund benefits for same sex marriages? Is there some QE formula that proves sexual activities between same sexes is mathematically equivalent to sexual activities between differently sexed people?

Anonymous said...

YOU asserted there was no danger of a slippery slope to polygamy. Now YOU defend it.

BTW, do I have the burden to prove the purpose of each orifice, or can that stand as self evident? Here's the thing: There's very little that we can prove to a certainty. What we can do is come up with better explanations. When a person shows not to understand basic bodily functions, I tend to doubt he has capacity to understand the idea of "burden of proof," much less proof itself.

Does your idea of proof require proof of immunity from falsification? Is it satisfied with self evidence? Common sense? Or are we going down a term-definition trip? If so, let's start with coming to a mutually acceptible definition. I'm game, so define your term and I willl play. What do you mean by "marriage"? What in the concept of marriage, as you understand it, would make a polyamorous ssm harem invalid? Do you mean to take the "chauvenistic" position that marriage ought not be defined to include polyamorous ssm harems?

As to exclusivity, now that's a strange twist! Are you saying homosexuals tend less to practice sex with multiple partners? (Man, that just does not sound right.) Do you mean to suggest non-same-sex partners can hold themselves out as being common-law married, but same sex partners cannot? Are you saying gay orgyists cannot (or do not) shack up together or frequent same watering holes for date nights? If same sexes can marry, they can common law marry, can they not? Surely, you don't need a piece of paper to make a gay harem poly marriage, do you?

Anonymous said...



As a contract, why cannot people contract marriage among themselves, to marry, cross marry, and cross contract with as many people as they want? The problem with marriage-as-just-a-contract is that the taxpayers are made non-party guarantors of gov funded benefits to the contractees. Why should open season be declared against tax payers, to require them to fund gov benefits for every conceivable kind of marriage contract?

People are losing sight of the purpose of gov recognition of marriage: It relates to rights of families and parents in the comforting, caring, and educating of one another and their children, apart from bureaucratic intrusion. It relates to much more than relations among consenting adults. Homosexuals, dopers, and polygamists hardly ever think about the needs of children. Their inconsiderate and underlying program will be to divert the rearing of children to the bureaucratic drones of gov. Of course, Marxists and crony elitists are all down with that.

Anonymous said...

If the Constitution requires equal recognition and protection by tax funded gov for gay marriage, then on what basis can it exclude such protection for poly marriages, especially among immigrants from nations and cultures that recognize poly marriages? You say the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but you provide no facts in support. Can you argue on a principled basis that the gov must or must not recognize poly marriages based on the constitutional principles for recognizing ssm?

How many billions of people on the planet already recognize the legitimacy of poly marriages? Other advocates for ssm have recognized that its logic leads to a requirement that the gov recognize poly marriages. You and your faux facts are hardly made more persuasive just on your ipse dixit.

If gov can intrude to require that taxpayers fund and recognize ssm, on what basis can you say that gov cannot intrude to require the same treatment for poly marriages? I do not think you have a basis. I think you are just saying what you wanna, and then calling your wanna "principled."

I suspect forced gov recognition of SSM will lead inexorably to polygamy, to rise of gov intrusion, to loss of liberty. The same nations that favor ssm will be overrun by polygamous Muslims and despotic Marxists. I think the failure to understand that simple fact is adolescent. For the menace and adolescence of the Left, see http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/bar....

Anonymous said...

Radicalization became solidified with the killings of JFK. MLK, and RFK. During that time of mass insanity, my path took me first from a military family, to enlistment, to OCS, then to college. In those strange days, you could become a 19 year old lieutenant. From that perspective, it was a bit of a jolt to get to college and see that the profs who were the most green lighted, fast tracked and promoted seemed not so much to be the ones who led you to think but the ones who led you to be indoctrinated. In college, by 1970, the radicals were the vanguard, not the backbenchers. Responsibility took a permanent holiday from reality, and seems to have done so ever since.

Anonymous said...

It's not a formal crime to be a muslim. But it is a mark of adolescence and indecency for any thinking person to continue into adulthood to follow Islam as a faith or philosophy. In that respect, its's a crime against human decency.

Anonymous said...

The people the Estabalishment promotes the fastest are the people who are the fastest in willingness to sell out their own families and nations in order to enrich and empower themselves and to bury human decency. There are people who get twisted at an early age. I suspect many homosexuals, communists, cronies, and muslims were abused -- sexually, physically, and mentally -- initiated while they were kids. Now, they want revenge and empowerment over their oppressors, whom they take to include the Establishment that failed to protect them as kids.

There was something kinky and twisted in the relationships between their fathers and the Clintons, Obama, Ayers, and Code Pink. These people develop a kind of radar to sense, develop and promote their own kind that is even better than gaydar. Twistdar. They are bound more by a desire to change, destroy, and bury than by any rational philosophy. They are most defined by what they are against. This is why the responsible Americans who comprise the Tea Party are such anathema to them. This is why the "Black Community," without Whitey to blame, would be nothing.

Anonymous said...

It's the product of Balkanizing America into over-hyphenated, race-based tribes, and then trying to rule them under a central gov that does not have a political means for assimilating a ruling majority. One or the other will have to go. Either we stop balkanizing the nation, or we convert to a parlimentary form of gov. Or stuff will hit the fan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Anonymous said...

Liberal civ has a legitimate interest in discouraging polygamy because it soon leads to illiberal society.

