Collectivist mechanistic engagement vs. Individualistic Emotional Intelligence

The ideology and philosophy of collectivism result, inevitably, in mechanistic engagement of peoples in pursuit of an inculcated goal removed from the authentic relation of people within a society that promotes emotional intelligence, emotional involvement, and emotional responsibility.  Emotional virtues which lead to healthy emotional interactions between individuals are a central component of the reigning philosophies of the Founders - who, due to 18th century thinkers such as Locke, Hume, and Smith, put a great deal of emphasis on sympathy, empathy, or compassion in the role the emotions were to play in the Democracy they envisaged for our country.  These virtues warrant some investigation, as definitions vary not only between, say, sympathy and empathy - but even within the single word compassion (mitleid).  Whatever the true intentions of the founders were, there is no doubt that the collectivist philosophy of Hobbes who once quipped that human life is 'nasty, brutish, and short' had been, at the time of the drafting of the constitution, replaced in favor of the sentiment that humans are not, inherently, selfish - that is, humans have sentiments such as sympathy for others and other such things.  This is also, according to Adam Smith, the foundation of not only democracy but of capitalism which, oddly enough, is criticized often for being an inherently selfish system.  So our duty as far removed from the society of early America is to, more or less, improve our ability for emotional intelligence and involvement;  To, say, increase our understanding of love.  To, for example, act according to passionate emotional involvement rather than removed or detached non-feeling.  To, as a matter of fact, figure out what makes a given emotion in a given moment an expression of our self-hood and our autonomy.  If we fail to remember the importance of emotional intelligence in our lives and democracy, we will surely loose the central tenant of the philosophy of our founders - that is, the Sentiments.  Collectivism as an ideological mechanism, doesn't place as much emphasis on such things, and it is generally collectivism that, in the case of acts of disobedience political or otherwise, engenders unto us the ideological position that it is wrong to feel certain ways.  So, as Robert Solomon would be pained to see were he still alive, in our day and age it is generally considered by our culture wrong ethically across the board to act angrily.  Right down the line, it is condemnable to take refuge in sadness.  Inevitably, the consequence of Collectivist Mechanistic Engagement is a condemnation of that which makes life ultimately intelligible, that is - emotional intelligence.  If I were a couple notches more conspiratorial, I would mention the goal of collectivism is to strip people of their identity and turn them into components of this system of Mechanistic Engagements... but I won't.  If I were several shades less conspiratorial, I'd make the cursory Borg reference... but I won't.  What I will say is that very often we're looked at as a noticeable nail sticking out from the plywood if we, say, even express genuine emotion in a group of people.  This isn't to say one should always be overly emotional to the point in which one alienates oneself.  What I'm attempting to get at is that emotional intelligence is to be highly valued in the way a peoples communicate both functionally and intimately, but more often than not in this blatantly collectivist time of ours emotional intelligence is ignored in favor of other virtues not as directly tied to the philosophy of the 18th Century;  those proponents of undiluted democracy which stated once and for all that people are not inherently selfish but, in fact, have a strong inclination and basis for emotional intelligence and such universal traits as sympathy, empathy, and compassion.

Pragmatic Collectivism: The Method to an End

Much was made early on in the Regime's attempt at instituting socialist/communist policies of the Messiah's 'pragmatism', which amounts to the ability to commit to any means in the pursuit of an end considered to be socially just.  Pragmatism within the sphere of individualism is nothing more than a method or stylization meant to cut down on unnecessary expenditures of energy and time.  Pragmatic Collectivism, however, is the ideological system that believes in a Neo-Hegelian movement of dialectical materialistic forces which evolve according to intellectually elitist precepts towards the much criticized notion of Heaven on Earth.  Most notably, this end was criticized by actor Jeff Goldblum publicly as well as within private academic bulling and cowing.  Obviously, the notion of an idealized realization of Heaven on Earth is problematic theologically - however, the real area which presents an obtuse ethical worldview is where the presumption is made that society, culture, ideas, governments, or anything else quote-unquote 'evolves'.  The basis on which this presupposition is made is inherently of the same ideological foundation that has, historically, led to totalitarian fascism not to mention the evils of the Holocaust.  As a matter of fact, this idea of evolution (which is intimately tied to if not a radicalization of the ideology of Eugenics) was one of the central precepts of Nazi ideology.  So, I want you to put together a couple of idea's here: A) Faith in a Christian sense B) Heaven on earth and it's achievability C) Collectivism and D) the idea of a 'means to an end'.  I'm assuming you've already got the point.  Basically, the problem is the false ideology of Evolutionary Theory as defined by Darwin and carried on by indoctrinated students of Darwin.  It has been said that should one contradict the notion of Evolution within an academic institution one will, generally, be chastised if one is a student and removed from said institution immediately upon discovery of doubting the inherently evil deification of science that is Evolutionary Theory if one is a teacher.  This has been proven.  So, what I'd like to ask is - in what way is the 'methodology' associated with the above premise flawed, intentionally anti-democratic, and the result of the most condemnable aspects of intellectual thought.  I'll make it quick; A) Evolution-based scientific inquiry is flawed in that it presupposes subjectivism whilst purporting objective truth, B) Evolutionary Theory is contradictory to Democracy by way of the promotion of undemocratic values such as the perfectibility of Man, Neo-Hegelian (i.e. communist) intent, and subversion of Christian thought, and C) Evolutionary Theory and its application through the method of Pragmatic Collectivism must, in some sense, be based in an aggrandizement of the capabilities of science as well as the sin of Pride.  End argument - I win.

