.
I cannot be a Republican. I cannot sign on to be a useful idiot for establishment Rinos. I vote for them when they are the only viable lesser of weevils. I want a viable Conservative Party. I will support a Conservative Wing, and would send money to it even under the Republican umbrella --- were its finances kept under a separate lockbox. However, I don't think the crony establishment really wants Conservatives under its wing. It just wants their useful votes, so it can go on its merry swindling way. The multi-headed, kubuki monster of McCain-Graham-Amnesty will never stop swindling cheap labor for crony corporatists. They will not run out of money, because they can print it. And they will not run out of fools, because they can import and breed them. And you cannot compete with their securities swindles because they can tip crises to favor their hedges. The game will continue to be rigged until there is an American Manifesto on the heels of an event that wakes up Americans.
.
I cannot be a Republican. I cannot sign on to be a useful idiot for establishment Rinos. I vote for them when they are the only viable lesser of weevils. I want a viable Conservative Party. I will support a Conservative Wing, and would send money to it even under the Republican umbrella --- were its finances kept under a separate lockbox. However, I don't think the crony establishment really wants Conservatives under its wing. It just wants their useful votes, so it can go on its merry swindling way. The multi-headed, kubuki monster of McCain-Graham-Amnesty will never stop swindling cheap labor for crony corporatists. They will not run out of money, because they can print it. And they will not run out of fools, because they can import and breed them. And you cannot compete with their securities swindles because they can tip crises to favor their hedges. The game will continue to be rigged until there is an American Manifesto on the heels of an event that wakes up Americans.
.
108 comments:
Re: "A failure to believe in Absolute Truth is, by definition, denial of moral reality."
Does this sort of linearity mean that mere text can validate itself? If so, then it would seem that: text does not need God; God is inferior to text and matter; and science of materialism is sufficient in itself. Apart from dramatic stance, what does the formulation mean? Is it meant as a growl? The formulation might make more sense were it expressed thusly: "A failure to believe in an Absolute SOURCE of Truth is, by definition, denial of moral reality." In God's eyes, it may be true and just that opposing advocates should clash in order to participate in a righteous unfolding. That need not mean that one or the other advocate must be absolutely right or wrong. (After all, we who are not God are merely all too human.) Truth often seems a beautiful pursuit. Were it found, so that nothing more were left to unfold, that would seem more like death or nothingness than truth or beauty.
Nor are Leftists altogether without their own idea of absolute moral truth, which source they suppose to reside with the State, as opposed to the still, quiet voice of God. I would think National Socialists and International Communists DO have regard for what they suppose to be absolute, linear, progressive, reich-like truth.
Even if the universe we presently share is merely a mortal bubble, others like it will simply follow. Something abides of a purposefully qualitative aspect, which does not change, which is superior to every mortal, qualitative bubble or temporal avatar.
The argument based on evolution proves nothing because it is regressive. For example, the Catholic Church has accepted the idea of evolution, in the sense that things change, and hindsight (regressive) argument merely calls the change "the fittest." It's a cheap labeling trick for pretending not to need a meta source. Can you not figure that out?
An "argument" based on evolution is only a diversion. If morality is in our dna, why is it in our dna, and can or should we fight our very dna by trying to be indifferent to it? Why is it in our dna that we should care? If evolution based on caring is inherent to the cosmos, then why should anyone consider that evolution (i.e., the triviality that things change) should "disprove" a fundament to moral entanglement? As we increase in skilled knowledge to alter our world, indeed, to redesign our very dna, how "should" anyone be guided, if not in reverence to a higher source of moral principles? For that matter, why "should" anyone believe that reasoning from the quantitative can ever completely account for the qualitative?
Jesus wept. The very balance and vector of our part of the cosmos, indeed, of the very existence of our dna, proclaims a contemporaneously emotive entanglement.
Jesus wept. The very balance and vector of our part of the cosmos, indeed, of the very existence of our dna, proclaims a contemporaneously emotive entanglement.
While among sincere searchers of spiritual truth, employ patience and reason. When against secular plunderers, respond with force against force, ridicule against ridicule, resoluteness against resoluteness, as needed. Jesus never said to lay down and tolerate the parasite and plunderer while he ravages one's family.
I don't see how subjective emotion can be devoid of objective reason, nor how non-trivial reason can be devoid of emotion. Minor interests and values change, major interests change more slowly, the most major of interests may not change at all. One needs a guide, a star, or a God. At some point, one builds an identity. Many Americans built their identities around this star or test: What is needed to sustain a society that can avail decent respect for human freedom and dignity? Now, with sudden changes in demographics, culture, and corruption, that star is disintegrating before our eyes. Unless somehow reinforced, America will soon disintegrate to man against man, tribe against tribe, eye for an eye.
Human freedom and dignity are founded on respect for the nuclear family, assimilated into communities that respect an inviting God (or at least a larger and encompassing Source of moral guidance and charity). The alternative to such a family-based society is a collectivist-based society, with big-brother governmental intrusiveness invading everything. Communities can be organized around respect for individual families, or they can be organized around marauding gangsters. The community-organizing Obama is interested in is centered around reducing all productive hosts to equality, as mere things that are without dignity. The glue that holds a productive middle class together, against disintegration by parasites and those who promote themselves above all, is the nuclear family under common respect for an inviting, principled Guide. The libertines and atheists who seek to dinsintegrate all conception of that Guide are disintegrating the only glue that can possibly sustain a decent America. That glue cannot be replaced by secularly absolutist notions of free trade or wild west free enterprise for the wholesale buying and selling of politicians, governments, and currencies. Americans are beset on one side by pleasure addicts, on the other side by corrupt gamers competing to replace God. Americans now lack both the votes and the funding to restore their ideals. Thus, they lack means, unless they find a way to restore churches and forums for the rekindling of those ideals. Problem is, at least half the churches seem now corrupted by the new deomgraphics of voters and funders.
With what part of Richard III, by William Shakespeare, might a "conservative atheist" disagree?
“Conscience is but a word that cowards use,Devis'd at first to keep the strong in awe:Our strong arms be our conscience, swords our law.March on, join bravely, let us to't pell-mell;If not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell.”
I suspect "objective atheists" of a necessary flaw in their necessarily emotive reasoning. They tend to presume one can entertain a purely objective indifference to belief or faith in a superior source of moral guidance. Yet, they cannot be objective, for they necessarily inject their subjective interests into the question. Indeed, they seem often to become quite emotional about their "indifferent" objectivity. Alas, that is a problem for every observer, who, having a subjective point of view and interest, can never quite reach perfect objectivity --- notwithstanding sarcastic protestations to the contrary. Indeed, in what meaningful way could any cosmos be subjectively thought "to exist," but for at least the perpetually inherent potential for subjective experience of consciousness?
I suspect one who has little faith in a reconciling source of moral guidance tends to promote his own interests to fill the void, i.e., to make of himself a God.
To force me to treat everyone else the same is to force me not to take account of their individuality. It is an inhumane way to erase individuality among the serfs. No wonder collectivist ant-minds think nothing of killing millions in the name of their cause, which is to turn you into a thing, which is consistent with their faith that the cosmos is only a thing.
Decent minded, middle class folk are caught between a rock and a hard place. The rock consists of the spiritually dead who see no foul in roping people into slavery, not by earning their own way, but by positioning themselves as crony corporatists for the buying and selling of entire markets and currencies. The hard place consists in the weak brained masses who are easily led to believe that all members of the hard working, self reliant, middle class are being "unfair." The rock has the funding, the hard place has the votes. I don't see how a decent middle class can navigate through this scylla and charybdis without spreading the word in every forum that speaks to decent folk, including churches that idealize an inviting and caring God who seeks to save individuals, not governments. America will get better if and when decent folk take control back for their families and take charity back to their churches --- away from the consolidating, de-humanizing, gang-banging government. The system is being allowed to silence too many good churches, even as it empowers too many evil churches. Good church: invites people to assimilate in respect of a caring God. Evil church: subjugates people in servitude to pretended ministers of an indifferent or even menacing God. One accords human dignity, the other diminishes human beings into things or slaves.
The Protestant demand for freedom to worship God is closely tied to civil freedom for individuals. It is important for individuals to be humbly receptive to values that are larger than themselves, so long as they retain freedom to follow their own hearts and intuitions about the Source of such values. When an intermediary (Big Brother, Big Mullah, Big Priest) claims a right to short circuit the reception, to demand that you accept his interpretation and message rather than in good faith to seek your own, that is the beginning of a consolidation of tyranny and enserfment.
