Thursday, August 31, 2017

Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius

I doubt any specific literalistic belief in supernatural concerns is any more important than a talisman or magic incantation. But I do think religious metaphors serve an important function as a common language for beginning discussion. Churches provide a place to assimilate moral empathies: Come let us reason together. The idea of a Godhead facilitates that. More so, I think, than religious like faith in secular government. I prefer that people voluntarily assimilate their moral purposefulness, than that gov elites order them.

AXIOMS: Although we proceed from differing axioms, we probably reach the same place on masurables.

However, we likely do arrive at different values with regard to central regulation under elitist knowitallism. I prefer assimilation under a guiding meta-reconciler. This will not be resolved in logic, math, or science.

Regardless, my position does not weaken science. The question is:  Does your system (or what you would impose?) unnecessarily weaken needed forums for assimilating moral purposefulness?

There is an interesting series on Netflix about Genius (ancient). It discusses the Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius. I suspect they were chosen because, in their philosophies about morality, they showed more concern about observable nature than about supernatural God. The same may be said of Ayn Rand, Isaac, Asimov, and David Deutsch. I do not think it was necessary for their philosophies to take a position with regard to God. Nor do I think they really undertook to discredit God. Indeed, I accept many of their positions, but I do not think it necessary to any of them to try to discredit God.

They believed in responsible individualism, conscience. That the material self, when based on ruling others, offers only delusion.  I accept many of their main points, but I do not consider my self to be an atheist.  Nor do I consider atheism to be a system of thought of to avail a coherent system.

I do not believe their key points are contradictory to the essential message of Jesus -- with regard to the Trinity, the Great Commandment (good faith) or the Golden Rule (good will). Nor contrary to the freedom and dignity of individual citizens.

God by any other name would still be God. For myself, God may just as well be conceptualized as a necessary, fundamental, connecting, innately empathetic, reconciling, aspect of Consciousness.  The Godhead would be comprised of a flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information.  (Evidence:  All signs measurable obey law of Conserver.  Direct experience of Consciousness.)

Concerns: Is there good reason to believe the reconciling Consciousness feels MY fears and joys? Does it ever forget Me? How can IT possibly know all the fears and joys of all the perspectives of Consciousness? Is it necessary to a concept of morality; is it a helpmate to assimilate moral purposefulness? Does what I express factor to influence IT?

JESUS WEPT: Does the Godhead qualitatively feel my pain and joy? I think, Yes, though I do not know that such belief is necessary.

Does the Godhead forever remember "my" pain and joy? Perhaps not. CSI fluxes. However, the situations in which consciousness, generally, experiences pain and joy are multiplicitous yet repetitive. Surely, the General I-ness will re-feel the pain and joy my temporal self has felt, countless times. At its core, that C-ness is of each of us, connecting to each of us, in innate empathy (unfolding good faith and good will). My material self will flux and dissipate.  In that respect, my spiritual essence will abide, perpetually.

In reason, why would not the Godhead --- with the qualitatives of Consciousness, the quantitatives of Substance, and the memory storage of Information, be availed power to leverage, factor, feel, and reconcile my fears and joys? Why, as Reconciler/Conserver, should IT not allow what I express or factor to influence or signify to IT, as Conserver-Fractal-Reconciler of the Cosmos?  Why suppose IT's reach in qualitatives should be any less astounding than IT's reach in meta-fluxes and fractals?

UPSHOT: Humanity, without an ideal of an inviting moral Reconciler, would be the poorer for losing forums for coming to reason together in a recognizable language of spiritual metaphors --- in order to inspire, assimilate, and appreciate moral purposefulness. Without such an ideal, civilization would suffer and mankind would become subhuman.  IMO.  Cite:  History.

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

Systems based in pure materialism often float demonic, self-godded, lyng Oligarchs to power, everywhere. Including in America and China.
Other nations and cultures often revile Americans not for their ideals but for falling so far from them, by allowing themselves to ceaselessly promote and be ruled under self-godded, morally corrupt, oligarchs. Their angst is multiplied as they recognize that the brutality of the modern world, especially during the first half of the 20th Century, has continued to put their own cultures under similarly corrupt rule. They recognize how far practical reality is removed from big lying idealism.
Many people of China were trained under Confucianism, with regard for familial virtue throughout institutions and rulers. They want virtue and virtuous rulers. They want to get away from immoderation, war and corruption. But the 20th Century would not let them. So they tipped to lying immoderation in their ideals, which resulted in totalitarian communism, i.e., an excuse for self-godded nomenklatura to farm the masses, with the withering away of the state only a grand big lie.
Today, communism is recognized as a failed ideal, but so is phony free trade and capitalism. So China has a hybrid of rule under phony princeling-capitalists. Yet, they have an ideal of cultural assimilation. Under any NWO, they would see their society as superior. Under Confucianism, they likely would hope eventually to assimilate a superior republic that would accord familial respect for independent thought throughout the republic-family.
However, that ideal and hope will be subordinated to rule under princeling-capitalists, until the brutal threats under modern harsh self-goddingness can be subjugated. The harshness is reflected in their brutal policy of one-child per family. IOW, they rely on their own self-goddeds to protect them from other self-goddeds.
Without respect for a process for assimilating good faith, we are lost to lying self-godded demons.
What we have in the world are self-goddeds ruling and competing over every divided nation-culture. Who can say where this will lead? Confucius died bitter. But his devotees planted trees and kept his dream alive: That humanity should rule itself more as a virtuous family than as farm animals under the totalitarian rule of brutal despots. That we should assimilate virtue, more so than legislate it. Faith, family, fidelity, instead of humans being farmed under giant goose steps of legalese and big lies.

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

Where has there been good city planning? NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis, New Orleans? What urban centers have not fallen to oligarchic depredations leading to divided ghettos and corrupt mayors? Without an assimilating morality that produces a decent and educated citizenry, what good is more money and power to urban planners?


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

Looking for ultimate causes among the cosmos is like expecting to beat the Trinitarian Godhead at Three Card Monty.

A photon carries information in respect of the pervious Substance with which it collided or interacted.  If it interacts with nothing else in the interim, then its dimness, intensity, frequency, wavelength may convey some general information with regard to the space-time traversed in the interim, subject to guesswork for renormalizing in respect of space-time curvature.

EMR appears to interact with curvatures in space-time such that it is not allowed to carry or convey Information unless the Information is renormalized to show general "flatness" in all directions.  That is, regardless of locus in space-time, no observer will be privileged to sense the Universe except as being, in relation to him, of generally equal density in all directions.

If our Universe were the creation of something or someone outside it, then the limits for the space-time-matter-energy of our Universe would be within a form, such as a "bubble" or sphere.  It would have an apparent perimeter.  It would appear to dissipate, rather than to be equally dense and dissipate in all directions.  But it does not do that.  This suggests that the model-idea of a "bubble" is only a metaphor --- good for some purposes, not for others.  IOW, our Universe is not really a bubble, nor does it really have a center from which it exploded outward in some Big Bang.  Even though such conceptualizations can be made highly practical and useful for some purposes.  Our Universe is not a bubble-artifact of any physical Big Bang.  The model of a Big Bang may just as well be conceptualized as an artifact of whatever the perspectives of Consciousness that we happen to share.

The model (that our Universe arose from a collapsed Singularity) is just that --- a model --- not "The Truth."  For all we know, the "ultimate cause" may better be conceptualized, for scientific AND moral purposes, as expressing itself only in the flux and phase-shifting of CSI.  For that, we factor and participate in the unfolding apprehension and appreciation.

So there does not appear to be any causal agent for the curvature of space-time or its apparent flatness in all directions.  Rather, that effect appears to be a correlate of how the trinity fluxes among Consciousness, Substance, and Information.  Surely, some meta/immeasurable flux accounts for the curvature and flattening, not mere random clusters of dense Substance or Matter.

Consciousness can experience and sense caring, regardless of whether or not it (or anyone or anything else) is the "true causal agent."  Subject to its unfolding reconciliatory function, Consciousness as a Whole cares about each of its Perspectives as much as each Perspective cares.

****************
What marks an act or thing as temporally right or wrong is not in the act or thing itself, but in how it is assimilated over time in a feedback process with that which reconciles history. The process is dynamic. If we want to promote the farming of most people as animals, with the fairness of that entrusted to moral scientisimists, we can conceptualize a justness to that. How the Reconciler manifests to any given world or time is influenced by how various temporal agents conceptualize. Over time, we become what we conceptualize.
The writing seems to be on the wall that much of the world wants to conceptualize moral fairness and equality as something not to be entrusted to each person in his/her relationship with higher mindedness, but instead to be entrusted to those who make themselves wealthy and powerful enough to control the media that shapes most minds and what is politically permissible for them to believe.

When people think and act in good faith and good will, they can be conceptualized as acting in respect of Godliness -- whether or not they want to use that term. A person can be godly and still be repulsed by the term.
Regardless, when that which is good or godly is removed from the assimilative discussion of the masses (in public squares and churches) and handed over to moral scientisimists, that marks a sudden turn back to fascist despotism.

Much of the God debate is silly, because it is a debate that is controlled by conceptualizations. If moral goodliness is conceptualized as based on a connecting, reconciling capacity for empathy (good faith and good will), then God can be conceptualized as simply the innate source for that connecting, reconciling empathy. Such conceptualization implicates respect for goodliness that is beyond oneself, which is the basis for higher mindedness. Conscious Mind is such that, if given the same particular origin and sequential unfoldment of experiences, it would generally signify the manifestations of its mortal perspectives in the same way. Under that conceptualization, thou art simply a (local, temporal) agent for the Reconciling God. As ye conceptualize, so shall your soul (and your civilization) be turned.
What is the consequence of deep seated lack of higher mindedness? Well, it is the reverse toilet. The promotion of self serving crap over the free thinking society. Expulsion of moral debate from the public square, with replacement by moral scientismists in the employ of corrupt people farmers. Tenure for those willing to deny freedom of expression in order to serve some rising despot's twisting of "fairness and equality." Political favors for money laundering pigs at the public trough. Constant agitation and division of the masses in order to enrich and empower the few. Selective advantage to the most corrupt and evil of people farming wannabes, whose debate skills center around putting makeup on their demons.

