Big Science and Insipid Bureaucrats:
There are various absolutes and rules that apply to our material and statistical interactions, and there are various clever and mathematically based technologies for exploiting such rules. We use controlled experiments to discover and tinker with such rules and technologies, and we call that "science." Wonderful! However, together with this process there is a very real feature that cannot much be penetrated by mortal science. We call it consciousness. Wail howsoever they will, mortal devotees of science will not penetrate the Source of that feature, either in its original genesis, or in its everyday involvement with each and every perspective of consciousness.
.
Yet IT exists. How, pray tell, is it "scientific" for anyone to proclaim that science can entirely account for consciousness, apart from the given that consciousness exists? What should we call consciousness, in any holistic sense? How is it that science should reasonably avail anyone to say that such Consciousness does not exist?
.
The problem with some scientists is that their single-minded focus on material empiricism alienates them to the Source of their own consciousness. The problem is not that most conservatives do not appreciate science. We do. (Recommend The Atheist and the God Particle.) The problem is that many statists have no clue that there are mortal limits to what the tool of science can fundamentally account for and technologically facilitate.
.
In their despair, statists bitterly cling to a false, utopian, Marxist, godless ideal of the State. They try to perfect freedom of the mind by imprisoning it with Big Gov. This is the scientific statist's mind disease. And its ravages are terrible to behold.
.
Islam simply goes Materialism and Marxism a step further: not to stop at fascist, statist repression of the mind, but to actually deaden the independent thinking mind. Ahhh. 72 brain dead virgins. Zombie heaven.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Obama is a radical Marxist. I doubt one can sensibly be both a Marxist and a Christian. A Marxist, however, can certainly rationalize lying about the two. Obama is a deceiver who has (what he takes to be) a big, materialist agenda. He wants (vainly) to use the State to hammer down all clues that there is a patient but insistent Source that is beyond materialism. That Source, not Big Gov, is the only valid hope for empathetic good will among mankind. Avail the Source; don't try to replace it with some equalizing, wealth-spreading State.
BTW -- Re Rawls' notion about what sort of government would/should one choose (were one to be in limbo and not know in advance the place to which one would arrive within a society), in respect of the spreading of physical and mental abilities, social connections, and wealth:
Well, go further. What about spreading wealth and equality inter-species? Why not use Rawls' notion, or godless Communism, to advocate that all critters, not just humans, should be forcibly rendered equal under the power of the State? Why not use Rawls' notion to stop or reverse evolution in its tracks, at the level of the single cell? lol.
Respect the dignity of each perspective of consciousness as it strives to fulfill what it senses to be its own assigned purpose, without pre-ordination by insipid, equality-forcing Leftists! Be gone with them!
Our "elites" have been busy bees: "serving" the planet, stifling business, reducing our Constitution, surrendering our borders, watering down the independent American ethos, advocating for rule under global law, indoctrinating our children, inculcating disrespect for parents, and promoting homage to Obama. Fortunately, they have also displayed incredible ignorance and inexperience about the real world. However, they have made considerable progress in: destroying minority families, undermining education, and promoting delinquency and anomie among millions of children.
So what beliefs are elites inculcating? Not belief in higher morality. Not belief in restraining short term delights in order to pursue long term fulfillments. Not loyalty to country, or even to family. And certainly not respect for innocence of children. No, elites are into reducing children to pleasure and money making commodities for debauchers and opportunists. So how did we find ourselves along this path? Go ask Elitist. I think she'll know.
First MSM implied we were nuts to think Obama is a Marxist. Then we learn that, at Occidental, Marxism is precisely what he advocated. We think something very fishy may be going on in respect of Obama's opaqueness about his background, transcripts, and birth place. But MSM wants us just to trust Barry. Why? Further, what has caused the brains of Matthews, Maddow, and Olbermann to metastasize as they have? How can one reason with people whose political loyalties are based, not on reason, but on some kind of emptiness of the soul, which they vainly and angrily seek to fill with the State? Such people are committed to radical evangelism for a statist fiction. They are at war with real Americans, and they cannot be defeated with reason because their hollow philosophy renders them impervious to it. Defeating them requires that their own techniques be reflected and turned back upon them. Ridicule, as much as reason, will have to be deployed.
Government would not need to intrude with so much onerous taxation were it to restrict itself to basics: common standards for infrastructure and defense. Defense may include defending children, innocents, and perhaps the truly ignorant, i.e., those most easily gulled to believe in the free lunch or that the way to save money is to spend it.
Unfortunately, our government financed education system has so weakened reasoning skills as to leave many of us without producing jobs and rendered hapless against political organizers and corporate seducers. We will not throw these rascals off merely by giving them more money or by asking them to enact ever more laws to defend us from them.
We are in a loop of insanity, paying pimps, pushers, and pirates to stop tempting and abusing us. Latest fiasco: Government trying to protect the truly ignorant from credit extension abusers. The nature of a pimp, pusher, or pirate is set; you do not change them by enriching them. If Leftists truly believed in their Darwinian philosophy, they would starve government and let the hardiest thrive.
