Sunday, September 20, 2015


I think there's too much of a finger-in-the-eye tendency against every faith in higher purposefulness.  Yes, A is A.  But that also means that Consciousness is Consciousness.  It abides and connects. What is, has been, and will continue to be.  All of consciously measurable physics is derivative of one immeasurable field of meta empathy.  How we think about that field ("God") deeply affects how we relate to one another in any meaningful terminology of morality. 

A person who constructs an anti-belief system concerning the moral empathy that powers the Source Field will yet construct an alternative belief system for a replacement moral code. In this, so long as a person is consciously aware, he has no choice.  If he thinks he is not making a choice, the consciousness of that, itself, is an experience of moral choice.  Every conscious rationalization of meaningfulness or moral purposefulness, to the extent it follows any consistent or coherent theme, will be in respect of some adaptation of a moral code.  Every vectored being rationalizes and follows a code.

It's not so much that this general state of affairs is not conclusive.  It's that it is unavoidable.  Experience of a point of view that in some aspect connects in moral empathy is unavoidable.  It is for us to be receptive to a path that may best allow that-which-in-common-defines-us to instil us with moral meaningfulness. 

For example, we can rationalize and serve an ideal of a caring, forgiving, grace-granting, and inviting Reconciler (Jesus).  Or we can rationalize and subjugate ourselves to an ideal of an ever vengeful and head cutting Monster (Allah).  Sometimes, in our memes, we must compete in a Darwinian-like zero-sum contest.  Other times, we can cooperate in expanding the unfoldment of possibilities.  We can "tolerate" the surrender of Obama-ilk to evil and to every "diverse" and immediate gratification of glandular impulse.  We can poke a finger in the eye of everyone who empathetically pursues a meta City on a Hill.  Or we can join the pursuit of freedom under law.

Humane civilization requires freedom under law.  Too much freedom leads towards moral anarchy.  Too much law leads towards fascist despotism.  The way we inspire a path to a "Goldilocks" balance of freedom under law is by inspiring belief in, and acceptance of, a foundation for a moral code.  A foundation beyond the unreality of sand and superior to the despotism of excessive regulation.  Dignity without fascist rule. For that, we reach out to "the Man upstairs."  But you can fictionalize Him as "Flower" if you want to.


Anonymous said...

Civilizations are hollowing. Churches are pandering. And the Left loves to pander and be pandered to.

If Catholicism preaches the "goodness" of poverty, Islam preaches the "goodness" of ignorance, depravity, inhumanity, and monstrosity. Maybe the judgment of the Lord tends more like karma than bliss or hell. IAE, we seem often to merit and make ourselves and our societies fit for what we really believe.

If this Pope advocates more measures that will flip our demographic beyond 47% bananaville, then I will have no use for him. He is not an ignorant man. So, if he does advocate for immigration policies designed to smudge America into a one-world, two-class, fascist-despotism, then I will become convinced that he is an irretrievable servant of the ungood. If he thinks sharing America's wealth will help bananazillions, then let him advocate for sharing the wealth of the Vatican.

I tend to skepticism when I see people trying to divine the future from past prophecy. But Russians near Meggido does set up the hair on my neck. Most of us probably whistle past graveyards. If you want to imagine the still quiet voice of God laughing, tell Him your plans for tomorrow. Meanwhile, Obama golfs. And extends his middle finger.

History, to the eyes of Blacks and Muslims, has been only too kind (and contrived). So long as diversity for the sake of diversity prevails, with no thought or philosophy or excellence, and so long as the demographic remains flipped to bananaziliions, goatphiliacs, and proglydytes, history will not be unkind to "Obama's people." Bananazillions simply blow up, smudge out, and make illegal all history that is contrary to their self image. History, as a subject, is not unkind to people who don't give a flip about history. History, as reality, is.

The demographic is nearly flipped. 47%. The number of people who still admire and defend Obama and Hillary is disheartening. With the right (prodigiously ignorant) demographic, you can tell them anything, and, with coordinated support from goons and media, they will believe it. With the right demographic, facts do not matter. Tell them employment is up and the economy is improving and they will believe it -- no matter what. Until, that is, a conserver of liberty becomes President. Then, all the forces of two-class fascism will come together to arouse the large class of the brainfrozen and undead -- who measure their intellectual understanding by the degree of their brainlock.

Representatives of a decent and competent citizenry should have pulled the churlish child out of the White House and impeached him long ago. Our metrosexualized demographic is now barely fit to continue under the structure the Founders so painstakingly provided. Shall we yet get the gov we deserve?

