FASCISM

FASCISM

Most people would consider Hitler to be a fascist. I guess you could call him a "nationalist" even though he was bent on conquest, since he wanted to put the areas he conquered under his fascist control.

If it's important to you, you can call them Bambi's, if you want to. You can use whatever private language you want. What I am concerned with are tightly bundled organizations ("fasces") bent on acquiring central power over masses of people. In case you had not noticed, nations and borders, as concepts, are becoming obsolete among rulers with fascist tendencies. They are being replaced by multi-nationals, treaties, etc. And they are run through elitist controlled institutions of media, propaganda, banking, education, "charitable" foundations, international corporations, world organizations, etc.

In the one world idea, there would be no nations, but there would likely be some kind of central command. The people who use the techniques of fascists to acquire, keep, and promote that central command can be intelligibly referred to as fascists.

Now, if for some reason, unknown to me, it is personally important to you to call them something else, that is fine. It matters naught to me what name you use to refer to a rose. For myself, I'm simply not interested in those kinds of petty conversations. But gee, thanks.

Edit:

If Trump shows it to be his purpose to free America as a nation from undue international controls, the next important question is whether his administration will acquiesce to states freeing themselves from undue federal controls. If he does not, if he fails to shut down unnecessary and unauthorized components of the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, then it would not be unreasonable to call him a national fascist. But if Trump does free America from international controls and also reinvigorates states' rights, then I see no point in painting him with the fascist label (which the Left is trained to go nuts about).

Otoh, Obama has sought in effect to erase America's borders and to bury America under onerous world agreements concerning carbon and trade. I don't see the point in declining to paint him with the prejudicial label, "fascist," just because his model for elitist despotism is closer to Stalin's than Hitler's.

Both Hitler and Stalin were after world conquest, so the "national" versus "international" distinction is one that makes little difference -- except perhaps to academics who want to defend strict categories. As if existence could be described in a silly academic pursuit of a set of exhaustive and mutually exclusive Venn diagrams.

As for me, I would rather keep my eye on the ball. The ball pertains to collectivistic tyranny (fascism) versus individual liberty (federal representative republicanism).

Spiritual Gnosis

Identity.  Avatar.  Soul.  Accumulation of Information.  Karma.  Same Information, from many Perspectives, including Holistic.  Changeless Changer.  God appreciating, learning, reconciling, preserving information, paying it forward.  Both psychically and substantively.  At immeasurable and unprovable but intuitive level, Spirit learning, reconciling.  Preservation of Information, regrets.  Immeasurable Causer.  Still quiet voice.  Spirit based conscience.  God Identity Consciousness Alone.  Appreciation Music Purposefulness.  Choosing through possible scenes.  Intuitive Conscience Soul.  Beyond science, yet confined with math.  Godhead because trinitarian can both remember (store possibilities) and forget and appreciate anew.  Shades of music.

 At some point, the best explanation for wraping things together probably has to be beyond empirical verification. The best for such an explanation may consist in its utility for principled and consistent moral argumentation. Provided it is sensible, yet not falsified. Even so, I suspect that adopting such an explanation may inspire sub-ideas that ARE empirically testable, useful, and not inconsistent with the wrap.
I have been watching occasional documentaries concerning physicists who speculate about whether time, insofar as it is measurable, may be granular. (Even though the way it is granulated is renormalized to each and every perspective.) So that brings in perspective. Conscious appreciation and "spiritual choice." Ideas about how it may be that the potentiality of information as it accumulates is never lost. How, in that respect, the past continues to exist!
I think your model pulls together the ideas of granular time and a chronologically dependent series of perpetually existing "scenes" (or potentially available choices).
Still, it's a mind numbing idea. As any idea that approaches the Godhead must be. The measurable cosmos is mind boggling enough. Add to that an astonishing number of parallel cosmos of chronological scenes and the mind risks becoming unhinged. Or the mind rebels.
The mind balks at notions that fundamentally transform ways of thinking about one's conscious identity and the identities of one's significant others. One wants to believe that one's close friends are more than apparitions or bots. That's what gave me itches beneath my skin. However, on reflection, I no longer think that is the problem it at first seemed to be. I'm still reflecting on it, so I'm not sure I can yet explicate why.
A way to resolve some of the "itches" may be to think about a trinitarian aspect to the Godhead. Not so much the poetic or biblical idea of a tirnity, but a conceptualization grounded in concern for how to make as consistent, coherent, and complete sense out of our beingness as possible. How may it be that an aspect of the godhead can sponsor into existence all that can ever exist, while retaining capacity to flux to another aspect that can forget, re-learn, and be appreciatively and meaningfully surprised anew? How may each perspective of conscious identity be a perspective of the same thing? A "changeless-changer?"
Maybe resolution has something to do with how Information is preserved, processed, appreciated, and presented. "I" am more than the particles that comprise my body. I am also a product of the contextual field that defines me, as well as that defines my acquaintances. Whatever the Holism that happens to define, reconcile, and present me will also happen to present my acquaintances. And we are all derivative of that reconciling Holism. Thus, not "bots."
Just musing. May change my mind about this later.


"I-ness" does not seem to have been well explicated. At least, I have not noticed lengthy attempts to explicate it. How can an incarnate, immeasurable "soul" be measured to sense, effect, or cause any event? And what if all measurable events are derivative of some "thing" that is beyond measure (some no-measurable-thing), but that "speaks" in appearances (and "bubbles") that themselves are measurable (and therefore "substantive")?
As concepts, soul/spirit/conscious identity, etc, seem to be placeholders for referring questions that defy math-measure or cause-effect analysis or logic. Yet, "cause" as a concept seems to break down in most leaps between the finite and the infinite and the measurable and the immeasurable. We want to imagine "some beingness" reconciles and causes (some Mathematician "maths") -- but we have no-thing to suggest or confirm it, beyond the ineffable, the suggestive, the intuitive, the "spiritually insightful."
Yet, that, and perhaps an idea of karma (or spiritual judgment, or unending and unfolding rconciliation of never-lost information) seems to be the implicated foundation for moralizations -- whether or not we wish so to articulate. Maybe, if information is never lost, like Jacob Marley's chains, we intuit moral investments in our choices.
IOW, that-which-we-measure-not somehow accompanies, guides, or affects apprehensions and choices. Some vague guess about other scenes or possibilities not presently chosen. Maybe on some higher plane, some reconciling aspect of us, or some aspect that defines us, "senses" that it has been here before. We can't directly "make stuff" with it, but somehow or other we make choices and seem to rationalize back to "it."
IAE, "it" remains an itch, and I don't see how any philosophy can entirely banish it and yet make claims about "moral purposefulness."

Wrestling With God -- In Particulars

People can assemble in good faith and good will ro seek receptivity to spiritual guidamce and to assimilate values in that respect.

Those values, so as not to be trampled, need to find respect and representation in gov. Without faith, family and fidelity, gov soon turns to fascist despotism. To try to wall godliness away from political goodliness is to feast eyes solely on heaven while abandoning whatever we may have been commissioned to do on earth. Jesus taught: "Thy will be done, on earfh as it is in heaven."

Though we all fall short, churches could do much good by inspiring people voluntarily to come together in good faith and good will, to be receptive to "wrestling with God" to assimilate good values that can be preserved in their society and its institutions.

*********

Look in good faith to the Reconciler. When people gather in good faith and good will for that purpose, they tend to be led to it. A good place to start seeking is the New Testament. For political purposes, I think a good test is this: What kind of cultural system of values and system of laws is needed to establish and sustain a representative republic that will accord decent respect for human freedom and dignity? The answers vary with contexts and are perhaps more qualitative than quantitative. The paths to that system will vary among cultures. They are best found by looking with others to the Reconciler.

In political terms, a few considerations I think appropriate would include:

Don't tax people to let rulers recruit and groom those who seek to undermine families.
Don't let gov force sanctuary to be provided by others, to give sanctuary to people who are trained to murder and undermine your society, where you would not be willing to give sanctuary to any of such people in your own home.
Don't let gov live beyond its means to put unsustainable burdens on your progeny.
Don't raise children to feel entitled to extort money from other people to siphon for their own pleasure that which they should be earning for themselves.
Don't let your church be persuaded to give up its moral message in exchange for tax credits from the prevailing despots.
Don't let gov or church abuse children.
AFFORD people you come in contact with opportunities to show their moral worth and good will.
UNITE with other members of your church to distribute charitable works, and do not conflate gov with charity.
UNITE with other members of your church to campaign against moral abuses by gov.
WWJD: Judge. In your voting and acting, look beyond selfish wannas and narrow contexts. Pull your focus back to include a broader society. Don't rush to "turn the other cheek" to tolerate that which would destroy the kind of society Jesus would seek to build. If you don't have knowledge or facts commensurate with the task called for, first, do no harm. Don't vote while stupid.

*********

Ministers of all colors need to challenge themselves: Are they part of the solution, or part of the problem? People go to church for fellowship, to seek inspiration, and to get through a rough patch. Churches rely on membership, both for their revenue and for their sense of purposefulness. They prefer to inspire without being divisive.

But politics is inherently divisive, regardless of how morally important it is. A minister's duty is not just to whomever happen to comprise his congregation. His duty extends also to God and to the pursuit of better civilization. That requires willingness to "wrestle with God." That was the point of renaming Jacob. It was only because Jacob struggled with God that he received a new name, Israel. http://www.gotquestions.org/Jacob-wrestling-with-God.html

However, modern Christian churches blanch away from struggle, preferring not to rock the boat. Raise up congregations of happy faces on sticks. Approve, bless, and tolerate everyting, including evil -- excepting only to decline to tolerate that which is intolerant of evil. So, modern churches tolerate the acme of evil -- Islam -- which is the glorification of hate, disfigurement, stoning, burning, eye gouging, beheading, and abject surrender of all reason. Moreover, they tolerate that which is inimical to faith, family, and fidelity. That is, they bless what destroys a representative republic that seeks to avail human freedom and dignity. That is, freedom of their own accord to "come to Jesus."