Anonymous said...

I do not say that all progs want to de-define marriage in order to destroy decent society. I only say that all progs who are actually capable of thinking beyond their immediate feelings want to de-define marriage in order to destroy decent society.

By "destroy decent society," I mean they want to replace a system of individual liberty under representative republicanism with a system of Muslim sharia or Marxist dystopia.

As to the progs who substitute their feelings for thinking, I do not see how one can think or expect to reason with them. There must come a time to set aside trying to overcome idiocy with reason and instead simply resolve to starve and defeat it. Let those who want to establish nations in which taxes are applied to support ssm go and establish their own separate nation. Perhaps they can join with other minorities that want to be collectivists instead of Americans. Those who want a decent republic simply cannot make sustainable common cause with the people who want ssm, polygamy, bureaucratic rule over children, and special race-based favors forever.

Anonymous said...

Do an online and illuminating search of Joe Legal v. Jose Illegal. Then read the online rebuttal. The "rebuttal" shows the unreal reasoning only a prog could love. The US has absorbed 1/4 (the worst 1/4) of the population of Mexico. How much more is required in the name of "fairness"? The Constitutional republic is done. It's over. Now it's only about salvaging what can be salvaged. COS, nullification, secession, stocking up to take care of one's own. It's too late for an easy cure for the pandemic of prog insanity. It will have to be allowed to die out. Competent survivors will need to secure themselves and then reestablish decent civ once the insanity has subsided.

Anonymous said...

The long history of affirmative action has been reparation enough. It's now time for the collective black community to take less and give back more, as responsible individuals. It's time for society to be "reparated" for its investment. If the payback is just ever more demands for ever more giveaways to the collective black community, then it's time to recognize that the policy of affirmative reparations has been an abject failure and it's time to end it. Obama claims he ended the Iraq war. The next prez needs to end the black war against Whitey and the black community's flight from reality.

Anonymous said...



Maybe award 5 points for getting GED or higher. 5 for reaching age 20. 5 for completing each tour of duty in Armed Forces. 5 for each period of holding down a non-gov job and paying net taxes for 5 years. 5 for each period of paying employee's salary for 5 years.

Net 15 points required to become and remain certified as a responsible adult.

Lose 1 point for every month of incarceration under a criminal conviction. Lose 5 points for each taking of bankruptcy. Lose 1 point for every month of arrears in paying child support.

Let each person vote an equality based on the total of his/her points. That would seem to be more like "equality."

Anonymous said...

There is nothing admirable about being a Muslim conservative. Absent specification of what is to be conserved, there can be little reason to admire "conservatism." Conserver of what? Hidebound idiocy? In America, to be a worthwhile conservative, one needs to be a conserver of liberty -- at least for adults. Liberty of expression and enterprise; rights of labor, contract and property.

To be a conserver of liberty, one needs to be a conserver of what is needed to sustain a non-despotic, representative republic: faith in a moral principler; loyalty to family values; fidelity to limited governance. We need resisters against tyrannical slavers of minds and bodies. Identifiers of thugs, bullies, frauds, abusers, and intrusive superstitious mystical head choppers. Evil needs to be identified so it can be wilted.

Anonymous said...

It is one thing to make fun of or to disparage another person because of a physical attribute. It is another to make fun of his beliefs and opinions. One of the ways of getting others to reexamine beliefs and opinions is to make fun of them. For example, Jon Stewart makes it open season to make fun of everything about what it means to be a Christian or an American.

As a belief system, Islam, factually and morally, is perhaps the most perverse system on earth. And, because of its meta background, it claims immunity from factual discreditation. How, then, is such a perverse and anti-human system to be countered, if the right to make fun of it and disparage it is taken off the table? Does Cuomo say we must simply stand by until no amount of ridicule can reform it, so that the only option left is war? I am so tired of Idiot Progs posing as wise men.

Anonymous said...

If God were omni-perfect without feedback from fluxing patterns and mortal perspectives, than God would not seem to have any need or interest in mortals. From mortal perspective, we are not equipped to imagine how any Being could be conscious at all, without interfunctioning with any flux of patterns to be conscious of. Why should I entertain an opinion about that which is not essential to a system of moral belief and of which I am without capacity to explain?

I think an opinion about a meta-Being or meta-state-of-affairs is needed ... to guide and facilitate communications concerning moral purposefulness. But I see no need to try to resolve in one's imagination whether such Being may be with or without fore-knowledge or power to change His own mind. Indeed, Muslims have bound up the idea of pre-determination to mislead them into imagining God to be a fascist monster.

While mortal, no person is free to do whatever he wants merely by willing it. But every human being is conscious of participating in effecting choices. He makes his choices not in a void, but based on contextual affinities. He is not the entire cause of his own affinities. In this sense, no person has entire free will, but every person does have participatory will. Respect for the humanity of each person necessitates that he, as an adult, be accorded respect for his participatory will, i.e., his right and responsibility under God and within bounds of decency to make his own choices based on his own affinities.

We are caused (we have no other choice) to choose among correlates, each of which constitutes a possibility that obeys the scope and range of the maths that define us. Whatever path the godhead guides us to choose, that path will be bound to the math that defines its contingency. But no math known to any mortal confines the godhead, as it guides us, to any generally pre-set path. In how we interfunction with guidance from the Source, we follow such affinities as we elect. That is, we do not have perfect free will, but we do give expression to part-icipatory will.