Every society that sins greatly will eventually fight sin with sin. Great goats will need to be made and then sacrificed. For idiotic Proggies, the goat-du-jour is the white male Christian American. When the battle gets hot and we tire of being made the goat, we will return the favor. The alternative is to allow the destruction of the faith, family, and fidelity that is essential to sustain decent civilization.

Unfortunately, few responsible brains remain among our multifarious institutions. Most brains have been bribed, intimidated, compromised, drugged, indoctrinated, or overrun. Indeed, our colleges are filled with sods who actually go into great debt to become indoctrinated to serve the new world enserfment.
EDIT: Like their heroes, they want to get scruued, and likely they will get scruued.

Societies that broadly respect rather than punish the moral responsibility of family units have been rare. Such societies are hard to establish, but easy to undermine. Almost inevitably, they are undermined by clueless narcissists whose perpetual infantilism was made possible only because of such family units. They destroy what they utterly fail to appreciate. They are proof you can put lipstick on squishes. And now, too many otherwise decent people are running from the squishes --- turning them into role models instead of ridiculing and reviling them. We felt so sorry on account of their victim act that we allowed them, in recompense, to undermine our civilization.
EDIT: To feel the absurdity, imagine Spartans running from men in lace and lipstick.

Use Fake Science to divide and rule. Support the Left as it divides. Support the Right as it replaces individual responsibility with herd control under elite scientisimists. Wallah! The open range, free cowboying of the intimidated herds. Git along little doggies, it's your misfortune.

Our system has been made a reverse toilet, as it projects crap to the uppermost positions of power, while resolutely refusing to flush it. It appears, indeed, that you can put lipstick on a t***,

Christianity does not seem complicated. The Godhead is Trinitarian. Yolo is false. Good faith and good will are important. Honoring your father and mother is important. It is only when schools under authoritarians claim special license to speak or interpret directly for Christ and power to enforce such interpretation on pain of confiscation. torture or death that such so-called schools become complicated.



Sunday, August 27, 2017

Misc






Are magnetic fields a correlate of fractal geometric matrices? What CAUSES chooses/directs the matrices?

Some deeply furrowed Mind?

That each POC can become G of his own virtual cosmos?

Can identify with characters therein.

Can withdraw from dangerous intersections and disputes with minor G's.

Can virtual computers really save humanity?




BUDDHISM:

Some may think Buddhism implicates God, and some may think not. Regardless, Buddhism avails a religious basis, with its own stories around which to inspire people to assimilate to empathetic purposes.

A Buddhist seeks nirvana by shedding his non-essential self, to become his essential self -- which he seeks by understanding that he is not what his material experiences seem to define him to be.

His essential self would seem to be the same essential self (consciousness) that is the essence of every perspective. Which connects to every perspective, and thus connects us in empathy.

IOW, we are each, essentially, a meta consciousness, and connected in it.

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


CLIMATE CHANGE: It is simply not true that people deny climate change. No one denies climate change. What they deny is that any simple formula exists to determine who should be entrusted with how much money to do what to try to address climate change. It is said that numerous horrors lie beneath the flood waters of Houston. Potentials for catastrophe because of festering and uncooled chemicals and biological plagues under study. Problem is, many of the elites clamoring for more money and power to address such concerns are the same elites who created and centralized such concerns to begin with. So how can anyone call the people stupid for not immediately trusting who they should give more money or power in order to reduce the threats that such elites have already nurtured. How can we be confident they will not use such money and power mainly to make the dangers worse, and to use deliberately increased danger to clamor for even more taxes and power? If danger is increasing to all the "little people," how does it help resolve that danger to give more money and power to the kinds of people who tend to float to increase and centralize that danger? Left unchecked, that way of thinking would lead to considerable sub-humanizing and loss of freedom and dignity in most of the little people supposedly being represented. So, we muddle through, as we try to appreciate one another and our Maker, without reducing one another to farm animals for a godless coterie of knowitall central rulers. It hardly helps resolve this problem for knowitalls to denigrate the good faith of the little people.


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


TRAINING THE GODHEAD: In some ways, the Godhead tends to become, in temporal expression, what it tolerates and reconciles. Of that which it tolerates and reconciles, it upsets its Mind by tolerating and reconciling what it, on further reflection, determines to be damaging to its unfolding values.

Compare: Socrates conceptualized that people, by doing evil, damaged their essential beingness, their souls. A thug may benefit temporally, but, in how he twists his soul and the unfolding trends of the Godhead, he will have damaged himself.

This understanding is at an innate, subconscious level. Even lower animals often tend to devalue cruelty merely for the sake of cruelty. Rather, those patterns that survive and replicate will tend to reinforce (empathize with) one another. The proper purpose of church is to inspire and bring such subconscious understanding into unfolding, purposeful consciousness.

We are responsible for our own destinies, through our essential I-ness, as connected and reconciled in a holistic aspect of consciousness, being part of the Trinitarian Godhead.




Beliefs, Doubts, Knowing, Fulfilling:

I don't claim to know what I don't know., and I don't accept people who claim to know what they don't know.

People who habituate themselves to expecting entitlements make themselves incorrigible slaves to a perpetually debilitating and false philosophy.

Permanent welfare as entitlement has not made things better for minorities. it has made things worse.

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

AXIOMS:



Buddha
rand
Asimov
Deutsch
Confusious
Socrates
not necessary




connection reconciling
god=C
trinity =Godhead
feel, fractal, qualitative, quantitative








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

AXIOMS:  You may unwittingly be of slight service to inspiring musing with the Godhead.  Although we proceed from differing axioms, we probably reach the same place on masurables. 

However, we likely do arrive at different values with regard to central regulation under elitist knowitallism.  I prefer assimilation under a guiding meta-reconciler.  This will not be resolved in logic, math, or science. 

Regardless, my position does not weaken science.  The question is:  Does your system unnecessarily weaken needed forums for assimilating moral purposefulness?

There is an interesting series on Netflix about Genius (ancient).  It discusses the Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius.  I suspect they were chosen because, in their philosophies about morality, they showed more concern about observable nature than about supernatural God.  The same may be said of Ayn Rand, Isaac, Asimov, and David Deutsch.  I do not think it was necessary for their philosophies to take a position with regard to God.  Nor do I think they really undertook to discredit God.  Indeed, I accept many of their positions, but I do not think it necessary to any of them to discredit God. 

They believed in responsible individualism, conscience. That the material self, when based on ruling others, offers only delusion.  I accept many of their main points, but I do not consider my self to be an atheist.  Nor do I consider atheism to be a system of thought of to avail a coherent system.

I do not believe their key points are contradictory to the essential message of Jesus -- with regard to the Trinity, the Great Commandment (good faith) or the Golden Rule (good will). Nor contrary to the freedom and dignity of individual citizens.

God by any other name would still be God.  For myself, God may just as well be conceptualized as a necessary, fundamental, connecting, innately empathetic, reconciling, aspect of Consciousness.  The Godhead would be comprised of a flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information.

Concerns:  Is there good reason to believe the reconciling Consciousness feels MY fears and joys?  Does it ever forget Me?  How can IT possibly know all the fears and joys of all the perspectives of Consciousness?  Is it necessary to a concept of morality or a helpmate to assimilate it?  Does what I express factor to influence IT?

JESUS WEPT:  Does the Godhead qualitatively feel my pain and joy?  I think Yes, though I do not know that such belief is necessary. 

Does the Godhead forever remember "my" pain and joy? Perhaps not. CSI fluxes. However, the situations in which consciousness, generally, experiences pain and joy are multiplicitous yet repetitive. Surely, the General I-ness will re-feel the pain and joy my temporal self has felt, countless times. At its core, that C-ness is of each of us, connecting to each of us, in innate empathy (unfolding good faith and good will). My material self will flux and dissipate. My spiritual essence will abide, perpetually.

In reason, why would not the Godhead --- with the qualitatives of Consciousness, the quantitatives of Substance, and the memory storage of Information, avail to IT the power to leverage, factor, feel, and reconcile my fears and joys?  Why, as Reconciler/Conserver, should IT not allow what I express or factor to influence or signify to IT, as Conserver-Fractal-Reconciler of the Cosmos?  Why suppose IT's reach in qualitatives should be any less astounding than IT's reach in meta-fluxes and fractals?

UPSHOT:  Humanity, without an ideal of an inviting moral Reconciler, would be the poorer for losing forums for coming to reason together in a recognizable language of spiritual metaphors --- in order to inspire, assimilate, and appreciate moral purposefulness.  Without such an ideal, civilization would suffer and mankind would become subhuman.

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

It's good when people of good faith and good will concern themselves about such issues. What we need are some engineers of good faith to take a hard look at the problems, the pros and cons that relate to ameliorating them, the likely comparative and opportunity costs, and the political will needed to be inspired to resolve them.

Unfortunately, our nation has been made so faithless, divided, and suspicious that most such issues devolve to yelling (or letting no crisis go to waste for the oligarchs). A lot of that is probably contrived. Hedge artists make their bones by agitating, dividing, and ruling people.  Charity sent to third world nations too often ends up in the hands of despots.  People profit by providing "crowds on demand." The consequence is that some of the worst people float to positions of governmental power and influence, and some of the worst students take the easy Alinsky path to helping to farm the masses. (Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  Invent strawmen or spread lies.)  

