Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In death, all particular perspectives of consciousness must eventually become collateral damage from the unfolding purposes of the field of consciousness. Our material world is not the best of all possible; we are only its gardeners, always pursuing communion, and perhaps eventual merger, with a happier state of being.
38 comments:
There's now a well developed science of rent seeking. It entails enslavement of debtors and minor offenders. Since most people cannot afford to hire lawyers to expunge their youthful offenses, they end up working forever, just to get by. Not so much to work for decent society, because decent society tends to be rupulsed by their records. So where do they go? Is there an employer who considers a proud gangster style to be a mark of promotable distinction? Why, yes there is. Thugs are always in demand, as long as you know the right people. Nowadays, those right people tend actually to be in charge. Controllers want two kinds within the lower class: (1) the easily intimidated and (2) the trustee-enforcers. For example, look at Obama's posse. In particular, Blacks with reasonable smarts and records are sought by the establishment as "angry birds," not to free other birds, but to help the establishment reduce most others to serfs and renters, as it destroys independence in the middle class. In effect, angry Blacks are recruited to chain the lower class into serfdom, forever.
Elite, smart money is always ahead of the curve. It generates the swell, then hedges out, just before the swell dies. How does it generate the swell? One way is by finding something new to measure and and then to commit it to statistics for publishing as just so to useful idiots. Here boy, go fetch! Oh, the iniquity! What does this have to do with sustaining a decent, viable republic? Nada. The poor fetching dogs are denied the keys to most every generator. The dogpound is being enclosed with enticing bars.
Many Reformers live in need to make big statements. To get attention, they resort to big lies. Experience shows, big lies get attention as well as looney followers. I'm beginning a book (Unlikely Collaboration) about Gertrude Stein, who seemed to be the attractor for a number of expatriots and idealists from the Lost Generation (original precursors to the 60's?) between WWI and II. Liberals and Progressives seem so clueless about their debts to fascism! I think one either respects human freedom and dignity (the right to think, speak, and work for oneself, the rest of the world be damned), or one doesn't. Libs, Progs, Collectivists, and Fascists don't. And that is what tends to align them against successful republics, either to overcome us from without or to rot us from within. What they mean by liberalism and progressivism amounts tolerance for everyting that undermines a free republic in order to liberally spread entitlements extracted under force of collectives. In effect, they are unionized parasites, incapable of establishing a decent civilization of their own, thus constantly on the move to overtake and consume all others. When they kill their host, they die also, but they tend to be too lost in dopery to see that coming.
Actually, the prevailing movement isn't about liberalism, in any intelligible sense. It's about collectivism, as in collective en-serfment of masses. And that movement is more one of astro-turf than of grass roots. OWS-ACLU-ADL-ETC are financed by those who see themselves as controlling and bilking the collective. This kind of collectivism won't die, because power to control and hedge collectives has already been consolidated and institutionalized.
There's no liberalism, socialism, or communism to die! because there never were such things. Rather, there has been (1) control by despots of collectives versus (2) periodic freedom for those willing to defend it. The notion that goodness will rain down when masses retrieve common sense is simply not borne out in history. The challenge to conservers of liberty doesn't abide in educating useful idiots who are agitated to march out for misguided utopians. The challenge abides in assimilating with believers in the moral value of human liberty and then taking measures to rein in the cynical, evil, godless, soulless, spiritless, amoral financiers of despotism.
Why is that a fearsome challenge? Answer: Because those financiers don't believe in any moral value, apart from their own immediate aggrandizement. IOW, they cannot be reasoned with on any higher plane. Rather, they're connivers, prone to argue for tolerance ... i.e., tolerance while they plunder.
You can talk about defeating liberalism all you want. However, the real problem --- despotic bilking of collectives --- is in no present danger of being defeated. Rather, it is consolidating and growing stronger. When despots "move on" (they may even publish a narrative that liberalism has been defeated), they will simply hedge-jump to an alternative narrative for bilking the collective. They won't be defeated by mere reason regarding moral values, unbacked by any assimilated spirit of commitment. And the needed assimilation of spirit won't be achieved by mere atheistic appeals to scientism. I don't say we must restore hegemony to a literalistic, fundamentalist church. I do say we must find moral value is a spiritual source above scientism. That is, if we value freedom, or believe there is even such a thing as freedom.