In that respect, what we become and produce is much affected or fulfilled by what we believe. If we believe, behind the ontic opening, is the Author of the Great Commandment and Golden Rule, then we tend to make of our world a different prospect than if we believe all our acts and events are predetermined or random.

Without some such leap of faith, society would lack a concept, parable, and language with which to communicate moral empathies. An atheist may think to take issue with bible-based literalisms, but an atheist who claims to "be as moral as any Christian" makes no sense unless he first implicates a belief in an ontological basis for some kind of morality. That is, an "ontic opening."

Anonymous said...

It is a truism that whatever is measurable, to be measurable, will conform to (i.e., be conserved, synchronized, and reconciled to) measuring maths. Experience tends to confirm that similar results correlate with similar patterns. As we become more proficient in predicting how patterns of correlations unfold, we incline to interpret correlates as causes. We may call each pin ball the cause of each following effect, while ignoring the originating set up for each system of pin ball collisions. Or, we may imagine that some meta and immeasurable pin ball underlies everything, as the originator of all subsequent interactions.

Depending on our purposes, we may imagine the originator as dumb and inanimate, mathematically pre-bound, entirely pre-determined, bizarrely random, or electively appreciative of unfolding affinitiies. We may conceptualize that some level of holistic or meta consciousness abides as an innate attribute, or that consciousness is a quality that emerges only in respect of unfolding patterns of underlying and complex interactions of inanimate part-icles that are bound to math-based properties.

Regardless of preferred conceptualization, the implication of an Essence-Source, Uncaused-Causer, Changeless-Changer, Conserving-Reconciler, is, in itself, immeasurable. Since it is immeasurable, whatever the meta-properties one may conceptually attribute to it, such will entail a leap of faith, like a spark of imagination. For empirical investigations, one's imagination tends to be sparked with a cause-effect meme of analysis. For moral recommendations, one's faith tends to correlate with and leap to teleological purposes.

When one functions "scientifically" (concerning empirical measurables), one accepts a cause-effect meme that relies on concepts of randomness or determination, or some mix thereof. However, when one functions "morally" (concerning choices, whether or not such choices are ultimately caused or elected because of controlling affinities), it becomes necessary to accord moral actors with a quality of dignity beyond that of a pin ball. Then, it becomes helpful to conceptualize a moral connection among and between an ontological Creator-Connector-Connection and other conscious part-icipants within the creation. That is how one may conceptually derive, imagine, or communicate concerning the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.

Anonymous said...

The more that responsible people condemn weed, the more the Progs find glamour in it. The more that responsible people condemn the Clintons, the more the Progs find glamour in them. Slick became more popular the more scandalous he became. Curiouser and curiouser, perverser and perverser.

Over the years, I tried to help various losers, pro bono. With some, the more I helped, the faster and deeper they buried themselves. I could not continue without burying myself. I am close to feeling that way about my country. More and more, this has become no country for decent folk.

Anonymous said...

Yes! Most trade is encumbered trade. And the bigger the central govs, the bigger the encumbrances. The encumbrances are the prices for entry into opposing despotisms. That is, the vig for the local bosses. Now institutionalized away from gov and into the Clinton Foundation. That model will no doubt be copied everywhere!

EDIT: Free trade is a conceptual ideal that does not really exist. As an ideal, it has value. However, it ought not be an ideal that blinds a representative republic to the fact that enriching despots tends not to be good for representative republics.

Anonymous said...

The idea was probably to encourage spouses to stay together to raise their children. There's a general correlation, but not an exact one. No nation has yet devised a best and exact system for allocating legalized benefits. Still, the cost of raising a child is very high. The cost of parents not being committed to stay together to raise their children is also very high. The people who undertake the time and effort to raise children are raising the generation that will man our military, defend our borders, and pay for our social security. Absent such tax benefits, the people who do not raise children get a free ride.

Distributing welfare and equal tax benefits in a way that encourages parents not to stay together or even to spilt is exactly the wrong way to sustain a republic. Homosexual couples tend to purchase designer babies. I much doubt they are relieving any need to adopt orphans.

The arguments advanced by homosexuals and immature single people seem incredibly irresponsible. The nation is just about under water, and yet bed wetters trained by marinated profs are whining about frenchified equality. Western Civ has become awash in irresponsibility and perpetual adolescence. Replenishing our work force with illiterate illegals via a border that is left porous for the worst of our enemy operatives is not just juvey. It is insane. Instead of addressing our demographic needs, Progs are doing everything they can that will sink us. Progs and Profs. Groovey. After this, the deluge.

Anonymous said...

The idea was probably to encourage spouses to stay together to raise their children. There's a general correlation, but not an exact one. No nation has yet devised a best and exact system for allocating legalized benefits. Still, the cost of raising a child is very high. The cost of parents not being committed to stay together to raise their children is also very high. The people who undertake the time and effort to raise children are raising the generation that will man our military, defend our borders, and pay for our social security. Absent such tax benefits, the people who do not raise decent and responsible children get a free ride.

Distributing welfare and equal tax benefits in a way that encourages parents not to stay together or even to split is exactly the wrong way to sustain a republic. Homosexual couples tend to purchase designer babies. I much doubt they are relieving any need to adopt orphans.