Example:  It is a lie to say Republicans deny climate change. Hardly anyone denies climate change. What they deny is that any simple formula exists to determine who should be entrusted with how much money to do what to try to address climate change. 

It is said that numerous horrors lie beneath the flood waters of Houston.  There are potentials for catastrophe, because of festering and uncooled chemicals and biological plagues there under study. Problem is:  How many elites clamoring for more money and power to address such concerns and problems are the same elites who created and centralized such concerns and problems to begin with? How can anyone call the people stupid for not immediately trusting who they should give more money or power in order to reduce the threats that such elites have already nurtured? How can we be confident they will not use such money and power mainly to make the dangers worse, and to use the increased danger to clamor for even more taxes and power?  (This is often how arms merchants and oligarchs profit.)

Now, what we have is a divided population that simply does not trust the central government or the central politicians.  Nor is it assimilating under any decent faith, to trust itself.

If danger is increasing to all the "little people," how does it help resolve that danger to give more money and power to the kinds of people who tend to float to power, to increase and centralize that danger? Left unchecked, that way of thinking would lead to considerable sub-humanizing and loss of freedom and dignity in most of the little people supposedly being represented. So, we muddle through, as we try to appreciate one another and our Maker, without reducing one another to farm animals for a godless coterie of knowitall central rulers. It hardly helps resolve this problem for elites to spread lies about the good faith of the little people.

But, instead of good faith engineers, we get fake social justice warriors, serving godless oligarchs, hiring agitated stooges.  We sure don't get many saints, much less saints with skills for providing practical leadership to secure us from dangers lying in the deep (such as under the flood waters of Houston).

I think we are being squeezed to be farmed.  And the godforsaken snake coils tighter with every crisis.


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

I doubt any specific literalistic belief in supernatural concerns is any more important than a talisman or magic incantation. But I do think religious metaphors serve an important function as a common language for beginning discussion. Churches provide a place to assimilate moral empathies: Come let us reason together. The idea of a Godhead facilitates that. More so, I think, than religious like faith in secular government. I prefer that people voluntarily assimilate their moral purposefulness, than that gov elites order them.

AXIOMS: You may unwittingly be of slight service to inspiring musing with the Godhead. Although we proceed from differing axioms, we probably reach the same place on masurables.

However, we likely do arrive at different values with regard to central regulation under elitist knowitallism. I prefer assimilation under a guiding meta-reconciler. This will not be resolved in logic, math, or science.

Regardless, my position does not weaken science. The question is:  Does your system (or what you would impose?) unnecessarily weaken needed forums for assimilating moral purposefulness?

There is an interesting series on Netflix about Genius (ancient). It discusses the Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius. I suspect they were chosen because, in their philosophies about morality, they showed more concern about observable nature than about supernatural God. The same may be said of Ayn Rand, Isaac, Asimov, and David Deutsch. I do not think it was necessary for their philosophies to take a position with regard to God. Nor do I think they really undertook to discredit God. Indeed, I accept many of their positions, but I do not think it necessary to any of them to try to discredit God.

They believed in responsible individualism, conscience. That the material self, when based on ruling others, offers only delusion.  I accept many of their main points, but I do not consider my self to be an atheist.  Nor do I consider atheism to be a system of thought of to avail a coherent system.

I do not believe their key points are contradictory to the essential message of Jesus -- with regard to the Trinity, the Great Commandment (good faith) or the Golden Rule (good will). Nor contrary to the freedom and dignity of individual citizens.

God by any other name would still be God. For myself, God may just as well be conceptualized as a necessary, fundamental, connecting, innately empathetic, reconciling, aspect of Consciousness.  The Godhead would be comprised of a flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information.  (Evidence:  All signs measurable obey law of Conserver.  Direct experience of Consciousness.)

Concerns: Is there good reason to believe the reconciling Consciousness feels MY fears and joys? Does it ever forget Me? How can IT possibly know all the fears and joys of all the perspectives of Consciousness? Is it necessary to a concept of morality; is it a helpmate to assimilate moral purposefulness? Does what I express factor to influence IT?

JESUS WEPT: Does the Godhead qualitatively feel my pain and joy? I think, Yes, though I do not know that such belief is necessary.

Does the Godhead forever remember "my" pain and joy? Perhaps not. CSI fluxes. However, the situations in which consciousness, generally, experiences pain and joy are multiplicitous yet repetitive. Surely, the General I-ness will re-feel the pain and joy my temporal self has felt, countless times. At its core, that C-ness is of each of us, connecting to each of us, in innate empathy (unfolding good faith and good will). My material self will flux and dissipate.  In that respect, my spiritual essence will abide, perpetually.

In reason, why would not the Godhead --- with the qualitatives of Consciousness, the quantitatives of Substance, and the memory storage of Information, be availed power to leverage, factor, feel, and reconcile my fears and joys? Why, as Reconciler/Conserver, should IT not allow what I express or factor to influence or signify to IT, as Conserver-Fractal-Reconciler of the Cosmos?  Why suppose IT's reach in qualitatives should be any less astounding than IT's reach in meta-fluxes and fractals?

UPSHOT: Humanity, without an ideal of an inviting moral Reconciler, would be the poorer for losing forums for coming to reason together in a recognizable language of spiritual metaphors --- in order to inspire, assimilate, and appreciate moral purposefulness. Without such an ideal, civilization would suffer and mankind would become subhuman.  IMO.  Cite:  History.



Friday, August 25, 2017

Data Accumulation




DOES THE HOLISM (THE ASPECT OF C) PERPETUALLY KNOW AND APPRECIATE "ME" PERSONALLY AND QUALITATIVELY?  OR DOES IT, ON MY DEMISE, POUR ME INTO QUALITATIVE APPRECIATION OF THEN FOLLOWING OTHERS?


The experiences and data available to each perspective and how it shapes its interests and values are necessarily limited (biased) to its situation. No perspective can have the benefit of all pertinent data. Every perspective will be tasked to make decisions based on contemporaneously unfolding algorithms for handling incomplete data. Data/science can never be the complete determiner of any morality based decision.

A perspective that is empowered to make choices must continuously reevaluate new data that arises only as a result of immediately preceding choices. No perspective that retains power to make choices in response to its apprehensions of contemporaneous feedback can pre-know what all its choices will be.  Data accumulation simply does not work that way.

If so-called moral science were the kind of closed system some Progs like to imagine, then an A.I. Bot could be built that would receive all pertinent facts and then decide the best succeeding move in each and every case. However, that kind of conception is self contradictory. It is self contradictory because the Bot that factored all possible data to decide its next move would, in a process of infinite regression, be contemporaneously tasked to factor each new decision before making its next. By definition, each new decision would not have been part of the data that was previously available for it to factor.

Thus, no perspective of consciousness is possible that is both pre-programmed (fully determined) and appreciatively aware of its pre-programming (full determination). As one images the consequences of one's possible choices, one is empowered to change one's mind. This is the feedback conundrum for reconciling perspectives of consciousness.

This is why science cannot qualify any bot or despot to say what is best for everyone else. This is why the Reconciler of unfoldments of consciousness is tasked to factor each and every perspective of consciousness, personally, in a process of contemporaneous feedback.


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

SUMMARY:
All local significations are *biased.  Your bias is in favor of morality dictators, centrally ruling over individuals.  You think some kind of "moral science" makes your position right, but it does not.
To throw off the process of progressive subhumanization (the surrendering of individual responsibility by snowflakes) under despots, we would need to get back to more local freedom of expression, enterprise, and association. (It's time.)
Our law has become an ass.
************************
ANALYSIS:
*The experiences and data available to each perspective and how it shapes its interests and values are necessarily limited (biased) to its situation. No perspective can have the benefit of all pertinent data. Every perspective will be tasked to make decisions based on contemporaneously unfolding algorithms for handling incomplete data. Data/science can never be the complete determiner of any morality based decision.
A perspective that is empowered to make choices must continuously reevaluate new data that arises only as a result of immediately preceding choices. No perspective that retains power to make choices in response to its apprehensions of contemporaneous feedback can pre-know what all its choices will be.  Data accumulation simply does not work that way.
If so-called moral science were the kind of closed system some "Progs" like to imagine, then an A.I. Bot could be built that would receive all pertinent facts and then decide the best succeeding move in each and every case. (This seems to be the ultimate goal of responsibility-declining, free-loading Proggies.)  However, that kind of conception is self contradictory. It is self contradictory because the Bot that factored all possible data to decide its next move would, in a process of infinite regression, be contemporaneously tasked to factor each new decision before making its next. By definition, each new decision would not have been part of the data that was previously available for it to factor.
Thus, no perspective of consciousness is possible that is both pre-programmed (fully determined) and contemporaneously (appreciatively) aware of its pre-programming (full determination). As one images the consequences of one's possible choices, one is empowered to change one's mind. This is the feedback conundrum ("turtles all the way down") for reconciling perspectives of consciousness.
This is why mere science cannot qualify any bot or despot to say what is morally best for everyone else. This is why the Reconciler (Godhead) of unfoldments of consciousness is tasked to factor each and every perspective of consciousness, personally, in a process of contemporaneous feedback.  Responsible, free-thinking people are willing to participate in this process of assimilative feedback.  Proggies want to punt that role to their favored central-despot.  IOW, being unwilling and incompetent as individuals, they want despots (central law droolers) to farm them (and everyone else).  IOW, they, like the laws they gin up, are asses.