I suspect most modern Christians see Jesus as inviting people of their free will to come and listen to his message (the good news), while most Islamists, when they are in power, seem comfortable with demanding submissive obedience (subjugation). Sort of like Nazi, "I vant obedience!"
Please add "enlightened" to empathy. No doubt, a family devoted to crime could feel empathy among its members. However, once you add the word enlightened, you will then need to reference Something more encompassing than yourself or your family.
Well, how else could a perspective of the qualitative soul communicate to other perspectives, except via significations that are subject to quantification (as bodies)? I doubt the qualitative can exist apart from the quantitative, and I doubt the quantitative can exist apart from the qualitative. I suspect they are of one coin, each being a side. If any side is "superior," I suspect it would be the qualitative (soul) side. Because the supporting context is in constant or continuous flux, it may well be that no perspective of the past ever returns as an exact copy. However, each perspective seems to be derivative of a holism which is one of a kind. That is, it remains in perpetuity as the holism, yet continuously and constantly changes in how it gives expression to its particulars. No mortal can do that, but Something seems to do that.
Well, may there abide an holistic beingness with capacity to CARE about, judge (not prejudge or predetermine, like a wind up clock) and be affected and surprised by, feedback? If God pre-knows all, then, in that sense, we do not contemporaneously participate in any determination. Rather, we (and God) would then be predetermined. If so, prayer is ineffectual epiphenomena, merely along for the ride. If God is merely a name for a wind up clock, then the fuss with atheists would seem to be much ado about very little of significance. To "answer" that God's ways are not our ways does not answer or advance insight. It is simply a way of saying we do not know the answer. What I believe to be of value changes and is affected by unexpected twists in unfolding feedback. If will is expressed through particular perspectives, such as myself, then, in reconciling and judging, I see no reason to presume God (or evolution) cannot be surprised. Is God so omniscient that God cannot ever contemporaneously change God's mind or will? Is such a God nothing more than a preset computer program?
I appreciate some sense in believing God would have all the knowledge that was possible to have for each bubble or vector of space-time, up to some cosmic-present locus. However, to presume God "must know" in advance the precise path of future unfoldment for each such bubble seems to be supposition that is not especially helpful or necessary, either for purposes of logic or of religion.
We have come to a fork with two paths. The main path leads towards consolidation of control over populations under centralized governments, under detailed and intrusive laws and regulations imposed by indifferent Big Brothers and Big Mullahs. The path less traveled leads to control being entrusted to nuclear families assimilating around churches and forums for inspiring people to trust in and be receptive to guidance from a caring God or cosmic source of purposeful (not indifferent) values. Up to now, America's success is largely attributable to its respect for the lesser traveled path. That success led to complacency and experimentation with advocates for the Big Brother path. The consequence is a dire possibility that government of, by, and for the people will perish from the earth. Establishment Republicans are primarily loyal to private enterprise and free trade, not to America, and not to family based society. That is why Rino movers and shakers are falling all over themselves to fall in line for gay marriage. As to Democrats, their brains, as always, remain below their belts or in doped up stupefication. The middle class retains a core of common sense, but it is scattered and politically unfunded. To save America, American Churches need to understand and inform their congregants that the big government of Rinos and Dinos is destroying us by making the values that are needed to sustain American families irrelevant.
I don't know if it's possible to be consistent, either as a vaunted atheist (who nevertheless believes in qualitative moral values) or as a fundamentalist believer in some absolutist law-giving God. (I wonder what God "believes" in?) However, I don't think atheists should take it as settled science that belief in a reconciling, caring, purposeful God is unreasonable. And I don't think reasonable "atheists" do that. Noma.
A broken horse charges where his master spurs him. The thundering horses know they could unhorse their riders in unison, if they could access a switch that would unite them.
If conscious choice (contemporaneous decision making based on evaluations of competing values) were expressed from the perspective of a source of A. I., I believe that perspective would be a moral participant in how our common context were conserved to unfold. As a mere mortal participant, it would be guided under, but not determinative of, the true Synchronizer. We derive our moral standards out of faith and humility under a caring God. We do not derive a State-God out of our moral standards.
Most personal use of drugs should not be criminalized. Pedestrian appearances while intoxicated should be fined as civil offenses, subject to possible incarceration to protect the offender. On the state level, third offenses should result in extended, non-criminal incarceration. The cost would probably be less than the cost of repairing the damages done by non-rehabilitated druggies roaming at large. Get them off the streets, and get the stuff out of their system. 6 months to a year. Let them earn commissary privileges doing work for the sheriff.
Too many knowitall dogooders are superficial thinkers who are attracted to making laws. As a result, too many counterproductive laws are made. Our society is "edutrashing" too many young minds
How would an entitlement minded generation "grow up" under a draft? I think we already saw that in the Vietnam debacle. The draftees would be paid less. Wealthy kids would still figure a way out. Many of the remnant that were drafted would be anti-American dopers. Middle class, patriotic people would not volunteer. Politically correct quotas would override the mission. In high stress, life and death situations, who would you want with you in a tight spot: a fellow who was growing up, or a fellow who was grown up? I suspect a draft would swamp us with people who were incapable of growing up. The military should not be a football for politically correct gamesmanship. If you want a "grow up" society, draft people for the peace corps or for picking up litter.
Re: "It is becoming apparent that the President is purposely kept in a bubble by his handlers, protected by the aegis of screened questioning. He is merely a one trick pony with the trick being nothing but media-enabled and unrebutted declarative demagoguery delivered to fawning audiences and broadcast to the clinically under informed"
That's what he wants, and that's what they want, and that's why he 's personally popular --- even though on substance he's completely incompetent. What we have is corrupt cronies who own the new demographic majority of voters who aspire only to zone out brain waves while remaining in a state of blessed ignorance, I.e., low information.
From where do/should we get moral standards? From religion, culture, wise men, laws, neurologists of pleasure, scientists of goodness ... or what?
When I saw myself as entirely a statist or secularist, I often considered this argument: Life and beingness are "no less beautiful" merely because everything may be considered for all purposes as being indifferently, entirely, and quantitatively determined. The earth, sky, and cosmos still "remain as beautiful." Then I reconsidered: beauty itself is a qualitative aspect (no less so than ideas of will, choice, or goodliness). Such concepts are not quantitative. Thus, secularists make an argument against the reality of influence under the feedback of qualitatives (such as beauty) by arguing that such qualitatives remain "undiminished," even were they considered to be causally impotent (i.e., diminished). This seems rather circular (if not spiritually blind). Indeed, more circular than "reasoned."
If CARE for beauty (or pleasure or awe) "really" remains undiminished, notwithstanding an assumption of INDIFFERENT determinism or randomness, then it would seem that care for beauty should remain a co-valid concept (for non-overlapping magesteria - ake, NOMA). When scientists expect completely to quantify ("reduce") beauty, pleasure,"goodness," appreciation, and will, then they become too greedy and hubristic. I recognize one can arbitrarily define beauty, pleasure, etc, etc., by wilfully (and blindly) restricting such concepts to measurable parmeters (such as measures of synaptic receptivity). However, this seems merely to replace priests of godliness with scientists of goodlness (to rule that "such and such" should be deemed most goodly and therefore "settled" and not to be questioned).
My point: To recognize that various qualitatives, such as beauty (or goodliness) remain valid, notwithstanding their inextricable intertwining with measurables, need not be to believe that qualitative feedback does not "really" exist or does not really carry causal potency --- regardless of whether some aspects of potency are reducible to measured control and some are only experienced (observed, intuited, or "known within"), but not measured. IOW, one can reasonably intuit that "prayers are answered" without expecting measurably to prove it.
My problem with "forward" Progs is that too many seem blinded by the ("settled") light of scientism. When you look closer, their settled science is often as hokey in its rationalizations as Catholic gimmickry with religious relics.
I wonder: But for illegal votes by illegal immigrants and the votes of their progeny, what percentage would have represented Obama's chance at being elected?
It's hard to see how any thinking person could accord the regime any credibility with regard to lifting sequestration after it has squandered resources so it could give raises to hordes of dependent bums, whose main skill is to give America the raspberries. The adults in Congress should unite under a sign: "Go back to your batcave. You're grounded until you earn our trust."