Cruz for Veep. We don't need another Reagan/Bush ticket. We need 8 years of cleaning house followed by another 8 years of intelligent leadership. No Bush-Wuss for Veep!

Anonymous said...

If we get behind Trump because of the immigration and anchor-baby issue, if we pray and rally about it, that will be his mandate. We merit and become what we consume, believe, and rally for. If we rally for immigration control, Trump will build it, and it will come.

The daylight between Trump and Cruz does not seem to be that high and wide. We need to not put all our eggs in one basket. Among possible disestablishmentarians, we do not have nearly the number of options as some people assume. Basically, we have Trump and Cruz. If there are others, who are they?

The establishment keeps trying to force de facto comprehensive immigration reform down our throats, without calling it that. The only candidates resisting that are Trump and Cruz, and I'm not so sure about Cruz. If this anchor-baby comprehensive-jive is not run out of Dodge, the republic will be toast.

A relative works at Lowe's. Hispanic shoppers there are becoming more brazen. They expect clerks to speak Spanish. When they don't, they often get lectured that they should learn. The republic is being overrun with people who have no intention whatsoever of assimilating to the ideal of a representative republic. They want a socialst-fascist, two-class society. One that will be ruled by El Jefe, Mohammad, or Goldfinger.

Conservers of Liberty want someone who will take on the crony establishment. Walker has done some good stuff. But where has he shown concern to take on the establishment? On unions, he found a rift among rino and dino establishmentarians and exploited it. But what has he done against establishmentarians, generally? Enforcing the border to cut off the cheap labor and easily-bribed votes that are destroying the republic should have been a no-brainer. No one who fails or flips on that test can pretend to be the kind of disestablishmentarian that we need.

Walker will need to do more than gain experience to ever restore credibility among conservatives. He will have to undergo and display a philosophical metamorphosis.

Likewise as to Rubio. He has shown to be a smooth debater, but can he be trusted to save the republic from having its electorate permanently flipped to socialism by third world immigration and politically correct national suicide? See

Carson deserves more consideration, because of his common sense about Islam. He may well be good Veep material.

Cruz needs to rethink his STEM visa bs. That has demoted him to Veep material.

Fiorina needs to be vetted. If vetting shows her to be a shill for JEB and the establishment, then she needs to be given the bum discard.

So far, Trump is still the man.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who reaches the age of 21 who has not yet been able to figure out that Islam is a religion of monstrosities has likely been forever brain damaged.

On reflection, I think Carson needs to amend himself. No Muslim is compatible to hold any governmental office in the U.S., period. For that matter, no Muslim who acts on his faith is compatible to be in the U.S. at all -- without being closely profiled, monitored, detained, quarantined, or held for deportation.

Read the Koran and see for yourself. It has very little of evocative poetry, history, or philosophy. It consists mainly of low and repetitive mutterings of pagan confusion and hate. Maybe if you're deprived of other sensory experience, high on drugs, banging your head, and under the supervison of a swordsman it might be more inspiring.

Islam is incompatible with a representative republic. To advocate for Islam is to advocate for treason. As some point, moving beyond advocacy to action should be ground for detention, quarantine, or deportation.

I am sure oaths are being lightened so that Muslim "allegiance" will suffice to allow our idiotic political class to grant them citizenship. Regardless, they need each have only eight or so offspring with "birthright citizenship" to embed their poison and mind disease deeply and thoroughly throughout our land.


It's refreshng to see that so many Chistians among the Founders did NOT retract themselves into turtlesome incapacity to make manly defenses of hearth and country. These Christian founders of the nation did NOT turn cheeks interminably to foreign transgressions. They did NOT shy from vigorous confrontation of metrosexualized hand-wringing about political correctness or the potential hurt feelings of femimen. Far too many modern, fem-faux, poison-ivy christians are making mockeries of their religion and their country. That which cannot defend itself, won't.

Anonymous said...

PC brain infestations are rife amongst us. Some questions answer themselves: Should a people who profess belief in representative republicanism elect as their President someone who is a sworn antagonist of representative republicanism? Hmmm. Wouldn't want to rush to "hateful judgmentalism."

Carson is right about DC. It's being operated by people whose cranial cavities have been sucked dry. As Muslims turn mouths into sewage hydrants, Progs turn anuses into love canals, and Cronies turn govs into commodities, towers of manmade pride and false virtue crumble and confusion runs amuck.