Here are the real bad signals for the rule of law and individual responsibility:
- The increasing chasm in wealth and power, leading to mooching off of the system, laundering of political kickbacks, and control by international oligarchs that make themselves above the law.
- Help from Progs in swamping the nation with liberty-illiterate "immigrants."
- End runs around the law by so-called moral scientists, as they shop assaults against faith, family and fidelity in progressively subhumanizing venues.
- Increasing the reach of the central federal government to every niche of human activity.
- Constant and continuous snipping away at freedom of expression, enterprise, and association.
- Academy based infantilizing of snowflake generations.
It will require at least as much a miracle to restore the representative republic and the rule of law as it did to elect Trump.


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

It's not one man.  It's Soros and every admirer and liar who is like him.  Western Civ has made it free and easy for them to find one another.  Evil-dar is everywhare, and it is more effective than radar.  Western politicians are owned by laundered money.  Every institution has joined in the "fun."  

The Big Lie is that evil does not seek to farm people.  That Congress is not owned.  That demonstrators are spontaneous.  That corporatists float good people to the highest levels, instead of crap.  That free enterprise and free trade still exist.  That the de-defining of faith, family and fidelity leads to "better" civilization.  That Western Civ is "stronger" for importing millions of liberty-illiterates.  That our colleges, media, banks, corporations, and even churches have not been by and large infiltrated and infested with shills and stooges for people-farming oligarchs.  That Soros ilk mean only the best for us, under their new moral science.

God help us.

**********

Nope.  They're godforsaken people-farmers, telling shades of big lies, making distinctions that make no difference to the goals of their funders and sponsors. 
Either way, whether you call their stooges fascist-oligarchs or communist-nomenklatura, they mean to harvest you --- right down to the last squeal.
Out of one corner of his mouth, a people-farmer (or his useful idiot) will say he is a corporate moral-scientist fascist.  Out of the other, he will say he is an agent of universal fairness and equality, working to make the state wither away.  What he will not admit is his real function:  To turn you into a farm animal.
Godforsaken Soros ilk fund all sides of fake divisiveness, for the purpose of fooling the masses into taking the farm pill -- the red one to become a pig, the blue one to become an ass.  But all the pills take away your humanity.

Once society is weakened to the tipping point, Soros wants to be hedged to nudge the tip in a way to maximize the wealth and power of his fellow people farmers. For sport. As to which way the nudge goes, he cares not.

Already, Soros ilk have indoctrinated and imported into Western Civ a majority of useful idiots (liberty-illiterate Rinos, Dinos, Cinos, and Musloids), primed to want to be subhuman pigs and asses.

Google and YouTube are precursor servants of the fundamentally misguided moral scientism of Skynet. Or the Borgdom. They want your beingness to be entirely on a Cloud, to be entirely measured and dictated, in all respects, by the secular Cloud Authority. Their faith is in faithless servitude. Because of their self-cancellation, the Godforsaken Authority they worship is inherently self-destroying and Evil. Seeking perpetual life, they sacrifice their souls and their humanity. Because, they believe, if they don't do it, someone else will beat them to it.










Friday, August 18, 2017

The Idea of Jesus

I have not found an hypothesis that the body of Jesus was the only begotten Son of God to be evident or necessary to my moral philosophy.  So I have no belief concerning it.  What I do believe is that a spiritual, inviting, caring, and reconciling essence blessed and inhabited the body of Jesus as no other, since or before.  I think the exemplar of Jesus, whether through Him or His story, helps save the better in-form-ation of our nature.  I believe we are in a steady spiritual state for serving and fulfilling the Godhead.  Not all in-form-ation is preserved to that status.  To the extent we, in our prayers and energies, believe in an inviting, caring Godhead, as exampled by Jesus, we tend to produce and fulfill a better unfoldment of civilization.

In pure fact, no one is an atheist because there is no pure understanding of what constitutes atheism.  There are, however, relational stances of atheism.  For them, whether one identifies as an atheist depends on how they identify God. 
In relation to a postulated Giant Spaghetti Monster, I am an atheist.  In respect of a belief in a hereafter of harps, halos, and perpetual choirs, and many other beliefs, I am a strong agnostic.  I simply do not find such beliefs to be evidentiary or necessary. 
I do not think it especially helpful to try to put people in rigorous statistical boxes on matters of spiritual belief or mores.  After all, their feelings about their beliefs may change several times every day.  Or be affected by unfolding circumstances and news.  Traumatic events may suddenly change many minds.
For example, I have not found an hypothesis that the body of Jesus was the only begotten Son of God to be evident or necessary to my moral philosophy.  So I have no belief concerning that point.  Does that mean I am not a Christian?  Well, to some, yes.  To me, no.
***************************
What I do believe is that a spiritual, inviting, caring, and reconciling essence blessed and inhabited the body of Jesus as no other, since or before.  I think the exemplar of Jesus, whether through Him or His story, helps save the better in-form-ation of our nature.  I believe we are in a steady spiritual state for serving and fulfilling the Godhead.  Not all in-form-ation is preserved to that status. 
Moreover, to the extent we, in our prayers and energies, believe in an inviting, caring Godhead, as exampled by Jesus, we tend to "put flesh on" that belief and make it so.  Thus, I believe we tend to produce and fulfill a better unfoldment of civilization.
******************
Materialists pooh pooh such beliefs.  Probably because they believe substantively measurable physics is the superior source, of which consciousness and information are only derivatives. 
I do not believe that.  Rather, I think Substance, Consciousness, and Information are co-equal Trinitarian faces of a unitary Godhead. 
After all, how can present Substance be the superior, when it immediately passes into the past, as a cumulation of information?  How can Information abide, unless it (at least potentially) is inherently informative to consciousness?  How can Consciousness signify any communication, unless its communications are founded in the math with which substance is conserved and balanced?  Our existentiality is innately Trinitarian, beyond mere Substance.
***********
IAE, to relate as being moral, one needs a moral philosophy.  That such philosophy may be necessary does not mean it must be without mental or moral force or effect.  After all, what rigorous moral philosophy is entirely consistent, coherent, and complete?
So what may someone mean, when he poses that he, without belief in a godhead, is "as moral as" anyone else?  And what is his consistent, coherent, and complete definition for this godhead of which he claims to be atheistic?  I suspect many atheists and moralists tend mainly to rationalize in circles for whatever the favored metaphors with which they feel comfortable.  As such, apart from dramatic stance, I doubt they shed much empirical or analytical light on "what morality really is." Or on whether they are "as moral as anyone else."
It may be more useful to ask:  What manner of philosophy and governance is best suited to establish and sustain a decent and dignified society of free thinking adults?  For that, I think a belief in an active principle of caring and inviting reconciliation is essential.  Whether a person wants to call that acting principler an "innate law of moral nature" or a "guidance from a godhead" seems not especially important.  Either way, the commandment of good faith and good will would still apply.  Either way, houses of meditative assimilation and/or contemplative prayer would still be important.  The difference would mainly be one of stubborn name calling and metaphor.
So, why do self-godding oligarchs want to banish such meditative good will and contemplative good faith from the public square?  I submit it is largely because they want to divide and rule --- unimpeded by the people thinking, meditating, contemplating, and assimilating.

To assimilate the shared values to back a political program, must such atheists share "a religion" or a "real moral standard"?  May that depend on how your faith would define religion or real morality? 
When such atheists take such a stance, may I be as justified in naming their common value system a religion as they are in saying it is not?  If it is not religion, not science, and not physics, but just belief, then is it just superstition?


I do not appreciate giant spaghetti monster people, either. Which was part of the point. Maybe you're looking to be offended? My point is that, in practical terms, among people of good faith, whether they want to call themselves atheists or theists is of secondary import. What is of primary import is what they do. If what they do is in good faith, I think they unavoidably have some residual faith in God -- whether or not they appreciate it as such. Another point was to question the reliability or meaningfulness of the survey.

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

Individuals and groups flux and change. They change consistent with what in Nature resists them and what in Nature favors them.
Natural selection does occur, but it is guided via a feedback process with the reconciling, conservatory Godhead. No thing can become substantively manifest that would contradict the defining maths and laws of natural conservation.
Natural Selection is merely a way of naming the math that God uses to rule the unfolding of Nature. It does not rule out God, nor does it explain any thing or cause, in itself.

A ruling class need not defend all its progeny. Just those among it that are inclined to want to rule.
Ask: Did the persons favored with membership in the Communist Party really believe in Communism, or did they more likely believe in the "justice" that they should, as elite nomenklatura educated in social scientism, rule the peasants --- "for their own good"?
Among the network of nomenklatura, would not those who already saw their tribe as specially chosen tend to be favored?

Some selective mechanisms seem to apply to tribes generally, not just to Jews --- even though some Jews seem to have become most successful in deploying such mechanisms.
Ask: What cohesive, self-choosing tribe, when placed within a larger society, would not seek to infiltrate its institutions to craft laws, rules, traditions, and social scientism bent to specially protect itself? Some Jews have found ways to pull down so-called Whities, even as they claim as exemption that Jews are not to be classified with Whites.
Such people tend to seek a kind of social salvation by erecting mountains of legalese, affirmatively bent to favor their status. A kind of pump of history seems to push such people, not just Jews, to the top of most of our institutions of law, persuasion, and force. Once there, an obvious way to defend such position is to divide, diversity, and set all other groups against one another --- even as the most favored group tends to decline to assimilate.
This selective mechanism leads to a two class society: Those that are ruled under laws that specially favor the rulers, and those that rule with laws devised to defend their position of power. This, of course, is not quite what America's Founders had in mind.
This is not a problem of genetics. It is a problem of social natural selection. The good thing about natural selection is this: It can be foreseen, and then redirected. IOW, Natural Selection is subject to a feedback process with Guiding Consciousness.

