philosophy


go here

The United States Government is devolving from a government largely controlled by the population to a government bent on control of the population.

The government is operating in exactly the opposite of its foundation.  If a convention of states is empaneled, my advice would be to return to the roots of the foundation – repeal the 17th amendment and remove all the bureaucracies.  Return the government back to the people.  That means locally.  No more bowing to Washington in every aspect of your daily life.  For anyone who doubts that last statement, suggest to me any aspect of life not controlled by some regulation from Washington.  Turn on a light switch and tell me how many regulations are in place in that action – even to the bulb residing in the socket.  For those who say it will permit slavery, remember that it was the states who controlled the provisions of slavery and the federal government let it be.  Only those with land were able to vote.  How would that improve things now?  Imagine voting only going to the ones who were having money removed from themselves for the government.  Imagine half the population not being able to vote largess for themselves.  Horror.  Politicians would not be able to purchase votes with the forceably removed tax money of workers.  Picture this for a moment and then obtain a copy of the book, “God of the Machine.”

a certain fact presents itself.  A person from the left side of the political spectrum starts to notice something “odd” and seeks the truth.  That person on accepting the truth moves to the right side of the political spectrum.  “The truth shall set you free.”  I have yet to read the opposite scenario.  There is one not as nice observation, though.  It is only those who seek the truth and are willing to change their ideas accordingly who make that move.  That said, it’s not enough to simply present the truth and expect that political crowd to accept the truth.  The sewer in which they swim is “normal” to their approaches and any fresh water applied would be considered weird and shunned unless, like this individual, truth was sought and accepted.  That is the area of political battle in which the right has participated so poorly.  I have the feeling that we believe that the truth is so easy to grasp and such a freeing concept, it would be ludicrous to not accept, and further we have more important things to do, like taking care of our families and earning a living.  Therefore, those who have no problem enslaving another are those who have managed to entrench themselves in school, media, and government where and toxins are freely spread to the population.  Some cesspools are move obvious than others.  Name off the cities and blame of poverty, etc comes to the forefront.  Philosophically speaking, those cesspools are the making of that mindset over time and its fulfillment.  They are the end product.

The article had a really good point on the mindset which I will enter here:

But for the average Leftist, their sense of self is fundamentally tied to their belief they are a good person because they believe certain things. That belief system is constantly reinforced by their peers and their enemedia intake. Force them to confront a belief founded on flawed information, their very personalities are threatened as you are undermining their view of themselves as “good people”.

He further describes the risks of the leftist confronted with truth and I recommend reading the whole thing.

I read this article and had to note how well the author analyzed the subject at hand.  I had a moment discussion with an individual at church on Sunday.  This individual works on political campaigns and was in one himself and spoke at the service.  One subject mentioned was freedom.  I told him afterwards that to me, there has to be responsibility.  The two are linked, and once one reduces responsibility, freedom is lost as well.  Freedom without responsibility is license.

I have seen the article and discussed at work a trial which has begun.  The charge is manslaughter.  I think, along the lines Rush used with killing a baby, she just participated in medical care in the wrong state.  After all, there is no issue with assisted suicide in Oregon.  One may protest that there was no physical issue, but note the comments about pain.  There was a real issue there, and it was demonstrated by the actions of the individual.  Let’s look just a little deeper at this.

What is the value of an individual?  If you are a person who hasn’t breathed yet, you have less than value.  The government will subsidize your death and removal.  If you are a newborn, and your teenage mother kills you in a toilet, there is a 2 year sentence for that death.  The numbers change and flux from that point until the end.  Sometimes according to the age, sometimes according to the person’s actions, sometimes according o the associations the person has.  There is no consistency with the actions.  Look a bit historically and there was Hitler.  He decided the Jews were the pox of earth and needed to be removed.  How was that done?  I know you immediately think of the logistics of the trains, ovens, and death camps.  Stalin made Hitler look like a boy scout with his murder of tens of millions.  How was that done? Think back a little and realize that these individuals had to be labeled something, or designated something to philosophically allow those actions to continue.

The Origin Of Species was an interesting book.  Darwin took time examining various species through a trip and posited the notion that one changed into another through a long period of time.  I will note that through my observations and training, he was partially correct, so let me address this at the onset.  Evolution is the adaptation of a species to a changing environment.  Without such change, very few species would exist on this ever changing planet.  That’s all there is.  It’s simple and effective.  Those with better adaptation can have offspring and continue.  Those with characteristics which could not adapt, die.  What did the evolution of species say about people?  It permitted the movement of value from the church to the classroom.  Prior to Darwin, a person was considered in the image of God, blessed by His Creator, and acknowledged by the One who formed him in his mother’s womb.  Compare that to the designation after Darwin – a well developed ape.  Philosophically speaking, this was the background of removing the Jews.  They were no longer people formed in the image of God.  They were just well developed apes which could be herded and slaughtered like cattle.

Once one is removed from the spiritual, arguments vary according to how one’s value is applied.  In a philosophy class, the basis for laws was the population and what was best for interaction.  Note that there was no relative value, just ascribed value by one’s station in the society.  I guess arguments could go on ad infinitum, because once one removes God’s designation, the result is less than ideal.

Now we enter the trial.  At issue is someone who encouraged another to remove themselves from the population.  At the base, behind the trial, is the show of the philosophy.  What is a person’s value?  Is a person designated by God as one of value, or just a well advanced ape who can be treated like cattle according to the whim of the current culture?

Philosophically speaking is described with names and locations.  It’s so sad to have to agree with what is presented.  The names and descriptions tell quite well the destruction of this society some of which I have observed through my life-time.  It seems to me that there needs to be another approach – return to the original constitution and culture.  That piece seems to be missing, however.

You used to have to know the weezle words and double intandras that were used to hide true intentions.  Apparently, that’s not needed any more.

That term tends to evoke the idea of those things which make up all others.  Technically, it is possible to split an element into the components of electron, neutron, and proton, but at that point, the element is lost.  Elements have particular qualities and are known by their behavior interacting with similar and different other elements.  Watching the behavior of an unknown element is the way to identify it.  Tests can be done on an unknown substance and according to how it behaves in certain circumstances, the identity is determined.  The same can be said for islam.  Their behavior is not an aberration, it is an essential quality.  Since the muslim is a known and celebrated lyer, (they even have a word for that behavior-taqiyya)  it’s best to look at the behavior.  Identity will be known.  That is why I call them totalitarian tribal – a political ideology.

Next Page »