WHO CAN STILL AFFORD TO BE HONEST AND HONORABLE?
To quote from http://smokinghotpoliticaljunkies.com/a-former-paid-internet-troll-for-clinton-speaks-out-it-was-nasty-and-left-a-very-bad-taste/:
"Good afternoon. As of today, I am officially a former “digital media specialist” (a nice way to say “paid Internet troll”) previously employed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign (through a PR firm). I’m posting here today as a confession of sorts because I can no longer continue to participate in something that has become morally-indigestible for me. (This is a one-time throwaway account, but I’ll stick around for this thread.)"
"I was involved with PPP (pay per post) on forums and in the comments section of (mostly-liberal) news and blog sites. Spending my time on weekends and evenings, I brought in roughly an extra $100 or so a week, which was a nice cushion for me."
" I received notification that the team would be focusing not on pro-Hillary forum management, but on “mitigation”"
"We received very specific instructions about how and what to post, and I was aghast at what I saw. It was a complete change in tone and approach, and it was extremely nasty in character. We changed from advocates to hatchet men, and it left a very bad taste in my mouth."
1) Sexism. This was the biggest one we were supposed to push. We had to smear Bernie as misogynistic and out-of-touch with modern sensibilities. He was to be characterized as “an old white male relic that believed women enjoyed being gang raped”. Anyone who tried to object to this characterization would be repeatedly slammed as sexist until they went away or people lost interest.
2) Racism. We were instructed to hammer home how Bernie supporters were all privileged white students that had no idea how the world worked. We had to tout Hillary’s great record with “the blacks” (yes, that’s the actual way it was phrased), and generally use racial identity politics to attack Sanders and bolster Hillary as the only unifying figure.
See also http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/04/22/pro-hillary-pac-spending-1-million-to-hire-online-trolls/.
Presuming the Godhead is purposeful, its larger purposes are good -- even when its present unfoldings defy socio-scientific explanation. Along the path, we can be receptive in good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule). But a stumbling block is presented when a mere mortal (such as Mohammad), pretending or deluding to comprehend via revelation the encompassing mind of God, presumes to be the authoritative mouthpiece for God.
That tends to fray and sever the dignity of the link that otherwise should abide between each person and his/her intuitive and empathetic receptivity to personal guidance from the Godhead, unstopped by any merely mortal agency.
But for Stockholm Syndrome (induced by Mohammad and his followers and by inquisitors under false prophets), no decent human being in empathy with the Godhead would take it as "revealed" that God wants us presently to mutilate, slay, burn, hang, crucify, skin, stone, or behead any other person simply because of animus against literalistic dissonance in dogma. Such is participatory freedom run amuck. It entirely defiles the civilizing ideas of good faith and good will.
A decent society ought not be rewarding or encouraging Stockholm Syndrome. However, a society in which rulers seek power to be people farmers is not a decent society. An indecent society of people farmers will NOT castigate the general idea of people farming. Those in common cause to dhimmify the masses will NOT encourage the masses to throw off their chains. Fascist gangs of people farmers may fight one another for dominance, but they will NOT seek to delegitimize the general idea of NWO fascism. This is why the powers that presently be will NOT seek to reform Islam. Rather, they will, where feasible, simply seek to use Islam to further their people farming.
This is why the NWO uses Islam to destroy Christianity: Too many Christians were seeking to further their personal, participatory relationship and moral responsibility to the Godhead.
For a mere mortal to claim authority by revelation to dominate the moral agency of another person is evil false godliness. No mere mortal can comprehend, scientifically or otherwise (much less perfectly communicate), the present desires of the encompassing mind of God. Rather, those are matters of individual and spiritual conscience, intuition (good faith), and empathy (good will). They are NOT matters for a pretending "prophet" or authoritative State.
Bottom line: For decent civilization to reform and flourish, the emphasis on literalistic dogma (especially in the Koran) needs mainly to be cast aside. Mental energy needs not to be wasted in counting fairies (or genies, raisens, or virgins) on heads of pins. That needs to be replaced with intuitive good faith and empathetic good will, guided in receptivity to such metaphors and parables as were used by Jesus to illustrate the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.