The arguments advanced by homosexuals and immature single people seem incredibly irresponsible. The nation is just about under water, and yet bed wetters trained by marinated profs are whining about frenchified equality. Western Civ has become awash in irresponsibility and perpetual adolescence. Replenishing our work force with illiterate illegals via a border that is left porous for the worst of our enemy operatives is not just juvey. It is insane. Instead of addressing our demographic needs, Progs are doing everything they can that will sink us. Progs and Profs. Groovey. After this, the deluge.

The idea of providing a tax motivation for parents to raise children may not be amenable of precise effectuation, but it is generally rational. The idea of affording like motivation to everyone else, merely in the name of frenchified equality and to help gay bullies feel good about themselves, is not. Justis' Kennedy, like many Prog Profs, is, simply put, an irrational putz. He and his cohort have proven one thing, however: With enough corrupt and indecent backing, you indeed can condition and import enough lofos to fool most of the people most of the time. Adults with common sense get this, almost immediately. Perpetual children who are forever fixated on their we e we es -- never.

Anonymous said...



I am near the resolution of "seceding myself" -- as a nation of one. Maybe, if enough people do that, and take their guidance from faith-family-friends higher than gov, they will eventually survive spiritual-genetic-cultural drag and come back together in something more closely resembling mutual respect. Sometimes, you just have to leave it with the Man Upstairs. I only hope I have fortified my children with something stronger than dependence on crony corporatists, commie one-worlders, and crazy musloids. If.

Anonymous said...

One World Gov will still need a pricing mechanism. No amount of central planning and control can completely replace or compensate for that. The way we are going, a One World Gov will be manned less by representatives to do the will of the people than by controllers to roll the people and tell them what they should want. As the mechanism for determining what the people should want comes to be more creaky and responsive to top-down diktat than to any expression of the will of the people, it will become despotic -- regardless of whether the despotism is called fascist or communist.

The default drive for the mass of humanity seems to be to greatly reduce human freedom and dignity. A decent respect for humanity would necessitate a representative republic -- which cannot be preserved except by the perpetual vigilance of a decent and informed citizenry. However, the one-world direction is to reduce the demographic of every nation and society to a lowest common putty that will conform as instructed.

Our "leaders" are trending to do all they can to reduce our demographic to putty. When it comes to effecting distributions, it seems to me that most of our leaders want more to move up the ruling hierarchy than to be fair. However, as the one-world mechanism cramps up, it will capture even the fascists. The system will put a boot on even the faces of the fascists.

Anonymous said...

After Alan Turing broke the Enigma Code, it was necessary to develop an algorithm so the code breaking would be used just enough not to arouse the suspicions of the Nazis while still winning the war. That's how fascist rinos vote: They vote with Conservatives just enough to retain plausible deniability about their true loyalties.

Which is the more dangerous and evil enemy: The dino enemy who wears his uniform, or the rino enemy who is in your camp and pretends to be on your side?

Anonymous said...

Corporatist control of gov for the purpose of allocating profits to cronies from the means of production is fascism.

I think there is another difference: Fascism is quite possible, often even probable. Marxism, however, tends to be a delusion under which the nomenklatura soon enough become the fascist profiteers (Chinese capitalism?). Both fascism and marxism appeal to the deluded dreams of dupes, while they enrich the most duplicitous and devilish.

So, the GOP is more realistic. However, once the sheen wears off, I expect "fascism for our own good" will devolve to eradication of the undesireables. It will have to, in order to survive competition with the third variety of human bondage -- which is religious despotism, i.e., Islam. Decent people may become stuck in the middle, in an eye-blink contest between evil fascism and insane islamism.

The only hope for a way out of this dead end is probably in an awakening of decent Americans.

Anonymous said...

Isn't preserving the republic something that a bona fide republican would be about? Isn't the most fundamental thing about preserving a representative republic the preservation of a demographic that is competent to govern itself? In what sense can a person who works to dis-represent and bury true republican conservers of liberty and instead to establish the desires of his campaign contributors to flood the country with "immigrants" who are illegal and culturally non-disposed to preserve a republic truthfully call himself a "republican"?

I fail to see how distinguishing establishment-serving sell-outs as "rinos" is inaccurate or unfair. If anything, it is too polite. What they should be called is vile, corrupt, icky, self-serving traitors. The main difference between them and dinos is that they tend to serve a different set of lying, self-deceiving, non-republican, crony gangsters. The commonality between crony international corporatists and crony international socialists is that both are non-republicans. Why on earth should they be entertained to call themselves "republicans"? What is the "republic" that they serve?

If a republican truly seeks, beyond lip service, to preserve the "establishment" of the Constitution and the republic, then he does not seek to undermine those who seek to defend the border. A republican who seeks to preserve that republic is, you know, a Conservative. He is the kind of person who is a rarity among those in Congress who call themselves republicans. If there were many true "establishment republicans" in Congress, they would not be working to isolate Ted Cruz as a "whacko bird."

Anonymous said...

Darwin took evolution to conflict with a literal interpretation of Genesis, as do I. But I doubt I would have taken Genesis literally, anyway. Still, I see no reason to discard spiritual truths, for which Genesis avais us with a rich language of metaphors. Empiricism, without spiritual receptivity, does not much serve our communication of moral concerns and purposes. I think the Reconciler is real, and appreciably communicates in contextual metaphors with those who are appreciative. It tells us what we need to know. As best I can fathom, neither empiricism nor evolution can speak to the general issue of spiritual guidance. Frankly, I don't see what evolution, as more than a label for a truism that poses as a causal agent, has to do with it. In my opinion, one intuits a general sense of spiritual purposefulness or one lives in denial of it. Science can't resolve it. Jesus directed His parables to those with understanding and will to appreciate them.