Animals are often guided by scent organs not to make fundamental mistakes. As humans began developing powers of abstract reasoning towards remoter and higher purposes, their sense of smell atrophied and they came to rely more on socially developed codes of higher morality. Now, those codes are being toppled or transmogrified. They are being replaced by secular humanism, which is not up to the task. Or they are being twisted into mind control freakery. Cry havoc, for two-class, parasite-host, crony-shill, scientist-sophist muckdom is unleashed throughout the earth.

Rumblings are growing louder. People in nations under expansionist Pax Americana believe their votes should count for more in determining how America adventures abroad. More rationalization for erasing borders, expanding citizenship, increasing voting rights, and deferring to votes and deals made abroad. Especially as people in other nations witness the growing stupidity in our own. After all, we twice elected Obama, and many are now calling for Biden.

There seem to be two alternatives for addressing this. Either tighten up on American citizenship, reawaken common sense, push allies to grow up, and quarantine Islam and Thugism. Or erase borders and lead the world in sinking back into the slime of lowest-common-denominator, two-class fascism. PC Progs, jihadis, and cronies advocate tolerance for the sink-back-into-slime alternative.

Unlike all the others, Trump has sense enough to read the real pulse of the common working people.

DC has become PC -- Parasitical Corruption, passing under the friendlier name of Political Correctness.

Anonymous said...

The actions one would expect to evidence Obama's faith, if he were either Christian or Muslim, are not there. Some people say the Islamic sins Obama commits are evidence he must not be a Muslim. Smoking, dancing, drinking, etc. But what of his Christian sins? Undermining the Christian West, arming jihadis, fostering abortion, encouraging lawlessness, promoting homosexuality, undermining family mores, encouraging migrations that break up families?

If sin were evidence of his being not a Muslim, for all the more reason it would be evidence of his being not a Christian. Where was he raised, what was he taught, who does he bow to, associate with, promote, and take advice from? What to him is the most beautiful sound in the world? What is on the ring that he wears? Why did he say he would stand with Muslims? Where did he make some of his earliest addresses after being nominated and elected? If we should believe him merely because he says he is a Christian (opportunist and sympathizer), why should we not believe him when he says, before being corrected, that he is a Muslim (opportunist and sympathizer)?

Are the media disseminators of information, or are they sowers of confusion and promoters of one-world fascism? It is obvious to everyone who is not clueless or sold out that Obama serves an agenda of destroying representative republicanism and the American Ideal. It is just as obvious that proglydytes and the media are his helpmates.


Why would Obama be meaning to talk about McCain besmirching his Christian faith? That makes no sense. It was obvious that Obama was expressing thanks that McCain had not besmirched him for his Muslim sympathies (faith). Obama may not be a literalistic believer in Islam, but he does believe in a totalitarian, two-class agenda that is not unlike that of Islam. Obama did not mis-speak when he said Muslim. He simply mis-calculated when he expressed outloud the word faith. His mouth got ahead of, and betrayed, his mind.


Anonymous said...

Nearly half the populace is above average intellect. They have seen how the 47% have been manipulated by con artists and cronies. They have seen the perverse fruits of community organizers, liberation theologists, and critical studies hacks. They know how much rot has floated to the top of the power chain. They know that rot has promoted rot. They know the institutions of media, academia, international corporatism, banking, insuring, lawyering, judging, entertaining, and preaching have been mainly filled with the rot of corrupt liars. Insofar as trust is the most important part of social capital, it is at a very low tide. Sins, skeletons, and screams are nearing full exposure. Comes a reckoning.


The idea of foisting liberation theology as a justification for state-forced redistributions, as if they were a form of charity (Christ with a sword), seems to have permeated the under-levels of the brains of at least 47% of America's electorate. Probably more in most other nations.

Now, every time a Conservative questions a statist encroachment, these "under brains" jump to their battle stations. In nearly every case, they are willing to trade their inheritance and submit, subjugate, and sacrifice human dignity for nothing more than a bowl of pottage.

This has gone well beyond mere conspiracy. Collectivizers have united to a grand vision of an NWO ruled by elitists. Why else have so many academics gotten in on the easy act of "critical studies" and "liberation theology"? See "The struggle of women for social justice has given rise to its own liberation theology, frequently known as feminist theology in Europe and North America."

The replacement of the Pope fits nicely with the rise of Liberation Theology throughout the world.