I believe in evolution, not Darwin. Government may play a role in helping to protect the ignorant and the innocent. But, the role of government for such purposes must be small and it must be subservient to private charities. Otherwise, when government gets bloated (as it is) to such a point as to carry virtually all of the faith and hope of salvation of all the little people, it simply becomes the handmaiden of the wolves who would rule them.
The tragedy of the American experience is that we had a system of higher faith and private charities, but we watched and allowed it to be eaten and replaced by a wolf in sheep's clothing --- which is what our cradle to grave governance has become. Now, we cannot hope to end this wolf like rule by financing it. If it falls, and falls well, it may be providential.
We have fostered a "win at any cost" ethos. I sometimes wonder how many of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals are taught in mainstream schools as fundamental axioms for lawyers, camouflaged, of course, under different terminology. In bygone years, we at least often united in defense of borders and fundamental values. Nowadays, in multi-culti land, which demographic groups, if any, still share values of assimilation, apart from the value of winning with your homies? Leftists have no true values to which they want to assimilate. They just want to take until they are equal. Eventually, to stand for redistributive equality in everything becomes the same as to stand for nothing, i.e., the metaphysics of Obamaphilosophy. There is nothing good or true in preaching social value in equality of results. There is, rather, despair and machine like hopelessness. We are on a bad path.
A.T. -- Re: “Between the two "investigations" and subsequent reports of the committees, the top-secret intelligence procedures, operations, and even the names of some active intelligence operatives working for the United States were made public and distributed to all of our enemies”
On one hand are enemies, foreign and domestic, who seek to undermine values that sustain America. On the other hand are defenders, who seek to protect and preserve American values. Many work for the CIA, Navy Seals, Special Forces, Marines, Infantry, or FBI. When bad guys are active, most of us don’t want our defenders being punished for defending us, or being incentived to find security jockeying desks. So what do the Frank Churches, Eric Holders, and Barry Obamas want to encourage: defending American values, or seeking pc security?
Every time we get a commie-cousin regime change, some folks seem to want to flail our defenders as sacrificial goats. So how can America possibly expect to keep the defenders and human intelligence we need to sustain American values?
Hell, apart from fantasy notions of equality, do Dems have ANY values? If we persist in rolling infantile regimes into high office and onto Senate investigatory committees every few years, how can we reasonably expect to be keep military secrets essential to our survival?
Leftists among us are mortal threats to our children. Hell, they are mortal threats to the basic notion of family. Why? I think many have simply failed to assimilate values higher than their own immediate gratifications. For them, the greatest good is the biggest high. The greatest thrill is being worshipped by fainting girls. It matters little whether what follows is obliteration.
So how are we gonna recover spirit and backbone to defend against enemies and louts who actively seek our demise, don’t give a fig to prevent it, or seek to back up our system until we have no choice but to change to a wholly un-American course?
We employ math and empiricism to try to reason Objectively about how best to promote that which our emotions most Subjectively appreciate. IOW, there is no such a political thing as “valueless objectivism.” All choices, taxes, expenditures, and governmental regulations entail values choices, i.e., moral decisions. It becomes seriously silly when Libertarians feign seriously to argue that Conservatives need to just put their moral, traditional, and family values aside.
Now, if one wishes to argue that organized religion should, as such, try to couch its values arguments in secular language, that may entail a horse of a different color. Regardless, one way or another, a society that wishes to bequeath a decent civilization to its progeny can ill afford to espouse that everyone (primarily Conservatives?) should just divorce their moral concerns from how and to what ends government is financed. That is seriously not gonna happen.
That said, I agree that the Constitutionalist position is strongest for uniting Tea Partiers. First, starve federal government. Then make it smarter. Let a serious national budget make the weak minded party (Dems and Progs!) the least inclined to flourish. The battle to choose is not one of Progressives versus Libertarians. Rather, the battle is one of Progressives versus Constitutionalists.
A.T. – Tea Partys:
Parmenter said, “Have you even -been- to a Tea Party? The libertarian table is avoided like a biological waste container.”
Steve 225 said, “Where we get confused is when we think that social conservatism must be codified into law, or be a specific plank of the movement's platform.”
Paul of Alexandria said, “The libertarians keep talking about "legislating morality", but fail to realize that all law is legislated morality.”
Well, I want both smaller-and-smarter government. That is, I want smaller government that restores us to become active with charities that help us respect and assimilate decent and sustainable values. I don’t want government that simply turns America over to depredations of international corporations, bent on maximizing measurable profits and turning us into interchangeable, multi-culti to be led around by those most skilled with advertising that appeals to our hedonistic addictions. I certainly don’t want those corporations buying politicians who use the public treasury to appoint “Glisteners” as Safe School Czars.