The mutually exclusive visions that most beset the world today are between collective entitlementarianism versus individual liberty under law. That is, between despots ruling collectives versus middle-class free thinkers jealously guarding their liberty. However, there are fuzzy areas in between, where thinkers often lose their bearings, where Jews befriend too many Muslims, Liberals befriend too many Fascists, and emotional people become too moved by big lies of agitators.
Big lies often get attention from a lot of looney and even unlikely followers. Two interesting books explain this: Liberal Fascism, and Unlikely Collaboration (about collaboration between Gertrude Stein (an early heroine of Lefties and Progs) and Vichy fascists. Too often, what Lefties and Progs mean by "liberalism" amounts to tolerance for everyting that undermines a free republic, in order liberally to spread entitlements extracted under force of collectives. In effect, they become unionized parasites, incapable of establishing decent civilization of their own, thus constantly on the move to overtake and consume all others. When they kill their host, they die also, but often tend to become too lost in emotion or dopery to see that coming.
Evidence for an argument based on common sense? By "evidence," should one mean the kind of stuff that convinces lay juries or communities of leftists? The kind of stuff that convinces global-warming consensus scientists? Or tracking correlations, perhaps to compare whether employment curves follow Obama's teleprompter emissions? Is it "evidence" that we need, or merely capacity to think, in order to recognize the argument that "household" and "unemployment" are fluid concepts for making comparisons across generations and/or among people who are no longer looking for work? Do we need "evidence" to show the ridiculousness of Obama's arguments based on the number of jobs he divines to have saved or created? How much "evidence" do we need to follow the argument that married women with children tend to spend more time looking after them than do their husbands? Or to show that prices tend to rise as more spouses work, so that households process more money? Or to show that investors closely watch and are influenced by trends, without knowing whether such trends have been manipulated or exaggerated in a contrived echo chamber?
Those are topics that call for judgment of experience, more so than responses of regulators and price fixers, pre-ordered to fit cherry-picked statistics. The point I draw is that Big Government is inefficient precisely because its bureaucrats CANNOT make sensible decisons without detailed information, yet the detailed information that pertains to an economy CANNOT very well be managed under the kind of simplistic rules bureaucrats can understand or lawmakers can write.
Apart from political agitation and cynical calculations for what is needed to buy votes, WHAT IS THE "EVIDENCE" that interventionist lawmakers apply in order to divine which laws and policies will be "for the best?" For a liberty-loving nation, the alternative to "evidence-based lawmaking" is to rely as much as it decently can on representatives who respect market-based forces. I think that is the meaning of: "Interventionist bureaucracy abhors individuality, because individuality prevents the bureaucrat from operating in a society of bewildering complexity." While that is not an argument amenable of scientific proof, it is an argument that is amenable to a well-considered study of history. To ask for more of such a topic may be presumptuous that lawmakers and bureaucrats actually are, or could be, responsive to such finely detailed evidence as would be requisite to produce a "progressive" increase in "gross domestic happiness."
Eugenics seems to be a slippery word, easily slipped about in shell games. Every time one person or group is favored for marriage marketability or social integration or immigration, the gene pool for potential reproductivity is affected. If used in that sense, eugenics, cannot be avoided. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there is potential for the direct manipulation of DNA, the marking and aborting of defective fetuses, and genetic intervention or therapy. Somewhere in the middle is the group-planned favoring of general tax and promotion incentives towards various types, such as the industrious, the inventive, and the socially responsible.
When it comes to stem cell research to cure Parkinson's disease, Leftists don't like the argument that man should not play God. When it comes to favoring certain types for immigration, Leftists don't like the argument that man should practice eugenics in terms of general controls and incentives. Then, they want "equal rights," as in equal rights to "married filing jointly" status for gay marriages.
Some very dark episodes in our history have conditioned us to shun any activity that might be characterized as the practice of eugenics. Yet, eugenics, whether intentionally practiced or subconsciously practiced, will continue under cloak of selective preference --- by God, Nature, and us. If we're going to have an intelligent conversation about eugenics, we need to better define our terms, our purposes, and our moral preferences. Until then, calling for or against eugenics is often about as illuminating as crying for social justice.
