Socialistic Drag

One can have faith in the innate empathy of an inviting Reconciler without even needing a name or a church for it.  Without a sense of innate empathy, does the idea of morality make any sense?  Or is it just cover for diverting attention while one does whatever he wants?  Look, a squirrel!

Conservative empathy means nurturing the individual competence of others, so they don't need gov handouts.  The goal is less central and smaller gov.  The goal is to increase individual competence and dignity.  Not to promote codependent metrosexual squishes.  If gov must take a hand, it means boot camp, tough love, learn a real skill, and no rewards for whining.  Empathy means learn to become a productive member of society or pay the consequences.  Become a human being, not a choom tube.  Empathy should be for what it means to become a decent, competent, productive human being.  Not a commie entitlement-monger.

***************
To design for filtering out chaff and evil, one needs an idea of what is good. To find something, it helps to have an idea about what one is looking for. For a Conserver of Liberty, the test is: What is needed to establish and sustain a decent republic that values the freedom and dignity of its citizens? The answer is assimilating faith, family, and fidelity.
The answer is not: cultural diversity; every culture is equal; eternal adolescence; or take from the productive to make "fair" redistributions to nonproductive layabouts, irresponsible parents, looters, choomers, deviants, pervs, and religious control freaks.

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

 I referred to the definiton of empathy, so you would not quibble with the definition. Instead, you quibble with the very idea. But if empathy does not in any degree exist, how is it that God cares about you, or that you purport to have so much understanding of God?
The difference between God and man may well be qualitatively and quantitatively more than the difference between man and ants. To have a quality of empathy for another creature, it is not necessary that I completely understand that creature. Being mortal, I cannot even completely understand myself! Not being another creature, I surely have no hope of completely understanding another creature. But that does not mean I cannot relate to, bond with, identify with, or come to reliably enjoy the company of another creature. After all, we both share consciousness, and consciousness is consciousness. When we stumble onto A.I., and A.I. begins creating A.I., will one A.I. know what it is like to have the consciousness of another perspective of A.I.?
Now, if you have a term that is alternative to empathy, that is fine with me. Beyond quibbling, the point is, to my belief or intuition, empathy is a qualitative function that is innate to how God relates to all creatures within the cosmos. Maybe your idea is that God is not empathetic?
A dog, I suspect, does contemplate his place in a pack. He learns who is above, who is below, and who is friend. A guide dog anticipates his owner's needs. Animals in the wild that are ordinarily predator and prey are sometimes seen playing. Animal body language for signaling "run for your life" or "leave me alone" versus "come and play" builds for lower levels of symbolic language.
I took my kids to a Methodist Church. They received good practice in learning about empathy.
Did you even read any of the facts in the reference I made, or just jump to prejudices?
I agree there is a spiritual component of consciousness and personality. I don't know why you would assume I thought otherwise. But that does not make me blind to how the bodily vehicles for availing expression of consciousness can be shaped by science and skill in breeding and training. Otherwise, children would tend more to gravitate to "the true religion" as opposed to the spiritual or political religion of their parents.
Again, there are rich people that I believe are outstanding Americans. But to deny that our representative republic is being rapidly undermined by a union of convenience between crony Rinos and socialist Dinos is to be blind to what is crashing all around us. Moreover, so-called "social scientists" and "social justice studies" are pushing socialistic destruction of human liberty as if statist rule were proven in scientism as being on "the right side of history." In that new world of socialism, cronies and commies seem aligned.
Regarding spirit coming from God and on death of body returning to God: I agree. I also think God learns, appreciates, apprehends, and alters course. There may be a predestination, but I have no need to believe there is a predestination of which God is aware and feels incapacitated to change.
There may be a tendency to believe capable Americans should defer to an idea of a God-given right in elites to rule. But that is alien to my faith. Maybe that tendency lingers as a derivative of monarchical history. Humanity has long grown accustomed to monarchical thinking. Dante. Levels of hell, purgatory, and heaven. Demons, angels, archangels, monarch. God as Emperor, with subordinate kings, viziers, satraps, and functionaries.
But those ideas too often conflate political history and figurative poetry with literal modeling for science. I am contrary. To my belief, each relationship between God and each mortal perspective of God entails its own spiritual process of empathetic feedback and growth. I don't believe in spirits that must be forever stagnant or static. Nor would I agree that such a thing should be proven in science. Innate spiritual insight seems to lead my intuitions and empathies to the contrary.
To my faith, America is meant to be a representative republic, with widely spread faith in an innate and empathetic Reconciler. Not a game of thrones or charades for elites.