See "In March 1983, Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), made ten observations of Gutiérrez's theology, accusing Gutiérrez of politically interpreting the Bible in supporting temporal messianism, and stating that the predominance of orthopraxis over orthodoxy in his thought proved a Marxist influence. Ratzinger objected that the spiritual concept of the Church as "People of God" is transformed into a "Marxist myth." In liberation theology he declared, the "people is the antithesis of the hierarchy, the antithesis of all institutions, which are seen as oppressive powers. Ultimately anyone who participates in the class struggle is a member of the "people"; the "Church of the people" becomes the antagonist of the hierarchical Church."

Every person who still advocates for individual dignity is immediately jumped on by zombie hordes of so-called liberation theologists, feminists, and social justice warriors. The zombie gotcha screech goes out: He's warring on women! He's a racist bigot misogynist hillbilly islamaphobe! He must apologize! Soon it will be, Stone him!

Anonymous said...

It can be foolish to waste limited time and energy arguing with people who are interested not in truth but only in an agenda. Sometimes, Cruz may decline to engage. Once you engage with some particles, like morons and gluons, it can be very hard to escape.


Progs do not want to educate the masses. They want to appeal to feelings about fairness. They want to mislead with liberation theologists, social justice warriors, and wealth redistributers. They want to maleducate them, so they can harvest them.

Progs ask questions that are designed to hammer everyone who has a brain.

Do you believe a mind slaver (Muslim) should be President of a free thinking nation? Do you believe a man who thinks upon himself as a woman is a woman? Do you believe incest laws that do not forbid a brother from marrying a brother discriminate by forbidding a brother from marrying a sister? Do you believe Muslims, out of cultural sensitivity, should be allowed to rape goats and little boys? Do you believe illegals are citizens who should be allowed to vote? Do you agree that Jesus was against the ownership by individuals of property? Do you agree that deporting illegal aliens is racist? Do you agree that police arrests should be limited to quotas based on race? Do you agree that everyone who hurts another perons's feelings should be made to pay damages for mental anguish? Do you believe that people who answer these questions incorrectly should be ordered to attend anger management reeducation camps?


See I think Rev. Wright is sympathetic both to Marxism and to Islam.

History is replete with mind control regimes. Such regimes seem to have begun with rationalizations for elitist plunder and rule, under notions that the King is God's agent on earth and can do no wrong. Then Constantine became emperor and claimed right to conquer under the banner of Christianity. For awhile, Popes acquired armies. Then Mohammad got another idea for plunder, rationalized under an idea of totalitarian rule over a submissive world. Then Marx thought to perfect collective betterment under a dictatorship of the proletariat, after which, in some future world, utopia, or heaven the state would wither away.

Before there was Marxism, there was Islam. After Marxism, came Black Liberation Theology. Both Black Liberation Theologists and Black Muslims want to damn, replace, and "fundamentally change" America.

What is astonishing is how many so-called brainiac academics failed to blow the whistle and instead lined up to be marched into this. How many times will people allow academics to line them up to board the cattle trains?


On the likelihood that Obama, for 20 years, chose the non-Christian Black Liberation Theology church (first cousin to Islam?*) for strictly political purposes:

Has there been even one episode of Obama in any way acting like a Christian, except when he is conflating Marxism with Christianity? Except to dare, scandalize, confound, or confuse antagonists (or seek gay companionship), when does Obama attend church or purport to be a Christian? Does he tithe? Instruct his children? Teach humility? Seek to serve Americans rather than to grind them under? Have Christian friends? Appoint Christians to influential offices?

(*Ed Klein, the author of this controversial new book The Amateur: “Well, I was very interested in another part of that, as well, which is, when I asked the Reverend Wright about this whole question of Islam and Christianity. He said, well, you know, Barack Obama was steeped in Islam. He knew a lot about Islam from his childhood. But he knew very little about Christianity. And I made it easy for him to feel not guilty about learning about Christianity without turning his back on his Islamic friends.”)

Anonymous said...

Some people (the ruled, aka Dinos) are incompetent and fearful unless they can obligate a collective to tend to them. Some people (the rulers, aka Rinos) see opportunity to bilk incompetents by falsely promising to take care of them. Some people (competent middle class producers, aka, Americans) just want to be responsible for themsleves, pursue their own relationships with their Creator and friends, and otherwise be mainly left alone by gang bangers. Dinos want to suck from Americans, Rinos want to steal from Americans. When the stealing and conniving rulers and the incompetent ruled gang up in one party, the Rino-Dino-Aino Party (aka, the party of Progs), they can fleece the hell out of Americans.

So Progs do not want to educate the masses. They want to appeal to feelings about fairness (which is code for using the force of gov to beg and steal). They want to mislead with liberation theologists, social justice warriors, and wealth redistributers. They want to maleducate them, so they can harvest them.