Indeed, Affirmative action that calls for reparations and demerits against whites is a form of broad based practicing of eugenics.
Absent voluntary faith under which to assimilate, the alternative is faith coerced by a regime. Regimes coerce via terror, bribes, drugs, monopolizing the narrative, outcasting dissent, eugenics, and polishing the party line with faux science. Regimes have vested interests in convincing their drones that there is no higher assimilating value that can be intuited in common by people of good will and good faith. The beginning of assimilative faith is in respect for the power of everyone to be receptive to it. The beginning of tyrrany is in denying such power and attempting totally to replace it with man-made regimes, which accord respect only to their power brokers. The end is totalitarian mind rape.
The Founders well understood the danger of raw populism. Now, Dems celebrate community organization for every kind of community whose members can be cheaply turned into useful idiots. Sadly, the way to compete is to organize and recruit your own mob. The Chicago Way. The assimilation of collectivizers is to power, not to principle. Problem is, pretty soon mobs run out of white men to blame and forage on, so they turn on themselves. The Zimmerman affair avails an interesting bellweather. What will racists among Hispanics make of racists among Blacks?
Romney's not the one floating balloons in advance of advocating gay marriage. What is nourishing to one culture may be poison to another. The hard work of assimilating decent civilization unravels as we so tolerate moral diversity as to easily fall into degeneracy and crime, coming to believe and rationalize that there is nothing really against it. Wise people do not frolic about the woods tasting every mushroon, nor do they require law to so advocate. The reason Western Civ favors traditional marriage is because it is the cornerstone of Western society. It may do little harm to allow gay activity. (Hindsight makes this questionable, given the very short time between legalization and forced advocacy.) However, it does immense harm to require government to avoid in any way favoring traditional marriage. Why? Because that is prelude to governmental take over of the details of raising the next generation. I can think of little that is more intrusive than for government to require that everyone must be taught not only to tolerate but to celebrate every sort of unusual behavior. When you want to run an antpile, what do you do with the surplus ants? Well, you can pave the way to encourage and divert their interests to otherwise unusual hormonal inducements. If we want a well regulated antpile, with detailed state intrusion in the strict conditioning of all children, we're well on our way.
The Lib Agenda is not just a distraction. Liberals and Libertarians really believe the issues of Gay marriage, legal dope, and general amnesty are worth a moral crusade, and many are blithely inclined to bring down the republic for their cause. Conservatives are mistaken if they believe this crusade is just a bone that can be casually discarded and tossed to superficially thinking Libs.
What many Conservatives fail yet to apprehend is that Libs, instead of merely agitating about racial issues, want also to cash in on fixations concerning drugs and gay sex. Ask: What substantive reason is there for the Libertarian movement, other than to saddle us with even more regulations in order to ensure equal indoctrination in, and enforcement of, strange proclivities (under their definition of "equal," of course)?
How does setting us up for hundreds of thousands of new pages of regulations to ensure equal distribution of entitlements to dopers and gays help "liberate" us from Big Gov? This kind of false Libertarianism is just liberation from personal responsibility, i.e., lipstick on collectivism. The intrusive bureaucracy to enforce this "Libertarianism" would be enormous. This is not just about a simple correction. It entails wholesale follow up and enforced indoctrination of the next generation in media, academia, bureaucratic regulations, and ACLU lawsuits to redefine "equal distribution" in ways that will defy the best of imaginations.
Hell: A place where the votes of the host count for no more than those of the parasites. You can't compartmentalize Hell. For parasites, spreading is re-distributing. California will be hard to quarantine without first cutting off the gangrene. You can't fix every problem child who is convinced that his sense of entitlement has value, as if the answer to all social woes consisted in general amnesty, legal drugs, and gay marriage. A steady diet of such feel-good philosophy throughout the years of adolescence will never make for a healthy mind and body.
Is it "consent" when gay advocates ask friendly judges to overrule the will of the people at large, when the people say they do not want to be made tax slaves for financing libertine claims to tax entitlements? Are the people at large "consenting" and begging that they be harnessed to finance people who want to come to America in order to promote open borders, open drugs, open marriages, and open life styles? Is this kind of insidious parasitism really sustainable? What intelligent student of history "consents" to such things?