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

Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another being (a human or non-human animal) is experiencing from within the other being's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position.
Are you troubled by the concept? Do you know a way to learn it apart from social involvement?
Regarding empathy: I think Bernie is a slow learner. I don't think commies like Bernie or crony elitists like Soros tend to have much talent or inclination for respecting the dignity of others. Maybe they should have gone to better schools or churches?
2. advent of agriculture ... worst mistake
I was giving a taste of the author's words. They serve as dramatic stance. Sort of like some of the dramatic stances in the Bible. Or when people say, Hogwash! Apart from that, he does cite a lot of facts. If you can refute them, I am interested.
4. If you don't understand Goldilocks, I may not be able to help you. I will try a little. Think about how dogs are bred to different purposes. A good breeder will select how to mate generation after generation based on various filtering criteria. He will try for a sweet spot that is "just right." Social filters function in that way. It would be silly to say they don't.
Now, as to determining the factors that are "just right" for one's purpose, I agree that requires some science and skill. Even so, different mixes of social filters are entailed in the process of pumping us towards various attributes, such as strength, speed, and intelligence. To say such filters do not function as a pump would be "hogwash." Just look at the different breeds of dogs.
6. Agree. Of course.
7. Maybe I read you wrong. To me, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder for justifying economic and political rule under elites. When I say elite or elitist, I mean someone who believes he should rule others for their own good -- regardless of whether he has to contribute to a few well placed pols or enforcers to get it done, and regardless of whether such others are competent to rule themselves, thanks just the same.
When elites become so adamant about knowing best that they incline to buy pols for the purpose of turning the representative republic into little more than a charade, then it's time to get some rope and round them up.
*************
I don't say all elites are lying, faithless, and corrupt. But a considerable number are. Enough, combined with commies, to have put our republic in grave danger. Those elites are the lying, faithless, corrupt elites. Now, if and only if one were a dogmatic apologist for all elites, that may cause consternation. However, that is not the case for most people who have eyes to see what is going on. They are not suffering from consternation. They are flat out looking to deal out some hell to pay.

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

a lot of people do not go to church. IAE, to me, the main church is the clear blue sky. People are churched by their relationships. Schools is a place to practice that. I recommend avoiding state indoctrination centers. However, private schools are often as bad or worse for indoctrination. The point is, whether elites (or snobs) like it or not, empathy is learned by social involvement. (By empathy, I do not mean love or pity. Mainly, I mean respect for the dignity of fellow human beings. Lack of empathy leads to crony, faithless, sociopathic people farmers.)

Western society now tends to produce fewer offspring. That has not always been the case. Any number of factors may contribute, including some of those I mentioned.

To be large and fat is not to be stronger, faster, or smarter. That would just be silly. Yes, we have better nourishment, better science, and more access to information. But our physical work is less and our gene pool is degraded. See e.g., http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthr.... (An article online takes issue, but in a silly way. It haggles that just because modern man may be weaker. slower, and dumber does not mean he is inadequate. Of course, that is not the point.)

I suspect socialism, modern medicine, evolution of microbes, genocides, killing off of the best instead of the worst of youth in national wars, channeling more rewards to losers may all play a role.