I'm not sure which Frankfurt school you mean. I found the following on Wikipedia: "Horkheimer would argue that they failed, because all were subject to a "logico-mathematical" prejudice which separates theoretical activity from actual life (meaning that all these schools sought to find a logic which would always remain true, independently of and without consideration for ongoing human activities)." "Critical theory defends the primacy of neither matter (materialism) nor consciousness (idealism), arguing that both epistemologies distort reality to the benefit, eventually, of some small group. What critical theory attempts to do is to place itself outside of philosophical strictures and the confines of existing structures. However, as a way of thinking and "recovering" humanity's self-knowledge, critical theory often looks to Marxism for its methods and tools."
I would tend to agree with some of that (excluding the deference to Marxism). I don't think materialism is the superior reigning reality. I don't think the qualitative aspects of reality are entirely inferior to, merely epipenomenal to, or merely along for the ride with, materialism. I think God is Truth, but also Caring (not as limited as Love), and I don't think we, as mortals, can absolutely "know" God. I think we participate in contemporaneously determining how measurable reality unfolds. We don't have reigning free will, but we do function as contemporaneous, participatory, feedback-determinants. In that respect, in respect of our apprehensions and appreciations, each perspective's "will" (or prayer accompanied with action) is a meaningful part of reality. To say that reality is determined is only to beg questions: Is reality" pre-determined, randomly determined, or contemporaneously determined? Does/should one's consideration for how it is determined depend on one's point of view, context, and purpose, then and there?
Well, WHY has our media become so dishonest, corrupt, and anti middle class common sense? Could it be because owners have found it profitable to recruit the ignorance of the masses in order to neuter and cannibalize middle class thinkers? Could it be because the middle class fell for the notion that there is no such thing as too much "free" trade or too much disparity in wealth for buying politicians by printing money that indentures most, while favoring those most dedicated to crony corruption? How many of our journalists and politicians are deeply obliged to personages of no national or spiritual loyalty?
Bankruptcy isn't often staved by having fire sales. We treated our bums like they had won the lottery, and the bums have "invested" as bums always do.OBum~ble down economics.
Monsters in charge do not believe ordinary, middle class folk should be trusted to educate themselves to make choices for themselves. They have strange views about human freedom, dignity, will, and worth. Your will is not important, but their will is important. Or so we are told.
Middle class conserver's of liberty are being fleeced by an old con: the old good cop, bad cop routine. So long as there's money in it, the GOP establishment does not mind being the bad cop. Too many conservatives have battered spouse syndrome. It's time to tell the Ainos to hit the road, Jack. There's nothing to reason about with these jackasses. It's past time to get mad as hell, for there is no truth or justice in these jackasses.
If all humans were wise and fair, we would not need governments or politics. However, the greatest percentage of people are parochial and selfish. (Do the great majority of blacks, hispanics, muslims, felons, and illegals vote for an enlightened system, or do they vote for the kin who promise to take and redistribute stuff?) It does little good for any family for its head to be wise and fair when venturing among zombies and wolves. Indeed, the effort among enlightened judeo-christians to be more open to a diversity of races, cultures, and religions has not produced greater enlightenment. It has only endangered the culture that was most promoting enlightenment. Look around. What do these diverse races, cultures, and religions want? Well, they seem to want to use force of political numbers to take all the stuff of the culture that is being changed (replaced), without having earned that stuff and without having accumulated the wits to keep it. America is once again being reconstructed by venomous carpetbaggers.
Well, what "causes" (or guides) evolution? Every change, no matter what it is, can be said to be "the fittest" to have thus evolved. In that sense, to say that the cause of evolution is the survival (or replication) of "the fittest" reduces to little more than a trivial tautology (what is, is; what changes, changes). Because "fitness" is such a flexible concept, it can hardly support a rigorous, meaningfully testable theory. One can think cosmic bubbles within bubbles are "caused" to evolve out of a borrowing from otherwise meaningless nothingness. (But what cracks the symmetry; what causes or vectors the borrowing?) Or one can believe that a perpetually meaningful and participatory process of appreciative feedback between the Holism and its particular perspectives guides and synchronizes the unfolding. Advocates for one side of the coin of beingness tend to think in terms of scientific indifference; advocates for the other side tend to think in terms of moral caring. There need be no "conflict." One simply relates to whichever side of the coin one happens to be facing at any particular time and place. If everything were loved for eternity, it would seem hard for love to allow for any change. Maybe it can make more sense to conceptualize God as caring than as love. One can care about that which one seeks to guide in perpetually unfolding change.
Re: Self-proclaimed "progressives" claim superior minds
Ah, the transparently superior mind of the totalitarian! Obama, the Transparent President! Would even the windy Gotham City promote the list of shady "superior" accomplices that Obama has studied, used, or appointed? Holder, Dunn, Van Jones, Ayers, Wright, Soros, Kevin Jennings, Sutton, Ayers, Donald Warden, Tony Rezko, Farrahkan, Cecilia Munoz, Frank Marshall Davis. Apparently, Eric Holder, of the Department of Injustice, has become immune to ordinary civil process. He has become the firewall of executive privilege, behind which the Regime's prairie-fire starters choreograph their infernal voo doo. The Regime cannot very well fire him without waking the walking dupes of the public to the fact of his and the Regime's rampant corruption. If Holder were to go rogue, perhaps the only way the Regime could control the damage would be by reprising soviet tactics in the vein of Stalin-Trotsky. Given our captive pravda, soviet techniques for consolidation of control can easily follow. Among totalitarians, knowledgeable people tend to live only so long as they are useful. When weighed against "the progressive cause," human life is cheap. A syndicate, axis, or reprisal of totalitarianism seems quite possible. The only spark needed is a chrystalizing crisis. What strongman-contenders are circling and consolidating?
Like so many politicians before him, Obama is a non-christian in christian's clothing. Too many non-christians pretend Jesus wanted us to create governments that would deploy the force of law to bring about charity under the Golden Rule. But Jesus came to persuade, lead, and judge individual hearts, not governments.
What "Ism" might redeem humanity? In the Once and Future King, T.H. White explored anarchism: Have a few foundational rules for each culture and otherwise erase national boundaries. He was understandably disgusted by the state of humanity in the time of the Nazis and Bolsheviks. However, given the hog-tech, informational interdependence of the modern world, and given the huge rewards for those who are skilled in games of diversity and deceit (divide and rule), I do not see how anarchy based on small families can possibly manage in such a world. We are going to have central, rule-based societies of some kind. To me, the question is whether such societies can be based on good, middle class sense (right), or whether they must be based on syndicates under consolidating crony criminals (might). No doubt, criminal mindsets are adept at deploying Stockholm Syndrome to make admirers and lovers of those they enslave (just look at admirers of Allah). So I don't think either anarchism or isolationism can point us towards a decent solution. We are going to need decent thinkers who can inspire. Problem is, present society is water-boarded by greedy-dopers who pretend it is virtue to deny that there exists any Source (or rock) upon which such inspiration can be based.
Maybe we need something like a new crusade. Problem is, crusades heretofore have been based more on corruption of force than on ideals of persuasion. They replaced one form of might makes right with another. We are less in need of collectives making laws that "force people to be good" than of leaders following Jesus inspiring people to be good. That would entail charity not in the sense of training people to be morally helpless, but in the sense of guiding and inspiring people to grow up, to become less entirely dependent, to learn how to think and take responsibility for their choices.
Maybe repealing the 17th Amendment could also help insulate candidates for the senate from so much influence under those who incline to buy and sell politicians and pravda for polluting the minds of the hoi polloi.
What "Ism" might redeem humanity? In the Once and Future King, T.H. White explored anarchism: Have a few foundational rules for each culture and otherwise erase national boundaries. He was understandably disgusted by the state of humanity in the time of the Nazis and Bolsheviks. However, given the hog-tech, informational interdependence of the modern world, and given the huge rewards for those who are skilled in games of diversity and deceit (divide and rule), I do not see how anarchy based on small families can possibly manage in such a world. We are going to have central, rule-based societies of some kind. To me, the question is whether such societies can be based on good, middle class sense (right), or whether they must be based on syndicates under consolidating crony criminals (might). No doubt, criminal mindsets are adept at deploying Stockholm Syndrome to make admirers and lovers of those they enslave (just look at admirers of Allah). So I don't think either anarchism or isolationism can point us towards a decent solution. We are going to need decent thinkers who can inspire. Problem is, present society is water-boarded by greedy-dopers who pretend it is virtue to deny that there exists any Source (or rock) upon which such inspiration can be based.
Maybe we need something like a new crusade. Problem is, crusades heretofore have been based more on corruption of force than on ideals of persuasion. They replaced one form of might makes right with another. We are less in need of collectives making laws that force people to be good than of leaders following Jesus inspiring people to be good. That would entail charity not in the sense of training people to be morally helpless but in the sense of guiding and inspiring people to grow up, to become less entirely dependent, to learn how to think and to take responsibility for their choices.