Science cannot tell us that matter preceded consciousness. Science is not inconsistent with measurable matter being conceptualized to emerge from or with an immeasurable quality of consciousness. "Spin" and its fields of overlapping influence seems to be the root model for measurables. But there does not seem to be any smallest value of spin. Moreover, "smallest" seems like an idea that is derivative of some meta thing or character that is not itself directly measurable in any sensible dimension. Whatever the Source that originates, drives and reconciles our participation, I do not fathom any way for empiricists to rope or tie it down, like some little doggie. The moral point of churches, it seems to me, is not to tie God to a science, but to meet in good faith to help guide one another in good will. Science cannot fulfill that function. Neither can churches that surrender that function to governments under some beknighted and frenchified idea of "objective equality of non-equalities."

Anonymous said...

It amazes me that so many people presume that the observation that things change and evolve proves anything more than a truism. Under what reasoning can such an observation be thought to say much of significance about the character of God or moral purposefulness?

Out of chaos, order. Out of a relatively stable mix of ingredients of apparent and locally measurable spins and their fields of influence, some temporally repetitive and replicating patterns (iterations, fractal dimensions, renormalizations) will tend to endure. Whatever such patterns are, we can compare the relative strength, agility, speed, and awareness of their avatars and label them as thus being "fittest" or most "genesis-selfish" for their niches. Yet, it will not have been their strength or speed that produced their temporal unfoldment or dominance, but the niche that mixed and produced them, to determine what was fittest. Moreover, it will not be the niche that "caused" or availed their evolution, but whatever the Source that reconciled and guided the niche that availed them. A person does not will his will, nor strength his strength. The will and strength of a person are not the cause of themselves. Ultimately, the unfolding "cause" abides neither in the measurable nature of the parts nor in the nature of the whole, but in the immeasurable character of their dance of feedback.

To take whatever the attributes (strength and speed) that happen to prevail and call such attributes determinative (or"fittest") is to flip the notion of cause and effect upside down. It is to beg the questions: Among all possible niches, why was such and such niche the fittest among niches? Why was the design of the presets of our universe the fittest? To say that patterns unfold in respect of a dance of feedback with their sponsoring niches is merely to observe a truism concerning how the Source functions and unfolds. Such observation answers nothing regarding whatever may be or not be a cause or concern of the Source itself. The fact that relationships and patterns change and evolve is more a truism than an observation of any significance or not with regard to issues of morality. Nor does it purpose any advancement in understanding to suppose that there abides neither purpose nor Guide.

It is one thing to observe that no mortal has control to determine how God should weigh in any specific unfoldment. It is quite a different thing to suppose that general respect for God-Source and meditative receptivity to feedback and guidance are unavailing to any sense of moral purposefulness. For whatever purpose or care should any mortal so purpose or care? In what world of logical consistency do militant atheists and their troops of whackdoodles shout and care so much about their supposed indifference?

Anonymous said...

Re:"Liberals ARE antisemite and only tolerate jews as long as we vote for them. The moment we get out of the liberal political ghetto we become the target of all kinds of accusations not limited to the double loyalty thing."

You just expressed an ephiphany that concisely explains the cause of so much mental pollution that poses as wisdom nowadays.

I rather doubt that Conservatives distrust Conservative Jews as much as Liberals distrust Liberal Jews. So, for a Jew, the safest social bet seems to be to pose as a Liberal.

Anonymous said...

The article shows what homosexuals and their posse deem to be responsible parenting. This is how they believe a society should groom the next generation of omnisexual marxists. They mean to make the kids so bewildered and tolerant that they will never acquire the discipline or fortitude to man any perimeter, defend any border, instill any value, or resist any despotism.

The idea behind many regulations that favored traditional marriage was to encourage spouses to stay together to raise their children. There's probably a general correlation between such incentives and their intended results, but not an exact one. In any event, the socially dysfunctional correlation in equalizing all benefits for decent people and deviants alike is obvious. Just look around at how our society is devolving. No nation has yet devised a best and exact system for allocating legalized benefits.

The cost of raising a child is very high. The cost of parents not being committed to stay together to raise their children is also very high. Look around. The people who undertake the time and effort to raise children are raising the generation that will man our military, defend our borders, and pay for our social security. Absent such tax benefits, the people who do not raise decent and responsible children get a free ride.

Distributing welfare and equal tax benefits in a way that encourages parents not to stay together or even to split is exactly the wrong way to sustain a republic. Homosexual couples tend to purchase designer babies. I much doubt they are relieving any need to adopt orphans.

The arguments advanced by homosexuals and their immature camp followers are incredibly irresponsible. The nation is just about under water, and yet bed wetters trained by marinated profs are whining about frenchified equality. Western Civ has become awash in irresponsibility and perpetual adolescence. Replenishing our work force with frenchified egalitarians and illiterate illegals, via a system of dysfunctional education and porous borders is not just juvey. It is insane. Instead of addressing our demographic needs, Progs are doing everything they can that will sink us. Progs and Profs. After this, the deluge.