The Overwhelming Danger for America : Collectivistism by way of Healthcare

The way in which hospitals, healthcare, and healing generally have moved from passive individualistic enterprises to dangerous collectivist criminal enterprises is not to be misrepresented in any way, whatsoever.  Surely they'll do their best to fix physical maladies and other such things;  however, I don't think anyone could honestly argue that the healthcare industry hasn't obviously transformed from primarily a place to help injured or ill persons to a prototype of the function for hospitals in the early stages of the Holocaust - that is, a location in which to implement grotesque satanistic research and the pragmatic mechanism of eugenics.  This statement is undeniably true.  The same goes for homeopathic medicine, which is more or less simply a dullards practicing of paganism and do-it-yourself torture.  I contend that there must have been a time when the practice of medicine and healthcare was a virtuous endeavor;  that time is certainly, unequivocally, and objectively not of the present age.  Healthcare, however virtuous someone under said industry's employ may be, is irrefutably an industry with treasonous ideology.  Collectivism is never more at home than in the antfarm of a hospital, more forcefully in our homes than with the encroachment of Psychiatry and Psychology, and more connected to the ideology of eugenics than in regards to the profession of Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses, and all other cretins working for what amounts to a criminal cartel undermining the sovereignty of the Law.  There is no such thing as an individualist healthcare worker, for to even become a doctor or nurse one would have to abandon commitment to Christ in favor of commitment to some pagan greek, some code of ethics which runs contrary to God and Country, or to the ravenous bloodthirsty monstrous Blasphemer of the primary force for ideological (as, obviously, opposed to literal) eugenics.  The sole fact in which I'll drive home this indictment is the place the Healthcare industry fills in our society, and the degree to which Healthcare and many associated organizations are merely mechanisms of collectivism rather than places of healing.  When you die, you will more than likely die in a hospital - and the doctors and nurses and associated cabal of the educated who work at this factory of federalism will simply say, "We did all we could".  Why would you even bother to stick up for them?  Because you watched that laughable socialist doing an impression of an American on "House"?  Because you knew someone who went to a hospital at some point?  Because you yourself believe more in the institutions of Satan than in an individualistic interpretation of the Bible?  One word - Obamacare.  Done.  My Argument Wins.

