Why Jews vote for Democrats

Why Jews vote for Democrats (Progressives):  A lot of intuitive, secular people seek protection of local power brokers. Everyone with the least antennae picks up how the ignorant, weak, and corrupt among the masses are led around by their noses by Progressive brokers, who have few values apart from wanting to apply profits and power in order safely to control the collective. If you're numbered among the relatively helpless, find and serve the Big Dog. If you allow the masses simply to follow their own values, there's no telling what their energies may unleash. It probably has something to do with group identity and security versus individual liberty.

The Fall of America

Science and technology have so empowered those who are attracted to vile uses of power that nearly every institution of significant influence now has its strings pulled by an international, inter-respecting web of conniving wolves, soothing sheep to believe wolves know best. This will continue until a higher field of consciousness becomes more directly apprehended by every receptive, particular perspective. At that time, the strings of false consciousness will be cut, and the truth will set free every mind that is intuitive and receptive of God.

Until then, many will be tricked into submission to false elites, interpreters, interceders, and messengers. However, the only true modern messenger is the one who sends messages directly (intuitively) to the core of your experience of consciousness. Would be interceders -- who refuse to respect your essential freedom, dignity, empathy, and intuition, who assert superiority over your own essential core of consciousness -- are dupes or partners of those who drool to corral and collectivize you.

The true libertarian finds his worth and liberty not as if he were his own God, but as a limited but purposeful perspective of God. To the extent one lacks empathy for the field which completes him, one remains susceptible to purposeless circles. We will only continue to fail to set things along a path of rightness so long as we remain oblivious to the nature of our enemy and to the battle against submission of mind to the control of every interloping interceder.

If we are not to be easily herded and corralled, we must de-couple from those whose stock in trade is in false trust and grand lies. Because we are imperfect, good and evil are in all. The task is to divide the evil from the good, i.e., to learn from feedback in order to go forward to divide the bad experiences and information from the good. The task is to foster contextual applications and decent interpretations of sacred texts, so as to allow us to appreciate God as being worth appreciating. While it is not for us to judge God, it surely IS for us to judge interpretations and concepts about God. The alternative is to submit one’s free will to the manipulation and authority of wolves that, by nature, are corrupted by power. In short: have faith, verify good will, and limit immigrants carefully.

First Amendment -- The Establishment Clause

How may any child explore religious ideas in order to decide which he wishes as an adult to engage in "the free practice thereof," unless he is allowed to be exposed (or to seek exposure) to them, and how can he be exposed to them, if such exposure is thwarted by anti-religious police of the government, operating from all sides: in the public square, in public schools, and in any forums in which government intrudes to tax, fund, or regulate? Once atheists and c0llectivists push the State to usurp to claim supreme authority in all affairs, how can the free practice of religion not be strangled? Once the State is potentially omnipresent, its proponents will naturally tend to claim that any expression of any countervailing force, such as religion, is an unwelcome establishment. Unless more reasoned and limiting definition is given to the word "establishment," atheists and collectivists will not rest until they have entirely expunged God. Of course, they will thereby have succeeded in establishing their own religion, i.e., the religion that "state elitists are higher messengers of the greater good of all." If that is not a myth, and an obscene one, then the world is surely mad.

Liars and Social Justice

Collectivist socialism is more a lie than what it’s advertised to be. People are led to believe they are being collectivized for their own good, to be shown what they should be doing by their betters, who know best. As if their betters had only their best interests in mind. But when has this ever worked for any extended period? Once power is consolidated, so that ordinary people become easy to prey upon, what is going to stop depredations – especially when the power and corporate elite have no faith in any values higher than the State? The very word, “socialism,” is a deceit.

Re: “Is it possible that there are certain European leaders who have a better understanding and appreciation of American values than our own leaders?”

For a code of moral values, I would posit: Context considered, seek to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In shorthand translation: Be empathetic. That is a bit different from the Libertarian ethos.

But how is it that we seem naturally disposed to be morally empathetic, regardless of pretenses to the contrary? An essential component of each of us seems to be the same: an identical reiteration of a perspective of consciousness temporally condensed in respect of a field of consciousness. What differentiates each person is how the perspective of that person’s identity has integrated with information and experience.