The idea of providing educational assistance and a tax motivation for parents to raise children may not be amenable of precise effectuation, but it is generally rational. The idea of affording like assistance and motivation to everyone, merely in the name of frenchified equality and to help gay bullies feel good about themselves, is not. Justis' Kennedy, like many Prog Profs, is, simply put, an irrational putz. He and his cohort have proven one thing, however: With enough corrupt and indecent backing, you indeed can condition and import enough lofos to fool most of the people most of the time. Adults with common sense get this, almost immediately. Perpetual children who are forever fixated on their sex organs -- never.

Anonymous said...

Women, more than men, seek security for themselves and their children. They may seek security by finding a strong male protector or by finding a community of mutual protectors. One alternative may come to consist in a city called Free Orgy. There, everyone would learn from an early age to value every kind of expression -- chemical or sexual -- that enhanced one's pleasures. This increase in devotion to internal pleasures would impose an opportunity cost against increasing external defenses. It would raise more seducers than defenders. It would also spread more disease than would traditional familial relations.

The foundaton for decent and sustainable civilization has been established by teaching people to want to help children learn to seek fulfillment by expressing themselves beyond mere dopery, orgyism, and self-centered pleasuring. The foundation is concerned with teaching people to care about the full development of themselves and others -- not just the use of others as sex toys. The typical path for establishing sustainable values has been availed through the traditional family, which has also been the path for reinforcing representative republics. That path has worked well for supplying responsible citizens and defenders. Given its demonstrated success, that path ought not be abandoned on an experimental whim. Especially when the seducers are shills for twisted agents who despise the republic.

Proponents of same sex marriage tend to be misled, educationally and psychologically. Many are unstable and untrustworthy. They cannot be relied on as soldiers, breadwinners, or exemplars for children. When they argue orphans would be better off with two gay parents than no parent, they deceive. Is there a shortage of traditional adoptive parents? Do gays seek to adopt orphans? Or do gays instead seek to hire surrogates to carry designer children? What percentage of human traffickers are gay? How do SSM advocates plan to defeat the increasing market (ISIS, Boko Haram, general crime) for children as sex commodities? Are muslim recruiters to be accorded a non-discriminatory right to seed and adopt as many potential sex slaves as may be needed to fill the demand for jihadis?

Anonymous said...

How many homosexuals became that way not because they were born that way but because they were twisted, traumatized, and molded that way? Do homosexual parents have what it takes to raise a child to find his own true best way? Or do they tend to want to pay their own twisted path forward? Is this spreading love or abuse? How many make constant and strange sex the main focus of their lives? And how many will incline to teach their children the same? How much money is already being extracted from taxpayers to force grade school children to be confused and indoctrinated to believe that the most important thing in their lives is to find sexual fluidity along a stream of 50 different genders?

Does the increasing emphasis on teaching ways to pleasure oneself, chemically and sexually, help us raise happier, well balanced, responsible citizens who will be a credit to the sustenance of their society? Does this create a strong and reliable citizenry that can defend its own nation?

Among young and indoctrinated students and their marinated profs, how many ever think intelligently about such concerns? How many make the least attempt to study such concerns in any objective way? I suspect they think, fund, and study only in the terms for which they have been indoctrinated and marinated. They do not know enough to understand that their outlook is inferior, not superior, to that of mature adults, successful parents, and seasoned patriots. It will take many years and much gnashing of teeth to begin to reverse much of this kind of calcified stupidity.

Anonymous said...

The non-working class has been encouraged to become as divided as a crab barrel. In a crab barrel, everyone is a victim, because no one allows anyone else to climb out. Now, we're all being trained to see ourselves as victims of expensive services, made ever more expensive because of the crab barrel. This is what the people who mediate the increasing cost of services want.

Health care, education care, and police care have all become more expensive. The path we are on is an anti-solution. More immigrants, to destroy the republic and put us under crony management. Lower quality education at more cost, to train people in how to be victims. Intimidation of police, to bommerang to intimidate residents not to report criminals. Destruction of faith and family, to be replaced by "pleasure me now Elmo.".

The consequence of all this is that everyone is quick to want to become a victim, if not a full blown pants-on-ground ghetto rat. This is Critical Victim Theory. Alternatively called, "We're all black now."

Anonymous said...

The article dodges the main issue of concern, which is this: Monied and foreign interests are represented in DC, but the domestic middle class that seeks to preserve representative republicanism for the people is not. The middle class is lied to, not represented. Indeed, the monied interests are now treating the electoral demographic as a privately owned cattle farm, importing "immigrants" as needed to divert the moos howsoever they want.

So how is capitalism the cure for that fundamental problem? How is putting politicians up for sale to the highest bidder the cure for improving representative republicanism? That is the elephant in the room whose droppings are more ignored than shoveled out.

If anything, the role for corrupt and monied interests increases every election. What has McCain-Feingold accomplished? What have regulations against foreign purchases of political influence done? What penalties against Foundation lobbying have been effective? Maybe it's time to put most political contributions into a common fund and distribute the fund among political candidates. Well, that would probably be called a denial of free speech. So, that kind of speech is protected, while people are punished, fined, and lose their jobs and school enrollments for expressing "hate speech" opinions and actions that run counter to thug sentiments. Now then, are we being told that the solution to this state of affairs is more of the same?

So long as no one and no thing is scooping out the elephant droppings, what difference does it make whether we call them the droppings of crony capitalism or crony socialism? They still smell. And the republic is still being sold ever further down the river.