There is more to seeking moral guidance from God than a simplistic talisman of loving and tolerating everyone. Spirit based empathy is about more than "loving everything." It also encompasses seeking to overcome evil -- not to celebrate and feed it. Empathy ought not be a code word for blessing depravity and sub-humanness to perpetuate depravity and sub-humanness.

For heaven's sake, how do you "tolerate" your neighbors of good faith and good will if you sponsor the importation of brutes to go among them to rape, plunder, and kill them? Why should love and toleration go to trained rapists, plunderers, and killers, but not to long standing neighbors? And what of the future -- should it factor into any instant gratification you may seek from being radically "tolerant" in the present? What does your receptivity to God's guidance tell you about the kind of decency and civilization God wishes to lead us towards? Should we be tolerant of that, as opposed to sacrificing it so we can feel good about "tolerating" brutes in the present?

Ministers often make excellent presentations leading up to the question, Does the church believe anything is wrong (or bad or sinful)? Or does it just tolerate and love everything and everyone, and is that even possible? They often get right up to the ring to "wrestle with God," and then they crumple.

They fail to engage the important factors that relate to the contest. Their pat suggestion seems to be, yes, give refuge to the Syrian Musliims. With no concern expressed about the nation. Nor for an alternative that would provide refuge in place.

Same with concerns about gays. Little appreciation that Gays already are free to do most of what they want, and face little public prejudice for doing it. As if social tolerance, to be moral, should somehow require the next step, being political funding and sponsorship.

Jacob wrestled with an angel of God. But most churches nowadays do not wrestle. Nor do they seek or give practical moral guidance. Instead, they tend to claim God loves and tolerates everyone and everything -- as if such a logical contradiction could make any kind of moral sense! They do not help a nation keep its moral balance to preserve itself politically. They make us easy fodder for corrupt vultures, crony plunderers, and mad-dog gangster rapists posing as men of "God" (Allah). And with a well presenting minister, all the sheeple assent.

Agitprop in Canada

There is campus turmoil in Canada, but Canada did not have slavery. So what is the rationale in Canada for race based aggravation? A little thought shows the purpose amounts to little more than agitprop that works to empower subhuman fascist despots.

To demand that the central gov guarantee proportionately equal distribution of every kind of job, opportunity, award, and funding to every group that profiles and distinguishes itself as being separate and apart from white Christian straight males with responsible jobs is to demand that the central gov be made an apparatus to be run by fascist despots.

It is to make gov the arbiter of all things, to replace the free choices of independent individuals and localities. It is to replace the marketplace of properties, goods, and ideas with the central bureaucracy of a regime. It is to surrender individual human freedom and dignity to bureaucrats for central fascists, with power to define and agitate for redistributions to whatever new groups it may find expedient to entitle. It is to make redistributions depend not on reason, but on noise, agitation, and turmoil. It is to infantilize people and groups, so they never grow up to learn how to reason or look after their own interests without joining a gang to leverage their infantile bawling.

In effect, multi-culti, diversity, and equality have become slogans for subhuman, fascist commies. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, these slogans condition people to learn to behave as little more than the alimentary canals of infants, with insatiable hunger at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

Too often, these forms of agitation avail students, protestors, and churches to confuse and conflate what should be their real inclinations, so that they rationalize beliefs and voting to the contrary. What they would not do with their own property, safety, time, energy, and money, they will do with other people's property, safety, time, energy, and money. Thus, they unthinkingly run roughshod over their central idea of fairness: The Golden Rule.

Examples: The Syrian "refugee" they would never bring into their own homes, they will use gov to foist onto other homes and communities. What they would never advocate to give to straight, white, Christian males, they will advocate to steal from such whites to give to every group that organizes to whine about its grievances --- even when there is no historical basis for grievance! Again, Canada did not have slavery. Yet, Canada now "leads" with its regime of progressivism. The ideologies of communist progressivism and Islamic collectivism have run insanely amuck. The minorities, socialists, commies, fascists, jews, and jihadis who promote this are furiously building a tower of insanity that will fall hard on all heads.

God Maths

Completeness is one of the receding conundrums. No sooner do we complete passing through one door than at least one other opens. Yet, each system of thought tries to account for all possible contingencies. As you say, It seems beyond us to imagine how even God can be complete in respect of constantly pursuing fulfillment and learning to appreciate surprising unfoldings. I think the godhead is complete, but the conscious aspect of it must in some respects flux.

Edit:

We do not live in mere Information. Rather, we live in a process of InformNorm. A perpetual unfolding and re-Forming of Substance in respect of experiential apprehensions of perspectives of Consciousness.

When people try to reduce ideas to either-or, true-false logics based only in bi-dimensional equalities and formulas, they tend either towards gross incompleteness or trivial statements of circularity.

Every non-trivial statement implicates and entails a background contextual medium. When a perspective of Consciousness is focused in acting on a Substance, that medium of facilitation may be termed Information. Few non-trivial statements can be made in the form of A = B. Under the equal sign there should be implicated a "f" sign, in respect of the background of facilitation. With a keyboard, that may be typed =>.

In any sense that is other than trivial, we do not tend to function in math equalities. Rather, we function in facilitated transpositions and conservational conversions. As the content of the background medium (Informational History or Cosmic Bubble) phase-changes, so also will the values on either side of the facilitated equations change.

The way the godhead functions will not be appreciated in bi-dimensional logic. A trinitarian appreciation for the terms involved in every math-based trasnposition is necessary. And that appreciation will tend more towards the spiritually and morally qualitative than the scientifically quantitative.

Instead of Substance 1 = Substance 2, use Substance 1 => Substance 2 under facilitation of Informational Field A to the renormalized apprehension of perspective of Conscousness X.

InFormNorm. We, as mortals, can appreciate what the godhead reconciles and unfolds to our experience. We can quantitate what can be quantified, and we can qualitate what can be qualified. But we cannot completely confine our experience of the cosmos to a set system of bi-dimensional math. In that respect, the cosmos that unfolds to our senses and interpretation is qualitatively presented to us, but is not presented to us in quantitative completeness. Math applies, but it is renormalized, reconciled, and made active by the godhead. Across a fractal spectrum of ever more varying iterations, God "maths."

******************

Information regarding the relative time (chronology) and place of the fall of any tree is recorded, and can be uncovered by a sufficiently skilled and forensic analysis of artifacts that remain wihin the field of influence, after the fact.

The more interesting questions pertain not to whether a sound (or coordinate artifact of sound) is made or preserved, but to whether, how, why, to what effect, and to what purpose such Information is preserved that will NECESSARILY be subject to immediate and/or eventual discernment by, or effect upon, observer(s).

Is there any such a thing as Information that exists that is of no effect upon any form of Consciousness? I think not.

To my conception, there is no existential accumulation of Information that is entirely free of a contextual connection with unfolding manifestations of Substance made of apparent influence, however faintly or remotely, upon some form (or forms) of Consciousness.

There is no such thing as any entirely separate existentiality of Information, Substance, and Consciousness. Rather, each aspect of that trinity occurs in necessary dependence upon the other two. Regardless of whether the aspect of Consciousness is at the level of a meta spin, an organic molecule, an organic cell, a self aware organism, or a holistic aspect of the godhead -- there is neither Information nor unfolding Substance without a connection to Consciousness.

Preolism and Spirit

PANENTHEISM (from Charles Hartshorne, et al)
All is in God.  But not all is God.

God's existence is necessary, and is compatible with all events in the world.
God is capable of surpassing himself by growing and changing in his knowledge and feeling for the world.
All the beauty created in a person's life will exist forever in the reality of God.
Science and Theology provide data for each other.
God loves creation, but also endures suffering.
God needs the world in order to be a complete being.
An aspect of God does not have complete foreknowledge of all events.

MY PREOLISM (Progressive Realism):

All is in God.  God is in all.  But all is not God. Because some of the all is a web of math, that serves as the intangible body of God, but not the Mind of God.
The Conscious aspect of the Godhead interfunctions with a web of math.
The interfunctioning produces and conserves each unfolding cosmos of potentiality.
The portion that has already unfolded into previously renormalized histories of manifestation is Information.
That portion that presently presents to measurable manifestation is Substance.
The Duality is the Godhead plus the Web of Math.
The Trinity of the Godhead is Consciousness, Information, Substance
Consciousness is made experienceable from the interfunctioning of Information and Substance.
Information is made experienceable from the interfunctioning of Consciousness and Substance.
Substance is made experienceable from the interfunctioning of Information and Consciousness
The Web of Math is made serviceable by the Godhead, i.e., the interfunctioning of Consciousness, Substance, and Information.
No one part of the Trinity can express itself without a connecting reference to the other two parts.
I am that I am.


SPIRIT - CONSCIOUSNESS AT META LEVEL THAT IS IMMEASURABLE FROM OUR LEVEL OF EXPERIENCING IT
We experience mortal, particular Consciousness from the perspective of a bonded avatar, that has been associated with a history of perceptions, whose avatar has recorded those perceptions, for being conserved and remembered via a recording function, which sense of memory interfunctions with unfoldings of present interpretations, relations processing not just in space but also in time, renormalized within locally experienceable and communicable parmeters, interpreted as sensations of sight, sound, touch, taste, feeling of contextual pressure, balance, and beingness, such interpretations being fed back and renormalized via a reconciling function, that conserves math based relationships.