At most, 20% of students belong in college. If someone wants to learn about Black Studies, I would be astounded if all of the subject matter were not easily accessible either on the Internet or on Rap stations. (Of course, this doesn't account for tax funded, re-socializing playtime to learn the jazz, jive, and 'tude.) If a person can't find everything there is to know about Black Studies on the Internet, then he'she doesn't have enough upstairs to warrant being partially funded by any public university! (The real purpose is the "education" in "community organizing.") Much less should he be undertaking to get himself under the Regime's thumb as a debt slave. That is, unless he intends to sell his soul and enlist to be willing to do anything for the Regime. In that event, he will be invited to go to the head of at least some line, but he will have lost all hope of ever becoming a real person. At that rate, the Black Ghetto will be with us until the family is outlawed as an institution and taken over by the community-organized village bureaucracy.
Historically, masculine control spread civilization by wars of conquest. Now, feminine control seeks to consolidate gains, at the cost of turning a good many into unisex drones, with little more purposefulness than to open all borders to the mother's milk of drugs and hormones. The NWO slogan seems to be gay amnesty, drugs, and hormones. Too much feminine celebration of unearned equality and self esteem has led us to non-self-sustaining, collectivizing spectacles --- corrupting all sense of proportion, modesty, and decency for the next generation.
The ACLU is a close ally of this unbalanced feminization. For the ACLU to seek worldwide equality by celebrating the establishment of reams upon reams of "either-or" regulations is the modern equivalent of bleeding the political patient as an alternative to supporting an assimilative faith in a higher connector of empathy. The mountains of feminizing rules, adjustments, exceptions, and special favors to political allies and mules will be astonishing and imprisoning to behold.
Good faith needs to be alert to ploys of adders who plot to ensnare it. The goodness of good will resides more with enduring strength than with tolerant gullibility. However, it's becoming obvious that the NWO expects to divert all pockets of enduring strength to the permanent teat. Too late, we will find, under smiling pretense of good will, the hearts of despotic adders. It appears we're being prepped to receive our antpile queen. In essence, Time is asking: Is she mother enough to establish a world antpile?
From A.T. -- Re: "How many more manuals and training sessions do we need for Americans to treat people as humans?"
Outstanding article! I think the meta-agenda is even more prenicious in its actual effect. The actual effect is towards feminizing the entire culture. The idea seems to be that masculinity is too dangerously prone to violence. So, let's gaify the world. If so, femininity is too dangerously prone to Oprah-led group-cries for all possible box categories of peopledom (even for those of the "religion of peace"). A moment's worth of reasoning shows the "bankfuptcy" of trying to regulate and preach equal funding for every kind of ethnic imaginable. Instead of an observer-measuring effect, we get a governmental funding effect: If it doesn't clamor for "equal funding," does it exist? Among the gay-obama-acorn-aclu-pink community, apparently not. It's head-in-the-sand foolishness to think people steeped in this process can stop themselves short of clamoring for entitlements for polygamists. A culture that can preach tolerance for Islamic intolerance is fully capable of advocating absolute lunacy. Its denials are based in feelings, played out either in sheltered ignorance or in connivance. Does any thinking person believe Obama has not been conniving for the gay agenda all along?
A tribe, society, or nation that does not produce anything cannot very well be free. What can it possibly trade with a society that does produce? Only its ideas and service labor. How can a citizenry comprised mostly of service laborers hope to preserve representation against those among it who own all the means of production? The less a nation produces, the more relatively impoverished its independent middle class becomes, the less it can in any intelligent way claim to be leader of "the free world." The "new economy" in America is code for the reduction of Americans to serf status. So how do you convince serfs they are "free?" Well, you give them lots of amnesty, drugs, and general gaity. Ah, sweet liberty!
Re: "Singles, including gays, have been subsidizing traditional married couples since at least the New Deal."
Uh, no. It's the "breeders," at least the ones who raise responsible children, who have been subsisizing everyone else. It's not generally the boys who never grow up, who remain perpetually enthralled with their drugs, entitlements, and specialness who defend the nation or who stand for anything worth defending. The notion that recognizing the family as the foundation of any society worth defending is a mere side issue is quite socially myopic. It's characteristic of libertines who will never, never grow up. The notion that law should intrude to define in fine detail how every possible group, box, category, and interest will receive equal portions of all to which it is entitled is the road to a legalistic regime that would be paradise only to the biggest bull goose loonies of all. We're going to preserve liberty by legislating all affronts to government impositions as if they were hate crimes?! Is that the gay idea for how we're going to gain "liberty?" No thanks.
