Suppose some politicians got together with a surefire way to make America and ordinary Americans solvent again. Would the powers that be go for it? Hell no.
Obama got elected because he wanted to "fundamentally change" (lobotomize) America. Many of our youth have been trained to despise America. Many of our minorities have been conditioned to despise America and to believe they are entitled to reparations. Many of our corporatists simply want cheap labor and think profit maximization is the key to all problems; many find the quickest and easiest profits in simply buying America through its politicians and then selling her off. We are top heavy with Americans In Name Only, who believe there is or should be no such thing as an American ethos or culture. Whether you want to call them Dinos or Rinos makes little difference.
Conservators of Liberty keep espousing solutions. But few ask the first question: Do a majority of Americans really want to make America stronger, economically sound, and energy independent? As long as the answer is "Hell no!" why should anyone think that Obama will be defeated, or, that if he is, his replacement would really be looking out for America? Our problem is not mere mechanics or legalism. If it were, we could readily solve it. Our problem is this: The spirit, will, and faith of traditional America has been lobotomized, so that America is now on a short chain, being led to do servitude by pagans who worship statism and the power to control statism. Meanwhile, Conservatives occupy themselves by asking pagan Ainos to look at possible mechanical solutions to the sinking of America, while the sinking of America is precisely what the pagans want. These statists are about as American as Islam is a religion of peace. Were Carville a Conservative, he would say, "It's the statist pagans, stupid."
Obama got elected because he wanted to "fundamentally change" (lobotomize) America. Many of our youth have been trained to despise America. Many of our minorities have been conditioned to despise America and to believe they are entitled to reparations. Many of our corporatists simply want cheap labor and think profit maximization is the key to all problems; many find the quickest and easiest profits in simply buying America through its politicians and then selling her off. We are top heavy with Americans In Name Only, who believe there is or should be no such thing as an American ethos or culture. Whether you want to call them Dinos or Rinos makes little difference.
Conservators of Liberty keep espousing solutions. But few ask the first question: Do a majority of Americans really want to make America stronger, economically sound, and energy independent? As long as the answer is "Hell no!" why should anyone think that Obama will be defeated, or, that if he is, his replacement would really be looking out for America? Our problem is not mere mechanics or legalism. If it were, we could readily solve it. Our problem is this: The spirit, will, and faith of traditional America has been lobotomized, so that America is now on a short chain, being led to do servitude by pagans who worship statism and the power to control statism. Meanwhile, Conservatives occupy themselves by asking pagan Ainos to look at possible mechanical solutions to the sinking of America, while the sinking of America is precisely what the pagans want. These statists are about as American as Islam is a religion of peace. Were Carville a Conservative, he would say, "It's the statist pagans, stupid."
5 comments:
Elites deploy obscurantism to silence serfs into accepting status. Serfs are seen as "children of lesser gods." Sam Harris wants us to believe wise morality can be derived only from dumb nature. Yet, caused-nature, if it rules entirely, is antithetical to free will, and morality means nothing if it gives no nod to that which free will should do ... even if the nod only encourages pretense, i.e., mask of obscurantism. Fundies deploy obscurantism to escape responsibility for making sense out of a world of uncertain possibilities. They substitute emotional certitude for rational analysis.
Elites front pagan gods, obscured and masked though they be. They front a supreme god of nature to bless their purpose, which is to rule the vox populi by conditioning us to believe "noble lies" (such as the lie that allowing elite corporations to trade freely with foreign despots will not tend to undermine every democratic based society). Serfs also front various metaphors, as faux gods, but to be taken as literalisms. Their purpose is to find a metaphoric god to believe in, to free them from moral responsibility for thinking about God for themselves.
Only the free person, who needs neither to rule nor be ruled, is willing to pull down masks, to see crocks, to seek to appreciate and serve the unifying Awareness that does not fear, need, or evade masks of representation. For them, the only way to say anything that is quantitatively meaningful about nature is by suspending belief in free will. Yet, they also recognize that the only way to say anything that is qualitatively meaningful about beingness is by professing not to deny free will. To try to say something -- that is simultaneously meaningful in both the quantitative and qualitative sense -- is to necessitate a stance or mask ... on which obscurantism --- as meaningful music, tortuous noise, or some combination thereof --- will ride, unavoidably. Meaningful beingness of conscious will tends to consist in seeking "woody" music that can be shared, while avoiding noise.
Death is the lure by which deconstructionists would reconcile the quantative with the qualitative.
Although I think Condell gives more than enough weight to logic and not enough to empathy and decency, he is right about Islam. And, unlike many anti-religionists, he is not afraid to take Islam on. Others, without backbones, vent only against Christianity, because, after all, what could be safer? I hope Condell, despite his hardmindedness against all religion, will sometime point out a stark difference: Decent civilizations have flourished with Christianity; not so under Islam. Even were Condell to compare the verbiage in the Old Testament, he would need to account for the fact that no so many cultures, countries and civilizations nowadays tend to base their secular legal systems on Deuteronomy. The point is, there is a fundamental difference in kind between civilizations that give credence to an idea of a caring or forgiving God versus a civilization that worships a mind controlling freak. One brand does not avail a right to kill infidels; the other does. Fundamental difference. Those atheists who are not invertebrates need to learn it. The Enlightenment and Reformation came out of one tradition; not out of the other.
Our controllers have morphed Orwell's minute of hate into the minute of madness. A consensus in madness has infected most other socially organized institutions (banks, colleges, media), so now it is infesting churches. This overarching madness will be touted to be above politics. As Greta benefits by interviewing Pelosi, so organized churches benefit by embracing the political social justice du jour. Soon, a minute of each day (or hour?) will be devoted to mass exhortations and flagellations of flesh about justice for Gaia. If you didn't like God, you're gonna love Gaia.
what about the cost of legislating, empowering, and giving financial incentives to immorality? Does that have a fiscal impact? What about social activism through government in order to disregard parents and hijack schools, to turn them into centers for encouraging kids to engage in all manner of risky experimentalism? Look around. How much immorality have we legislated? Immorality that is utterly incompatible with any long term preservation of decent civilization? Morality is not just about individual well being (being high?). It is also about how to facilitate meaningful interaction among individuals in relation to a decent society. We need to think less about the best techniques for mind blowing and more about how to sustain a better America. If we lose America, we can kiss the libertarians, libertines, and liberals goodbye, and herald in their elite, fascist replacements. Gee, thanks, Obama and Libs.
One can indulge a philosophical notion of a relation between morality and "God." One need not adhere as a literalist to religion. Regardless, it is fatuous to expel the concerns of religious folk from the public square merely because they discuss their values and concerns in religious language rather than in the language of, say, faux enlightened Berkeley folk. So many, having shed trust in a concept of God, now shall learn to fear having lost faith in faith --- until they learn that our illusion of fiscal substantiveness floats on nothing more than a quality of conscious faith, a trick of suspension of disbelief.
Do you have faith in America? Do you believe faith in a concept of America is worthwhile? Can you objectively define what you mean by "America," or your faith in it? Regardless, is your faith, and the shared faith of others, in America, worthwhile? Does that faith carry a moral value? How is faith in "Jesus" different? Isn't Jesus a worthwhile, shorthand reference for that which many in our culture associate with the worthwhile? If Four Horsemen were to go on a crusade to convince as many people as possible to believe America is no longer a good concept, would that be a good thing? Would a similar crusade against Jesus be a good thing, insofar as it affected our everyday lives?
Post a Comment