Since I would not want to be conditioned to be a bum, I would not seek to condition others to be bums and consider that to be “social justice.” I agree with the part of Ayn Rand’s message, which rails against spreading equality among competent, emancipated adults, but I part with her as follows: Since I see America as a bastion for defending freedom of thought, I seek to conserve the idea of America for all Americans who may feel likewise. This relationship is one of citizen to general ethos or population. It is not a one on one, value for value, trader’s relationship. Factors that affect such relationship are in constant flux, availing no accurate, trader’s bookkeeping.

To try to model, quantify, and record an objective bookkeeping entry for trading among purposes would be simultaneously to change the nature of the entry.

So I don’t see the “objectivity” in Randian Objectivism. Ordinary, sane people do not plug weighted factors into computer models before deciding, objectively, whether to enhance or to end relationships among perspectives of consciousness. There is no precise, objective or libertarian calculation for that which does or does not “hurt” anyone else or any wider group or worthwhile cause. Nor does an admonishment not to hurt do much to guide how to help -- either oneself or the wider values with which one’s identity has coupled. Simply put, a navel-gazing moral negative (“do no harm”) does not very well guide a moral positive (“pursue an affirmative purpose”).

Example: Consider how much power in America and the world has been consolidated in cannibal traders, who in fact DO conspire to trade in respect of capacity to make threats and do harm. Consider how such cannibal looters, child predators, dunce manipulators, hedge artists, and influence peddlers have infested and overrun Congress, media, and academia.

Given that most among modern and influential corporations trade (or want to trade) more in influence peddling, mind tricks, con games, media mesmerization, credit default swaps, cheap labor border erasing, currency manipulation, and carbon credit banking, ask: Where is there still found any independent producer or trader as Ayn Rand romanticized? Insofar as they do not exist, should true devotees of Rand now be working to push the present social order towards breakdown, while retiring once a month to Galt’s Gulch?

Problem is, considering modern technology, Galt’s Gulch is a fairy tale, and anyone who buys it will simply slip into feed for cannibals and looters. IOW, those pushing to collapse traditional institutions are not principled, non-looting producers; rather, they are unprincipled cannibals, looking to make quick bucks by carving up and selling off means by which to reduce everyone else to control and servitude.

What is their main antagonist? The Bible. By conditioning gullible liberals, libertarians, and proponents of social justice to believe the Bible has nothing worthwhile to offer our culture, i.e., that it is “enlightened” to expunge and ridicule the Bible, consider how much coarser our culture has very rapidly become since 1963, in every decent respect.

I take the realistic challenge to be this: Given the world as we find it, in decent and empathetic regard among us, each for all others, what now can and should be done to respect and preserve vestiges and islands of human freedom and dignity? That is the battle that is now unfolding, and it is between (1) (secular) short term, pleasure-seeking cannibals versus (2) (sectarian) purpose-driven believers.

Of Spiritual Merit

Of Spiritual Merit:

Perhaps, the Beinigness of any perspective of consciousness is less a “test of merit” than a participatory, unfolding, organizing of Consciousness as it couples in various perspectives with Information. Perhaps, like the InterNet, bits of information may be spread out in the BeingNet -- among all, while coupling most integrally or intensely among a relative few or particular perspectives.

In choosing and selecting in order to organize and make manifest certain information among the infinite potential of information, it may be that intuition, empathy, appreciation, feedback, prayer, purpose, and practiced proficiency all play a role.

Thus, all perspectives of consciousness may share a stake in how the Field of consciousness learns, apprehends, and manifests.

However, in fundamental capacity, an aspect of each perspective of consciousness is an identical reiteration of all others. The potential to differentially manifest intelligence and emotion is not in respect of any intrinsic or differentiating merit in any particular perspective of consciousness, but in the organization of informational context with which each perspective couples.

Merit may self-select in respect of a feedback process for coupling perspectives of consciousness with various organizations of accumulating and leveraging information. Such self selection may also result in de-merits, or the quarantining (hell committing?) of various kinds of couplings that are deemed unworthy to the Field, pending release to such time, place and context as may warrant their rehabilitation.