Well, I doubt Gays could find unity for any such a definition. Those who despise all sanctity would probably be satisfied with a Constitutional Amendment that said that a "Two Person Partnership Union with Benefits of Intimacy" must be entitled to every governmental benefit that is accorded to a marriage between two persons of opposite sex. (In that way, perhaps cousins could suddenly be entitled in every state to form Two Person Partnership Unions with Benefits of Intimacy.)
However, there seem also to be Gays who are mainly interested in being declared normal. Normally, they might not want voters intruding into questions that are primarily of a mathematical or scientific nature. For example, they tend not to want to see Creationism taught as science. However, they will make an exception to allow government to decree that there is nothing abnormal about gay intimacy. For that matter, there is really nothing at all that is abnormal. This is because everything that exists is normal to its existence. Ergo, all must be panglossed, tolerated and funded, since all is normal.
Actually, I think this is not about definitions, but about feelings and wannas --- to hell with any responsible, grown-up regard for what would best sustain decent civilization. In other words, forgetabout principles and definitions and istead just look to feelings about homies. Indeed, much of the fun seems to consist in outing spectacles and cramming stuff down people's throats. Personally, I think Obama should throw a bone and advocate for pink platoons in the Marines.
More and more, it looks like the ACLU is comprised mainly of little girls and girlie boys who want never to have to grow up and be responsible for themselves, without the support of collectives of whining idiots. They want Gov regulation to meet their ideal of the suckling, sheltering momma they think their own momma's never quite lived up to. They imagine they can "progress" us to a better place by replacing all spiritual models and traditions with their own befuddled, secular trinity of Big Gov, Big Elites, and Big Regulations. Reams and reams and reams of regulations --- all to achieve utopian fairness, of course (whether the majority likes it or not). Their crusade is to drag we heathens into their blinkered interpretation of the ideal society. I rather doubt they would complain of replacing every cross that represents the Christian Ideal with giant posters for representing their favorite Lefty Fascists. They would replace the Ideal Lord with their grubby little lords of flies. A veritable fair and equal redistribution of flies for all the little boys and girls of Neverland.
From A.T. -- Re: "if we just eliminated fraud/waste/abuse/duplicity from the federal government...as much as one-third, or over $1 trillion per year"
As industry moves away and the number of real jobs goes down, sustaining the economy will necessitate distributing more money to non-vital jobs, not less money. That is, unless the economy is allowed to stimulate real jobs. Or unless government puts desk workers to work in the fields, repairing infrastructure. Problem is, what government worker would vote for a candidate whose platform called for requiring gov workers to do real work? Maybe checks and balances are so out of whack that good intentions cannot right things until necessity leaves no other alternative. Maybe things will have to get worse before they can get better.
One way to bring consequences into clearer focus would be to stop sustaining the economy with make-work (TSA like) jobs. It's one thing to temporarily prime the pump by doling out dollars to prime demand by priming consumption. It's another thing to permanently train the populace to get comfortable living on the dole. These moral hazards create their own degenerating dance of down spirals, as an amoral workforce reinforces an amoral Congress, and vice versa. Meanwhile, while we're in this dangerous moral decline, know-it-all, Lefty boys and girls think the solution to every concern is purely objective: just ridicule and drive respect for every tradition and spiritual model that reinforces moral behavior into oblivion --- as if scientism could show the way to derive ought from is.
No doubt, the specifics of any plan sponsored by Schumer would be childish, likely even insane. However, some general principles may be worth considering. The backbone of a free republic is a free thinking middle class. And the middle class is just as vulnerable to being decimated by crony corporatism that buys and sells big government as it is by big government itself. It's not healthy for a free republic to allow a small and essentially unregulated class to amass the wealth and power to buy and sell its politicians and governance. I would not tax income, but I would explore progressively taxing consumption, while including political contributions as a form of consumption.