Once we get divided enough in unassimilated moral values, two things will follow: First, we will soon be trying to justify and rationalize all manner of incoherent, contradictory, and unsustainable values. Second, the incoherence will demand an arbitrary enforcer of reconciliation. That is, a system of values will be imposed upon us, once we become unable and unfit to respect any system of traditional values. That is, we will have Napoleon, Lenin, or Mohammed. And then human liberty will go really dark.
I want to be tolerant. But push come to shove, Libertarians had best grow up. The abyss ain’t pretty.
A.T. – Libertarianism:
Re: “I really don't care what you do, as long as you don't hurt anyone. Just don't even think about asking me to pay for it.”
I wish it were that simple. But we have already gone too far down the road of having Big Gov pay for a great deal of continuing and increasing insults to polite society. Hello – Obama wants Kevin Jennings (Glisten) as our Safe Schools Czar.
One tries to use politesse to discuss important issues with reasonable people. But there is little point in trying to reason with folks whose glands, habits, and short sighted “wannas” render them manifestly obtuse, beyond reason. Reason will not reform an alcoholic, addict, liberal, progressive, or Big-Gov Democrat. Nor, one suspects, will reason often avail with libertarians, skilled as they tend to be with high sounding rationalizations.
But nice try. This pose for “libertarian reasoning” seems to be becoming a standard: that every adult should be allowed to do whatever he/she pleases, so long as it “hurts no one else.”
If only that formulation meant something! After all, what night-walker, john, gambler, addict, alcoholic, polygamist, or public artist of lewd behavior with children or beasts would ever admit that his/her actions hurt anyone else? Going further, what pimp or seducer of innocence or children would admit that any action hurt anyone else? In the Nambla dude’s mind, he is merely educating children under his charge, i.e., unleashing their sexual rights.
Well, any expenditure of the public treasury will, at some level, even if unanticipated or unintended, affect public morals and dispositions. The public, at least the taxpaying public, should certainly be entitled to judge whether such effect is good, bad, or worth the cost.
It is highly disingenuous to pretend that one should not use public funds to promote abstinence or common decency, as opposed to in-your-face challenges to every social or cultural tradition upon which most of the country was founded and assimilated, and then to turn around and tell Conservatives that they ought not oppose expenditures of public funds for indoctrinating youth not only to accept all manner of deviant and abnormal behavior, but to actually fund it, as with tax incentives or paid-for indoctrination of even elementary school children.
What on earth is the author saying? That parents should not politically unite to oppose Big Gov, as it undermines childhood innocence and teaches that nearly every conceivable kind of hook up is “normal”?
Most folks try to be tolerant, since no mortal can be entirely normal, much less perfect. However, some folks, i.e., the ones who are concerned with preserving a decent civilization for their children, take more than their personal “wannas” into account when they weigh whether certain government sponsored behavior “hurts anyone.” That is, we weigh whether it hurts a decent, sustainable America. If it does, it hurts someone, i.e., our children. That is, everything that we strive for that is decent!
A libertarian who would align with Big Gov libs before he would align with Conservatives is not a stalwart defender of the Tea Party Movement. A Conservative need not tolerate every government funded insult to decent society merely to make common cause with Libertarians! If anyone should do the tolerating, it is the Libertarians. I care little what they do with one another. I care a great deal about what they ask Gov to fund, in order to allow them to indoctrinate children.
Re: “the true battles in the future will be Progressive versus libertarian.”
Afraid not. If Conservatives lose, there will be no battle. Progressivism and Libertarianism will both fall quickly to some form of Totalitarianism, sort of like CHUM, i.e., Corrupt Harvesting of Unrequited Marxists.
A.T. --- Re: "What causes otherwise-honest people to condone the political plunder and redistribution of personal property? Immorality? That's too harsh for my taste. I prefer to say that there is a blind spot in their thinking."
Well, think about the "education" that is being imposed, in order to condition our brains to increase the size of our moral blind spots. One has to work really hard to allow oneself to be educated to know so many progressive things that just are not so. So who are helping with all this re-educating, and why? Do they help because they have this big love for humanity, generally? Does the radically blinkered Left think Sharky Soros and his CHUM's (Corrupt Harvesters of Unrequited Marxists) got their billions because they are really saints at heart? Or have the CHUM's simply found ways for teaching Leftists to be as morally blinkered as they are? What could it be? What could it be?
It has become politically incorrect to have a conscience. That would require that you have standards. And standards are discriminatory. Discriminatory as against race, gender, age, sexual orientation, recreational preferences, and mind expanding techniques. IOW, to have a conscience is to be a fundie, cultist, racist, misogynist, homophobe, rube, or square. So we trot our kids off to school, to learn how not to have standards. Or consciences. Now we’re evolving to be little more than machines --- for computing, competing, copulating, chugging, and capitulating. Our elites would have it that there are no consciences among the erudite, i.e., those enlightened enough to know that they are nothing more than machines. Certainly, there need be no consciences among those best equipped to use the common folk. Why, the little folk need to be used. Er, guided. Dems 'r us. America -- the teapot is steaming and screaming.
Post a Comment