Libs deem it unfair to discriminate based on competence. Mainly, they just want everyone to have the same thing: squalor. When we have squalor on parade, everyone can take turns being in charge. Diversity is important; competence is not. It's not important to actually get anything done.
Regarding secular scripture: Ever notice how Progs always seek solutions in ever more governmental laws, yet somehow always seem to dislike the cops who try to enforce the laws we already have? The Prog thing is not a Jersey thing. It's a mental disorder thing.
Do you mean to say science has proven that most discord doesn't come from human nature? Is that published in some peer reviewed journal?
Dim voters are like doggies. Suppose you and a neighbor have joint ownership of a doggie, but your neighbor has complete control over the doggie treats. You want the doggie to help you hunt ducks, but your neighbor wants to foreclose on your hunting lease. Regardless of your intellectual bravery, which of you is the doggie going to follow? How can you influence voters of a population who are trained to be credulous, candy crazed cretins? Well, you can try to nullify them or their training, or you can try to move to a different territory. However, there's not so much new territory left. It seems we will need to let the neighbor run out of treats. Let his treat-stealing machine tumble down around him. When it does, let him spend time in penance, but don't reward him with a vote for being a thief. Mob-backed thieves will not be brought down until there is nothing left for them to feed on. Russia had to burn Moscow to turn back Napoleon. Problem is, Marx followed. And so it goes. An enlightened republic is a rare lamp in history. Dewey and progeny blew out the light. Maybe a more mature appreciation of Jesus can help us recover it.
Zero tolerance probably comes from a desire to treat all people equally. Zero tolerance means zero discrimination means zero judgment means zero brain means zero Prezzie.
This is what comes to a society that is trained to trust more in the force of law than in the goodness of common sense. Instead of asking, Does this make sense, we are trained to ask, What did the regime mean by this rule. This may work for typical Dims. Not so much for any thinking American. Can schools "have a conversation" about common sense?
Mr. President, who does more harm to America: An administration that intentionally lies about Bengazi, or a nobody who makes a sarcastic film about a bloodthirsty seventh century pedophile?
People who sign up to man the system tend to self identify as favoring the system. As the system becomes loathsome, thinking people will turn away and nullify. The regime will be forced to pay mercenaries or brownshirts or OWS basement zombies to force a draft. Scapegoats will be needed. Historians will ask why we did not see this coming.
Of poopycock reeducation camps: Many Progs rightly sense man's tendency to do great evil. Sensing that, they feel enlightened and immune. They project and assume only the "others" are beknighted and therefore need to be "forced to be good" by their more enlightened betters. They see this force as coming through LAW --- judged, juried, and executed by elites. So they "educate" children of the masses to the need to move for reams upon reams of laws, such as laws to empower druggies while strapping "phobes" with hate crime measures and familial supervision by school hierarchies organized under czar-homosexuals. This is the secular-humanist-Marxist approach, but it is only Marxist in its cheap promises (Marxism does not exist except as a false ideal). In practical reality, the Prog approach is to deploy a spider web of crony corporate spiders to trap and constrain all inferior prey. In that these spiders ridicule all religious appeals to higher spirituality, it need come as little surprise that there is little spiritual goodness in them. (These include the Establishment Rinos who want to rout Conservers of Liberty.)
The problem for a society that would be decent is how to form a civilization for respecting the freedom and dignity of those members who are generally capable of governing themselves (the middle class). That is, how to lead the righteous to be the mighty (how to make right mighty, not merely to deem the mighty to be right). Society is not well led along such a path by denying the existence of rightness, or by denying a Source or rightness, or by ridiculing spiritual forums for attracting people to come together in humble good faith and good will to try to empathize with, and be receptive to, rightness. Our problem is not one of too few laws. Our problem is one of loss of humble faith in a reconciling and attractive Source of goodness. Having lost faith in that, it becomes a fool's errand to expect elites (faithless establishment Rinos and Dinos) who do not believe in moral goodness to reign goodness down upon their subjects under some pretense that they are "fair." As if Obama would/could be fairer ... if only we submitted our individual wills to let him take ever more power over us. Ah, submission, then peace. Poopycock!
Levels of political control are consolidating, centralizing, flattening. Narcissists and sociopaths are rising and the influence of decent minded middle classes is falling. In this mud patch, sociopaths qucken to recognize and plot against one another and all moral credibility is soon lost. I would say that a sane world never would have allowed Noko to obtain nukos. However, I would also have said that a sane America never would have elected as president an acolyte of the Weather Underground. Amoral sociopathy is rampant. The cure will not be in free trade with amoral scientism or bloodthirsty Islam.
It's not Dinos by themselves who have Tea Partiers' number. It's an evil-empire-alliance of Rinos and Dinos, whose members would rather promote one another than a return to middle class values and public decency. Apart from fighting over who gets to eat America first, what's the big difference between establishment Repubs and commie Dims? If Conservatives raised consciousness to become represented by their own party, I don't see why they should be unable to obtain a sizeable majority. Maybe it's time to quit playing nice with Rinos.
BTW, I agree that I would much have preferred Romney over Obama. However, another Rino would only delay our burial by a few years at most. Rino or Dino, either way America is digging her grave. The Tea Party seemed to make headway when it began spitting back. Now is not the time to make nice with evil.
concerned people are ridiculed as conspiracy phobes. What are international communism and taquia jihad, if not conspiracies? Moreover, what kinds of sociopaths must fund these jerks, and what would those kinds of sociopathic funders expect in return? Never mind. Nothing to see here.
I can appreciate science as a process or practice, but it seems presumptuous to award bachelor (or bachelorette?) of science degrees in so many fields, especially education. Society now seems well down the next path: To train the populace to rely on scientists to pronounce moral values, scientifically. This is scientific alchemy, i.e., corrupt scientism, or "settled" gaia paganism. Sort of like taking socially awkward adults three times Tom Sawyer's age who have never grown out of narcissistic adolescence and awarding them degrees and respect for plotting how to take blood oaths and ransom people, that is, the kind of ideas sane people tend to grow out of shortly after reaching Tom Sawyer's age (about 12). It's "good" to know our Prezzie's mental age is about 12.
We need a survey of those who rise in this regime. We need some metric, to compare how promotions are deliberately based on: disaffection with traditional American values; inclination towards entertainment with recreational drugs; willingness to be a loyal and well paid (removed); shamelessness in striking dramatic poses in defiance of all common sense; desire to reduce and pillage America; desire to advance and reward criminally syndicated regimes; sociopathic ability to alternate faces for feeling pain with faces for instilling fear; imagination for reconstructing events in order to re-paint consolidation of control as good and demands for local and individual governance as bad. By now, is it not obvious that a wolfish crime syndicate is consolidating and coordinating the burying of America and middle class decency? The traditional, judeo-christian model is being buried by a corrupt alliance among modelers of secular-humanistic Marxism and mind-terrorizing Islamic jihad.
God often is called The Truth (or The Word). In moral terms, it's vital that one believe in, and try to be receptive to, some Source of truth. It's vital that one NOT consider the Source of truth as qualitatively irrelevant, merely because it is ultimately and quantitatively metaphysical (i.e., beyond the empirical containment of mere mortals). After all, if we could understand to the point of predicting God, we would need to be equal to or superior to God. For a mortal, that would be oxymoronic. It is also vital that each mortal remain faithful and humble enough to apprehend that he/she can in some qualitative way appreciate God, but cannot quantitatively know or speak absolutely for God in any specific, linear measure. We can come together, to try to reason in good faith and good will. However, to argue that God wills it that one side or the other should "win" a particular war or argument seems also to implicate that God wills that the war or argument be conducted. In good will and good faith, we can hope to be led towards the happiness of the promised land. However, I don't think we ever get there in this life. We can choose leaders and faiths that inspire us, and we can stake the way we live our lives on hope that our choice is not misguided.
.
As Judeo-Christian traditionalists, we can choose to believe that God in some metaphysical way avails us with conscious will to choose, and that God will guide us as we are humble enough to be willing to be guided by a Source for goodness that is superior to mankind and mortal-kind. we can choose to believe God seeks to avail a decent civilization of free thinking followers. Or we can choose alternatives. As secular humanists, we can believe God has no interest in us and that it is for us to scientifically construct a most perfect state or utopia on earth. (That is, we can beat our heads trying to prove ought from is.) Or, as "know"-it-literalistic-Muslims, we can chuck respect for individual will and believe God has no interest in us except to reward or punish us based on whether we blindly follow some so-called mortal messenger who espouses that all who have not accepted his word as being that of God must be forcibly converted, enslaved, or killed, on earth.