As we print money and allow it to be siphoned to neer do wells, it easily ends up in hands of international corporatists who do not really consider themselves loyal to any nation, much less to any ideal for preserving a free thinking middle class. If they need to establish an off shore base for hedging corrupt operations, they will. If, to acquire power and wealth, they need to deal in kickbacks with foreign despots, they will. We need to engage in smart trade with despots, not free trade with despots. We need to not tax financial in-come; but we do need to tax financial out-go. We need to not tax durable good out-go; but, against despotic regimes, we do need to tax durable good in-come. If we don't, we're just bailing water out of a boat filled with holes. No republic can float with too many such holes.
When giving to non-family, best would be to give to private charities that have good experience and track records for actually helping people grow up to their potential. Unfortunately, the more government spreads charity as entitlement, the less skilled private charities become. Moreover, foundations often become fronts for politics and secondary gain. I don't think charities should be tax exempt, and I don't think government much belongs in charity. A church will have more hands on interest in monitoring progress than a bureaucrat who only wants security or a minor fiefdom, financed by OPM. Government does belong in providing a decent safety net. How decent? Just decent enought to help with emergencies, not decent enough to incentive lives of sloth. Big problem, however: The more government steps into social services, the more it is expected to. And, once in, it can never back out --- short of enormous turmoil. Dangerous cycles are always extant, to which Libs are Obliv's and for which idiot educators often act as enablers.
Hitler had Jewish blood. Gertrude Stein was a Jewish collaborator with the Vichy Regime. It's not easy to understand this. I wonder whether it may have something to do with too much cultural emphasis on seeking perfection on earth? When the perfect is made enemy of the good, to the point of overriding basic respect for human dignity via fine strangling laws, we seem to be "progressed" along the kind of linear thinking that leads humanity right off the cliff. Maybe being "too smart by half" is similar to lacking vision to detect bends and cycles in delineations.
For middle class families with children, I doubt those that make $100,000 get near the help in student loans for their kids than those that make $30,000. The system is quite good at making equal debt slaves of most of those who still strive. There is another effect: Everyone who thinks he is getting benefits rallies to politicians who promise to try to prevent them from being taken away. Of course, the government likely never provided much benefit to begin with, because an equal gift to everyone is like an inflationary printing of fiat money. It's a neat smoke and mirrors trick that divides and deceives the natives, while helping to keep them under thumbs. When nearly everyone is led to bite the government apple, nearly everyone loses freedom.
Wars are between nations. Afghanistan cannot be won because we are not at war with a nation, but with "terrorism." However, sane and non-corrupt people do not go to war against terrorism. Who does? Corrupt advocates for NWO. Do they expect to win? No. They only want you to believe they want to win. If they wanted to win, we would punish the bad guys and then leave. Leave the culture to its people. Those people don't want freedom. They want Shariah. Leave them. Why won't the NWO simply leave? Because leaving would recognize that a war against terror cannot be won. It would recognize the need for national boundaries. It would recognize that the U.S. needs to preserve its identity as a separate nation. However, that would impede the world wide web of finance, communication, technology, and trade. It would impede the reduction of all ordinary little people to serfs and ants. Unless Afghanistan can be tamed, or pretended to be almost tamed, the NWO cannot justify erasing borders of civilized nations, nor can it justify erasing the middle class as being comprised of independent thinkers. The problem is more one of control by corrupt elites than one of idiocy.
Collectivization siphons responsibility, authority, and rights to central command. We don't have State's Rights. We have Feds taking the lion's share of taxes and then redistributing crumbs to the little state's it favors. Soon, we won't have family rights. Instead, Feds will siphon command over all children to Central Control. Non-traditionalists don't want to be individually responsible, so they mean to see to it that no one else can be, either. Meanwhile, our educated idiots tell us this is "progress."
Both parties seem to be rife with predatory con artists, although the Left sees connivery as an art form in itself, while the Right sees it mainly as a way of doing business. The Right shows more concern for decency only because conservers of liberty try to assert influence through the Republican Party. Still, the predatory pattern for controlling hive-minds through Big Deception has infested through and through. A populist will has conditioned sheeple to yearn to belong and to be dominated by fascists.