Systematic Blasphemes of Collectivism - Multi-Cult, Humanism, and You

I was once, as a matter of fact, given a not-so subtle but decidedly restrained lecture on morality by an Hispanic nurse.  She commented that cursing, saying naughty words, was condemnable according to Christian morality.  This was her response to accusations of the institutional fraud of the near pathological collectivism inherent in Obamacare legislation.  I'd like to respond, as politely as one can, to the ideology that would suppose that proving two wrongs makes one right while addressing the role of collectivism in what is known as multiculturalism and humanism.  My answer, is that the Blaspheme of collectivism amounts to a far greater sin, due for far greater judgement, and of far more salience than, say, using colorful language and any other moral determination made by someone defending their own sense of impunity.  It is the impunity that drives home the blaspheme, it is that lack of repentance that solidifies the sin itself, and it is only up to ones conscience and god for mans sin of collectivism to be forgiven.  Put thusly, generally accepted tenants of multiculturalism and humanism are derivations of the guiding ethics of Luciferianism and exist only due to the, key word, resentment of those who ascribe to radical liberation theology, social justice ideology, sub-terroristic inclination, and sub-marxism etc.  Many, of the decidedly educated persuasion, seem genuinely convinced that multiculturalism does not exist at all.  Some, of the inherently socialist persuasion, seem to think that any mention of multiculturalism in a negative context is thoroughly dangerous.  Almost all people in America branded with the collectivist upbringing of non-morality know about the term Humanism from a cursory reading of, for example, the author bio on the inside cover of 'Breakfast of Champions' or other pornography - which proves their strenuous intellectual commitment to whatever liberation theology they espouse or silently take comfort in.  The Churches of Multi-Cult and Humanism are awash with the runoff of fallen Christians, who take refuge in the warm clutches of collectivist ideology basically because of, sadly enough, being too arrogant to repent of their sins.  It is surely the case that there are more than plentiful reasons to believe that America is an appropriate place for multiculturalism and humanism; however, I'm going to argue that in an individualist society such as ours there is really no place for the ideology which says that promoting social justice is a virtue while denying the ideological base of their manifest attacks on sovereignty, the existent class system, the upper class, the middle class, the educational system, and democracy as was not only envisaged by the founders but as is intended by god in our day and age - not to mention the children.  I put it thusly to my friend who dismissed the allegations of the existence of a system of multiculturalism, "There is an ideology out there being perpetuated by the collectivist manipulation of individuals which basically says the following - 'If you are a white person, and you have a daughter of ample age - we are going to promote them being in intimate relationships sexually with people of other races.  The most radical who ascribe to this ideology go so far as to say that the promotion of intermixing heredity is a virtue while those of 'pure bred' descent are sickly and undesirable."  Due to more than adequate evidence, I will leave you with the cold hard fact that the aforementioned is unequivocally true.  If you are interested in doing your own research into this subject (as I should stop here before I harshly incriminate myself in the midst of a multiculturalistic ideological Obamanation), try Jonah Goldberg's 'The Tyranny of Cliche's' (relatively new publication), in which he makes my leap from multiculturalism and humanism to social justice ideology more apparent.  You can also reference 'God and Man at Yale', in which William F. Buckley Jr. makes the jump from social justice and economic redistribution of wealth to collectivism more transparent.  Lastly, one can reference the work of Adam Smith in economics for a good idea of what the inspiration for this country did and did not intend.

Evidences of Collectivist Manipulation : Unconscious Inculcation of Non-Autonomous Self-hood