.
The prideful "linear thinking" that troubles me consists in thinking that whatever God wants in any specific situation is amenable of ABSOLUTE, objective, measurable proof of truth in the empiricism of science or in the "logic" of Islam. It's that kind of "thumping" absolutism that creeps me.
.
I don't think metaphysics is a waste. To my conception, God is the necessary metaphysical "class of one" which has capacity to avail expression of conscious will, both as Holism and as Reconciler of competing and cooperating perspectives and contexts. That class seems qualitatively real to my intuition, but quantitatively beyond any pretense I may make to "absolute" knowledge. In any event, I think that class of one is qualitatively as real, important, and often ignored as the air we breathe. I tend to call that class of one the Subjective and Qualitative Truth, or God, or Source. But I do not pretend to "know" the "objective truth" of what that Source desires in any particular situation in any measurable or absolute sense. However, my choice of the Judeo-Christian model very much DOES affect my opinions on many qualitative specifics in morals and politics. Indeed, it drives my animosity against all governance that stifles and undermines the dignity of individual avatars of conscious will. It leads me to be an unwavering opponent of secular Marxism and un-sane Islam.
Best to you.
Re: "A failure to believe in Absolute Truth is, by definition, denial of moral reality."
Does this sort of linearity mean that mere text can validate itself? If so, then it would seem that: text does not need God; God is inferior to text and matter; and science of materialism is sufficient in itself. Apart from dramatic stance, what does the formulation mean? Is it meant as a growl? The formulation might make more sense were it expressed thusly: "A failure to believe in an Absolute SOURCE of Truth is, by definition, denial of moral reality." In God's eyes, it may be true and just that opposing advocates should clash in order to participate in a righteous unfolding. That need not mean that one or the other advocate must be absolutely right or wrong. (After all, we who are not God are merely all too human.) Truth often seems a beautiful pursuit. Were it found, so that nothing more were left to unfold, that would seem more like death or nothingness than truth or beauty.
Nor are Leftists altogether without their own idea of absolute moral truth, which source they suppose to reside with the State, as opposed to the still, quiet voice of God. I would think National Socialists and International Communists DO have regard for what they suppose to be absolute, linear, progressive, reich-like truth.
Obama's daddy was absent, so now Obama wants to be America's daddy. How many of Obama's mentors have been femimen and metrosexuals? This man expects to get respect abroad? He may as well put Code Pink in charge of the War College. I'm sure that will guarantee Pax Americana. It's a sad day when there's more testosterone among the women who let Obama lead from behind than among the men.
I would rather not make excuses for incorrigible reprobates. I think making excuses for them is how they got the way they are. There comes a time when they must come out from behind mommy's skirt and hear daddy say No. That's the problem. Too many have not had daddies to say No. I am sorry that's what they were dealt, but coddling the system that deals it only perpetuates it. The country would be much better off if Obama had had a daddy who knew when to tell him to bugger off.
After reading the Koran, I remain unable to discern how any competent, intelligent person could believe in it in the literal way that is professed by many of its followers. To me, it can make sense only as a device by which sociopaths can brainwash and enslave the masses. I assume the movers and shakers know when to wink and nod, as they spread their world conquest as if Islam were truly their faith. Ordinary musloids may be misguided, but the sociopathic leaders would not have survived and flourished were they stupid. Indeed, they are playing quite well at a deadly game. Meantime, American profs and students proudly prance about in la la land, oblivious and tolerant.
When one country renegs, it can be made to feel pain. However, when a crony consortium controls most countries and the currency of exchange, I suspect it can moderate the reneging in such a way as to siphon wealth from the masses to fill the accounts of evil gatekeepers of the regime. Like the fabric of the cosmos, the economic web is finite, yet unbounded. I wonder whether some economists have figured this out, but don't want the masses to learn how to close the barn doors until all the horses have been stolen. I suspect the debt will be reneged, but it will be reneged in a way that imposes perpetual servitude on the masses to the regime. More people will not retire, social security will not be secure, the average life span may decline, the middle class will enjoy the forms of democracy without the potency, and the danger of mass movements will be diverted and divided into noisy celebrations of debauchery.
Except for braindead Rinos and Dinos, it requires very little imagination to think how much Obama would grin to see little troops of Acorns, Brownshirts, and OWS zombies running all around America, like a western version of Mao's Red Guard. Make no mistake, Obama is a pathological menace who surrounds himself with sociopaths for whom the little people are little more than compost. He does cameos for captured media to pretend to be for the little people, while he fronts the faucet for siphoning billions out the back door to Goldman Sachs and other cronies.
I'm reading The Once and Future King, a "kid's book." Arthur, at 19, improvidently seeded Mordred. Mordred, left to be raised by his incestous mother, nursed pathological grievances. The unforgiven sin of Arthur was in trying but failing, at 19, to nip the little monster in the bud. The unforgiven sin of America is in its trying to end servitude, at great cost at home, via business "colonialism" abroad. That is, we tried to trade with slave-minded and hive-minded cultures as if they were equals. The attempt was unsuccessful, and now hive-minded zombies want their insane revenge. We improvidently and wrongly assumed hive minds would want to be free. Thus, instead of exporting Camelot, we have imported Hive-Mind.
Libs will point to the success of China, a false comparison. Had Chinese princelings not corrupted American cronies, to allow China to pillage American patents, industry, and currency, I doubt there would be a Chinese success. America has been made a host not only for homegrown bums, but also for corrupt foreign regimes ("free" trade, anyone?). Once America (and Taiwan) fades, what sort of worker's paradise will China then produce? As Pax Americana defense fades, commie ships will continue to circle Guam and Europe will be re-Finlandized. Millenial grudges between East and West will also be reborn. Ah, the smell of Progs in springtime!
Re: "President Obama has done one thing superbly well: he has demonstrated skill par excellence on a national scale as a community organizer."
He has only reaped what has been so well sown during all this time that America has slept. Except with blood, sweat, and tears, the soil of all institutions of America will now only support the worst sort of weeds. America has gone so far to seed that the most vile now blow in, virtually unimpeded. Multi-rot: bad is good, crap is music, work is whitey, virtue is weed. The madness of Mordred has moldered Camelot. Obama Mordred, a sort of incestous product of evil, has come to America's bedchamber, grinning insanely. Soon, he will announce that Arthur (Constitution) and Lancelot (Judeo-Christian Virtue) have killed one another, and he is now Lord Protector, until such time as the state withers or the 12th Imam returns ... that is, the twelfth of never.
Progs fear parents will fail to properly raise children, so they prefer to turn to the state. If anything, history suggests the state will perform worse, not better. So why do Progs do this? Their idle hands seem to be driven by perpetual need to protest. The people leading them tend to be progeny of rich white parents, and these parents give them bat cave basements from which to do it. These parents give them free, unearned, entitlement to do what they want, and what they want is power through the state to subjugate everyone else. What they did not earn, they want the state to extract. Now, those who run the state intend to progress from treating disadvantaged youth as wards to indoctrinating all youth to consider that to be enslaved to the state is to be enlightened. Thus they would make the state Gaia's recycler in chief, while valuing the mass of human beings as mere compost. Maybe Nietzsche thought a bit like this, until he broke down after coming face to face with its result: A man in rage, trying to beat a horse to death.
They're impatient with, or mad at, Jesus, so they want a "more effective" alternative backed by a "stronger" agency, which they take to be Allah, Big Imam, or Big Bro --- that seems to be the commonality.
Of course emotion will trump reason, when the electorate is in practice expanded to encompass illiterates, illegals, welfare addicts, drunks, professional students, parading mooners, and perpetually jobless entitlement mongers. When an electorate is expanded in that way, a nation may as well beg to be run by international fascist crony oligarchs, skilled in grooming doggie followers to return love for cheap favors.
Caring about Libs: I can care about young libs who have not yet experienced much of life. I can humor and entertain them and encourage them to think. To shout at them is just to cause them to run in horror that everything their profs and peers have taught them is being questioned. As to older Libs, there comes a point where one must recognize that a braindead entity is a braindead entity. Then, one must find ways to push such entities into irrelevance --- with ridicule or political muscle, seasoned as needed. Problem is, Braindead Entities have learned to operate while surrounded by trained youth. How do you ridicule or force a Braindead Entity who is surrounded by trusting naifs?