Fascism is good for girlie boys and little girls who want either to dress up and pretend to be gods of their own juices or never to have to grow up and be responsible (other than to submit to some idol). There is Liberal Fascism (enforced collectivist usurpation of individual Will) and Libertarian Fascism (government enforced indoctrination of children to tolerate the intolerable, i.e., to lead us to tolerate the dispersal of drugs and sex to children). To them, to simper in an alcoholic, opium, or OPM haze is far more important, groovy, and virtuous than to seek to intuit and follow a Reconciler. They tend not to believe that people of good faith have intuitive or empathetic access to any Reconciler higher than their own little wannas. Or, they believe in a false reconciler, who does not want them to exercise Will or take responsibility other than to submit to, and obey, masters of mindlessness and dopery. They are neither principled nor unprincipled. Rather, they are a-principled, because they renounce Responsible Will.
Indeed, the a-principled tend not to believe in any qualitatively real basis for faith at all, much less good faith. This may mark THE QUALITATIVE DISTINCTION between those adults who Will to take responsibility for their own desires and conduct versus those perpetual little, doped-up, zombie kids who want no part of individual responsibility. Even when obamakids prance as pretended leaders, they blame predecessors and everyone and everything --- except themselves. And always, always, they leave enormous, messy, dirty diapers, needles, viruses, and vandalism.
I agree that mental disorder is most noticeable among Dems, but it also finds expression in crony corporatism. Suppose one gets through the school system, obtains responsible employment, gets married, starts a family, and gets involved in bettering his community. ASK: Is such a person likely to feel need to use illegal drugs or to engage in group orgies? If not, why then do we have so many lib’ified, perpetual children, who never grow up? In large part, it's because we have allowed control to be consolidated to serve interests of amoral predators who benefit from pimping out kids. What is the public school system, if not a gateway for conditioning kids to be later abused by Lib Fascists?
Why do we allow ourselves to be taxed to finance the stupefying of children, to turn them into perpetually reliable enablers of fascist controllers? Why do we not insist that school entail a process for teaching children to become responsible adults, not mere pleasure cruisers, looking to be thrilled by predatory celebrities? How is it that we have come to allow amoral predators to benefit from pimping out kids? ANSWER: Many have broken moral compasses. Why have so many moral compasses been broken? ANSWER: We have a system-wide failure in moral instruction, theology, and philosophy, and now many are hoping pure empiricism can fill the void, to fill the morally qualitative with the empirically quantitative. This will not work!
I believe there abides a qualitative Reconciler, but IT won't be found in Fundamentalism for regulatory minutiae, nor in Legalism, nor in pure Empiricism. IT may be approached in humble, decent, empathetic respect for the participatory will and dignity of our fellows. This is NOT to licence libertines. It's not the Great Commandment, nor the Golden Rule, that's broken. What's broken is sub-dogma, in the way it's purveyed by those who have positioned themselves to subjugate the labor, will, and interpretation of all others. Worldwide, amoral predators are organized and rampant, they exploit all parties, and they do harvest children.
Wars are between nations. Afghanistan cannot be won because we are not at war with a nation, but with "terrorism." However, sane and non-corrupt people do not go to war against terrorism. Who does? Corrupt advocates for NWO. Do they expect to win? No. They only want you to believe they want to win. If they wanted to win, we would punish the bad guys and then leave. Leave the culture to its people. Those people don't want freedom. They want Shariah. Leave them. Why won't the NWO simply leave? Because leaving would recognize that a war against terror cannot be won. It would recognize the need for national boundaries. It would recognize that the U.S. needs to preserve its identity as a separate nation. However, that would impede the world wide web of finance, communication, technology, and trade. It would impede the reduction of all ordinary little people to serfs and ants. Unless Afghanistan can be tamed, or pretended to be almost tamed, the NWO cannot justify erasing borders of civilized nations, nor can it justify erasing the middle class as being comprised of independent thinkers. The problem is more one of control by corrupt elites than one of idiocy.
World wide free traders tend to be lost in ideals and delusions, imagining that the world does not need national borders, that it is not important to preserve a free-thinking middle class so long as we have enough smart elites to do our thinking for us. So, they pursue "making the world safe for free trade." How? By trying to win a "war on terrorism," so all we little people will learn to agree that our safety does not require national borders or homeland industry. What is really being done is greasing the world for international, canopy predators and pleasure cruisers, of no loyalty to any nation, creed, or ethos of decency. They own the institutions and keep shoveling their BS at us. So long as they can print money and tax us to fund their treason and evil, it's hard to say when enough people will finally grow up, learn to call BS, and say Enough!
