Saturday, April 23, 2016

Wheat and Chaff

It is interesting that the foundational Christian idea has to do with heaven as a place where wheat has been separated from chaff. Philosophy of responsibility has to do with teaching each new generation to make a way for its progeny. Not just to sustain them, but to avail their surpassage towards their own dreams. A work in progress, forming in respect of an unfolding and assimilating process of feedback and Reconciliaton of purposefulness that is allowed expression from many points of view.

This begs the fundamental moral question for civilization: What is needed to sustain the unfolding surpassage of decent society that moderates and avails the flowering of human freedom and dignity?

The answer is not unrestricted linearity in any direction. Certainly not in unsustainable population. Nor in stifling regulation. And not in the crony-commie-jihadi elimination of humanity by imposing elitist or central despotism that breeds and imports liberty-illiterate gang-bangers to kill the purpose of each perspective to be responsible to its own freedom of thought.

What is needed is freedom within law. Broad parameters for the unfolding of faith-family-fidelity. Not stifling nazi elites of gov busybodies. Not Morlochs impugning Eloi as racist, misogynist, bigoted, chauvenistic, parochial, phobic, privileged, or repressed. Not interconnected villages of Eloi ruled to the nines of worldwide syndication by gross, nasty, knowitall Clintonesque Morlochs passing out "free" pizza. The federal ideals of the Founders, not the phony, blow-dried, elitist scum of the Chooming-Socialist-Fascist-Totalitarian mind slavers. We are overdue for casting aside the chaff and tares.


I went to a snake farm about 10 years ago and watched as mice were fed to the snakes. Often, there were two snakes in the same glass cage. So the mouse would leap wildly away from one snake head only to go to the other. An athletic mouse might last several volleys, but his end was inevitable. He had no chance unless he could beat both snakes at once, as by opening a crack in the roof and leaping through. Likewise, our republic has no chance against the uni-beast of crony-commie fascist-socialism unless ordinary Americans see that two-headed beast as the single evil that it is.

Commies know they are aligned with crony billionaires, and cronies know the commies are their vanguard of agitators. It's only the American mice who delude themselves by thinking they can save themselves by alternating between making common cause with crony snakes versus commie snakes. The snakeheads have merged into one beast, so that we will save the republic only by vanquishing it. To devise a strategy, we need to identify the beast. And not think we make progress by naming one head crony fascist and the other head commie socialist. We can name one head Rino and the other Dino, but they are equally set on devouring us.

Whether in guise as crony or commie, the two headed, fork tongued beast is out to feed on us. Both of the heads are anti-American, despotic totalitarians. It serves little purpose to worry about whether one should be called fascist and the other socialist. Especially since they revolve, writhe, and ball together so much.


Properly viewed, the crony-commie axis of fascists-socialists has hardly ever "failied." Each new axis tends merely to be a variant on people farming, which has been the successful and default condition of humanity for thousands of years.
Yes, if you take false promises as the metric, as if they were not intended to be false, then both cronyism and communism fail. But pie-in-sky promises are hardly ever intended as much more than lures, to keep the masses quiescent. Bread and circuses, bait and switch, good cop-bad cop, and divide and rule were not invented yesterday.
One needs to take a cold, hard look and observe that human decency is not confronted by evil to be alternatively fought between two snakes. Rather, the evil to be fought is of one beast with a head at each end. Unless both heads are chopped off, the cutting of one merely produces the immediate growth of a replacement. Against cluelessness, that one beast has always been successful.
If one takes a cold, hard look to see the permutations of empire-tribute, aristocracy-feudalism, oligarchy-kabuki, priest-carny, and gangster-vig for what fallible humans have always intended them to be, then one learns that they have been enormously successful for eons.
What has been much less successful and much harder to sustain has been human decency, as under a system of representative republicanism. That does not blossom except under careful nurturing by an enlightened populace.
Because modern progressive liberalism seeks to replace republican liberty with despotic regulation and "security," it is a mortal threat to human decency. And it has eons on its side, regardless of the many different names its devilishness goes by. Too many among our citizenry are oblivious that our republic is critically endangered by a very old and wily foe that is anything but "unsuccessful."