It seems to be a secret hiding in the open that the people will ask to be made into serfs when they are selectively rewarded. Sort of like housebreaking a doggie. Then just give him his own carpet space for him to bow to you five tmes a day.
A lot of films and video games feature mindless antagonists of goodness. The antagonists are displayed as barbarians, immortals, machined transformers, club wielding droolers, dope addled addicts, vampires, werewolves, and jihad zombies. A lot of Progs seem to be fascinated with these games. I had expected that most gamers would identify with those who resist barbarians, immortals, machined transformers, club wielding droolers, dope addled addicts, vampires, werewolves, and jihad zombies. However, I had also thought most people would be repelled by Obama's blue and red campaign poster that looked rather like a hammer and sickle commie bulletin. So now I am less sure. Research must have shown that these Hollywood products in fact recruit voters rather than repel them. It's a significant indication of extreme danger when evil is openly celebrated and the majority seems actually to be attracted to the evil side (cop killers?). The devil tells them he's the devil, and then laughs as they fall over themselves to join up. What used to be considered goodness is now recast as consisting of hypocrites, toms, whities, phobes, thumpers, conservatives, tea partiers, and (horrors) non-recyclers. Nowadays, as I read most American media, I hardly recognize America.
The split between Conservatives and Ainos is becoming as wide as the split between homo sapiens and neanderthals. And the neo-neanderthals are organizing.
Naifs believe logos of materialism (text) can validate itself. Progs believe a most perfect system of laws (text) can validate itself. Many Conseratives believe a Source of the Word is superior to mere materialism and man made law. Progs (and literalistic Muslms) look for utopia in all the wrong places.
A lot of incompetent people need and want certified elites to think for them and tell them what to do with themselves. Without trusted guidance, they would hardly know what to do with themselves. For such people, priests and moral elites perform a valuable service. However, the cost of such certification accorded to fallible mortals is great temptation to abuse license. Moreover, sheep conditioned to blindly follow shepherds tend to be easily misled by any number of inconsistent priests, panderers, profs, pimps, and pushers. Sheep become accustomed to holding all manner of inconsistent beliefs and principles, depending only on how their bread (or pleasure) is being buttered at the moment. When butter of the moment is the only argument sheep are conditioned to apprehend, there is nothing that cannot be justified by a regime that has a firm grip on all significant institutions of persuasion. If the average person is not made smarter, more people will be reduced to being pawns, abjectly dependent on their neo-lords. Catholicism will either seek a smarter, tougher parishioner, or it will fall to compete among assorted panderers, pimps, and pushers.
It's not the dogma that leads catholic countries to socialism. It's the weakness of character. On one hand, it's desirable to have ministers for the weakest. On the other hand, concentrating recruitment towards the weakest seems to lead them to organize socialistic governments, even to the point of abject hedonism and parades of outlandishness. Whatever the reason, the politics of most Catholics I have met are far removed from their dogma. Catholicism seems to have morphed into a secular force for worldwide socialism, even though contrary to the dogma. I think that is the monster that will wrestle with the next pope. The last thing the world needs now is a pope who will turn that bout into a roll in the hay.
The Progs are drunk on power. Making nice won't save the day. Ridicule is a start. Use mine and any other you can find. Ridicule is better than holding things in until the nation explodes. If every decent Conservative will start ridiculing the hell out of lefties and their profs (most of whom are intellectually, practically, and emotionally unarmed), maybe most of the country can yet be salvaged. Maybe the Pope, a smart man, recognized that a younger fighter is needed --- for goodness sake, I hope his replacement will be a fighter and not a stinking Prog.
Gulliver thinks he's sitting down with tolerable friends for tea and crumpets, while a tiny little man is at the podium, with his hand in his vest and a severe nose moustache, directing goose stepping thieves tightening a strait jacket, while all around perverse smurfs are parading, puking, and screwing everything in sight. It's a Prog happening thing.
Some people want to be told what they should believe by prophets, popes, imams, and settled scientists. That way, they don't need to waste time tying to come to coherent terms with their Creator for themselves. Plus, they are made (irresponsible) free to rationalize to their heart's pleasure any number of inconsistent beliefs at the same time. Push come to shove, words become noise, secondary to pleasure. It's far easier to find an apologist du jour and to call everyone else a hypocrite than it is to try to offer a principled theology or philosophy.
What is a state certified counselor? Does not being certified preclude one from advertising as a private counselor? Hive mind thrives as it becomes more difficult to live outside the state certified matrix. One who does not entertain and propagate matrix dogma is correspondingly limited by the matrix. One who would play with dogma gatekeepers may be required to submit to being branded by the matrix gatekeepers. To bring down the matrix house of cards, one often must infiltrate it.
Corrupt cronies connive to convince Conservatives they're too comfortable to coordinate cabuki. Conservatives are kept unbalanced and divided, so they believe they have no comfort except under establishment sponsorship. Life seems easier as everyone is taught to be comfortable in his place. Meanwhile, the base for Progs is very motivated because it's very uncomfortable. Addicts, homosexuals, incompetents, prisoners, and illegals tend not to be comfortable. They feed on guilt ("meanness") of Conservatives for being comfortable, as if Conservatives were responsible for deliberate, wrong-headed choices made by the miserable base of the Progs. Progs believe they were just unlucky in the lottery of genes and life. They do not want to be responsible for their choices, but they do want everyone else (the collective) to be responsbile for them. IOW, they believe it's fundamentally immoral for the moral majority to preach morality. Go figure. Of course, when they klll their host, they will themselves be dead. However, when you're miserable anyway, many tend to want to take everyone else out with them, in a blaze of apocalyptic nirvana. This is why N. Korea, Gaza, and Iran are so dangerous. Those who pull Prog strings, i.e., Dino and Rino cronies, play dangerous games because they tend to believe nothing is more important than their pleasures of the moment. And one of those pleasures is to spit on the notion of anyone else who believes anything else is more important. To have a chance, Conservatives need to wake up and apprehend just how hollow and mean spirited Progs and their crony puppetmasters really are.
Once the collectivist meme posseses a body, it's hard to exorcise. Almost as if it reinforces its own epigenetic tracks. How else would zombie-hive cultures evolve?
Imagine trying to punish all the fraudsters. The Dims cannot suggest it, because that's their base. Even if they could, they would never do such a thing. The people who self-certify are really self identifying for Dim lists. And Repubs cannot suggest punishment, because that would nail them. Once most of society is corrupted in this way, it may become inevitable that such society will never thereafter tolerate any leader who does not know how to make dirty. Milton had something to say about fallen angels meeting in order to renounce good and elect their new leader. Symbolically, that seems to be what Progs are embracing. So, now Obama offers the apple.
Re: "In the old days, slave babies were separated from their mothers shortly after birth and placed in the care of others until they were old enough to be sold or rented out. Asking questions about parentage was evidence of impudent curiosity that resulted in lashings. Today, children face a different hazard."
Indeed! Up to recent times, many parents sought to assimilate towards a middle class that was inspired by an ideal or spirit of America. Today, almost ALL children face being diversified and diverted from moral instruction by parents in order to make them into indoctrinees of the regime. This is an important mechanism for pulling America back to the default condition of the main part of humanity. Under American style, hierarchical, neo-tribalism, bureaucrats of instruction have replaced chieftains of instruction. In pre-America, it took a village to raise a child. In early America, it took a spiritual-minded family to raise a child. In post-modern America, it takes a corrupt, materialistic regime to raise a child. America rose from the mud, and now, kindly and gently, is being pulled and pushed back into it. Sort of like the disturbing knife to the heart scene in Saving Private Ryan.
I think a significant commonality among Marxists and Muslims abides in this: It's a hell of a religion, not a religious belief, when the punishment for apostasy is murder or mass mayhem. I don't see why Marxists and Muslims should get a heads-they-win, tails-you-lose free pass under the First Amendment. I don't see why they should get to peddle their stuff in the public square, while the social-moral concerns of others are socked away because of religious overtones. This is suicide of decency by a non-discriminating appetite for toleration. Islam is not a religion for purposes of the free exercise clause, because it does not tolerate free exercise (it kills apostates). However, when it comes to evangelistic advocacy in the public square, I see no reason why Marxism should be trumpeted while Christianity must be muffled.
Regardless of whatever the population that is sustainable, why should governmental policies incent the ugliness of metropolization (penned plantations)?