But may Consciousness exist or be experienced beyond the renormalizing function of a temporal avatar that is bonded with an unfolding cone of local experience?
May such Consciousness experience Identity, Unity, Feedback, Appreciation?
May aspects of it step in and out of space-time?
From its level of experience, may it measure aspects of itself, in terms of a meta-math?

Such questions seem not answerable so long as we bond and cling to mortal perspective.
But once we are reabsorbed to the Godhead, may we, as IT, suffuse our interpretations through those of the mortals that we, as IT, then sponsor?

If the conservational reconciliation, were it all at once added together, reduces to zero, then does that suggest that Conscious Mind abides as a reality that is superior to zero and to Substance (body and brain) and Information?

***********

Identity.  Avatar.  Soul.  Accumulation of Information.  Karma.  Same Information, from many Perspectives, including Holistic.  Changeless Changer.  God appreciating, learning, reconciling, preserving information, paying it forward.  Both psychically and substantively.  At immeasurable and unprovable but intuitive level, Spirit learning, reconciling.  Preservation of Information, regrets.  Immeasurable Causer.  Still quiet voice.  Spirit based conscience.  God Identity Consciousness Alone.  Appreciation Music Purposefulness.  Choosing through possible scenes.  Intuitive Conscience Soul.  Beyond science, yet confined with math.  Godhead because trinitarian can both remember (store possibilities) and forget and appreciate anew.  Shades of music.

************

A propensity abides among godless elites to assume to promote themselves to God. This affliction among mankind endangers humanity more every day.

In abstract terms, consciousness, in some respects, seems necessarily to be enmeshed with and throughout the observable substance and information of the cosmos. Whatever is of measurable import is in some sense perceived or implicated to observers. Maybe mortal avatars for the expression of consciousness emerge and bond, as more than one form of sensory recordation is correlated in a self perpetuating and feedback relationship with another. Some avatars are organized to experience feedback in a way that can be called being self aware.

IAE, there seems to abide a conserving and reconciling principle (or Principler). While aspects of it can be formulated in math, something more than math itself seems to avail consciously interpretive experiences of present fluxes of substance and previous histories or information concerning such fluxes. That "something" is empathetically intuited by some to constitute a unifying Recomciler, a changeless-changer, a meta-spiritual-holism on a higher level -- i.e., God.

It can be worthwhile to appreciate that our avatars are limited perspectives of the God. That we may, on passing, in some respects be adjudged worthy of being reabsorbed into that Godhead, or purged to further refinement. That we, as spirit, are part of the potential of a higher Reconciler. But to believe there is no good, no source, and no Reconciler above us, is to avail many to nourish a sociopathy that easily transposes towards hideous evil.

When God is denied, or demoted below oneself, then the way seems to be open for an artificial void to promote and float those who are most prone to sociopathy.

(Sorry for the sermon. When I do that, it tends to be more because I am playing with ideas in themselves, though I recognize it often bores others. Since this is "American Thinker," I think and brew on these things to seek civilization that can be commodious to consistency, coherence, and completeness.)

*********

Islam also sorely "misunderestimates" the Trinity (aka Godhead). Islam is lost in a bi-dimensional logic that is hopelessly inadequate to cope with the unfolding reality.

Completeness is one of the receding conundrums. No sooner do we complete passing through one door than at least one other opens. Yet, each system of thought tries to account for all possible contingencies. As you say, It seems beyond us to imagine how even God can be complete in respect of constantly pursuing fulfillment and learnig to appreciate surprising unfoldings. I think the godhead is complete, but the conscious aspect of it must in some respects flux.

*********


I suspect at least half the members of every society feel lost unless they can measure themselves in a duck line.  They are lost unless they know who occupies what position in each heirarchy.  They need hierarchy, even if they are at the bottom rung.  They will riot, unless they can either rule or be ruled.  They hate being responsible to become individually competent to think for themselves, as opposed to thinking as does the hierarchy of which they want to be a part.

America was in large part founded and settled by frontiersmen.  America still has that in its blood.  There is no other place in the world that is still like that.  The more that America imports immigrants who require a hierarchy, the more America will willingly put on her own chains.  And fight against all who seek to remove such chains. 

These new imports tend not to want freedom to think, speak, associate, or enterprise.  They detest that!  They want the security of a safe place in the hierarchy of political correctness.  If Americans don't stop importing such people, the American Ideal of human freedom and dignity will be lost forever.

The minorities who are not comfortable with freedom do not dislike white men who are independently competent because they are racist.  They dislike such white men because they are not racist.  They find the very idea of competent independence of mind to be entirely repugnant.  If more white men were really racist, such minorities could better know their place and would probably be more contented for it.  Meanwhile, they find solace in doing what they can to stick individually competent white men at the lowest rung of whatever hierarchy they can forcibly establish.

I do not want to live in a racially hierarchical society.  I want to find like minded people and disassociate myself from all the PC quackers and their duck lines.  To do that, if necessary, I am willing to employ nullification and secession.  And all who are like me, of whatever color, are kin.  I want more freedom genes and less anti-freedom genetic drag.  And to hedoublell with anti-American obamanites and their anti-freedom "refugees."

But why are women (and salon femimen) most represented among the PC anti-freedom fascists?  Well, it could be because fewer among them happen to be brought up to value becoming individually competent.  They tend to value security.  And when that cannot be found with a competent mate, then the Obamagirls among them look for it in a gov or a despot.  Why does Hillary tell lie after lie to fit the commie agenda, and stand by her man, even as she knows he gives the lie to everything she says?  Why do all the women under Islam put up with that system of repression?  Must it not be because they have been conditioned more than anything else to fear losing their position in the established duckline, even when it is at the lowest rung?

Such women will not be salvaged by a "religion" that justifies their subjugation.  They will be salvaged on this earth only by a faith that appeals to their capacity to become all they can be.

*******

Every sentient person of the least common sense knows that every true believing Muslim celebrated in his heart the grievous and black eye given to America on 9-11-11.

So, suppose you live in a representative republic and learn by direct experience of a land where people are raised, taught, and conditioned from the time they are babes to hate every important value upon which your republic is based, to despise the women of your land and want them stoned when not covered and chaperoned, to believe that God ordains that they are divinely superior to the people of your nation and entitled to enserf and rule them, and that they should feel entitled to rape and kill any of your fellow citizens as they may desire.

Now then, in event such people begin fighting one another so that some seek refuge, would you, especially without extensive vetting, invite them into your home and trust them to be on their own or unsupervised near your daughters? If not, how could you justify your government using tax money to force your fellow citizens to take them in?

I attended a Christ based church today. I give the minister an A on presentation, but a D on moral philosophy. I understand that a church will wish not to discourage membership, and will want to provide inspiration and encouragement to members. It will want to help move the message of Christ towards victory. However, there is more to seeking moral guidance from God than a simplistic talisman of loving and tolerating everyone.

For heaven's sake, how do you "tolerate" your neighbors of good faith and good will if you sponsor the importation of brutes to go among them to rape, plunder, and kill them? Why should love and toleration go to trained rapists, plunderers, and killers, but not to long standing neighbors? And what of the future -- should it factor into any instant gratification you may seek from being radically "tolerant" in the present? What does your receptivity to God's guidance tell you about the kind of decency and civilization God wishes to lead us towards? Should we be tolerant of that, as opposed to sacrificing it so we can feel good about "tolerating" brutes in the present?

My church minister made an excellent presentation leading up to the question, Does the church believe anything is wrong (or bad or sinful)? Or does it just tolerate and love everything and everyone, and is that even possible? I give an A for the presentation leading up to entering the ring to wrestle and grapple with the question. The minister got right up to the ring, but then, apart from concern for Syrian refugees, failed to enter and engage the important factors that relate to the question. The pat suggestion seemed to be, yes, give refuge to the Syrian Musliims. With no concern expressed about the nation. Nor for an alternative that would provide refuge in place.

Same with concerns about gays. Little appreciation that Gays already are free to do most of what they want, and face little public prejudice for doing it. As if social tolerance, to be moral, should somehow require the next step, being political funding and sponsorship.

Jacob wrestled with an angel of God. But most churches nowadays do not wrestle. Nor do they seek or give practical moral guidance. Instead, they tend to claim God loves and tolerates everyone and everything -- as if such a logical contradiction could make any kind of moral sense! They do not help a nation keep its moral balance to preserve itself politically. They make us easy fodder for corrupt vultures, crony plunderers, and mad-dog gangster rapists posing as men of "God" (Allah). And with a well presenting minister, all the sheeple assent.

Are genetic, cultural, and meme drag making us dumber? You betcha. Pray for common sense. Trump/Cruz.