If the communist faith system is not religion, not science, and not physics, but just belief, then is it just superstition?

***********

Trump is part of the oligarchy/ruling class. He, like they, has a choice. And his choice, unlike theirs, seems to be to try to restore the representative republic.

Left to its own (which I doubt is even possible), natural selection would have no moral objectives. But that is the point. Natural Selection (Nature, i.e., measurable Substance) is what signifies, but it does NOT function by itself.
Substantively measurable Nature is merely one face (aspect) of the Trinity, which presents as Consciousness, Substance, and Information. The Trinity unfolds with a feedback process, that IS guided by subjectively moral objectives. The immeasurable "objective" is only an ideal of Consciousness (fulfillment), which may never be completely fulfilled.
I would agree that God has not "left the building," to leave the world to unwind only as an entirely preset clockwork.

Individuals and groups flux and change. They change consistent with what in Nature resists them and what in Nature favors them.
Natural selection does occur, but it is guided via a feedback process with the reconciling, conservatory Godhead. No thing can become substantively manifest that would contradict the defining maths and laws of natural conservation.
Natural Selection is merely a way of naming the math that God uses to rule the unfolding of Nature. It does not rule out God, nor does it explain any thing or cause, in itself.


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

I see Natural Selection as making sense in respect of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.  I don't think particular expressions of matter are preset from the beginning.  But I do think that whatever measurably unfolds has to obey the Law of Conservation.  Otherwise, equations for trying to balance practical empiricism would be too bizarre to be practical.

That said, I think immeasurable, non-substantive qualitatives enter the mix at the level of the Godhead.   A metaphor would be to see God as the Great Artist, rather than as the Great Clockmaker.  Under my metaphor, howsoever Art comes to be valued and carried forward is the upshot of a process of feedback in apprehension and appreciation between Consciousness as Reconciler and Consciousness as Perspective.  I don't think that's preset.  I think it's unfolding.

Some functional relationships and patterns will flux and rise to favor over others.  I doubt any algorithm, even if based on Asimovian Psychohistory, can rule the unfolding in a rigorously scientific way.

As powerful as God may be, whatever of Substance is made manifest to measure has to balance in the math by which it is measurable.  God may select (reconcile), but the selections as manifested have to balance in math.


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

Left to its own (which I doubt is even possible), natural selection would have no moral objectives. But that is the point. Natural Selection (Nature, i.e., measurable Substance) is what signifies, but it does NOT function by itself.
Substantively measurable Nature is merely one face (aspect) of the Trinity, which presents as Consciousness, Substance, and Information. The Trinity unfolds with a feedback process, that IS guided by subjectively moral objectives. The immeasurable "objective" is only an ideal of Consciousness (fulfillment), which may never be completely fulfilled.
I would agree that God has not "left the building," to leave the world to unwind only as an entirely preset clockwork.
How could a ruling (consistent, coherent, and complete) algorithm ever be subject to human scientific discovery, since every such discovery would necessarily entail an infinite regress of choices in response to it? IOW, each new discovery would upset the previously imagined preset.
I think Nature (Substance) and Consciousness are bound together in a perpetual dance of feedback reconciliation, which accumulates a trailing record of Information. CSI.

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

I see Natural Selection as making sense in respect of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. I don't think particular expressions of matter are preset from the beginning. But I do think that whatever measurably unfolds has to obey the Law of Conservation. Otherwise, equations for trying to balance practical empiricism would be too bizarre to be practical.
That said, I think immeasurable, non-substantive qualitatives enter the mix at the level of the Godhead. A metaphor would be to see God as the Great Artist, rather than as the Great Clockmaker. Under my metaphor, howsoever Art comes to be valued and carried forward is the upshot of a process of feedback in apprehension and appreciation between Consciousness as Reconciler and Consciousness as Perspective. I don't think that's preset. I think it's unfolding.
Some functional relationships and patterns will flux and rise to favor over others. I doubt any algorithm, even if based on Asimovian Psychohistory, can rule the unfolding in a rigorously scientific way.
As powerful as God may be, whatever of Substance is made manifest to measure has to balance in the math by which it is measurable. God may select (reconcile), but the selections as manifested have to balance in math.
EDIT: IAE, Jesus wept. The Godhead experiences our pains and joys. That which is reconciled is carried forward, so that its In-form-ation is not lost. If that is cruelty, then it is cruelty by the Godhead to ITself. Just as it is joy to itself. It is what it is, and such is not for me to judge.

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

If there is a solution, it is not in sending history down the memory hole or in enacting mountains of speech regulations. It is in freeing speech and in restoring respect for the spiritual Reconciler. Better churching, less elitist despotism.

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

I am not an atheist, but I wonder about dogma.  I wonder why, deep down, both atheists and theists are so scared to question their dogma?
After all, no system of thought can give an accounting of the cosmos that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and clear.  As the cosmos fluxes, why are so many people so afraid to think about inconsistencies and contradictions that are right in front of their noses? 
Not only do some fear going outside safe places for their bodies, but many fear thinking beyond their comfort zones.  Maybe they fear they would melt in a pile of inconsistencies?  But what gives them any claim to high ground when they arm that fear by trying to block or lock down the thinking of everyone else?  This is especially common on some of the religion blogs.  Then they wonder why people with high functioning brains stop wasting time with them.

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

It's obvious what the oligarchy wants. But what do the targeted farm-ees want (or expect), other than to be farmed and not to have to think or be responsible for themselves?
? Do they want a license to loot. To pimp kids. To open borders. To force reverse taxes (reparations), based on percentage of dark blood. To impose race-based guilt quotas. To use law to force people to like certain races and behavioral orientations more than others. To restrict speech so people aren't allowed to hurt the feelings of pc selected gang bangers. To destroy freedom and dignity under the representative republic, to replace it with central diktat of neo-moral-scientisimists. To force a neo-secular religion.
Mostly, it appears they want to be farmed. And ordinary Americans slept while these wannabe farmees were imported, bred, indoctrinated, and rewarded to be the new majority. At this point, it is unclear that any country or culture in the world merits any longer to try to function as a representative republic. They merit to be farmed, and they are hell bent to get farmed.
Sheep do not have to think or be responsible for themselves. They feed on weed and they are sheared as they breed. A few are selected to wear pretty panties.



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

You seem to want to say what you don't believe, but then decline to say what you do believe that could rationalize your non-belief.

Do you define what you don't believe, or do you simply put everything you have not much thought about in that category? Do you believe in goodness? Do you believe morality is derived only through reason? Do you believe any behaviors are moral, that you have not specifically thought about?

Do you believe the measurable part of the cosmos is entirely the expression of what is measurable? Do you believe the cosmos arose from a split in positive and negative charges of nothingness? Do you believe such belief in nothingness is not a belief in somethingness? Do you believe in an identity for your I-ness? Do you believe your position of atheism is not subject to change, as "you" change?

Is empathy part of your understanding of morality? Do you have a belief with regard to whether some patterns, forms, identities tend innately to seek reinforcement together, with or over others? Do you believe the cosmos as it measurably presents would exist without regard to an observer effect?

When you say you do not believe in God, what is your definition of this god in which you do not believe? (I also do not believe in a giant spaghetti monster god.) However, do you believe in Consciousness, in your "self" and/or others? Do you believe there is some difference in the fundamental nature or character of consciousness, as it applies to yourself versus others?

Do you believe it is important in any moral sense to advance your belief in non-belief, with regard to any reconciling Source for morality or moral purposefulness? Why do you consider your advancement of non-belief in a reconciling Source of Consciousness to be moral? Who (or what) tells you that such advancement is more moral (or as moral) as attempts to advance belief in an empathetic connection among all in-forming perspectives of Consciousness? Do you believe morality entails good faith or good will? Do you not believe in a general goodness?.

I wonder how much of the disputation with so-called atheists is semantics. I think, in practical terms, among people of good faith, whether they want to call themselves atheists or theists is of secondary import. What is of primary import is what they do. If what they do is in good faith, I think they unavoidably have some residual faith in God -- whether or not they appreciate it as such.

Much of disputation consists in trying to define terms so as not to talk past one another. Problem is, there seems to abide no thing that we can reduce to terminology that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and complete. Much of attempts in communication seem to relate to unclear smoke signals. Of what communication there is, it seems to arise with the give and take of some thing beyond what is purely measurable, i.e., what I would term "innate good faith and good will." Godly, because it is innate. I think giving it a name for reference sake can help assimilate decent civilization. If we cannot talk in the public square about what is godly or goodly, I think it less likely we will assimilate decent civilization. And more likely we will fall under the rule of self-godded, oligarchic liars, poseurs, and phony knowitall moral scientisimists.

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

There are as many sides to bigotry and hate as there are godforsaken people farmers bent on harvesting people by dividing them. Hateful gang bangers (angry toddlers) always justify themselves by projecting their hatred as the animus of targeted others. Grownups seek to instill individual competence by breaking up mobs of bang bangers and prosecuting their people-farming funders.

***********

I suspect there is something perpetually self-creative about the pursuit of scientific models. I suspect some pursuits may by feedback lead to alternative multiverses, perhaps eventually to differently phasing "laws of nature." This is not something that can be tested. Perhaps intuited. Yet, empiricists can hardly complain, since they also often intuit/implicate a multiverse. The point is, I suspect so-called "laws of nature" are not eternal, but subject to phasing.I think you are just looking to dispute by trying to build some kind of eternal scientific sand castle in the sky. Good luck with that.