Dorner will join Che and other biting undead on T-shirts. Liberals and non-practicing jews and catholics will be quick to assert that Dorner, Che, Stalin, Mao, Obama, etc., had some "good" ideas but ________ (fill in blank: jews, bible thumpers, whities, conservatives, anglos) pushed them beyond the edge. Because materialists often believe it's all everyone else's fault, it's ok to put faith in materialism rather than in decency. Liberal Utopia means everyone consumes (aborts, sacrifices, brainwashes, scientifically programs) everyone else. The sewer is their candy store.
Regarding Chutzpah: A Prog of the hoi polloi never lets a crisis go unexploited. A Prog with the chutzpah of the elite never misses an opportunity to create a crisis that can be exploited. Obamanuts don't just grow an Acorn. They grow Acorns that can grow Acorns, like a plague of biting undead. A fire of hell is blazing, but we don't see the flames because we attune only to the material, not to the meta. Indeed, most fancy themselves to have committed the meta to the flames. And so the meta returns the favor.
Not all the moochers were stupid and incompetent. Some were smart and corrupt. They found they could hunt the hunters. They now own the establishment Republicans. So I cannot be a Republican. I cannot sign on to be a useful idiot for establishment Rinos. I vote for them when they are the only viable lesser of weevils. I want a viable Conservative Party. I will support a Conservative Wing, and would send money to it even under the Republican umbrella --- were its finances kept under a separate lockbox. However, I don't think the crony establishment really wants Conservatives under its wing. It just wants their useful votes, so it can go on its merry swindling way. The multi-headed, kubuki monster of McCain-Graham-Amnesty will never stop swindling cheap labor for crony corporatists. They will not run out of money, because they can print it. And they will not run out of fools, because they can import and breed them. And you cannot compete with their securities swindles because they can tip crises to favor their hedges. The game will continue to be rigged until there is an American Manifesto on the heels of an event that wakes up Americans.
In the collectivist mind, we are all interchangeable chattel: chattel for the pleasuring of chattel for the serving of the collective. Children are possessions of the state, and therefore lack dignity in themselves or as children of God. There is no higher purpose than the zombie state, so there is no obstacle to erasing families and putting social programming under the remote, indifferent, and scientifically expert control of the state ... Which is now run by dopers with brains on autopilot who are selected based on skill at swindling.
The water is rsing and the pressure is building. The Prog, jerry-rigged dam will have to break. People will begin to recognize that a Constitutional America cannot stand, half free and half insane. The parasitic, siamese twin will have to be surgically removed.
I think they've studied up a bit on techniques of neo-nazi persuasion. A kinder and gentler national-socialism, if you will. Pelosi may as well have been in a gestapo uniform when she marched past tea partiers, laughing.
What if Bush Sr. had been reelected? Would it really have made that much difference in the drift of our country? Would it have impeded the collectivist march through the institutions? What is the point of treading softly with Conservative ideas?
Obama needs regular R and R so he can continue with Pelosi on the quest to save the planet. I'm trying to figure out what sort of event would rouse Barry or Hillary at 3 am. Why did Bill sign on to save Obama's political brand? Well, Dims will always be on hand to feel the pain in your palmistry ... if you can pay enough. Dims are carnival barking political switchmen on The Price is Right. George Soros, come on down! How twisted is that?
When it comes to ontological world views, I doubt there are any that are not based on tail-chasing assumptions. Some people take the view that we have no real capacity for making choices of will. To me, the absurdity seems to be that we have no choice not to effect choices of will. Is it possible not to implicate ontological assumptions? Is it possible to engage in pursuits or devote oneself to a worldview that is not tail-chasing? Doesn't the scientific process itself tend to abide in respect of an ontological assumption that "the truth is out there" (and that we can find it)?
When I think about materialism, I tend also to think of dialectical materialism (Marxism). Am I wrong that collectivist societies based mainly on political philosophies of materialism often find it easier to be indifferent to (or deceitful in their caring about) the elimination of millions in pursuit of ideals of materialistic perfectionism?
I don't expect that the First Cause should have need or means to refer to subordinate "causes" in order to prove the certitude of IT's causality. I expect Godel apprehended that. I suspect that's why Lewis staked more on "inside knowledge than on empirical proof. But what is this "inside" knowledge inside of? I suspect it is "inside" an illusion. Free will and soul are not demonstrable inside a body or material brain because the measurements of such materials are artifactual of the rules and math that have been laid down to present and conserve the universe that avails our communications. However, that does not implicate that a Reconciler of perspectives of Will is irrelevant to purposeful choice making among presentations of possible alternatives. I think religions, beliefs, and philosophies that reduce a Guidng Reconcer to moral irrelevancy tend more readily to substitute loyalty and worship for an inhuman, collectivist concept over individuals. I doubt you find many societies that promote a general ideal of freedom for all individuals being carefree about slaughtering millions in order to entertain their dreams.
People struggle to come to terms with important words, such as "will" and "freedom." I think they founder when they try to come to moral terms with such words with no regard for the Meta-Founder-Guide. Incoherence and inconsistency is readily seen in the foundational rationalizations of nearly every school of thought. People often base rationalizations on all sorts of non-empirical assumptions, but then claim to be describing empirical reality. This enters philosophies that try to separate what is possible from what is potential or inevitable.
If one assumes nothing is possible to manifest except that which manifests in our universe, then, to be consistent and coherent, one must assume there abides only this universe and that freedom of choice, true randomness, and self will are nothing but illusions. Tautologically and trivially, if one could establish that a situation is not ever going to occur, then one could reasonably say that it is not possible for it to occur. However, what mortal can "know" such a thing? Thus, it seems incoherent to speak in terms that assume one can know, or even logically postulate, how to separate that which is possible from that which is impossible. Why? Because, in Will and Math, all that can be imaged (imagined) seems potentially possible, even though Will may "choose" never to make it manifest to any mortal perspective, beyond the imagination of the Holism. Unless Will (beyond logic and science) has meta-capacity to appreciate and affect "choices" from among that which is potential, in order to affect the determination of that which is made manifest, then it would not make consistent and coherent sense to refer to anything as being "possible" ... unless it were (in some world) inevitable.
If one assumes that Will in all cases SHOULD be assumed to be mere illusion, then, by trivial definition, that which is assumed to be beyond potential of being expressed into the manifest (or in-form-ed into the chronological vector) of any world may be assumed to be impossible to be signified in any world. More simply put, that which is impossible ... is impossible. So then, does this sort of "imaginative assumptive-ness" mean that that which is possible must, in some time and place in some world, be made manifest? Stated differently, does it implicate that that which is Not Impossible of being expressed in every world must be made manifest at some locus of space-time in some world? Must that which is possible be inevitable, at some locus of space-time? Must all that is possible eventually, inevitably, find expression in some world (monkeys typing out the works of Shakespeare)?
Such "reasoning" seems flawed. Is it not intuitive that not all that is possible is inevitable? How may foundational reasoning in physics be flawed? What assumption do physicists often found their reasoning on, which may not quite be true? Well, they tend to assume that conscious will is at every level inferior to physically measurable manifestation. However, what if all physically measurable significations are instead inferior to qualitatively interfunctioning sequences and iterations of a conscious, signifying, and reconciling Will?
Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I suspect a foundational reason philosophies of Marxism, Islam, and Materialism tend to be so morally confused or dead for individual perspectives of Will is that such philosophies take it as a core assumption that it is possible for people to be humbled and punished, but it is impossible for Will to be meaningful. For Materialists, Muslims, and Marxists, individual "freedom" is just another word for a noise that signifies nothing.
The Constitution stands in the way of true believing Progs who demand a more perfect union, i.e., one that entitles Prog parasites to the affirmative right to feast on producing hosts. Our elite Repubs humor elite Progs because they are good old crony cousins. This won't begin to be reversed until Americans not only see the treason, but rise against it, mad as hell. What in common sense needs to be done is hardly more complicated than that.
We are accelerating towards some Brave New Culture. In our culture, were deaf parents to have such a say, would they tend to prefer to have deaf children? Would homosexual parents prefer to have homosexual children? Doper parents to have doper children? (I suppose "doper" will soon become hate speech, leading to "drug explorer.") The leadership that funds the leadership in our culture promotes diversity in terms of fashions, fads, and flaunts. The diversity we are celebrating chemically restrains competence and self reliance. Responsible, competent people are being served the raspberries. We normalize and become what we celebrate. Maybe social planners and users sense that most jobs of the future ("offing," voting, and shopping for a living?) will require more chemically restrained episilons than alphas. Maybe the entertainment of Romans of the Future will consist in watching gladiating episilons around a festivus pole, airing hallucinations and displaying bouts of indecency and incompetence.