Rationalizing the Christian Concept of a Savior

THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF A SAVIOR:

Concerning participatory and spiritual will and moral responsibility, moral responsibility of lesser animals and artificial intelligences, original sin, fallen mankind, karma and judgment, necessity of sacrifice to appease God, son of father, supreme sacrifice of aspect of Trinity, salvation by grace, everlasting life, alpha and omega and trinity

spirit and souls and choices
substance and measurements and senses
meta consciousness of feelings and choices
meta choices in creation, adoption of avatars, and guiding of reconciliations
histories of perception
judgmental dispensation of rewards and punishments
reincarnation
preparing a place among many mansions

ORIGINAL SIN:
SOUL -- Mortals are dispensed with spirits bonded with avatars with capacities to accumulate histories of perceptions
SIN AND KARMA -- Mankind's range of future and moral choices is affected by accumulations of histories of perception
NATURE OF MAN -- Choices made are affected by development of spiritual propensities
JUDGMENT -- Unfolding reconciliations are affected by unfolding judgments of godhead
VECTORING OF CHARACTER -- The soul of an avatar that is preserved is affected by accumulations of judgment concerning its choices and evolution of character
RAISING OF MANKIND ABOVE ANIMALS -- Absorption by body of avatar of higher capacities for moral organization
EVOLUTION OF PERSONS -- Evolution of souls among Artificial Intelligences

SENDING AND SACRIFICE OF SON:
CHOICE OF JESUS AND HOW JESUS BECAME CHRIST -- The trinitarian godhead's temporal interest in humanity stirred a need to imbue an exemplar
 MEDIATION OF GUIDANCE -- God's tendency to favor is affected by capacity to forgive and take interest
HUMANIZING OF MEDIATOR -- God's appreciation of mankind is affected by mediated capacity, through Christ, to identify with mankind

SALVATION BY GRACE:
IDENTITY WITH MEDIATOR -- The sending, sacrificing, resurrection, and continuing judgment of Jesus affects such capacity

BELIEVING ON CHRIST:
EXEMPLAR OF MEDIATOR -- The life, sacrifice and guidance of Jesus and the followers of His message exemplifies for mankind how to accumulate good histories of perception in order to affect future spiritual dispensations for avatars in the hereafter
ALPHA AND OMEGA -- The book of Christ was written in the math of the cosmos before Jesus was sent; the apostles had the example of Jesus before the New Testament was written; Jesus represents the aspect of the Trinity that steps in and out of time to guide, mediate, and share joys and sorrows, and judge the avatars of mortals and mankind

EVERLASTING LIFE:
LEADERSHIP OF MEDIATOR -- The unfolding and evolving hierarchy among souls within the mansion for mankind is affected by applied appreciations of the teachings and empathies of Jesus


*****************

COMMUNICATION: If conversants do not share an idea of what they mean by "God," then little is communicated when one says to the other, "I don't believe in God."

To me, god (or the godhead) is that superior entity from which all that appears to physical measurability and moral immeasurablility is reconciled. In that case, unless you believe there is no conservatory reconciliation of physical and moral accounts, then my definition nearly "proves" itself. Whatever is the basis for making morality or ethics meaningful, that basis is god. Unless you believe morality and ethics are nonsense concepts. To me, if you believe a basis for morality exists, as opposed to being a mere ruse used by crony heathens to rule the foolish, then you believe in God. If you believe in moral oughts, as in people ought not be ruled by nonsensical dogma, then you believe in a metaphysics. You will be asserting an affirmative existent that is intuitively believed, but not scientifically provable -- beyond faith and self-referential evidence.

CIRCULAR REASONING: But if you assume a negative, that by definition whatever you want to call atheism is not a religion, then use your definition as a proof, then you have only assumed what you mean to prove. You have thus not affirmed anything meaningful. This is mere noise making. Reasoning in a circle, hence, A is A. You wil not have posited anything meaningful with regard to concerns that are beyond science, math, and objective appearance.

IMPORTANT AND UNAVOIDABLE CONCERNS THAT ARE BEYOND OBJECTIVE SCIENCE: You might want to go back and cross examine yourself on some of the issues I suggested previously. I think you will find therein a number of issues that are beyond measurable physics, i.e., metaphysical, that cannot be avoided, but that can be approached only in self evidence, direct experience, and intuitive empathy. These often pertain to unavoidable and important concerns for which (religious like) "faith" offers the only path forward.

GOLF: As to golf, yes, it can become a religious appendage. If someone says, "Beat me at golf and I will do such and such," then you will have made a moral obligation, not in itself measurable in physics, depend on how you perform at your chosen religious rite, i.e., golf. https://youtu.be/n3vacnR50AY

CONDITIONING FOR SPIRITUAL BLINDERS: Regarding trained pretense: No, you mistake my intended meaning. Think of the boy who receives little moral instruction but who is constantly and only praised for getting the correct answer to math problems. (Incidentally, when there is only one correct answer to a math problem, the problem is merely a complex way for stating a circular truism.)

But back to the boy. He can be conditioned to become habituated to expect that there is a correct, objective answer to most important issues. (I have a brother who tends to believe that no issue that is without an objective answer can be important.) He will want there to be only one correct answer. And, since he usually gets the correct answer in problems of math, he may tend to believe he should be entrusted to decree what the "correct" answer is. (Example: In "global warming" issues, he will want to say "The science is settled." In other concerns, he will want the masses to be ruled by himself and his network of "moral experts.")

The boy who trains mainly in math and objective science will often presume there is an objective scientific answer where there is only a moral choice, often as a matter of acquired or cooperative taste.

QUOTIENT FACTORS: There are probably various kinds of intelligences. Intelligence Q, Emotional Q, Musical Q, Spiritual Q, Golf Q, War Q, etc. But the kid who is celebrated for his scientific acumen and IQ will often think he has the "objective answer." For a person with high scientific IQ and low spiritual intuitive Q, he may tend to believe he knows or can "prove" (by science, logic, or even definition) that there is no God. But I think he just has an atrophied Spiritual Q. Atrophied by lack of use. That is, one trick conditioning.


***********

Yes, atheists have quite a history of concocting "faulty" political systems. By their fruits shall ye know them.

"Can religious belief tell us ..."
I never said it could tell us. It can, however, help lead us to come together in good faith and good will. It can lead us to value the good faith and good will of the masses, as opposed to pretending to have scientifically elite and superior knowledge to rule them.

"Can theories .. help"
Yes, scientific theories can help with practical tinkering. They can help guide us in this respect: To build such and such, it helps to do so and so. Otherwise, no.

I prefer reasonable freedom for each human being to act according to his good faith and good will, as opposed to being ruled by knowitall priests of "scientific morality."

The trick is how to inspire a culture and design a legal system to promote a representative republic that can accomplish that. Unfortunately, scientific elitist shills for a NWO cronydom are "fundamentally transforming" (destroying) that as we speak.

Btw: The notion that our cosmic bubble popped out of a mathematical no-thing-ness seems to be the current "theory" by "scientific consensus." Seems pretty metaphysically religious-like to me.

Gotta go to the Salt Lick. Ttfn.

***********

Yes, cherry picking definitions is handy for proving A is A. And it may help for exploring that which is subject to empirical investigation. For ultimate axioms or issues of right and wrong, however, they're pretty silly. But people who are blinded by trained pretense tend to fail to see that -- regardless of how many degrees with which they may adorn themselves. For people of insight, this tends to be immediately apprehended. For people of trained self absorption, not so much. I can't fix that degree of self inflicted blindness.


***********

Concering Atheism: I am at a state such that I tend not much to be concerned with ideas of salvation or heaven. My concern for religious philosophy is mainly in respect of its connection with moral philosophy. I am concerned with this: What reasoned system of faith, culture, and laws is needed to inspire and sustain a civilization that accords decent respect for complex expressions of freedom and dignity?

I think atheistic philosophers of morality tend to implicate more notions of higher, meta, spiritual, immateriality than they are consciously aware. But I think they tend to contrive blinders, to hide from those implications. So, they find it very important to their egos to deny religiosity. And they are often so young or uneducated about history that they overlook the horrors of atheistic statism, national socialism, international socialism, communism, and NWO crony fascism. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and so on.

Moreover, they conflate forced religion with true religious belief. Encouraging spiritual belief is not the same as threatening to saw off a person's head if he does not properly regurgitate a religious verse. To put modern Christianity in that light is absurd. To compare modern Christianity with Islam is asinine. On the other hand, to compare the statist abuses of atheistic national socialism, international socialism, and communism with the abuses of radical Islam is quite appropriate.

An avowed atheist, to be worthy of engaging in deeper discussion, needs first to have engaged in cross examining himself. He may cross examine himself to consider limits of objectivity and science: Does the past exist? Yes, science can help us tinker, but can science replicate the past, or any world-inclusive event for any new or independent bubble of space-time? Can science prove the limits of potentiality? Can science tell us with particularity what sort of future we should build?

Concerning so-called "objective reality": Can science identify any externally objective building block, particle, field, multiverse field, meta field, or math field? Can science show any "objective particle" that is existent in itself, separate and independent, not necessarily entailed with any conscious perception or historical-spatial accumulation of information? Can science objectively advance any innate appreciation of morality, empathy, or self awareness?

Swine cannot cross examine themselves. Can swine be taught to sing? Until swine show capacity for self examination, few would incline to spend time discussing moral philosophy with them.

I think the only reasonable test for moral philosophy may consist not in scientific pretense, but in a complex of factors, such as:

Not being falsified.
Not being hindering of science.
Not being needlessly derogatory.
Being as complete, coherent, and consistent as reasonably possible.
Helping to soothe or advance decent civilization and human meaningfulness.
Being felt consistent with self evidence, intuition, and innate empathy.

Innate empathy is my terminology in respect of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. I think it is innate to existentiality. That is, above science, because self evident. If an atheist does not have (religious like) faith or belief in some such concept, then on what basis would he pretend to "be as moral minded as any religious believer?"

**********

A truism: For atheism to succeed in a civilization, it must implicate faith that we can cooperate empathetically by finding alternative bases for organizing, facilitating, and inspiring empathetic cooperation. The consequence will be a bewildering accumulation of Marxist like literature, that will devolve to become every bit as nonsensical and fascist as the worst of religions.