The entire world could spiral into desperate madness, and I doubt Obama or Hillary would feel any responsibility. Just regret that (s)he was not able to stomp the boot harder.
When man began to farm plants, oligarchs began to farm man. The mindset of King Djer of Egypt, Menes, Sargon of Akkad, Wǔ Wáng, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Caesar, Constantine, Attila the Scourge, Mohammad, Charlemagne, Ragnar Lodbrok, Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, Montezuma, Ivan the Terrible, Tammerlane, Robespierre, Napoleon, Al Capone, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Castro, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein, Saud, Nicolae Ceausescu, Khomeini, Jim Jones, Bill Ayers, Hillary Clinton, was that the whole village, country, or even world could burn, if needed to appease their power lust.
Obama the Choomer only seems to be kinder and gentler because, in his situation, he recognizes the iron fist can do more damage if concealed in a velvet glove. Like all sociopaths, Obama holds close to his vest his license to conceal his anti-humanity.
Our Founders saw representative republicanism as the one path for avoiding the default condition of mankind, which has been peon servitude under sociopathic despots. However, Obama, those who shill for him, and those he serves prefer the default condition, albeit under other labels. Does Hillary suck up obscene dollars from cronies because she wants to serve commies? It's ludicrous even to ask.


Obama had never been captured or deprived. He had been coddled and entertained from his inception. He was not leading desperate, dying, abused men. He was leading entitlement minded whiny babies who wanted to party more than work. Unlike in most of the rest of the world, he and his followers always had the freedom to make their own ways.
There is one explanation for Obama's path, and it is not ignorance. It is wilful blindness, because he chose the path of corruption. He was never about giving. He was always about narcissism, chooming, and diva posing. A legend in his own mind, that, unfortunately, too many corrupt Americans voted to entertain.
Obama is fundamently unable to ask, "What have I done." The most we can hope for is that some small portion of his followers, i.e., the 47%, can wake up, join humanity, and ask that question. Obama did not succumb to Stockholm Syndrome. He simply grew up immersed in evil and found he liked it. Given his tamped down hatred of whites, straights, Christians, and ordinary Americans, the only thing he is wondering is, "How can I screw them up even more?" Like his crony and commie backers, Obama is jealous and angry that ordinary Americans can find meaning and purposefulness without bowing to or depending on him. As a false messiah, he will never stop tryng to deceive or force ordinary people, even foreigners, into believing that he is the way.
Congress and the others that project to believe there is any decency in Obama continue to be fundamentally mistaken, which is why he has not been impeached and removed. And he and his well established ilk are not done yet. We are in the war of our lives against entrenched evil. Unless you want to make yourself Eloi dinner for incorrigible Morlochs, now is not the time to impute good will to fundamental corruption.


I have to laugh, or else I would hang my head in despair -- even as I reminisce about what Churchill said about democracy. I despair that demagoguery and guilt by association are proven methods for persuading morons, and morons (the Dem base, mainly) can vote.

I just read Stranger in a Strange Land. In it, the Man from Mars felt he could never become fully human until he could grok laughing. When he finally groked it, he laughed uncontrollably to such a point that it appeared he might die. What he finally got was that the entire and only basis for laughter is in the trauma and tragedy that routinely befall humanity. We have to laugh, or we would go mad.
I have nothing convincing I can say about your cite. I can only laugh. Thanks for the jab. :)


Anonymous said...

It's amazing how, when times are corrupt, the worst dregs get promoted, and dupes see them with stars in their eyes -- as if they were really smart, principled, or trustworthy. People should have done more analysis of Unlimited Access, by Gary Aldrich, back when it was first published. We might have learned how easily we get saddled with so-called elites who are the furthest things from smart, principled, trustworthy, or even decent.

We need to brush away the stars. More often, the barkers who appeal to our lofos are barely mediocre, drug dependent, sex addled loudmouths made to look good simply because they have become shameless masters at lying on tv. Their résumés tend to be padded b.s. Their accomplishments phony. Their moral principles non-existent. Their humanity sub-par -- at best.

If our society had a shred of decency, there is no way any informed or morally sane person could read Aldrich's book and then want the Clinton barkers back in the White House.

Anonymous said...

Voting rights should in main be the prerogative of each state. The sentence should include probation or parole. Only after that is cleared should the right to vote be restored. That would help exclude the recidivists while restoring reasonable opportunity to the rest.

Dick the Prog Butcher: First thing we do, let the felons and fraudsters choose our leaders.