The principles of Democracy have been, and continue to be for many, eternal tomes to the guiding ethics of individualism.  The founders, framers, and thinkers who set about to create a truly free country knew that it was governmental collectivism that most endangered individual autonomy, and it is autonomy, in the sense of being truly free, that I'd like to discuss today.  What I'd like to say is that being free to make choices, being free to determine ones own values, being free to engage with others on a level of honesty and passion - these are all components of what the founders must have had in mind when they set about drafting the constitution, the federalist papers, and the declaration of independence.  I've often said that analysis of founding documents is far less revelatory in terms of Spirit, in a Hegelian sense, than simply glancing a single time at the papyrus of the Constitution with a properly Judeo-Christian framework in place.  It would seem counter intuitive and anti-rational to some who have been trained in the language of disengaged rote memorization and repetition of values very often descended directly from un-vetted intellectuals within academia and the elitist Left - however, I think many American's have had the experience of simply looking at the constitution in it's original format and being overwhelmed by a spiritual sense of historicity.  It is the tradition of the constitution that is really at stake.  What I'm here to tell you is - we, as individuals, no longer have the freedom to make choices.  No longer do we have the freedom to determine our own values.  We have lost the freedom to engage with others on a level of honesty and passion.  Just think, for a moment if you will, about the last time you got really excited about something you cared immensely for - there is a strong likely-hood, I would suppose, that people whom you talked to about it - perhaps those closest to you - looked upon your passion about a particular subject with disdain for the very fact that you cared.  Perhaps we think of ourselves as being fully able to decide what we believe to be true about the world - but again, I'm going to say, in our day and age this is very much in dispute.  And, unless you're a very strict Calvinist like some of my ancestors were, it's going to be difficult to find anyone who does not believe that the choices they themselves make during any given day are not, to a degree, 'free'.  What I'm here to say is that, due to a complex apparatus of what Freud termed psychical energy and it's systematization by collectivist ideologues, we are no longer free in that individualistic sense which our founders undoubtedly intended.  The key to understanding what I'm getting at is in this peculiar notion of 'psychical energy' as properly understood (don't bother looking it up on the internet, you won't find it).  Described in some specificity by professor Robert Solomon in his analysis of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" entitled "In the Spirit of Hegel", psychical energy is best understood as the premise that the brain is of near identical structure to the universe - that is, the physical structure of the brain resembles the physical structure of the universe;  as such, the energy of the mind correlates with the energy of the physical world.  It was under such a premise that Freud and early proponents of the emergent post-war psychologist priesthood advanced the premise that we could use the same laws governing the physical world to govern people, which resulted - more or less - in the use of near undetectable methods of inculcation of values, designed wholly by academic collectivists.  That's really the rub of it - the whole notion of propaganda, which was openly admitted to having been used.  I'm certainly un-aware of any valid criticisms regarding the ethical basis for using psychology to, say, sell more of a product of some sort - given there is no psychological or spiritual side-effect.  Anyone trying to tell you that flashing a millisecond image of buttered pop-corn on screen while one is at the movie theater is sinister in any way is really misrepresenting the basis of capitalistic enterprise.  It is obviously of dubious ethics to instill in a peoples a morality that runs contrary to Democracy, which is a claim that I'll talk more about later.  But returning to the idea of psychical energy.  Perhaps you've heard someone, at some point, mention the old new-age adage 'vibrations' to describe a persons emotional underpinnings.  So, you're saying something critical of someone else - and this is described as being a 'negative vibration' - and all of that sort of thing.  There is a sense in which this view is very much of kin to Freud's theory of psychical energy.  Psychical energy theory does, in fact, posit that  the mind has a kind of physical energy apart from electro-chemical stimulus.  I do not personally think this to be the case myself, but many early members of the psychologist priesthood proposed that the energy of individuals could and should be controlled - most notably, and most often demonized by media theorists, of those who believed that we should use psychical energy to achieve enlightened ends, was daughter of Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud - who thought that in order to prevent catastrophe the U.S. must implement unconscious social control with the goal of keeping the 'irrational' aspects of human nature from becoming the dominant force of American civilization (see 'Century of the Self').  What I have in mind here is the way in which this new priesthood of intellectuals trained in the art of the unconscious was, intentionally or unintentionally, undermining the principles of autonomy, self-determination, and Democracy.  Why?  How?  What?  For clarification, I'll direct you to the following passage from "God and Man at Yale" by William F. Buckley Jr.  - "We narrow down our search primarily to an evaluation of the influences that stem out of the departments of Sociology, Philosophy, and Psychology.  Most particularly, we are here concerned with those... within these departments who actively disparage or encourage religion... those instructors and those texts that are overtly or covertly hostile to religion, whether through the 'silent treatment,' active opposition, or supercilious disparagement."  Now if you'll simply make the slight leap to the following - "Religion, Freud believed, was an expression of underlying psychological neuroses and distress." (http://psychology.about.com/od/sigmundfreud/p/freud_religion.htm)  Freud's view of religion from this standpoint added with the subtle methodology of Buckley equals the following:  Psychology's main goal is to make passive, undermine, subvert, and transform traditional religious passion - the end result being a wholly collectivist society with values resulting from the academic elite rather than an individualist society with values resulting from God.


This is FORMULATION A (will be referenced accordingly)