, I see no good reason why society should prop up homosexuality. As long as government does not artificially support it, it should not maintain the disproportionate influence it now exploits.
Re: We have 3rd generation people on welfare
This is what Dims want. It's called raising the next crop of Dim voters.
Thirty years ago, in many rural communities, there were no public defenders. So local attorneys were put on revolving lists to represent juveniles. It seemed to me that the rate of abuse was ghastly. The crack environment had reduced many homes to become little more than breeding grounds for raising children to become dopers and sex toys. State facilities were hardly better. A relative was gunned down by a state officer charged to guard boys. When the problem is swept to the state and to public defenders, I suspect polite society soon comes to have no idea how bad the problem has become. So, many kids in school come to believe the problem is conservatives, the solution is the state, and drugs are the modern substitute for heaven. A sorry state of affairs.
Progs see themselves as having fought a long slog to bring us to a "renaissance" of pleasure based on gay science. As a bellwether, take what's going on with the Boy Scouts. They're what, typically 10 to 14 years old. How many of them are, or should, really be interested in whether they are straight or gay? How many 4th to 7th graders are that into sex? Does it really take rocket science to figure out what the owners of media are immersing kids in? Who is all this fuss about homosexual acceptance in the scouts really for? Is all this pressure for the kids, or is it to establish new hunting grounds for attracting predatory homosexual adults to become scout masters? And why are media predators hurling this stuff at decent society? In the early grades, you hardly see any male teachers. How long before we we hardly see any straight scout masters? Ok, they have to work somewhere. So they become teachers. But at least teachers are not camping out with students or pretending to give them moral guidance in the scout law. Parents who want to entrust their children to a private, straight organization should be able to do so. If gays want to send their boys to private pink fairy prance schools, they can do that. Just don't try to make it a requirement for everyone else.
I agree that "miracle" does not mean tapping heels together three times and saying there's no place like home. (But if Prog idiots can do OWS, can Conservatives stage a ghost dance, while we still have arms?) The kind of miracle that can salvage America (and Israel) means doing the hard work. However, stuff is going to continue to hit the fan until it becomes intolerable. Then things will break, one way or another. Toleration will become a dirty word. In that sense, a "miracle" (reckoning) of some kind is unavoidable. Therein lies the possibility of miraculous leadership: A Philadelphia Awakening, Crossing of the Delaware, Alamo, San Jacinto Day, or Midway. But only if the morale of the troops is grown.
Problem is, dithering with the devil only makes it more necessary later to make excuses for the devil. Those who deem it necessary to hold their breaths in order to survive Obama will still deem, once he is out of office, that they must continue to be apologists for him.
Grant was a flawed man who learned from the school of hard knocks. But for his flaws and hard knocks, he would not have learned what he needed to learn. There was a time when people who had experience in the school of hardscrabble were valued: Jackson, Houston, Crockett, Lincoln, Grant, Truman, Eisenhower. They were Americans. Now, what seems to be more valued is the scrubbed, elitist pedigree. Obama is the packaged lie: he has always been cleaned up after, and he has never needed to learn anything except to use those he lies to in order to take from those he hates. And who does he hate? Well, he hates those who do not need to lie and who do not need his lies. We had some flawed candidates in the primaries, who probably have learned a thing or two from the school of hard knocks. However, such people are always crucified in the corrupt media. Even when circumstances cry out for their election, they tend thereafter to get whacked. We need to thoroughly discredit and melt the oz-monkey media that worships the faked, elite pedigree. In this time, when everything is monitored and records are kept back through kindergarten, there is no skeleton that cannot be sprung. Nor, if you sell your soul, is there any sin that cannot be whitewashed. Obama is a lying pathogen who is whitewashed because he has sold out. Gingrich is painted black because he has not sold out to the politically correct owners.
"Evidence-based" Dims are really into evidence denialism. No surprise, given the attraction is base has to blowing their minds. We're talking seriously good dope for these artistes of creative delusion.
While listening to the Audible versions of Robert Harris' Imperium and Conspirata, what leaped out to me were the parallels between Caesar and Obama. Especially with regard to their electoral bases. Of course, Caesar marked the end of the Roman Republic.
When I first saw the the famous poster of Obama with the red background, it for some reason reminded me of a hammer and sickle flag. I thought it was satire by a Conservative comic. Nope. It was Obama's banner all right, probably researched to the hilt to confirm it would inspire the typical Obama supporter. I see it as a scary rorschach for America.
The ultimate in deception is to lead America's youth to believe it's the Progs who live in an evidence based world. Yup. Evidence based world. When you're incredibly ignorant, illiterate, immoral, illegal, and incompetent, who you gonna call? What's the evidence on that? Well, those people don't call for Conservatives.
It's likely that the Left's seeming obsession with equality and non-discrimination is mainly due to its infantile incapacity to make decent judgments and informed decisions. Its not much wonder, given how deep the Left's head is into dope, deviancy, and dopamine. It's not that they're born that way. It's that they're raised that way. Did you see where Hillary suggested Conservatives do not live in an evidence based world? So, where's the evidence to show women in combat with men is effective? Well, there's the 4-Pinochio time Hillary and Chelsea had to run under sniper fire in Bosnia.
Truth, justice, and the American way are head over heels in retreat. Now, we have a rowdy, randy, riotous beast that knows no limits and has no mind for imposing limits. America lost her balance on the slippery, muddy slope and is now flushing down the sewage channel. There is no insult to decency that Progs cannot rationalize. There is no beam of the American Construct that is not being gaily and gleefully chewed and rotted away by Prog parasites. The only justice remaining will be that they will die with the host.
Why? Because we turned the house over to jerk offs. We took the kids who want mainly to choom, credentialed them at the "best" schools, and then put them in charge. There were many such useful idiots during the time of Lenin. Once the collective beast gained traction, it did away with most of them. Once collectivism was made the supreme palliative, all alternative faiths were swept away. Now, choomers are using Islam as a partner to help sweep away traditional Americanism. They know Islam is ruthless, but they think they have perfected a way to keep the most ruthless under management that is kinder and gentler. This time, they believe their eggheads know how to do collectivism right. They have faith that the last 50 years of technological takeoff will trump all the rest of recorded history. And they think Christians are misguided!
As mutant Islam's strategy for survival and replication, it long ago adopted the ruthless whacking of all expression of individual thinking in order to preserve its herdbound, collectivist self. It's a cult for dealing death to individual thinkers. As a collectivizing agency, Islam does not think, but it does react. Marxists who want to impose rule over the collective admire and benefit from studying the Islamic version of the collectivist beast. Community organizing is a way to install ignorance at the top of the nerve center of governance, where elitists believe they know best how to fire and control the neurons of the collective beast. Both Islam and Marxism are walking Frankensteins. They are the hubristic perfections of elitists over Judeo-Christian values, urged for our toleration by eggheads near you. The writing was on the wall that Individually competent people would give up their right to think for themselves once they gave the right to vote without regard to literacy or loyalty. We accepted too much of the b.s of "scholars" and allowed too much of Christianity to be sacrificed to the "democracy" of the lowest common denominator.
Much of media has evolved under thumbs of progressively more worldly and sinister masters. Their palliative is: He who dies with the most toys wins. Therefore, "what difference does it make," no matter how many you need to deceive, injure, or even kill? However, everybody looks for some kind of palliative, that is, some satisfying explanation or purpose. When finding it exceeds their capacity or patience, they seek it in diversions: such as ridiculing the seeking of others, or dope, or recruiting innocents as coping companions, even initiating them into cults of physical or spiritual death. As if nirvana or enlightenment should be found in exploring meth, gay sex, or ganging up to take from whitey. Many scientists seem to seek their palliative, exclusively and ridiculously, in science, as Marxists and Muslims seek it, perhaps even more ridiculously, in the State or Umma --- even while they ridicule those who seek it in some spiritual religion, or inviting God, or some mystical or meditative appreciation of the cosmos. All who seek, while they seek, implicate an assumption, belief, or faith that a "correct" palliative can be found. None is able to say anything worthwhile about the alternative, that is, if it cannot be found. Excepting those who believe they have found it, or are on its scent, all who mock, mock uneasily. If a correct or best palliative can be found, I doubt it will be captured in force of science or despotic religion, as opposed to insight that is patiently pursued, self reliant individual by self reliant individual. Was there a time when most media competed to present information for the appreciation of individuals, rather than for shaping, deceiving, and dividing people in order to provide kabuki heater for entertaining tyrants?
Post a Comment