But to get the real floaters de la floaters (like Obama and the Clintoons), fill the electorate with liberty-illiterates, illegals, choomers, race barkers, reconquistas, bathroom toms, arse lifters, rock worshippers, souldeads, fiat money pyramiders, goat lovers, child abusers, family destroyers, and nation cannibalizers. Teach this as the New Civics. Filter everyone who has any sense away from the professoriate. Then get Norway and "elite" colleges to bless all dregs with prizes so CNN can obscure our vision by putting phony starz in our eyes. And tell everyone character doesn't matter because it's all about the finances.

The Clinton's are not much worried because they are shameless. And they know their base has no scruples and the establishment kickback-media will support them. Conservatives aren't so swayed by the media, but the rest of the electorate is, so long as the media tells them what they want to hear: That they will get free stuff from Dems and that Repubs will impede their entitlements and gratifications. That's why we're where we are, and we didn't get here yesterday. If anything, our nation is far more corrupt and ignorant than when the Clintons were in office the last time.

We need to take a cold look, because that 47% Romney talked about is more like 49% now, and it's more corrupt than ever. There's not a big pool left for Repubs to fight about. Essentially, they have to get their base out to vote, and they have to fight hard for a few percentage points among the youthfully duped, the hopelessly unemployed, and the elderly scared. I'm not sure Trump can sell to them.

I would rather not choose between Trump and Cruz on first aroused emotion. They have both said good things and bad things. I would rather take as close and objective a look as I can.

I am not so sure Cruz is a globalist. He says he wants to improve our economy by encouraging businesses and jobs at home. He says some foreign visas are needed to help that cause. But I agree, that was pandering to globalists and poor politicking to his base.

Anonymous said...

The establishment is being forced to take sides between Trump and Cruz. At least temporarily. But "the establishment" does not seem to be monolithic. I have not been able to discern which side most of the establishment has gone to.

Trump seems to get a lot of free coverage. Add Giuliani and Dole, among others. Hannity seems to favor Trump. O'Reilly plays patty-cake with Trump. While the establishment is flirting with both of them, it is entertained as each of them accuses the other of being most in bed with the establishment.

It's almost as if chains were being pulled to keep each of them off balance until both of them can be denied and replaced. I don't think top level establishmentarians fear or even dislike Hillary. So they don't have to front Kasich. All they need do is to keep enticing and exciting hate between supporters of Trump and Cruz.

As much as Trump and Cruz profess to dislike the establishment, they are both either playing into its hands or else one or both of them is really an establishment shill. Will the real anti-establishmentarian please stand up?

If both Trump and Cruz are truly anti-establishmentarians, then they need a go-between to negotiate a peace. Unless, that is, Trump believes he can get to 1237 without having alienated so many people that he would be unelectable. Personally, I think time is drawing nigh, people are hardening in their alienation, and there is real danger that the establishment will manage a coup. And I am not entirely sure that is not what Trump and/or Cruz want. We thought they were both champions of anti-establishmentarians. That was what they told us. But were either of them, really? If so, show it. Show it by stopping the insanity that alienates.

If there were more than two contenders in the general election, Trump could defeat Hillary with his antics. But there will be only two. What we don't know is whether Trump, in a two person race, can convince a majority in order to win either a debate or an election. We don't know whether Trump is informed and mentally agile enough to perform well in a debate that will go beyond name calling. He has not been vetted in that regard, so we have little idea what sort of cat we have in the bag. I dred letting the cat out and hearing it go, "Hiss. Oops."

If Trump can get elected, I don't think debate agility will be that important. I think his managerial experience would make him a fine President. People like myself, who believe he is right on most of the key issues, can support him. Problem is, a lot of people are twisted, fuzzy, or mis-informed on the issues. And those lofos will be likely to discount Trump if he does not perform better in majoritarian debates and optics. I am not sure he is electable, and I expect the conventioneers will feel the same way. So long as Trump avoids a one on one debate with Cruz, the conventioneers will be throwing a Hail Mary with a cat sack, in the dark.

Anonymous said...

Trump has now had considerable experience in debating. The fact that he has had less experience than Hillary is good reason for needing more practice before he gets to her. We don't want to have him say "oops" when the timing is crucial.

Trump knows that the audience (jury) tends to even out the game by handicapping the person perceived as having the more debating experience. They are not scoring for debating points. They are scoring for which candidate can best lead to make America great again.

Given how much free coverage Trump has gotten, one may legitimately consider this: Among Trump's most ardent supporters, how many have gotten that way on account of careful weighing of factors as opposed to emotional stirring of pots? Have they been made more rabid by reasoning or more irrational by emotion?