It does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a child to raise a village that can raise a civilization. It takes having in mind that which can establish and preserve decent human freedom and dignity. When collectivists raise a child, you get Obama. With more like Obama, you get children who can't understand why they are unqualified to rule adults, running amuck in candyland, leaving big messes, believing they're smart. A little child will often believe he knows all that is worth knowing because his posse rewards most of his whims, without his actually needing to learn how much he does not know.
Collectivization siphons responsibility, authority, and rights to central command. We don't have State's Rights. We have Feds taking the lion's share of taxes and then redistributing crumbs to the little state's it favors. Soon, we won't have family rights. Instead, Feds will siphon command over all children to Central Control. Non-traditionalists don't want to be individually responsible, so they mean to see to it that no one else can be, either. Meanwhile, our educated idiots tell us this is "progress."
And yet, her constituency keeps electing her. And if Dems controlled the House, she would again be Speaker. It's as if flesh eating microbes had evolved to rot our country to its soul.
Some Libertarians can't grow up to maintain relations with the opposite sex. Some can't function well without weed. Some can't restrain themselves from making spectacles in public. Some can't supervise children without needing to re-condition the children to celebrate all that Libertarians celebrate. Therefore: Society should renormalize what it means to be grown up. Society should allow children who can't grow up to have all rights and privileges, equally just as if they had grown up. After all, to treat perpetual children as if they were not yet adults, or perhaps not even capable of becoming adults, is hateful discrimination. It is not enough to tolerate perpetual children. We must now celebrate them, educate everyone to celebrate them, and we must accord them full recognition just as if they were adults. Of course, this begs questions: Why should we discriminate regarding anyone who really is a child, especially if his mind and judgment are better than most adults? Why should any biological child be subjected to supervision under any parent who is adult in body, but child in mind? The answer of the Libertarian seems to be: Well, this is a necessary form of discrimination, because it helps to keep government at bay while weeding out bad parenting with natural selection. Of course, this "answer" respects nothing about natural selection of defensible civilizations, much less borders. So, the "answer" for Libertarians is amnesty, drugs, and general gaity. Anything less is hateful or governmentally intrusive. They will let someone else defend where lines should be drawn once we legalize all amnesty, drugs, and gaity ... someone else and other people ... like adults.
It's not flaming to say that no one is forbidding lesbian households! It's denial to equate what is at issue with that. The contest is not about that. The contest is about: whether every law, tax, and credit must be applied in some kind of pretense that gay unions are exactly the same as marriages; whether giving equal effect to such pretense is even possible; and whether tax money must be used to indoctrinate school children to celebrate gay unions. In other words, the contest is about whether and when gays will honor any lines or even recognize that a man is not a woman and a child is not an adult. The concern is that gays are being taught a strange logic that is oblivious to the distinction between apples and oranges.
Daughters, sons, apples, oranges, platonic marriages, immigration lawyers marrying foreign clients --- it's all the same once your border-line drawing logic has become perpetually stoned. Moreover, this will give POTus (grins to B+Forest) higher grades among socializing stoner storm troopers. Stoners love stoners.
Ever notice how Libs can't reason from or to a principle? Talk about name calling and reasoning purely from feelings!!! If I ever met a Lib who showed signs of interest or capacity for reasoning about principles of social issues, I would be less quick to return sarcasm with sarcasm. As to Maher, you're right --- I would not waste a cent on him. He's a waste, a trip to a fall to a life in manure. I appreciate that babies need to be nurtured to grow up, but adults need not waste time on people who become adults in biology while remaining babies in mentality. Life's too short to suffer fools too long. All the whining, dope advocacy, and leaving children to be preyed on gets tiresome. Someday, when the bills come due and you're the one actually paying them, you may see what I mean. I know --- the bills are all the conservatives' fault! At least, that's what the canopy cronies who fund the Libs want us to believe. Read Predator Nation and learn about the canopy corporatists who are pulling the strings to put us all in debt slavery. It's not the social conservatives who are pulling those strings.
Post a Comment