Reconciling Beingness and New Testament

I doubt one’s beliefs at death have to do with one’s salvation. That said, I do believe the integration of information from our experiences is an ongoing project – both for us and for God. One might suppose it should be a relatively simple thing for a mind of the quality of Hitchens, were he so disposed, to postulate a reconciliation of the New Testament with Beingness within a Field of Consciousness. Indeed, his life seems meaningful as a sympathetic part (devil’s advocate?) for that play.

Instead of God, he could simply substitute Field of Consciousness. Instead of Satan, substitute irreconcilability of existentiality. Instead of material Jesus, substitute concept of spiritual, Ideal Jesus Person. Instead of Heaven or eternal harmony, substitute purposefulness in pursuing happiness and state of Reasoned Empathy. Instead of Demons, substitute dissonance in physicality and cognition. Instead of Original Sin, substitute cracked symmetry. Instead of routine Sin, substitute giving up on efforts to reconcile experience and information beyond cognitive dissonance. That is, substitute the falling into disintegration of concepts, beliefs, principles, purposes, and conduct. Substitute Sin as the giving up of integration of one’s purposefulness.

Instead of Alms, substitute efforts to restore others to integration of principles and purposes. Instead of commandment-based Morality, substitute Reasoned Empathy. Instead of Universe, substitute shared Field for particular communications of consciousness of existentiality. Instead of Matter and inanimate things, substitute byproducts of feedback of communication among perspectives of consciousness within a shared frame of reference. Instead of a Beginning, substitute a phase shift within the eternal present. Instead of an Apocalypse, substitute a quickening reconciliation of the Field of Consciousness with its particular expressions. Instead of an End of time, substitute an integration, collapse, and re-design of information in order to phase to the next cycle of existential adventure. Instead of Teleology of final fulfillment of purpose, substitute continuing cycles of adventure for reconciling the Field of Consciousness with its particularly expressed purposes.

Instead of America, substitute tip of sword for an ongoing, integrating reconciliation of experience and information. Here’s to the re-integration of Hitchens!

Facts are Facts (?)

Facts are Facts (?):

For heuristic purposes, I greatly admire Ayn Rand’s advocacy for the independent ego of each human mind, apart from the collectivist field. That said, I don’t agree that it necessarily leads to much that is worthwhile merely to take it that “existence exists,” or “A is A,” or “facts are facts.” Nor do I take reason, in itself, as constituting an ultimate trump. Rather, I conceptualize that reasoning intuition (or Reasoned Empathy) is on a higher plane.

I agree that consciousness is fundamental, and I agree that reason is very important. But I don’t believe that non-trivial “reason” should be divorced from the intuition and empathy of any perspective of consciousness with respect to the encompassing field of consciousness. In other words, my philosophy respects not reason in itself, but Reasoned Empathy.

If some common aspect of Conscious Beingness (higher Field?) is itself the sponsor (or espouser) of reason, then should I not seek to be intuitive and empathetic of that aspect? Is not my innate regard for the conscious beingness of other perspectives within the common field of consciousness a source both for enlightened selfishness as well as for altruistic empathy? How or why “should” any particulate expression of a field claim utter independence of the field, any more so than it should claim independence of gravity? Unless to espouse some cousin of solipsism, to put my reasoning above all others, how could I “reason,” apart from intuition and empathy derivative of an encompassing Field of consciousness?

What does it mean to say that “facts are facts,” or that facts (among that which exists) are what they are? Yes, the existentiality of some facts may be objective or commonly shared, even though, perhaps, not even the entire field of consciousness may know all facts. Yet, in potential, facts may cross a range of the unknowable, the unknown, the partly known, the conditionally known, and the trivially known. Aspects of some facts may manifest differently to the appreciation of different perspectives of consciousness. Such perspectives may apprehend such facts: partly or fully; entirely incorrectly, partly incorrectly or correctly, partly objectively or subjectively; indirectly or directly; intuitively or measurably; bound somewhat objectively to all perspectives within one’s common frame of reference; or bound somewhat subjectively to one separate conscious identity. One’s subjective experience of a “fact” easily becomes imperfect or fuzzy, as each such fact is filtered through the accumulation of information that has attached to one’s separately identifiable perspective, orientation, and bias for consciousness.