Unless Trump consents to a one on one debate against Cruz, how can we guess how he will do when a majority of votes is required instead of a mere plurality? If Cruz is such damaged goods, why fear a one-on-one debate? If Trump cannot dispose of Cruz in a one-on-one contest, how will he dispose of Hillary (who will be backed by monstrous media and frothy volleys of Dem trained zombies)?

Will Trump be able to convert more of those who view Hillary negatively than Hillary will be able to convert of those who view Trump negatively?

To weigh that determination, would a sensible, empirical-minded person want a one-on-one test, or would he be content to guess while a number of unaccounted for free variables pollute his test? Well, if he's looking for an exciting and emotional bet, he would prefer that his bet not first be vetted. He would want a free for all melee. Not a series of vetting, one-on-one contests. Maybe Trump should choose Vince McMahon as running mate while Hillary chooses Don King.

I admire Trump for most of his positions. I regret, however, that video kentansay referred to is effective. And it will be viewed by Prog Goonies. I really think Trump needs help.

I am not sure, however, where he will find it. If Cruz is not the patriot I had hoped he was, he may not be willing to give it. And most of the others are not really anti-establishmentarians who can connect with mainstream American values. If Hillary is elected, America will be worse off than Eddy Arnold in this song:

Meanwhile, Hillary's crew will be rounding up their cattle people.

Anonymous said...

On the important points, it's hard for a good American to be against Trump's positions. They seem extreme only because the wings of the Evil Buzzard that reviles them have become so extreme.

However, what really is extreme is wanting to continue importing Muslims after all that has transpired since 9-1-01. What is extreme is wanting to continue flipping the demographic into liberty illiterates, reconquistas, looters, and jihadis. What is extreme is wanting to allow women to kill their babies by partial birth abortions. What is extreme is feeding the money laundering between foundations and foreign kickback concerns. What is extreme is enriching, empowering, and arming the enemies of representative republicanism. What is extreme is fitting the producing middle class into regulatory strait jackets and then weaponizing the IRS against them. What is extreme is teaching kids, coeds, gullibles, seniors, pervs, and looters that American producers are evil, privileged whites. What is extreme is giving special advantages to felons, whiners, looters, jihadis, illegals, and cop killers.

What is extreme is making all virtues out to be non-PC, such as: thinking and acting responsibly, for yourself; working instead of whining, begging, and blaming; respecting common mores of decency; being responsible to your children.

It is only because of 24-7-365 propaganda pouring out of every crony-run institution that PC has turned virtue upside down. Trump's values are mainstream American. The values of the wings of the Evil Buzzard are what are extreme.

Two wings of the filthy, lying, Evil Buzzard that stalks America are Fascist Rinos and Socialist Dinos. When the Evil Buzzard fails to convince Americans that Trump's positions are evil, it attacks Trump on his hair, manner of speaking, past associations, and social proclivities.

In defending himself against those attacks, Trump is not smooth or polished. He could use an assist by Cruz, if Trump and Cruz could become so inclined. Trump is better on the issues, while Cruz is less alienating on the presentation. Cruz is disliked by Trump supporters because it seems Cruz is not as good on the issues. Because we have not had one-on-one vetting, this is not entirely clear. Cruz may be better however, on Scotus appointments. However, the more likely it becomes that such will not come to pass, the more likely it seems that the Evil Buzzard may prevail.

Anonymous said...

Women tend to be more tolerant of Progs and Muslims -- even the ones that want to mutilate, chain, and cover them. Women generally are less driven by logic than by feelings. So the ones that do get logic are often confronted by a militant front of crazed beatchies, reinforced by years of indoctrination under feminazi teachers and femimen profs.

I care about Trans people. For their own good and the good of society, I care that they should learn how to cope without insisting on turning every social institution upside down just to suit their wannas. I care that they should be protected against Morlochs who want to destroy the republic and replace it with a system of forced fascist dehumanization that will make everyone suffer, including the trannies.

The Prog goal is to break down and discredit the institution of the family. It takes a village of demented pervs like Hillary and Bill to raise our children.

Obama fundamentally changed the government. Hillary wants to fundmentally change the family. She wants children to be free of adult oppression. Free to sue their parents if repressed, with the parents to pay for their attorneys. Remember the Dad who lost in a suit by his daughter to force him to contribute to her college education, after she reached age of 18 and decided she no longer had to follow his rules? Hillary loves trannies and pansexuals. Probably literally. She thinks her proclivities should be made requirements for the rest of society to endure. The Clintons. Remember Bill at Lolita Island?