BTW, resort to cherry picked definitions is an intellectually bankrupt and dishonest way to debate. What some posters leave out of their definition of religion is this:

- an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion.

For example, many scientists have a religious like hope or belief that methods of science can eventually lead us to prove a theory of everything. Some even believe, religiously, that "ought" can be scientifically derived from "is."

***********

In [our] Father's house are many mansions -- John 14:2):

SUBSTANCE IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY EXISTENT OR IN A STATE OF SUPERIOR SEPARATENESS:

What I think:

What each of us observes are appearances, interpreted through an algorithmically-based avatar. We don't really observe external things. There are no external thing-particles-in-themselves. There are only interpreted sensations of traces of fractals of patterns of spins, reiterating in nothing more "external" than math itself, being interpretatively renormalized to a godhead that feeds to trinitarian based, inter-empathetic, fluxing perspectives of Substance Information-Consciousness.

Measurable space-time-matter-energy (Substance) are all inter-derivative of a dance with histories of perception (Information) among perspectives of an ever-unfolding present (Consciousness).

Reality is the offering that appears in respect of the Godhead that dances in no-thing more than its web of math. God is as real as the very math He employs to define His relationship with each and every perspective. Heaven consists with the astonishing potentiality of that dance. Worlds beyond ours await each perspective, but how we are to be received in them is affected by each history we experience in precedence to them.

Imagine what sort of world you want next. If you want a world of inter-empathetic kindness, follow Christianity. If you want to punish antagonists and be punished by antagonists, follow Mohammadism. If you want more of the same, follow Hinduism-Buddhism. If you want YOLO, follow atheism, but be prepared to be amazed.

If you believe in atheism, and if you condition people to that belief, you will tend to substitute faith in the State in order to inspire them to civilizing cooperation. To say the least, that substitution has not shown, historically, to make for improvement.

***********

The attempted marginalization of Christianity is a big part of the Left's attempt to close the American mind and banish traditional values from the public square.

Recently, I engaged in an interesting conversation with Malatrope that looks for a way to harmonize the Schrodinger Cat conundrum with a fundamental role for consciousness. He posited some very interesting ideas! This led me to speculate about how some of those ideas may relate to religion. Sure enough, I soon got an invite on Disqus -- an invite, mind you -- to comment on an Atheist blog.

So I did, wondering if there might actually be minds there open to thoughtful consideration. I engaged with three. Was there any give and take, any thought whatosover? Nope! Just a lot of juvenile dead horse beating, plugging of ears, in effect saying lalala, calling me some foul names, and very shortly banning me from the site. This after they had invited me!

I recognize that three is not much of a sample. Still, when it results in the kind of plugged brain coarseness and quick banishment I received, I have to wonder what in the heck is it with some of these nasty Atheist sites? If you go there and wonder why there seem to be so many one-sided positions, it's because they ban and remove all the non-atheists!

Compare and look at what is unfolding with BLM and challenges to freedom of speech on campuses! More and more, I understand why a lot of people are feeling much fatigue with trying to make any sense whatsoever to closed minds on the Left. It is becoming more and more evident that the Left, across every front, intends to do all it can to destroy everything that binds the American republic. The Left will insult, shout you down, and shut you off, but it will not debate -- unless you want to call insults debate.

***********

AS BANNED FROM ATHEIST SITE:

In [our] Father's house are many mansions -- John 14:2):

SUBSTANCE IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY EXISTENT OR IN A STATE OF SUPERIOR SEPARATENESS:

What I think:

What each of us observes are appearances, interpreted through an algorithmically-based avatar. We don't really observe external things. There are no external thing-particles-in-themselves. There are only interpreted sensations of traces of fractals of patterns of spins, reiterating in nothing more "external" than math itself, being interpretatively renormalized to a godhead that feeds to trinitarian based, inter-empathetic, fluxing perspectives of Substance Information-Consciousness.

Measurable space-time-matter-energy (Substance) are all inter-derivative of a dance with histories of perception (Information) among perspectives of an ever-unfolding present (Consciousness).

Reality is the offering that appears in respect of the Godhead that dances in no-thing more than its web of math. God is as real as the very math He employs to define His relationship with each and every perspective. Heaven consists with the astonishing potentiality of that dance. Worlds beyond ours await each perspective, but how we are to be received in them is affected by each history we experience in precedence to them.

Imagine what sort of world you want next. If you want a world of inter-empathetic kindness, follow Christianity. If you want to punish antagonists and be punished by antagonists, follow Mohammadism. If you want more of the same, follow Hinduism-Buddhism. If you want YOLO, follow atheism, but be prepared to be amazed.

If you believe in atheism, and if you condition people to that belief, you will tend to substitute faith in the State in order to inspire them to civilizing cooperation. To say the least, that substitution has not shown, historically, to make for improvement.

A truism: For atheism to succeed in a civilization, it must implicate faith that we can cooperate empathetically by finding alternative bases for organizing, facilitating, and inspiring empathetic cooperation. The consequence will be a bewildering accumulation of Marxist like literature, that will devolve to become every bit as nonsensical and fascist as the worst of religions.

BTW, resort to cherry picked definitions is an intellectually bankrupt and dishonest way to debate. What some posters leave out of their definition of religion is this:

- an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.
See http://www.merriam-webster.com....

For example, many scientists have a religious like hope or belief that methods of science can eventually lead us to prove a theory of everything. Some even believe, religiously, that "ought" can be scientifically derived from "is."

Concering Atheism: I am at a state such that I tend not much to be concerned with ideas of salvation or heaven. My concern for religious philosophy is mainly in respect of its connection with moral philosophy. I am concerned with this: What reasoned system of faith, culture, and laws is needed to inspire and sustain a civilization that accords decent respect for complex expressions of freedom and dignity?

I think atheistic philosophers of morality tend to implicate more notions of higher, meta, spiritual, immateriality than they are consciously aware. But I think they tend to contrive blinders, to hide from those implications. So, they find it very important to their egos to deny religiosity. And they are often so young or uneducated about history that they overlook the horrors of atheistic statism, national socialism, international socialism, communism, and NWO crony fascism. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and so on.

Moreover, they conflate forced religion with true religious belief. Encouraging spiritual belief is not the same as threatening to saw off a person's head if he does not properly regurgitate a religious verse. To put modern Christianity in that light is absurd. To compare modern Christianity with Islam is asinine. On the other hand, to compare the statist abuses of atheistic national socialism, international socialism, and communism with the abuses of radical Islam is quite appropriate.

An avowed atheist, to be worthy of engaging in deeper discussion, needs first to have engaged in cross examining himself. He may cross examine himself to consider limits of objectivity and science: Does the past exist? Yes, science can help us tinker, but can science replicate the past, or any world-inclusive event for any new or independent bubble of space-time? Can science prove the limits of potentiality? Can science tell us with particularity what sort of future we should build?

Concerning so-called "objective reality": Can science identify any externally objective building block, particle, field, multiverse field, meta field, or math field? Can science show any "objective particle" that is existent in itself, separate and independent, not necessarily entailed with any conscious perception or historical-spatial accumulation of information? Can science objectively advance any innate appreciation of morality, empathy, or self awareness?

Swine cannot cross examine themselves. Can swine be taught to sing? Until swine show capacity for self examination, few would incline to spend time discussing moral philosophy with them.

I think the only reasonable test for moral philosophy may consist not in scientific pretense, but in a complex of factors, such as:

Not being falsified.
Not being hindering of science.
Not being needlessly derogatory.
Being as complete, coherent, and consistent as reasonably possible.
Helping to soothe or advance decent civilization and human meaningfulness.
Being felt consistent with self evidence, intuition, and innate empathy.

*****************

Innate empathy is my terminology in respect of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. I think it is innate to existentiality. That is, above science, because self evident. If an atheist does not have (religious like) faith or belief in some such concept, then on what basis would he pretend to "be as moral minded as any religious believer?"




*****************

Yes, cherry picking definitions is handy for proving A is A. And it may help for exploring that which is subject to empirical investigation. For ultimate axioms or issues of right and wrong, however, they're pretty silly. But people who are blinded by trained pretense tend to fail to see that -- regardless of how many degrees with which they may adorn themselves. For people of insight, this tends to be immediately apprehended. For people of trained self absorption, not so much. I can't fix that degree of self inflicted blindness.

*****************

Yes, atheists have quite a history of concocting "faulty" political systems. By their fruits shall ye know them.

Your next step is a non-sequitur. IOW, it is not logical. Sorry about that.

"Can religious belief tell us ..."
I never said it could tell us. It can, however, help lead us to come together in good faith and good will. It can lead us to value the good faith and good will of the masses, as opposed to pretending to have scientifically elite and superior knowledge to rule them.

"Can theories .. help"
Yes, scientific theories can help with practical tinkering. They can help guide us in this respect: To build such and such, it helps to do so and so. Otherwise, no.

I prefer reasonable freedom for each human being to act according to his good faith and good will, as opposed to being ruled by knowitall priests of "scientific morality."

The trick is how to inspire a culture and design a legal system to promote a representative republic that can accomplish that. Unfortunately, scientific elitist shills for a NWO cronydom are "fundamentally transforming" (destroying) that as we speak.

Btw: The notion that our cosmic bubble popped out of a mathematical no-thing-ness seems to be the current "theory" by "scientific consensus." Seems pretty metaphysically religious-like to me.

*****************

COMMUNICATION: If conversants do not share an idea of what they mean by "God," then little is communicated when one says to the other, "I don't believe in God."