Some subjective facts may objectively or fully exist or manifest only in relation to certain subjective experiences of consciousness. Not all facts are the same or objective facts to every perspective of consciousness. Nor do all “facts” necessarily exist as facts, in themselves only. Even when unknowable or unknown, facts exist only in respect of a relation, or at least a potential relation, to consciousness. How a potential or fuzzy fact may condense, collapse, or become directly manifest to a subjective perspective of consciousness may well depend upon the then and there psychological and contextual orientation of the perspective that is experiencing such fact, in respect of such perspective’s entire accumulation and integration of information, experience, and space-time context.

Trivial facts do not contradict. But non-trivial facts may easily go un-reconciled and mis interpreted. Facts in themselves do not contradict, but facts as interpreted by a perspective of consciousness may contradict. A perspective of consciousness may not endlessly accumulate un-reconciled contradictions in interpretations of facts without experiencing a breakdown in mental purposefulness. Each perspective of consciousness seeks to assimilate and integrate information consistent with a life path for fulfilling purposefulness. Such path to purposefulness is stressed to the extent a perspective experiences facts which it finds itself unable to integrate or reconcile with its path of beingness. A perspective’s need to survive may push it to force faux-reconciliations of facts by entertaining a din of cognitive dissonance. When the din becomes unbearable, the perspective may experience a nervous breakdown.

It is not always true that no one is entitled to his own facts. But it is true that no one is entitled to his own facts that are objectively apart from what is commonly demonstrable to all – either directly and presently, or by reference to markers that have stored information regarding such facts -- where markers remain that are commonly and objectively demonstrable to all who care to access them. Subject to a shared physical and cultural milieu, juries judge the social utility of contestants and their interpretations of facts.

We are outposts for the experiencing, shaping, and reconciling of unfolding manifestations of facts and events of potentiality. Our participation in purposefulness is in synchronicity with the unfolding choices of our common field of consciousness. One’s individual capacity (Reasoned Empathy) to understand affects the quality of one’s assimilative receptivity to the purposefulness of the common field of consciousness, as it finds expression through each avatar for each particular identity. Our separate faces are avatars for a dance with purposeful choice making.

Except in respect of universally-fundamental, mathematically-expressible laws of physics, and a shared frame of reference that happens to sustain human consciousness, I do not perceive that non-trivial facts tend to present themselves in any essentially common way. Many non-trivial “facts” do not tend to have essence as facts in themselves, but only as they manifest relative to a conscious being and other such beings as happen to be copasetic to each other’s frame of reference. Yes, I can notice when I am shot and when I follow others. But the “fact” that I am shot or that I experience any event means nothing, in any eternal or essential aspect, to the universe, apart from the conscious experience (or potential experience) of it, either by myself or by some other perspective of conscious experience whose frame of reference is affected by my own.

There seems no way to show or know whether any quality (or even the entire coordinate experience of each different perspective’s subjectively conscious experience) of any non-trivial fact is in any essential way necessarily the same to each perspective. Trivial placeholders for mathematical axioms or functions may delineate a coordinate, shared, absolute validity across perspectives of consciousness. That is, one may easily and validly say “A is A.” But that is not to say very much. Once one adds a non-trivial aspect to “A” (such as A person, A moving event, or A physical structure), “A” refers only to an assumed identity for such person, moving event, or physical structure -- even though no such identity is fully known or knowable to any mortal, but rather, is continuously fluxing and changing in quality of relation to context and perspective.

I admire Ayn Rand. But her philosophy of an ideal, reasoning man or conscious mind needs to be tempered with empathetic respect for a common field of consciousness. But for respect for such commonality, it seems incoherent to assert that any values or reasons "should" be shared in common. I accept Rand’s regard for reason, but I temper it as Reasoned Empathy.