Part of the solution would be to take away most of the central domestic power of DC. And term limits, And repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. A Convention of States to enact the Liberty Amendments. But those things will not be accomplished by either capitalism or socialism. They can only be accomplished by a fired up electorate. So, how is capitalism going to be the cure to fire them up?

Anonymous said...



You're right. "Progressives" are regressives, regressing to a default condition of fascist rule over the masses. Nor are modern "liberals" liberals. They are lying collectivists. "Republicans" are not republicans. They are lying fascist corporatists. Information services from Media and Academia tend not to be socially responsible. They tend to be lying shills for establishmentarians who control the purse strings. Students are trained not to be truth seekers, but to be easily manipulated, ego-tripping, pleasure seekers.

Our new masters would have us believe that this state of immediate pleasure-seeking affairs is of more value and virtue than the previous state of spiritual influence in the public square. Yet, it shows every sign of being entirely without wherewithal either to right itself or to preserve itself through the next generation.

Anonymous said...

I suspect Jews are especially sensitive to becoming overnight scapegoats. And they intuitively know that liberals (collectivists) will be the first to scapegoat them. So, out of instinctive concern for safety, a lot of them convince themselves they are liberals (collectivists). So, the Jew Jon Stewart, much like the Jew George Soros, has learned how to make a mint by giving the herd what it wants to hear. They think the middle class is the Establishment, so they think themselves brave by helping the oligarchy to burn and bury it. In the rubble, they vie to become favored gold diggers and cattle for fascists and oligarchs, not truth talkers to power.



Much the same applies to young people generally, as they tentatively put their toes into the murky waters of the economy. Like everyone else, they learn how quickly people are challenged, castigated, audited, suspended, demoted, ostracized, fired, fined and punished for professing anything above a whisper that resembles independent thought or personal standards. They are drunk on the idea that they are enlightened, original, and responsible thinkers -- even though they are trained to be mere cattle. And they have learned that they get a free ride for blaming independent thinkers, conservers of liberty, and defenders of middle class property rights.

Anonymous said...

Progs are like Nazi untermensch. They are beggars for gov handouts and ready made plunderers of the middle class. They are not brave or virtuous souls. Our children are going into deep debt to be thoroughly schooled to become disloyal, amoral, walking pleasure addicts and useful idiots for crony fascists. Their "heroic," bestiality-promoting profs stay well ahead of the curve that has been plotted out for their demise. Like moral zombies, they jump on the slippery slope, calling it a fallacy all the way down. They have no shame, and they know it.

Anonymous said...

The 14th pertains to all persons, not all relationships and combinations. If it said all combinations, it would be readily observed to have self nullified, since all combinations would embrace all anti combinations, including polyamorous harems and temporary relationships. If God had said, let there abide in close and equal union all matter and anti-matter, no thing would ever have emerged from the void.

Prog equality-madness would rationalize madness by requiring the tolerance of non-tolerance of tolerance. It would decree that everyone must be treated as if he were simultaneously a she, a multi-hued mix of multi-culti. It would decree that we're all black and married and un-black and un-married, simultaneously. It would put March Hares and Mad Hatters on Scotus and reduce the Constitution to incoherent and de-defined madness. Then again, been there, done that.

No one of the least common sense would take the 14th to have been intended to require that all states or persons must embrace gay marriage. Does the 14th require equal protection for relationships held out to constitute polygamous marriages? You and your cohort have blown far to sea and around the bend.

From its wording, the 14th appears to have been written and planned by illogical madmen (lawyers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham;
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/the-father-of-the-14th-amendment/?_r=0.

Poisoners producing a poison pill for a republic. As such, it avails little coherent sense if if cannot be tempered with common sense. In its wake, we now find a tsunami-driven debris field of insanity.

Anonymous said...

"Republicans" are baldfaced lying corporatist fascists. "Democrats" are baldfaced lying liberal fascists. Elites of neither party want to preserve a representative democracy or republic.

There are now three main brands of fascism in the world: Corporate fascism, Commie fascism, and Islamic fascism. All promise security after subjugation. None serves human freedom or dignity. There is little freedom of conscience left in the world.

Decent, competent Americans are no longer represented. They are lied to and accused of being privileged, of not having earned or built anything they have, and of being phobes, racists, bigots, and haters. If they stick their heads up and speak above a whisper in defense of individual freedom of enterprise and expression, they are promptly monitored, audited, demoted, suspended, fined, fired, boycotted, and ostracized. Change, baby, change.

Anonymous said...

Preemptive Cloward Piven crossing the Delaware. I am thinking we need to collapse the unholy Aino system before the Ainos get our guns. Sometimes, desperate times call for desperate measures. The Amish retire and watch the establishmentarians skirmish among themselves. Maybe we need to arm and anger the Amish? Or retire as Trappist Monks. Is radiation therapy made easier by waiting?

ClowardPiven people tend to want to collapse the system after it has taken our guns. Preemptive Cloward Piven would collapse it before they take our guns. As things stand, the ideal of representative republicanism has already been collapsed in all but name only. We have "Republicans" who are nothing but opportunists intent on reigning in fascism, pretending to be republicans even as they pick off republicans and republican institutions one by one. They are mopping us up.

Should we pretend the republic has not already been collapsed, so they can finish taking our guns?

Anonymous said...