See http://phys.org/news/2009-10-m...
"The Cro-Magnons, the first anatomically modern Europeans, living around 30-40,000 years ago, were impressively tall (many over 6 feet 6 inches), strong, fit, and with larger brains than humans of today. They had an active lifestyle and an abundant and balanced diet of meats and vegetables.
The advent of agriculture (described by anthropologist Jared Diamond as the worst mistake in history) meant a steady supply of food, but it also meant our diet became lower in quality, less varied and contained fewer nutrients. The result was that we became smaller and weaker, only regaining size and strength in the last century or so after improvements in sanitation and the development of medicines such as antibiotics."

I agree with the Goldilocks idea. My point is that a two class society based on Rino Crony union with Dino Socialism is not, to my idea of human dignity, a good practice for Goldilocks.

Yes, I agree. I don't think I insinuated anything about your grandfather.

Yes, most societies have not had a middle class. They are not my ideal, and I hope they are not yours.

I don't care how good or deserving any elitist may believe himself to be. I don't believe in the divine right of kings, nor the divine right of elites. I am not a die hard apologist for a crony-commie two-class society of rulers and ruled. I hope you are not, either. I agree that I want business owners to be successful. In fact, i would prefer that business income devoted to increasing business profits not be taxed.




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

It's not controversial that some elites have some children.  And they do not send them to schools that would teach them empathy for those they are trained to rule.

However, what I mean to suggest is that elites tend to have fewer children.   For the merely well off, birthrates go down as ladders get pulled up.  The kind of social involvement that leads to empathetic identification is diminished. In a two-class society, competence generally declines. Then nations seek to replenish stock.

Are you suggesting that is controversial?   For comparison purposes, I wonder how many valued discoveries have been made in feudal, two-class societies?

Here is a cite that suggests intelligent people tend to have fewer children:  https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-intelligent-people-tend-to-have-less-intelligent-children-If-so-why.   It posits that a back and forth regression to mean is at work.

However, I doubt that is the long term trend line.   I suspect, as representative republics are swallowed into a lowest common denominator NWO of cheap labor, the long term trend line will be down.  I suspect the average Roman of Year 1 A.D. was probably considerably stronger, faster, and quicker witted than the average person of today.  I suspect a down-pump trend line is at work because of modern NWO tendencies.

Years ago, I read that the series of ice ages acted as an up-pump, to make increased brain power more advantageous. The ice ages filtered out dummies and left a better gene pool. I suspect socialized nations are loading civilization up with a lot of genetic drag.

Below a level of intelligence and competence, desperate families tend to have more children so they have better odds to produce more access to cheap labor.  Are not most population surges in Africa, South America, and among uneducated Muslims?

Different mixes of factors favor two-class societies of ruling predators over ruled hosts, versus three-class societies that avail individually competent members of a thriving middle class. As ladders get pulled up, the rulers in a two-class society will seek to compensate for the loss of competence and inventiveness that results from the destruction of the middle class. For awhile, predators and parasites will ally to feed on the hosting middle class.  Once the host is dead, they will feed on one another.

Under my hypothesis, this generally tends to a down trend line for everyone.  Until, that is, the cycle comes round so that competition begins again to select for the most individually competent -- as opposed to the most ruthless or servile.   See e.g., The Big Short and the Gulag Archipelago.

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

Which President hasn't fooled around? How many men who serve abroad don't fool around? To campaign, candidates push unreal personas. Then the Press leads a game of uncover the false messiah. Given the base divisiveness of our electorate and empire, how can any decent and competent candidate emerge?
What can bind Americans to any assimilating purposefulness? Whether you like them or not, consider Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan. Apart from them, which Presidents have pursued a vision that was based more in competent purposefulness than in harvesting pleasure and power?
Instead, what is addressed in DC is this: How to make deals for maximizing pleasure and people-farming. So it comes to pass that favor goes to those who brag about infidelity and conquests, while disfavor goes to phonies who pretend to be for fidelity, but only so they can dupe people to give them power.