To me, god (or the godhead) is that superior entity from which all that appears to physical measurability and moral immeasurablility is reconciled. In that case, unless you believe there is no conservatory reconciliation of physical and moral accounts, then my definition nearly "proves" itself. Whatever is the basis for making morality or ethics meaningful, that basis is god. Unless you believe morality and ethics are nonsense concepts. To me, if you believe a basis for morality exists, as opposed to being a mere ruse used by crony heathens to rule the foolish, then you believe in God. If you believe in moral oughts, as in people ought not be ruled by nonsensical dogma, then you believe in a metaphysics. You will be asserting an affirmative existent that is intuitively believed, but not scientifically provable -- beyond faith and self-referential evidence.

CIRCULAR REASONING: But if you assume a negative, that by definition whatever you want to call atheism is not a religion, then use your definition as a proof, then you have only assumed what you mean to prove. You have thus not affirmed anything meaningful. This is mere noise making. Reasoning in a circle, hence, A is A. You wil not have posited anything meaningful with regard to concerns that are beyond science, math, and objective appearance.

IMPORTANT AND UNAVOIDABLE CONCERNS THAT ARE BEYOND OBJECTIVE SCIENCE: You might want to go back and cross examine yourself on some of the issues I suggested previously. I think you will find therein a number of issues that are beyond measurable physics, i.e., metaphysical, that cannot be avoided, but that can be approached only in self evidence, direct experience, and intuitive empathy. These often pertain to unavoidable and important concerns for which (religious like) "faith" offers the only path forward.

GOLF: As to golf, yes, it can become a religious appendage. If someone says, "Beat me at golf and I will do such and such," then you will have made a moral obligation, not in itself measurable in physics, depend on how you perform at your chosen religious rite, i.e., golf.

CONDITIONING FOR SPIRITUAL BLINDERS: Regarding trained pretense: No, you mistake my intended meaning. Think of the boy who receives little moral instruction but who is constantly and only praised for getting the correct answer to math problems. (Incidentally, when there is only one correct answer to a math problem, the problem is merely a complex way for stating a circular truism.)

But back to the boy. He can be conditioned to become habituated to expect that there is a correct, objective answer to most important issues. (I have a brother who tends to believe that no issue that is without an objective answer can be important.) He will want there to be only one correct answer. And, since he usually gets the correct answer in problems of math, he may tend to believe he should be entrusted to decree what the "correct" answer is. (Example: In "global warming" issues, he will want to say "The science is settled." In other concerns, he will want the masses to be ruled by himself and his network of "moral experts.")

The boy who trains mainly in math and objective science will often presume there is an objective scientific answer where there is only a moral choice, often as a matter of acquired or cooperative taste.

QUOTIENT FACTORS: There are probably various kinds of intelligences. Intelligence Q, Emotional Q, Musical Q, Spiritual Q, Golf Q, War Q, etc. But the kid who is celebrated for his scientific acumen and IQ will often think he has the "objective answer." For a person with high scientific IQ and low spiritual intuitive Q, he may tend to believe he knows or can "prove" (by science, logic, or even definition) that there is no God. But I think he just has an atrophied Spiritual Q. Atrophied by lack of use. That is, one trick conditioning.

*****************

When a-faith is not based on knowledge, is it not a faith? May a person be an a-theist with regard to Allah, while being a theist with regard to a higher reconciler of consciousness? Does it not depend on what a person is trying to take the affirmative of? Can a person altogether avoid taking the affirmative of everything that is based not on knowledge or physical evidence but instead on innate intuition or faith? Are you a-believing in the consciousness of responders?

Can any person who is not dead take a position of a-faith in every orientation concerning every metaphysical concern? Is to say you presently lack belief a way of saying you may later acquire belief? Or do you foreclose that? If you foreclose it, do you do so on knowledge or just on lack of present knowledge? If just based on lack of present knowledge, then on what do you foreclose future knowledge, if not faith?

I think I understand the idea of a-theists, sort of like I understand pink unicorns. It's just that I cannot know their minds to confirm they really exist. And I am not sure they even know their own minds.

Regarding militant atheists: I take that less as a term for describing fervor of non-belief than I do as a term for describing destructive behavior driven by animus. The people I call militant atheists would be the ones who seek to drive the expression of values that are based in spiritual faith from every nexus with the public square. And what they seek to replace those vauues with are, guess what, values based in secular faith in gov. They would replace faith in a reconciler with faith in elitist dictated gov. Not good, to my faith.

I think they are related. But I understand that you cannot see it. Each of us has to learn to think however is most suitable to himself. I suspect, if you are serious in your quest, you will come back to them. Good luck with that.

Your topic appears to be: "How can we beat a dead horse and pretend to be thinking, while holding our ears and going lalala?" Enjoy your rubber room.

*****************

UNITY AND UNITARIANISM

Tell him I think this (in [our] Father's house are many mansions -- John 14:2):

SUBSTANCE IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY EXISTENT OR IN A STATE OF SUPERIOR SEPARATENESS:

What each of us observes are appearances, interpreted through an algorithmically-based avatar. We don't really observe external things. There are no external thing-particles-in-themselves. There are only interpreted sensations of traces of fractals of patterns of spins, reiterating in nothing more "external" than math itself, being interpretatively renormalized to a godhead that feeds to trinitarian based, inter-empathetic, fluxing perspectives of Substance Information-Consciousness.

Measurable space-time-matter-energy (Substance) are all inter-derivative of a dance with histories of perception (Information) among perspectives of an ever-unfolding present (Consciousness).

Reality is the offering that appears in respect of the Godhead that dances in no-thing more than its web of math. God is as real as the very math He employs to define His relationship with each and every perspective. Heaven consists with the astonishing potentiality of that dance. Worlds beyond ours await each perspective, but how we are to be received in them is affected by each history we experience in precedence to them.

Imagine what sort of world you want next. If you want a world of inter-empathetic kindness, follow Christianity. If you want to punish antagonists and be punished by antagonists, follow Mohammadism. If you want more of the same, follow Hinduism-Buddhism. If you want YOLO, follow atheism, but be prepared to be amazed.
***********

Thanks for the reference to Charles Hartshorne. I'm reviewing the Wikipedia entry about him. My impression is he had much to do with the Unitarian movement, which is different from the Unity movement. I have been attending Unity services. So far, they seem to entail a lot of independent thinking. Much to think about!

*****************

WEEPING: I confess I have some difficulty with an idea that God knows in advance all that we will do, yet finds it necessary to His inscrutable purposes to put us to the experience, so we can be judged based on how we perform what He already knows He has decreed we shall perform. The only way I can pretend to make sense of such an idea is to conceptualize a trinity, whereby at least some aspect of the Godhead does not know the alpha and the omega in every detail.

MIRACLES: I took Malatrope's position as intimating that the Deity is remote and not prone to further involvement with miracles at all. That IT has left us to the building, by our mortal selves. That the array of scenes has been set, and we have only to process through and make our connections via conscious choices from one scene to the next. But I may be mistaken regarding his intention in that regard. Often, closer analysis reveals differences were not as real as first supposed.


However, you may be miscontruing my meaning. I think God does intervene. Perhaps constantly, every time there is feedback that needs contemporaneous reconciliation.

MATH: It's not that I think God is constrained to preset math formulas for dictating every event with pre-determined exactitude. It's that I think the godhead does constantly reconcile, but does so in the language of math. Because God communicates in the language and vehicle of math, nothing that is thus communicated would be inconsistent with math. Reconciliations are chosen, but they are consistent with math. So we don't prove miracles. We just experience and appreciate them.

PRESETS, RANDOM EVENTS, AND CONTEMPORANEOUS INVOLVEMENT: All events confrom to math parameters, but some parameters are experienced locally as being tighter than others. Values for speed of light, acceleration due to gravity, and a number of others are set to some precision (although they may be experienced as changing, as our experience of our universe expands). But other values are not necessarily predictable in particular instances, even though they follow patterns that can be relied on or rationalized in statistical terms.

MODELING VS. RATIONALIZING INTERPRETATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS: So God intervenes to facilitate and reconcile particular choices or directions, but such interventions won't violate what can be rationalized in statistical analysis. A good example is the unlikelihood of the mechanism of any living cell arising by pure chance. (Which I don't believe it would or did. ) Yet, rationalizing enough parallel worlds, one can rationalize a math to allow such. One can rationalize other aspects of the unfoldment in terms of evolution out of complex systems. Yet, that does not disprove that God functions by directing what evolves out of the chaos of possibilities.

So I tend not to feel a need for a multiverse concept, though I do not pretend to be able to disprove it.

As to miracles, I think God intervenes with miracles at every reconciling juncture. If there was a creation (as opposed to an always beingness), that would be one juncture. Regardless, every manifestation that is chosen to unfold out of the contemporaneous range of possibilities would be another. So I think my concept is suffused with miracles, as opposed to being devoid of miracles.

DEGREES OF FREEDOM: IAE, a miracle is something that mere science cannot prove, predict, control, or replicate. What can be scientifically replicated tends to be in respect of math based presets. That is not inconsistent with the idea that what unfolds is a consequence of math parameters that the godhead imposes with various degrees of freedom versus exactitude. Some parameters are presets, some are reliably random, and some are contemporaneously reconciled. But all are communicated consistent with a logos of math. So I think God speaks in math based logos of the unfolding cosmos.

OCKHAM: When I call a conception an unnecessary existentiality, I tend to mean it entails a non-parsimonious assumption in a way that seems not needed to communicate an explanatory model. Recognizing, of course, that ultimates in moral philosophy tend to explain very little that is subject to empirical confirmation, as opposed to moral inspiration. Recognizing also that sometimes more than one model is helpful, even when they seem beyond unification. The goal is to try to model in a way that is as complete, coherent, and consistent as possible, while reducing terminology concerning what is metaphysical as much as possible.