They can only game the system until a critical mass figures out that it is not long sustainable. Then the collapse comes overnight. Like the Second Coming, no one will know the hour or day. But soon. Right now, the only pillar holding this game up is this: Apart from faith in the American Dollar, no one knows where else to turn. But rot cannot stand merely because everything has become rot. When something cannot stand, it will not.

Anonymous said...



I'm about midway, like Buridan's donkey, between sarcasm and seriousness. When trapped in a mental institution, act like an inmate.

Anonymous said...

I doubt the resettlement agenda is hatched by the UN without a green light from billionaire establishment Rinos bent on knifing Conservatives in the back every chance they get. A Republican needs to excite the Conservative base by promising to "fundamentally change" the Republican Party or to replace it.

In 2012, there may have still been time to reverse the complete poisoning of the demographic. I voted for Romney. Since then, the urgency has increased and Rinos have become criminally belligerant about ending the political influence of Conservers of Liberty, forever.

At this point, when it comes to preserving the republic, choosing between an Establishment Rino and an Establishment Dino is like choosing between a Sunni and a Shiite. Soon, the only sensible thing to do will be to stock up, arm up, and encourage the Sunni Rinos and Shiite Dinos to crash and "off" one another. Let them crash while we're still armed. These people were never Americans. They are enemies.

I have a dream. Let us all live on the underground economy. Let us all check the affirmative action bases. Let us all file for welfare help. Let us all make discrimination claims. Let us all, in our own minds, be spiritually black-brown, trans-bi-gendered, multi-cultured, and harem-married. Let us all buy paper Ph D's from mail order colleges run by twittered profs. Let us crash and bring down the Fascist-Commie-Polyglot. Let us become critical mass for Critical Victimology Theory. Let us crash and beg and loot until all God's children will finally say, Victim at last. Victim at last. Thank God Almighty, I'm a victim at last.

We shall defend our freedom, whatever the cost may be. We shall resettle the palaces of the elites and build shanties on their front lawns. We shall crash the enemy on the victim beaches. We shall crash the enemy on the landing torts. We shall file discrimination claims in the streets. We shall assert support claims in the hills. We shall demand 14th Amendment Equality and Quotas for "Spirit"-Black-Brown-Pagan-Victims in the colleges. We shall never surrender.

Spiritually, we're all victims now. Anyone who says we're not is a selectivist, non-inclusive, racist, fascist, chauvenist phobe! Figuratively speaking, of course. S/

Anonymous said...

Your Establishment Rinos and their un-American fascist funders are doing everything they can before the primaries to dump on every Conservative who raises his head to try to defend the Republic.

If you are for preserving the Republic, then ACT LIKE IT, for goodness sakes. Stop acting like you can't wait to kill off Conservatives, even as you SNEER at them for not jumping into your Judas maw. "Republican." What an Orwellian, fascist lie. A republican does not seek to kill the republic.

Anonymous said...

Yup. The non-predators have no organized representation. Neither will they get it by voting for those who hunt them.

I won't call you childish. I will call you blind, depraved, or both. How great: The crocodile fights against the lion for the privilege of devouring the water buffalo. Yay.

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

Anonymous said...

Every "Republican" who votes to encourage illegal and third world immigration, for increased central gov, for central financing of child grooming, for central enforcement of SSM, and for "free trade" that amounts to undermining domestic small business is in effect voting for entitlement-minded cannibals.

Your mask doesn't fit you or the Establishment-Rino dopes.

Anonymous said...

You're a rival gangster skirmishing to push another gang to the margins of your predatory territory. Once the dust settles, you will rejoin them in their predatory practices, to cannibalize the republic. You do not represent Americans. You represent predators and their trained prey. You show not the least concern that the republic is being destroyed before our eyes.

Anonymous said...

I don't know that the a-wipes will learn anything, but there may be a chance. Certainly, voting for your own back stabber is not an ESS (evolutionary stable strategy).

Anonymous said...

Rino slogan addressed to Conservatives: Vote for me, so I can push the knife deeper into your backs and kill off the representative republic.

Yup, that's gonna attract the home folks. Given a choice between Sunni Rinos and Shiite Dinos, I will be mainly interested in watching out for my own back and looking for a few good people.

Anonymous said...

If you believe the mass of welfare-doper-entitlement humanity actually thinks beyond its genitalia, remembers beyond last week's news, or thinks beyond what it's instructed by its information managers to think, then you are simply as mushed as they are. You are either blind to the program being funded for border invasion or you are an agent for it. I would suggest a new spiritual adviser.

Anonymous said...

"Republicans" are baldfaced lying corporatist fascists. "Democrats" are baldfaced lying "liberal" fascists. Elites of neither party want to preserve a representative democracy or republic.

There are now four main brands of fascism extant in the world. By fascism, I mean rule by crony profiteers who control, regulate, allocate, and permit access to nearly all means of production. The four brands are: International Corporate fascism, Chinese Commie fascism, Suicidal Islamic fascism, and Prison Planet Poly Queer Sexual Aggression. All promise security or peace after subjugation (or death during jihad). None serves human freedom or dignity. There is little freedom of conscience left in the world.

Decent, competent Americans are no longer represented. They are lied to and accused of being privileged, of not having earned or built anything they have, and of being phobes, racists, bigots, and haters. If they stick their heads up and speak above a whisper in defense of individual freedom of enterprise and expression, they are promptly monitored, audited, demoted, suspended, fined, fired, boycotted, and ostracized. Change, baby, change.