Using 24-7-365 propaganda, dope, and strange sex, Progs want to be free to make children fair game for party abuse. Once they warp enough children, there will be no way back to any decent republic of sustainable faith, family, or fidelity. Rather, there will permanent feasting by faithless, soulless, conscience-less Morlochs, preying on young, senile, gullible, and weak Eloi. Brave New Time Machine.

Rotted Morlochs are using the dead, the felonious, the doped, the ignorant, the faithless, and the predators to tip the electorate beyond 50%. Run for your human privilege!

Anonymous said...

I sympathize. I am not sure you are wrong, but I think you are. We go back and forth on whether the best way to reform is through centralization or decentralization. An elitist who thinks he knows best in all things will always want centralization that fits his level of power.

I look at the question from a remoter, more philosophical perspective. I think the purpose of being a human being has a lot to do with growing up to become an individually competent, responsible, free thinking, free acting agent. To aspire to less is to be not quite human. I think it is evil to smudge out an individual's opportunity to become his own free thinking perspective of the godhead.

At the State, local, or family level, there is more opportunity for self expression. Yes, my heart goes out to kids who are born to cruel and incompetent parents. However, the more the State intrudes, the more the number and level of incompetents and incompetence seems to increase. Just my take. I am not sure I am right, but it's what I believe based on the best I have been able to ascertain.

Freedom may be hard to define, but it tends to be sorely missed once it's gone. I'm about to plow into Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.

Anonymous said...

Fox kits are in the Trump camp only because Trump outfoxed them. He understood what Americans want. That's not the same as doing what Americans want, but at least he knows what promses to make to excite a loyal base of support. Fox had to follow Trump to cash in on the viewership of his base. The neuterer got neutered. So now Fox has lost its mojo for political leadership and just runs its red lampshade business.

If Murdoch could make bucks and run an establishmment candidate, he would. But Trump has become the only game in town. So now Murdoch wants not to make unnecessary enemies and instead to ingratiate himself for possible favors. Depending on Hillary's physical, legal, and political health, things could avalanche suddenly. What's a hedger to do?

Anonymous said...

Give me the name of a politician who has not sold out to the NWO-OWG. Explain to me what Cruz was doing with the TPA, if he was not working to establish hegemony under international corporatism. I want to believe. I have fought Birther mania, and still fight it, longing to give Cruz a chance to explain. So, explain. I want to believe, but I need some actual evidence of good faith. Give me some cites and an explanation that makes sense.

The Founders fought for local control. Whatever each State did was its affair. The Constitution, unless undermined, at least gives us a chance at local levels. However, you are right that the Constitution, absent will, does nothing. And you are right that power was tipped towards elites.

Regardless, I tip my hat to Patrick Henry. It is not my willingness to quietly eat dogfood, drink swill, and take my daily dose of elitist choom. If you want to surrender to international elites who promise the most security and choom, that's your affair.

I don't want to be ruled in fine detail by central, power-grabbing elitists. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect against that. I don't want to be ruled by anyone who thinks he is entitled to rule because his ideas are "best." Nor do I want to swept up under such rule by followers of any such knowitall elitists run amuck. I want the Constitution to help protect against that.

Another trans-racialist was caught using the black privilege outhouse. Shades of Rachel Dolezal! Progs need to get this straight: A white privilege-ist who identifies as a trans-black is entitled to black privilege! Learn it, get it, live it!

I'm listening to a psychology audio book. Experiments confirm that the mere formalizing of group names divides and causes members to view people outside the group with more suspicion and distrust. It seems the way to reduce prejudice is to stop drawing unnecessary group boundaries.

The obvious question: What is Obama's real purpose? is it to reduce prejudice, or is it to increase strife in order to grease the way for establishmentarians to rule by division? Drill into a child that he is abused, cheated, entitled, and unhappy, and he will grow up to be resentful, hateful, and socially incompetent. Then he can be counted on to vote 98% of the time for sub-humans like Obama.

Gov backed currency is good only so long as people have faith and trust in the gov that backs it. Once that faith collapses, a crisis of trust will set off a currency crisis. That is why the NWO-OWG people need to confabulate a new world currency. To do that, they would have to treat people and cultures as sub-human widgets. That won't work. The NWO-TPA-UN-CFR monstrosity needs to be aborted.