ALL IS THE GODHEAD PLUS MATH: To me, it is not necessary to imagine that measurable Substance (like an array of preset and immutable scenes) has reality that is superior to or independent of the godhead. Rather, I think it may suffice for all purposes to conceptualize that no measurable thing abides in itself. Rather, every measurable thing's experienceable existentiality is an upshot that emerges out of a relationship that entails the godhead interfunctioning with no-thing that is more than math. ("All is math.") And out of that interfunctioning of the godhead with no-thing but math emerges what we experience as a trinity of local Consciousness, relationally measurable Substance, and accumulative Information (what Malatrope calls a history of perception).


IMPORT: To sustain itself, a culture needs ways to inspire assimilation of moral values, as well as ways to question all fascists -- whether they suppose themselves to be servants of Science or of Allah.

KINKS: This is a hobby. I don't claim to have all the kinks worked out. :)


*******

David Deutsch put out an interesting take, in his The Beginning of Infinity. If he had been in Animal House, it could have been three times as long as twice as interesting. Plus he could have been king of the nerds.

To be consciously aware is to monitor aspects of one's path, AS IF the changes one undertook thereon constituted one's choices. To find a scientific determinant for one's chjoices, one may try looking at measurable externals. But each apprehension of a measurable external would change one's history of perceptions, which would change the choices one was trying with science to explain and predict, regressively.

I think the complete sum of determinants for one's choice in each case can be found neither in measurable externals nor in purely conscious will. Yet, choices are made, and they are reconciled (or at least rationalized) within a mathematically conservational system. Apart from pure math, what is IT that is doing the reconciling? One may posit the reconciler is the entire and infinite field of possibilities -- whatever the source of that may be.

Which brings us back to homeschoolmomof11: Are we choosing among the range of possible scenes, or are the range of possible scenes being selected for being run before us? Are we running the projector, or is the projector being run for us? Or are our brains and senses mediums for participatory reconciliation among possible perspectives? If our conscious participation were without feedback effect, then on what purpose or cause would our perspectives have been created or evolved? As soon as one says, "No purpose at all apart from happenstance," one transitions to his next purpose. And so it goes.


*********


As to a division in the infinite manifold between the infinite manifest and the infinite potential, perhaps even God's hair hurts. A weird thing about models seems to be this: some inventer comes along and finds a practical application that seems almost to change reality and open new worlds, if not new universes.

*********

Problem: To program or record a "history of perceptions" or information seems to require a tangible system or defining field. Without means to store or program such a history, what could give it direction? It seems that choice-in-itself cannot, for limited and mortal perspectives, without some means for receiving and reconciling feedback, be a pure guide. By definition, choice seems to be confined to available parameters. So it is afffected by what inspires us, from that which is presented to us. To that extent, choice seems to be a product that is caused by pre-histories (accumulations of information) becoming aware of newly presenting externalities. If choice is actually caused, then we would not be free to select a path. Rather, the path that would be selected by any "history of perceptions" would come predetermined and pre-programmed.

Alternatively, if each "choice" is not completely pre-determined and "caused" by tangibly stored histories and newly presented externalities, then what within a mere spirit, phantasm, or "will" could tip or choose its preferences? If an individual will could have no substance to house, define, or confine it, then what, apart from an implication of a Reconciler (or a "history of perceptions" that regresses to a Reconciler) could assign it to adopt any particular perspective, avatar, body, brain, or path? If preceding "histories of perceptions" could establish the range of available scenes for us to choose among for our experiences, then why should we presume we also cannot add to such array of available scenes?


*********

Calvinists or those who believe the godhead is without power to change its mind or to guide us in changing ours. It grants us participatory will to make our choices, but excludes any moral Reconciler from the unfolding process. If so, it seems to withdraw a common attractant for the purpose of bringing people together to seek faith-based moral cooperation and inspiration.

Otoh, your concept may bring some people together in mutual respect of one another's innate godliness. It seems to focus attention away from the Character of a Reconciler to the Nature of a Principle of reconciliation. Assuming a community "gets its minds right," I am not sure it would make that much difference in human relationships.

For every advantage, there may be a disadvantage. It would diminish the interpretive authority of priests, which may sometimes be a good thing. But it would also diminish the power of inspiration. I doubt believers in sole godliness would be easily inspired to kill for their religion, but they would also not be inspired to defend it against jihadis who are otherwise inspired. Darwinism may disapprove. IAE, I find this interesting and need to brew on it.


********

There are kinks that remain unsettled to my mind, but the trinity concept is the best I have so far been able to rationalize. It may help conceptualize how the godhead functions to be relevant both beyond time and within our own time. In its implications, such a trinitarian concept may not be that far from Malatrope's (dualistic?) notion of Consciousness choosing paths to experience among already existent scenes.

I am not completely sure there is a distinction that necessarily makes a difference. The trinitarian concept rationalizes participatory will within a system that is entirely signified in math and science, yet not entirely predetermined. The dualistic scene-changing concept rationalizes participatory choices along paths through a set array of immutable scenes. And it puts the godhead in control of the alpha and the omega. (Does it also give credence or spin to Nietzche's idea of eternal return?)

So the scene-choosing (dualistic?) notion seems useful for some purposes. However, I tend to shy from it. It seems to grant co-equal, separate, and unnecessary (non-parsimonious?) existentiality to an unchanging array of scenes. I prefer to conceptualize a trinitarian godhead whose totality is unchanging, but whose interrelationships flux in how they present to mortal perspectives.

What we all must try to rationalize (consciously or subconsciously) is a Changeless-Changer. A fluxing essence. What we conceptualize and believe affects what we become. Malatrope would make the scenes unchanging, but make the paths chosen for their experience changing. I would make the availability to Consciousness of a web of math unchanging. But I would rationalize unfolding mortal experiences of such web, in the guises of Substance and Information, to be changing.

Even so, the apprehensions, recordations, memories, and learnings of the godhead would perhaps be changing. Can God in any aspect of the Trinity step into our time and lives to be surprised or to learn? If not, of what use to our perspectives would be any notion of God? (Jesus wept.)

If we inculcate belief in a source of moral connectedness, then we rationalize a basis for empathetic appreciation, and thus a basis for the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.

I prefer to believe that the wife I have remains in essence one and the same avatar-personage, at least during our lives together, and that (the avatars for) she and I are not mere fleeting scenes from an array of phantasms. But I am not entirely confident that is fair to Malatrope's conceptualization, nor consistent with my own. Kinks remain to be worked out, to pursue a best conceptual system that is most complete, consistent, and coherent. Meantime, we have the examples of saints to guide us (excluding the horror of the Mohammadans).

IAE, for the purpose of moral philosophy, I don't see that either concept (trinitarian or dualistic) need be inconsistent with science, nor even testable to science. Rather, I think the only reasonable test for such moral philosophy may consist in something like this:

Not being falsified.
Not being hindering of science.
Not being needlessly derogatory.
Being as complete, coherent, and consistent as reasonably possible.
While helping to soothe or advance decent civilization and human meaningfulness.
Being felt consistent with self evidence, intuition, and innate empathy.


********

Insofar as moral philosophy is applied among perspectives that share it with consistency, it would seem to be an offshoot of the godhead. Insofar as our participation feeds back to affect the godhead, "we" (whatever we are) play a role in determining not just moral philosophy, but every thing that is expressed in respect of the local field that we play in. Eventually, "we" may define holographic worlds to inhabit.

So our participation is factored to define the very reality -- moral and scientific -- that we inhabit. But that participatory effect is mortal and very small in respect of the field of influence that is conserved and expressed through the reconciling godhead. Our participatory wills ("prayers") are factored, but not completely determinative. It seems we participate as conduits for feedback to the Reconciler. Our wills are participatory, not freely or completely determinative.


**********

If even space-time is a mere derivative of a math field with which consciousness interfunctions, then "movement," in that respect, as well perhaps as the very limits of space, time, eternity, and infinity, would be mere derivatives. "Illusions" born of the imagination of the godhead expressing itself in nothing more than maths regressing like patterns of fractals.

So what is the ultimate building block for particles, if not math spin values for spins upon spins upon spins (wheels upon wheels upon wheels)? What is IT that is doing all this spinning? And why does each spin seem to be mathematically "aware" (empathetic?) of its interfunctionings with others? What, ultimately, is spinning, apart from an immeasurable godhead that expresses itself with nothing more than a web of math?


**********


Efforts have been made to rationalize the trinitarian godhead as if consciousness were the superior, of which the other two components are derivatives. But I don't see any way to test or falsify that. (One can always posit new worlds and hidden factors.)

Moreover, I don't think moral philosophy needs to depend on it. I think it may be sufficient both for moral and scientific philosophy simply to posit that the godhead of reality consists of the three components, which may be of equal dignity, and of which the component of consciousness carries aspects that defy complete measure, but not empathetic appreciation.


*********


I don't think the ultimate components of Reality are testable. I think the best we can do, at least from a perspective of moral philosophy, is to try to arrange a conceptualization of such components in a way that helps us pursue our need for meaningfulness without hindering our science. A way that helps us communicate about the things that are important to us that is as complete, coherent and consistent as we can make it, without expecting to be able to prove such ultimates as control our methods of proof.For myself, I think trying to derive moral "ought" solely from scientifically or mathematically measurable "is" leads too easily to madness and anti-human scientific elitism. Still, Sam Harris and many others would seem to be sympathetic to that pursuit. I think we have two arms-- a moral arm and a scientific arm. Specialization often leads to overdevelopment in one and atrophy of the other. Still, it takes all kinds to make a world.