If we expect to reform Islam, we need to understand how dogma in general should be reformed. Until then, our religious authorities, like Hillary, will tend to separate their public personas and their private personas, and the truth will be less their concern than the question of power to rule.
If you become habituated to profess a belief because you know you will be killed or tortured if you decline, then is your profession really your belief? Is a religion considered to be something you really believe, or is it only something you give lip service to, in order to keep your head and your business? When a thought-control system forces certain formulas for professing belief, I would say it is a totalitarian system -- not a religion. I see little reason to protect such totalitarian thought control under our Constitution and First Amendment. Should the Mafia become protected as a religion if or because it requires its "made men" to swear oaths on Saints?
Gag! The GOPe is obviously in favor of loose borders and funding Obama. That is the problem with the GOPe! And the hedonistic Left. Everyone with eyes and a brain sees it.
Regardless, as long as you're re punting to beliefs and carefully tailored surveys, my belief is that this trend is a consequence of catering to Nazi Metrowussies -- who have now inbred into and infested every institution. "Rainbows" tend to be the people who get all their political ideas based on cravings they feel below the belt. As to proof, just try to resist the metroweenie agenda and keep your yob!
It is one thing to tolerate metroweenies and wannabe society destroyers. It is another thing to demand that gov fund and promote them, while banning everyone who believes society needs faith, family, and fidelity.
It is one thing to disagree with the need for faith, family and fidelity. It is another thing to try to ban such concerns from the public square by inventing some childisn and incoherent notion that such concerns stand only on the other side of a wall between church and state.
But the Left has a pretty nifty trick that Nurse Rached and Agent Smith knew well: To try to delegitimize all political opposition by religiously branding opposition as being forbidden because of "religiosity." To seek to replace voluntary assimilations of moral values with gov-diktated, child-groomed PC (political compulsion). And to add insult, to call resisters invalid as being "religious"! I am no religious literalist, but I do find your position to be "abominable"!
I don't much care whether you would characterize your kind of knowitall prog-elitist Nurse-Rached approach as being rational instead of religious. Either way, it's demented.
What many of us are concerned about includes: Central gov encouragement and funding of transgenderism. Deliberate killing of social modesty with forced unisex bathrooms. Reduction of marriage and family to meaninglessness. Implicit encouragement to "marry the gov," "vote for a living," and not just tolerate but actually fund and force every kind of depravity.
Now, those things add up to fascism -- big time! If you want to talk about ways to destroy the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and representative republic, well, there they are. And that is laid at the door of hedonistic snotbabies! Much more so than at people with religious scruples.
You implicitly advocate the use of gov to fund and promote the replacement of traditional families with central gov intrusiveness by knowitall metrowussies. Yet, you want to contrive to belittle people with scruples as invalid thumpers who want to destroy the Constitution! Now that's big time hypocrisy! Care to pull your head out?
The child who never heard about Jesus can have the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule written in his spirit/on his heart. Arguments about dogma need not have much to do with it. Provided a child has a good moral compass, I decline to judge his dogma or favor or disfavor him on account of how many saints he may believe in. But when he wants to punish or dhimmi others on account of his dogma and their refusal to bow to it, or enact laws to legislate and require professions of belief, that's where my tolerance ends.
According to the story, the reason Adam got in trouble was because he chose to eat the apple so as to lose his ignorance, yet you fault him (find him "unjustified") for his ignorance in doing so? Dang! Poor Adam was cursed if he lost his ignorance and cursed if he kept it.
To talk about that story metaphorically and generally, I can relate to that in a number of ways.
One may be that self awareness (being human) brings awareness of temptations, choices, and responsibilities. Actions have consequences that have to be balanced and paid. People need to cooperate. So women bear children, and they tend during such times to be more dependent on men. Families and societies allocate firsthand responsibilities. And so on.