Your appreciation of scientific models may be deficient. I would refer you to David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity." What we do is tinker with explanations (models) that remain forever incomplete, yet tend to be quite useful for various practical purposes for societies that happen to use them. Scientific models deal with measurables, even though they can never quite complete a math based explanation for every possible factor. Morality based models tend to deal more with qualitatives. If such models were not important, we could put all moral determinations in the hands of bots programmed for that purpose.

Yes, bots do exist. Bots are regurgitative programs. When you mention that not everything of existence is subject to scientific measuring, they simply cannot process it. 

Mainly I detest the moral scientism of wannabe destroyers of the representative republic.

It's more like knowing that every mortal has intellectual limitations and blinders. If you believe differently, that may be at the root of your so-called atheism and dogmatism.

Well, religious literalism would be replaced by religious figures of speech.
However, figures of speech are helpful for providing common points of reference. Language and communication depend on metaphors. Even the models in science are, ultimately, based in metaphors. They describe what nature and its laws are like, not precisely what they are.
Without religious metaphors, there would be little around which communities could in good faith assimilate.

There can never be scientific evidence for that which is by nature beyond science. The issue is one of good faith. Whether one believes in a general pursuit of goodliness, reconciled with receptivity to a guiding principler.

That which reflects a fundamental belief in its worthiness seems to have an advantage with regard to whether its in-form-ation will propagate and continue. That which does not, will not.



Consciousness is that which appreciates the measured signification of stories through Substance, as it accumulates its record of the Information of measurables that have preceded its present formulations. The Trinity fluxes as C, S, I. C is the upshot of S as it accumulates I. S is I stored for presentation to C. I is the cumulative record of preceding presentations of S to C.

I also do not adhere to biblical literalism. I am a deist ... who believes the Godhead has not left the building. Regardless, I do not approve of persons (law droolers) who pose as perfect mouthpieces of God for the purpose of dictating behavioral rules, out the wazoo. I agree such persons should be exposed. I think the god title is not in itself a bad term. I agree it has been abused. I am more into receptiveness to reflection than to worshipful ceremony.
That said, different people feel differently. I think reflective people of good faith can help moderate them. IAE, I think knowitall pagans, atheists, socialists, communists, and statist moral dictators have contributed to most of the world's suffering. Well, except for the Muslims.
I am not surprised when a person stubbornly rooted in unbelief in godliness or goodliness may fail to see the stubborn dogmatism.

I think your analysis is in some ways too dogmatic. But I agree that religion can often be used to advance un-good. (I had to correct the auto correct to write un-good. I hate auto correct!) I also agree that most intelligent people do not dwell on fear of hell, and that stirring such fear is a favorite method for authoritarian poseurs.
I am not sure what you mean by supernatural. Most people do abide by learned (churched?) codes of behavior, which tend not to be based entirely in science, reason, or logic. If behavioral codes could be so based, we would probably have a better chance to reach worldwide consensus --- under authoritarian moral scientisimists. For myself, I prefer a representative republic over rule under knowitall moral scientisimists.

Atheism is much like any other system for trying to justify belief or disbelief in belief. There are many dogmatic justifications for Christianity, just as there are for atheists.
God and scientists speak to us using the figures of speech, metaphors, and models that are in common use at the time. Those models change and flux, as our system and world changes and fluxes. That's consistent with how language and models change.
At no time could God or science speak to us to convey perfect understanding. From mortal perspective, perfect understanding is simply beyond us.
Your idea of atheism seems stunted. I doubt I will find much reason to join you in your overly simplistic system of circular mind restriction.

I am not an atheist, but I wonder about dogma. I wonder why, deep down, both atheists and theists are so scared to question their dogma?
After all, no system of thought can give an accounting of the cosmos that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and clear. As the cosmos fluxes, why are so many people so afraid to think about inconsistencies and contradictions that are right in front of their noses?
Not only do some fear going outside safe places for their bodies, but many fear thinking beyond their comfort zones. Maybe they fear they would melt in a pile of inconsistencies? But what gives them any claim to high ground when they arm that fear by trying to block or lock down the thinking of everyone else? This is especially common on some of the religion blogs. Then they wonder why people with high functioning brains stop wasting time with them.

I think giving up on an innate aspect of good faith and good will leads to more cruelty. It sacrifices the faith needed to bring people together to assimilate ideals of purpose, decency, dignity, and freedom. It helps to rationalize the depredations of oligarchs as good or necessary. That's why I refer to them as self-godded, godless, and/or godforsaken.

In the usual parlance, natural selection verbiage signals discussion relating to gene frequencies. That said, practices of social selection are part of nature.

I see Natural Selection as making sense in respect of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. I don't think particular expressions of matter are preset from the beginning. But I do think that whatever measurably unfolds has to obey the Law of Conservation. Otherwise, equations for trying to balance practical empiricism would be too bizarre to be practical.
That said, I think immeasurable, non-substantive qualitatives enter the mix at the level of the Godhead. A metaphor would be to see God as the Great Artist, rather than as the Great Clockmaker. Under my metaphor, howsoever Art comes to be valued and carried forward is the upshot of a process of feedback in apprehension and appreciation between Consciousness as Reconciler and Consciousness as Perspective. I don't think that's preset. I think it's unfolding.
Some functional relationships and patterns will flux and rise to favor over others. I doubt any algorithm, even if based on Asimovian Psychohistory, can rule the unfolding in a rigorously scientific way.
As powerful as God may be, whatever of Substance is made manifest to measure has to balance in the math by which it is measurable. God may select (reconcile), but the selections as manifested have to balance in math.
EDIT: IAE, Jesus wept. The Godhead experiences our pains and joys. That which is reconciled is carried forward, so that its In-form-ation is not lost. If that is cruelty, then it is cruelty by the Godhead to ITself. Just as it is joy to itself. It is what it is, and such is not for me to judge.

Trump is part of the oligarchy/ruling class. He, like they, has a choice. And his choice, unlike theirs, seems to be to try to restore the representative republic.
I would agree that most of the rest of the oligarchy is trying to take that choice away from him (and us).

You seem to be missing the point. Left to its own (which I doubt is even possible), natural selection would have no moral objectives. But that is the point. Natural Selection (Nature, i.e., measurable Substance) is what signifies, but it does NOT function by itself.
Substantively measurable Nature is merely one face (aspect) of the Trinity, which presents as Consciousness, Substance, and Information. The Trinity unfolds with a feedback process, that IS guided by subjectively moral objectives. The immeasurable "objective" is only an ideal of Consciousness (fulfillment), which may never be completely fulfilled.
I would agree that God has not "left the building," to leave the world to unwind only as an entirely preset clockwork.
How could a ruling (consistent, coherent, and complete) algorithm ever be subject to human scientific discovery, since every such discovery would necessarily entail an infinite regress of choices in response to it? IOW, each new discovery would upset the previously imagined preset.
I think Nature (Substance) and Consciousness are bound together in a perpetual dance of feedback reconciliation, which accumulates a trailing record of Information. CSI.

Individuals and groups flux and change. They change consistent with what in Nature resists them and what in Nature favors them.
Natural selection does occur, but it is guided via a feedback process with the reconciling, conservatory Godhead. No thing can become substantively manifest that would contradict the defining maths and laws of natural conservation.
Natural Selection is merely a way of naming the math that God uses to rule the unfolding of Nature. It does not rule out God, nor does it explain any thing or cause, in itself.

A ruling class need not defend all its progeny. Just those among it that are inclined to want to rule.
Ask: Did the persons favored with membership in the Communist Party really believe in Communism? Nope. They believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat. They said the dictatorship would someday wither away. What fool thinks they really believed that? More likely, they believed in the "justice" that they should, as elite nomenklatura educated in social scientism, rule the peasants --- "for their own good" --- for as long as it takes (meaning in perpetuity).
Among the network of nomenklatura, would not those who already saw their tribe as specially chosen tend to be favored?

Some selective mechanisms seem to apply to tribes generally, not just to Jews --- even though some Jews seem to have become most successful in deploying such mechanisms.
Ask: What cohesive, self-choosing tribe, when placed within a larger society, would not seek to infiltrate its institutions to craft laws, rules, traditions, and social scientism bent to specially protect itself? Some Jews have found ways to pull down so-called Whities, even as they claim as exemption that Jews are not to be classified with Whites.
Such people tend to seek a kind of social salvation by erecting mountains of legalese, affirmatively bent to favor their status. A kind of pump of history seems to push such people, not just Jews, to the top of most of our institutions of law, persuasion, and force. Once there, an obvious way to defend such position is to divide, babbel-ize, and set all other groups against one another --- even as the most favored group tends to decline to assimilate.
This selective mechanism leads to a two class society: Those that are ruled under laws that specially favor the rulers, and those that rule with laws devised to defend their position of power. This, of course, is not quite what America's Founders had in mind.
This is not a problem of genetics. It is a problem of social natural selection. The good thing about natural selection is this: It can be foreseen, and then redirected. IOW, Natural Selection is subject to a feedback process with Guiding Consciousness.

If the communist faith system is not religion, not science, and not physics, but just belief, then is it just superstition?

The people of the Swamp have no loyalty to any higher principle, much less to America. Even though they often claim to be "as moral as anyone else," this is because they don't actually have any belief in morality at all. IOW, they have no faith except in their self promotion. This is why I call them self-godded, godless, and/or godforsaken. Their bodies may be rich and their glands may be pleasured, but their souls are miserable and hollow. By their fruits, we know them.
The GOPe is no more concerned about looking out for Americans than the Dino Party. Apart from pretense and phony promises, that is. Yet, they pretend to be educated, elite, and morally scientific.
If our national framework has become so twisted that decent people of good faith and good will cannot be elected, then sturdier measures may have to be taken to straighten the twist.