*********


It seems to me that Reality presents via a trinity of interrelational aspects: Consciousness (immeasurable), Substance (relationally measurable), and Information (past accumulation of measurables, as interpreted from various perspectives of consciousness).

I suspect the trinity fluxes and phases in ways that can be interpreted, but that are beyond measure. However, the interpretations from mortal perspective can never in any present time be simultaneously complete, coherent, and consistent.

I don't see a worthwhile way to rationalize that any member of the trinity is superior to consciousness. Rather, it seems to me that consciousness must either be of equal contemporaneous dignity, or perhaps the superior of the other two fundamental aspects.

Because consciousness at the meta level that I am conceptualizing is immeasurable, I posit that must be because it functions and signifies consistent with math -- whether that math be based in arithmetic, geometry, statistics, calculus, or some algorithm for artificial intelligence. Because consciousness expresses itself in nothing that can be measured outside of math, math cannot be used to prove or disprove its role. Rather, the role of consciousness, to mortal perspective, is self evident.

A concept of participatory will may help it appear to be less imperative to try to resolve a conundrum of free will. Conscious will does not have freedom to function without respect to Substance and Information. But it does expericence being participatory without necessarily being always preset by Substance and Information. Still, regardless of what any perspective of consciousness may do or experience, that experience will be rationalizeable consistent with math. Even if we have to posit an infinity of parallel worlds and universes to make the math work.

The way I see it, an emergence of A.I. will pose no conceptual threat to such a rationalization of the trinity. I posit that A is A, consciousness is consciousness, and our temporal and mortal experiences of consciousness are just incomplete and connected perspectives of IT. I posit a connecting essence of our Identity may never cease to exist. I don't believe in Yolo. I don't believe suicide offers an easy way out. I don't think God is some eternal monster who is fixated on pleasuring himself by roasting infidels. But karma -- there may be something to that.

********

Under the intention of our Constitution, a religion should be understood as pertaining to ways for promoting empathetic appreciation for the Cosmic Reconciler and among mankind. It does not pertain to ways for dhimming or farming people as cattle. That would be a gang. Gangster initiations are not religious rites. If I call a skunk a cat, that does not make it a cat. If I call a gang a religion, that does not make it a religion. If I am made or trained to bow to Hitler, that does not make him a God. The future must not belong to those who want to call a skunk a cat.

*******

There is the "third possibility" that an aspect of the Trinity mediates with mankind to facilitate the harmony of our moral interests. In that respect, our pursuits of our moral interests unfold in a feedback relationship with the Reconciler, who at a higher level feels our joys and sorrows. Our pursuits, and the blackness or whiteness of them, may not be pre-determined, even though the Reconciler has the last word. The Trinitarian godhead may be about more than either-or. It may be about appreciation of the flux of unfolding beauties and possibilities. To appreciate that, what is called for is receptivity to innate empathetic feedback. That is, clearing the channel to the still, quiet voice -- without the noise of intermeddlers.

Fascist Socialism

Before Hitler gave fascism a bad name, it seems to have been well received among Mussolini loving Progs. For a list of Progs who had nice things to say about fascism, see http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223.

See also http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2008/07/16/youre-the-tops-youre-mussolini/: Mussolini was the first pop star politi­cian in the age of mass com­mu­nic­a­tion and had a global, fren­zied fan-base. The American poet Ezra Pound was besot­ted, Cole Porter penned a song which helped turn his name into a super­lat­ive, ‘You’re the top!… you’re Mussolini’ (the Duce-worshipping lyric was actu­ally writ­ten by PG Wodehouse for the London ver­sion of ‘Anything Goes’). Pope Pius gush­ingly IX described him as a ‘man of Providence’. Before he left the Italian Socialist Party even Lenin spoke approv­ingly of him.

Note: Ezra Pound believed fascism was a vehicle for reform and wrote antisemitic material for Italian publications. He said that Hitler was "a Jeanne d'Arc, a saint", and that Mussolini was an "imperfect character who lost his head." He may have been as besotted with Mussolini as Sarte was with Castro. P.G. Wodehouse seems to have been lacking in political awareness.

See http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/progressives-fascism-and-the-will-to-power/:

Progressives are beginning to drop all pretense that to them the ideals of Enlightenment liberalism such as the right to free speech and freedom of conscious (sic) were ever anything but useful tools for accomplishing their goals when classical liberals (who, ironically, are called “conservatives” in the United States) were ascendant. They have played according to the formula Frank Herbert described in Children of Dune:

When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
....
Countless times on these pages Progressives have argued that good and evil do not exist as objective categories. Instead, they insist that good is defined by the consensus of a society. Yet even this limit is a dodge. Every time the people have voted on the “right” to same-sex marriage they have rejected it by fairly wide margins. It is not the law because there is a societal consensus that it is right. It is the law because five members of a nine-member committee of lawyers decided they have the power to impose it on the rest of us and by God they are going to use that power. This is about as anti-democratic as it is possible to be. Yet progressives celebrate the decision. Why? Not because the outcome is “legitimate” even by their own standards of legitimacy (i.e., societal consensus), but because that is what they want, and they don’t care how they get what they want so long as they get it.


Bottom Note: Socialists, Collectivists, and Progs lie. Fascist Socialists beat and kill you while they lie. Reasoning with them is futile.

************

Fascist crony crats have been given humongous access to funds, which they don't use because the market has no way to give a good return on them. 

What we have seems to be the effect:  Established interests want for the foreseeable future to continue to import cheap labor.  That importation will keep wages low.  There will be no financial trickle down.  The only trickle down will be on account of improvements in technologies.  So, more and more people will be kept as debt serfs.  (Except, that is, those who are content to live on the welfare and black markets and vote for a living.)

Thus, labor the new financial rulers need will be done by wave after wave of newly imported cheap labor.  This will continue until the U.S. is reduced to the same two-class serfdom as every other banana republic.  In effect, the select few to whom all this fiat money is accumulated are made perpetual money ministers for the NWO. 

How can this banking system of feudalism be sustained?  Well, it can be sustained only if the U.S. currency is not replaced as the world's reserve currency.  That will require war, since China and Russia are making moves, both financially and militarily. 

But, even without war, this system cannot be sustained except on the bones of periodic inflictions of mass forfeitures and die-outs, so ever more replacement labor can be freighted in.  Only with death panels to such extent as the NWO requires can the lifestyles of the cronydom's new class of feudal lords be sustained.  Maybe the wars are being planned to facilitate that?

What satanic mind is ahead of this curve?  Could it be the guy who at 14 helped the Nazis dig for gold fillings?  Meanwhile, Obama besmudges the Constitution with his pen, while Hillary cackles.  And Congress sits, whle Scotus effs itself.

********

Authoritarians are elitists who claim they want to control the masses for their own good. However, because they tend to be godless, they tend also not really to believe in altruism.

Totalitarians are elitists who want to control the masses for the good of the planetary system. Because their God is the State, they believe in planetary statism, and to that end all people are readily expendable as mere tools to the cause. Except by way of deceit, they do not believe in altruism because they only have room in their imaginations for planetism. Feelings for the planet trump all logic and sense. Mindless Lysenkoism morphs into Carbon Creditism. Zion is replaced by Utopian Borgdom.

Authoritarian Rinos and Totalitarian Dinos are both fascists. Rinos are corporatist fascists; Dinos are statist fascists. Corporatist Fascists will eventually war with Statist Fascists, much as Sunni Fascists war with Shite Fascists. Taken together, these godless and godforsaken factions comprise the Establishment. Taken together, the entire anti-human establishment is at war against all spirit of individual freedom, dignity, decency, and altruism.

And so the age of Obama-Merkel follows the ages of Pilate-Herod, Mohammad-Khan, Robespierre-Napoleon, Hitler-Mussolini, Stalin-Mao. What will be the next spiritually stupid spawn of Soros-Buffett-Beavis-Butthead, et al?

Proverbs 29:18 King James Version (KJV): Where there is no vision, the people perish.

********


A lot of people have high capacity for being quick to be led to blame their deficiencies on targeted groups of competent people. That's why Islamic "refugees" are so fist-pumping animated against the idiotic Euros who are inviting them. That's why people of the Black culture are so fist-pumping animated to blame all the whites, who they think did not sacrifice enough lives for them in the Civil War, and have not given them enough welfare, and do not give them enough respect on demand. Black movements often demonstrate this propensity, but they have no monopoly on it. Robespierre exploited the same propensity among the French, as Hitler did among the Germans, as Lenin did among the Russians, and as Mao did among the Chinese. And as La Raza is now doing among "the race."

This deficiency is part of lower human nature. Responsible people who have all their lives repressed it and become successful do not often understand how easily this propensity can be promoted to rouse masses against all decency. Nor do they understand the snowball effect as more and more media outlets go for the easy money in exploiting the sensationality of blaming an unexpecting, clueless, responsibly working, silent majority that sends its kiddies to be radicalized by community organizing sociopaths who have grand delusions of self justification.

The best indicator of how fat and clueless the silent majority are consists in their sheeple like zeal for expending fortunes to send their kiddies to schools-of-idiocy to be radicalized against their country.
 ********

How do droids seek pleasure?  I mean, what's their motivation?  Being programmed to create problems and then seek to solve them?  Like a RMensa party?  A world that sponsors contests among AI robots, to see who's quick and who's dead?  What would excite a droid's appreciation?