If anyone is prone to cuffing his ears and going lalalalala, it seems to be you.
You seem to want to say what you don't believe, but then decline to say what you do believe that could rationalize your non-belief.
Do you define what you don't believe, or do you simply put everything you have not much thought about in that category? Do you believe in goodness? Do you believe morality is derived only through reason? Do you believe any behaviors are moral, that you have not specifically thought about?
Do you believe the measurable part of the cosmos is entirely the expression of what is measurable? Do you believe the cosmos arose from a split in positive and negative charges of nothingness? Do you believe such belief in nothingness is not a belief in somethingness? Do you believe in an identity for your I-ness? Do you believe your position of atheism is not subject to change, as "you" change?
Is empathy part of your understanding of morality? Do you have a belief with regard to whether some patterns, forms, identities tend innately to seek reinforcement together, with or over others? Do you believe the cosmos as it measurably presents would exist without regard to an observer effect?
When you say you do not believe in God, what is your definition of this god in which you do not believe? (I also do not believe in a giant spaghetti monster god.) However, do you believe in Consciousness, in your "self" and/or others? Do you believe there is some difference in the fundamental nature or character of consciousness, as it applies to yourself versus others?
Do you believe it is important in any moral sense to advance your belief in non-belief, with regard to any reconciling Source for morality or moral purposefulness? Why do you consider your advancement of non-belief in a reconciling Source of Consciousness to be moral? Who (or what) tells you that such advancement is more moral (or as moral) as attempts to advance belief in an empathetic connection among all in-forming perspectives of Consciousness? Do you believe morality entails good faith or good will? Do you not believe in a general goodness?.
I wonder how much of the disputation with so-called atheists is semantics. I think, in practical terms, among people of good faith, whether they want to call themselves atheists or theists is of secondary import. What is of primary import is what they do. If what they do is in good faith, I think they unavoidably have some residual faith in God -- whether or not they appreciate it as such.
Much of disputation consists in trying to define terms so as not to talk past one another. Problem is, there seems to abide no thing that we can reduce to terminology that is perfectly consistent, coherent, and complete. Much of attempts in communication seem to relate to unclear smoke signals. Of what communication there is, it seems to arise with the give and take of some thing beyond what is purely measurable, i.e., what I would term "innate good faith and good will." Godly, because it is innate. I think giving it a name for reference sake can help assimilate decent civilization. If we cannot talk in the public square about what is godly or goodly, I think it less likely we will assimilate decent civilization. And more likely we will fall under the rule of self-godded, oligarchic liars, poseurs, and phony knowitall moral scientisimists.

Your first sentence was so nonsensical, it was hard to bother with the rest.  Perhaps you should read the following three times while clicking your heels together:  My concern is less with science (empirical measurables) than with appreciating its limitations.
My postulation is this: 
Consciousness is that which appreciates the measured signification of stories through Substance, as it accumulates its record of the Information of measurables that have preceded its present formulations.
IOW, the Trinity (Godhead) fluxes as C, S, I.  C is the upshot of S as it accumulates I. S is I as it is stored for presentation to C.  I is the cumulative record of preceding presentations of S to C.  Think of God as the Reconciler of Perspectives of C.  (You do believe in consciousness, do you not?)
That is not an empirically testable hypothesis.  It's only test is based on self-evidence, intuition, and insight.  It seeks to be as consistent, coherent, and complete as possible.  Seeks, not achieves.  If it were shown to impede valid science, I would abandon it. 
However, you fail to show any such a thing.  Instead, like a bot, you try to disprove what is necessarily beyond empirical testing by asserting it cannot be empirically tested.  Well, Bot, big duh!  I think what makes you a Bot is a big log that blinds your vision.  You need to work on that to become a real human being.
Think Bot, think!  Tell me what communal goal is NOT based on values that are in many ways beyond measure.  Do you value your name?  If that depends only on its non-metaphorical measure, tell me what that measure is.  Likewise, do you value your family, country, culture?  Do you have aspirations for expressing your interests in art and employment?  If so, tell me which of your interests and moral purposes are entirely measurable in empiricism or math.
Self-correcting seems mainly to be an alternative way of saying self-creating or self-selecting.  I agree, Bot, that you haven't moved to remove the log from your eye.  I agree that the CSI System is one of dynamic feedback (self correction).  That is why I say God has not left the building.
As to fiction, I don't think you apprehend the often self-fulfilling role of what otherwise would be fiction.  Before the Big Bang, its potential expression was fiction.  Then it became expressed.
I think you have a deep seated anxiety regarding the Bible.  Take that up by being receptive to the Reconciler.  It may help if you remove the log.  I can't reveal the Truth.  I can only suggest a path for you to pursue it.


******

Information may not ever be lost, but it is transformed and reinterpreted.  I fluxes to S to C.  As C takes on new perspectives, it takes on new interpretations of previous Information, and may phase beyond access to the previous interpretation.


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

I am willing to listen to the argument for keeping bases abroad, for the purpose of killing jihadis, despots, commie-fascists, and thugs there instead of here. 

That said, I am not for trying to turn other nations into republics.  We should have neutered or killed Saddam, then left.  Not try to export democracy.

We will always be plagued by self-godded, people-farming, arms-death-dealing, oligarchs who profit by stirring crap.  Our problem is how to kill them abroad, while they are small, without nurturing them at home.  I am not confident of any easy way to achieve that.  Nor am I confident that American politicians can ever be immune from being infested and poisoned by them.

I don't have a simple solution to this evil or an alternative to Pax Americana.  Withdrawal after WWI did not work out so well.  What I do believe is that the faithless-idiotic-jihadi-commie-fascist-oligarchic cannibalizing of faith, family, and fidelity at home is nursing a lot of evil --- here and abroad.  These cannibals and connivers have no respect for basic human freedom or dignity.

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

Jesus spoke in figures of speech that are general, in metaphoric language that avails discussion by way of cross referencing. Those parables tend not to dictate precise behavior for precise situations. Rather, they facilitate conversation and communication. Beginning points of reference, to encourage people to come together to reason in good faith and good will. That is what churches and volunteer charities are for. But to try to legislate niceness via central governmental law is NOT charity. It is simply the upshot of competing special interests, vying for advantage against the general commonwealth.

I would not single out any race, color, gender, orientation, or origin for special favor or condemnation. I think that is un-American and often evil. I WOULD single out any fascist who advocates trying to force people to be nice by restricting speech to prevent the expression of any idea merely because he/she may deem it to be politically incorrect. And anyone who advocates general blocking of traffic, looting, burning of books, or unlawful tearing down of public statues. I don't think my position is hateful. But I do think the contrary is often evil.

Too many people hate Trump so much they cannot think straight. That is un-Christian and un-American. In pique against Trump, they would burn down the republic. Too many fascists who want to vent unlawful rage pose as anti-fascists. While Trump wants to save the republic, they want to burn it. And who is funding and agitating them and their media? That needs to be looked into!

I would like to see a list of what these able-bodied, so-called "anti-fascists" want to legislate. Maybe I would reevaluate my position if I could see such a list. Does anyone have one? Do these people have any clue what it is that they want the government to legislate or do for them? I have seen some lists of evil stuff. Like advocating that non-black lives do not matter. Or that non-blacks should give their property or houses to blacks. But realistically, Constitutionally, and lawfully, what do they want the central government to do?

Still, I see the Antifa people, goonish as they may be, as God's children, and their behaviors, evil as some of them may be, as more like cause to be sad than to hate. I want to see the American ideal of freedom and dignity for all citizens restored. I want to see people being valued for the content of their character, not for the force of their gang-banging. If this makes me hateful in the eyes of Antifa and its history-illiterates, then that is on them. As I see it, they are the true haters, racists, and fascists. Too many of them have been bent to destroying the republic. Why are they allowing their brains to be turned to putty in the hands of conniving oligarchs bent on cannibalizing the republic? Riddle me this: Why else do they want to open the borders?


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

Who is it, really, who is working overtime to divide the people, to make it easier to destroy and cannibalize the republic? I would put that on the oligarchy that owns the media. Have you ever seen so many ravenous wolves all snarling the same talking points? They thought they had that as a done deal under Obama. In my view, they are working overtime against Trump because they fear their spoil may be taken back.





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



You can't cross the same river twice, nor can you factor your own ever-changing interests in a non-changing way. In social concerns, you cannot enforce ceteris paribus. You cannot avoid post hoc factoring by non-disinterested persons, or reasoning in a circle to reinforce self identity. Consequence: Perpetual attribution after the fact, posing as data driven.

By the bye: Tell me what preponderance of evidence proves continuation is "better" than elimination or annihilation. Show your purely empirical proof that the pursuers of Nirvana (elimination of self) or Nihilism are wrong. Of course, you won't even try. Certainly, you will not succeed. But, as a Bot, you will revert back to your pre-programmed position.

There are reasons to oppose annihilation, but they are not entirely fact-driven.

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

I indicated that some evidence essential for making moral choices is beyond empirical measure.  (A decision to continue one's existence is a moral decision.  Your only evidence is because "you wanna."  Which is my point.) 
If you did not take issue with that, then it appears you are conceding by deflecting?  I think you have a problem with denial, brought on by deep animus against the god idea and the idea that is probably clear to most thinking people:  that science, by itself, is not enough. 
You may need psychological counseling more than debate, because your debating is deeply rutted in denial. 
If science by itself were enough, we could safely delegate all social/moral decisions to moral scientists serving central oligarchs.  Which is precisely what a lot of atheists, prog scientisimists, and law droolers seem to want to do.  No thanks.

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



Grit


I see true grit in my ancestors. I don't think modern oligarchs will defeat their progeny. I think they are awakening a sleeping giant. All 3 of those boys served in WWII, and David, the one not in the photo, served in the Navy. Their patriotic progeny have caught like wildfire.

There seems to be an inverse relationship between the diminishing of Trump's popularity and the erosive effectiveness of constant oligarchic propaganda against the borders of the representative republic. Self-godding, knowitall oligarchs and their elite moral scientisimists and people dividers may have nearly completed their long march through all the institutions of political agitation and force ...and their mission to tear down the republic. Trump wants to make the republic great again --- for all Americans. His opponents have been indoctrinated to hate that. Their need to hate Trump has become greater than their desire to preserve the representative republic from the domination of a handful of oligarchs. Think about that.

Freedom means being able to choose your friends --- who you want to be nice to, and who you do not choose to be nice to. Despotism means using gov to force people to be nice (or not) to one another. When you give power to gov to try to force people to be nice to one another, you are giving great power to whomever controls the gov. In most modern cases, that means the oligarchs who control the gov. About a half dozen oligarchs control most of the media. They do not like Trump questioning their power. They do not like Trump questioning the cherry picked facts and models they use to try to dictate PC concerning what is fair or equal. So they are united against Trump. The same students who decry the disproportionate power and wealth of oligarchs are often the same ones swallowing the oligarchic propaganda. After they import enough liberty illiterates to destroy the representative republic, will they then, finally, rue the day? Or will they have become so indoctrinated by years of institutionalized "education" that they will be like the frog who was cooked so slowly he never jumped out of the boiling pot?


Extremists rarely reason. They emote. Most of them cherry pick facts and models to use emotion to recruit fellow emotionalists to deploy more central gov against a targeted goat. While they fight opposing gang bangers, they empower the central gov to destroy the republic for everyone else. You cannot reason with mouth foamers. A pox on all their houses.

First they remove the monuments. Then they stop teaching the history. Then they forbid the teaching of all unapproved history. Then they modify the people to grow wool, so they can be fleeced and farmed. Because thinking and doing for their imported and indoctrinated followers is just too hard. And the self-godded pagan-owners of the media seem so humane, fair, scientific, and equality minded. Must follow them. s/

The writing is on the wall.  Our wannabe farmers and farmees want all teaching and pc to be surrendered to a new, elite, knowitall, morally superior, scientisimistic, oligarchy of people-dividing rulers.
The obvious agenda:
- Outlawing of spiritual devotion outside approved and servicing pc programs.
- Stripping and de-defining of marriage, family, and local autonomy.
- Sending history down the memory hole.
- Promotion of loud mouthed lickspittles who are cocksure their puppet masters are fair minded saints of natural law.
- Redefining of "charity" to mean gov-forced redistribution of material wealth.
- Redefining of receipts of gov-charity, as entitlements "earned" by breathing (and voting).
- Disarming of the general citizenry.
- Absolute centralized control over all institutions of agitation, persuasion, financing, monitoring, and force.
- Constant division, bread and circuses, and goat making and blaming, to grease the easiest paths for ruling the masses.
The new oligarchy consists of sub-humanizing media-owners who are so blinded by success in material gamesmanship that they believe they should utterly rule the beliefs and actions of everyone else --- "for their own good."  The more we tolerate this, the more we burn the republic and allow hell to rule on earth.

It's individual freedom, versus tyranny of the mob, versus sub-humans bent on profiting and ruling from tyranny of the mob.  Self-godding, sub-humanizing, gang-banging, tribalism everywhere -- in the jungles, ghettos, churches, mosques, synagogues, Vatican, boardrooms, banks, colleges, Wall Street, media, Hollywood, DC, Generals, Congress, UN, gov-supported corps, etc.
The writing is on the wall.  Our wannabe farmers and farmees want all teaching and pc to be surrendered to a new, elite, knowitall, morally "superior" (chosen?), scientisimistic, oligarchy of people-dividing mob-rulers.
The obvious agenda:
- Outlawing of spiritual devotion outside approved and servicing pc programs.
- Stripping and de-defining of marriage, family, and local autonomy.
- Sending history down the memory hole.
- Promotion of loud mouthed wise-guys, lickspittles, and shills who are cocksure their puppet masters are "fair-minded" saints of natural rule.
- Redefining of "charity" to mean gov-forced redistribution of material wealth.
- Redefining of receipts of gov-charity, as entitlements "earned" by breathing (and voting).
- Disarming of the general citizenry.
- Absolute centralized control over all institutions of agitation, persuasion, financing, monitoring, and force.
- Constant division, bread and circuses, and goat making and blaming, to grease the easiest paths for ruling the mob-masses.

The new mob-oligarchy consists of sub-humanizing media-owners who are so blinded by success in material gamesmanship that they believe they should utterly rule the beliefs and actions of everyone else --- "for their own good."  The more we tolerate this, the more we burn the republic and allow hell to rule on earth.  Mob-acracy.

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

The more receptive we are to the Idea of a caring, inviting, good Reconciler, the more opportunity we have to restore a caring, inviting, and good Republic.  The more we ban the Reconciler, the more we invite drooling despots to rule us with central (DC) law-drooling.

If atheism makes for people and nations that are "just as moral" as any other, then why does our nation and world seem more divided, alienated, and lost than ever?

Instead of assimilating sustainable spiritual values, we seem to be absorbing memes of division and hate. 

The oligarchs leading us into this would rather we hate Trump than help him salvage the republic. 

Why are the handful of media-owning oligarchs so opposed to the salvage of the republic?

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

Instead of respecting the freedom and dignity of individual citizens, we seem to be falling to the tyranny of the mob, versus sub-humans bent on profiting and ruling from the tyranny of the mob.  Self-godding, sub-humanizing, gang-banging, skin-fixated tribalists are everywhere -- in the jungles, ghettos, churches, mosques, synagogues, Vatican, boardrooms, banks, colleges, Wall Street, media, Hollywood, DC, Generals, Congress, UN, gov-supported corporations, etc.

The writing is on the wall.  Our wannabe farmers and farmees want all teaching and pc to be surrendered to a new, elite, knowitall, morally "superior" (chosen?), scientisimistic, oligarchy of people-dividing mob-rulers.

All they ever seem to need is a goat du jour.  In the past, the goat has been barbarians, Jews, Blacks, etc.  Nowadays, wannabe mob-rulers have found profit in making white male Christians out to be the goat. 

This is convenient for some Whites, who claim not to be Whites, because they say Jews, Spaniards, and Progressives are somehow exempt.  (Goat blamers often change their clothes, but not their stripes.)  To quote Vonnegut, "and so it goes."

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

The obvious agenda of wannabe mob-rulers and their farmees:

- Outlawing of spiritual devotion outside approved and servicing pc programs.
- Stripping and de-defining of marriage, family, and local autonomy.
- Sending history (monuments and names of teams, streets, and cities) down the memory hole.
- Tenured promotion of loud-mouthed wise-guys, lickspittles, and shills --- who are cocksure their puppet masters are "fair-minded" saints of natural rule.
- Redefining of "charity" to mean gov-forced redistribution of material wealth.
- Redefining of receipts of gov-charity, as entitlements "earned" --- by breathing and voting.
- Disarming of the general citizenry.
- Absolute centralized (despotic) control over all institutions of agitation, persuasion, financing, monitoring, and force.
- Constant division, bread and circuses, and goat-making and blaming --- to grease the easiest paths for ruling the mob-masses.

The new mob-oligarchy consists of a very few, sub-humanizing, media-owners who are so blinded by success in material gamesmanship that they believe they should utterly rule the beliefs and actions of everyone else --- "for their own good."  The more we tolerate this, the more we burn the republic and allow the hell of wannabe despots to rule on earth.  Mob-acracy.  That's what I think.


The people of the Swamp have no loyalty to any higher principle, much less to America.  Even though they often claim to be "as moral as anyone else," this is because they don't actually have any belief in morality at all.  IOW, they have no faith except in their self promotion.  This is why I call them self-godded, godless, and/or godforsaken.  Their bodies may be rich and their glands may be pleasured, but their souls are miserable and hollow.  By their fruits, we know them.
The GOPe is no more concerned about looking out for Americans than the Dino Party.  Apart from pretense and phony promises, that is.  Yet, they pretend to be educated, elite, and morally scientific.
If our national framework has become so twisted that decent people of good faith and good will cannot be elected, then sturdier measures may have to be taken to straighten the twist.

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

The new catchphrase is "white nationalists."  This is an obvious slur against anyone who prefers that each republic preserve its own identity, consistent with its own culture.  Some are suitable to grow and sustain representative republicanism, and some are not.  But wannabe oligarchic rulers do not want any nation to remain a representative republic.  They want to rule, over the desires of the little people in any republic.  So they want to kill every representative republic.  They want to rule --- not by input from the citizenry, but by morally scientisimic fiat from the oligarchy.  So they slur anyone who prefers a participatory republic to a despotic oligarchy.
To grease their rule, people-farming, fascist oligarchs use the tactic of divide and rule.  It is important to them to keep various factions, races, orientations on edge against each other.  So they fund agitators to keep all such groups agitated and at one another's throats.  In this way, every such group is in the service of the fascist oligarchs.  Whatever grievances the groups have among themselves is of little import, so long as they are led to hate one another.  Fascists, like the devil, use hate to rule.  Thus, so-called national socialists (Nazis) and international socialists (Commies) are both the servants of Fascists.  Their supposed grievances are subordinate to their usefulness as idiots.
Once borders are effectively erased for republics, then cheap labor from former colonies will be imported.  Then, these new laborers will be led to claim against those who are "colonial privileged." Then, they will agitate to claim that the older citizens should be made to pay reparations.  So established Blacks will be cajoled to give their homes up to the newly imported laborers from former colonies of Western Civ.  And so the idiocy goes ....