______BRENDAN O'Connell_______


DOMESTIC DEMOCRACY UNITED

Anti-Collectivism Week - Sunday June 17th to Saturday June 23rd

This week I'll be doing a study of the components of the ideology of collectivism, brought to you by Domestic Democracy United's SUPERpac.  If you would like to donate charitably to Domestic Democracy United (DDU) in return for god's favor on the dates specified in the header, I urge you to contact me at ccompass@gmail.com.  I would gladly ask that all contributions be made anonymously.  Due to recent advances in the scientific realm of collectivism, I will be using internet references - which I do not use in Politalk whatsoever as a way to avoid the dulling down of ecstatic truth in journalism.  To begin with, I should state some of my presuppositions which one may or may not agree with.  First and foremost, I believe that collectivism is inherently bad - so don't go thinking that I'm sympathetic to collectivist ideology (as in philosophical positioning by intellectuals, academics, etc.), nor the results of collectivism that very often, I'd wager conspiratorially enough, manifests itself in the publik as idolatry (as in, say, watching too much television and such cliche's).  This is my position, my genuine belief, and a fundamental platform of Domestic Democracy United.  Secondly, I'll try to limit my apologetic philosophizing in regards to my knowledge and affection for G.W.F. Hegel and his Phenomenology of Spirit.  Hegel as a theorist, as he is in his later works, is not of much interest to me - and that seems to be the origin of the vast majority of the interpretation of Hegel that gives the disclaimer quite early - Hegel is a collectivist.  But Hegel as a phenomenologist is, I think, a due explication of what we call today in english 'Passion', and of great interest to me.  I'll simply say that should the name George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel arise in the course of these discussions, it should be noted that it is not the result of a concession to Collectivist Ideology - nor in any way referential to the many things which students of Hegel went on to do, which I am thoroughly against; Rather, it is specifically to be taken in an individualist/ethico-moral context, not a political one - and most definitely not an historical one.  Beginning, I'll merely start with a short quote from "God and Man at Yale", which as someone who made anti-collectivist ideology an early underpinning of DDU's platform, is the best book I've read to date dealing with the degree of institutionalization and systematization of Collectivism.  Mr. Buckley says the following: "...No one is to be so naive as to expect that I could conjur up a list of professors and textbooks who advocate the overthrow, violently or otherwise, of all vestiges of capitalism in favor of an ironclad, comprehensive socialist state.  There is very little of this at Yale; but this approach is not needed to accomplish, ultimately, the same transformation.  Marx himself, in the course of his lifetime, envisaged two broad lines of action that could be adopted to destroy the bourgeoisie: one was violent revolution; the other a slow increase of state power, through extended social services, taxation, and regulation, to a point where smooth transition could be affected from an individualist to a collectivist society."  I've added italics on the last part of that quotation due to the shocking revelation that collectivism, if not inherently Communist, is surely the main framework for the Communist vision itself, as defined by Marx - who, of course, for the sake of transparency I'll just note I think was one of the most evil, in a classical christian sense, men in history.  I'll try my best to make this week as objective as possible with my limited scientific knowledge, as I thoroughly believe and know that collectivism is a false ideology.  Thank you, and I encourage you all to make it your prerogative to fight against the implementation of collectivist policies in your own life.


Brendan O'Connel_FOUNDER AND MEMBER OF Domestic Democracy United

THIS JUST IN - Obama Administration Ignoring North Carolina Democrat Party

In the recently published installment of Nation Review, John Hood reports from Raleigh N.C. that due to the Homo-Sexual Harassment scandal plaguing the democrat establishment in North Carolina of late, the Obama Campaign is "pretending that the North Carolina Democratic party doesn't exist."  When I discovered this disinterested bit of in-between-the-lines journalism today, I was informed by a good democrat associate of mine that said snub by the Regime, much like Kitchen-Gate and Bust-Gate wherein Obama turned a cold shoulder to U.S. - U.K. relations, couldn't possibly be factual - as it appears, on the surface, merely to be commentary.  However, like all things of the journalistic spirit, one can easily report on things generally left unsaid; which is what Mr. Hood appears to be addressing in the short snippet I quoted.  Is it true that the Obama Campaign is ignoring the Democrat Establishment Machine in N.C.?  If so, in what way and why?  It seems to be Mr. Hood's thesis, in this flattering full length article on the North Carolina political system entitled "Conventional Wisdom" appearing currently on news stands and forever in the annals of scholastic research databases nation wide, that due to the recent events having to do with a certain player in the within the D.E.M. in N.C. named Jay Parmley and his homosexual indiscretions, the N.C. Democrat party has become renowned for corruption and dereliction of duty.  Parmley was charged with sexual harassment by a young male staffer, and the scandal involving Chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party David Parker's inability to bite the bullet publicly and, indeed, overarching lack of condemnation of Mr. Parmley has apparently tarnished the image of the Democrat hierarchy within N.C.  What does this, in fact, mean?  It seems to be pointing towards the inherent lack of credibility and distinction for the identity of Liberalism within our proud state, and may even be a sign of mob-like dysfunction as in, say, an whorehouse.  ACORN, which was disbanded after evidence surfaced that they were helping set-up under-age sex slave rings, is much of kin to a criminal enterprise one might suspect bears resemblance to what we've seen in fiction and film on the Mob - so the comparison is not as drearily inapt as one might suspect.  I've long said that for a right to work state such as N.C., there is a fair amount of Labor Union organization that goes on under the surface of daily statewide enterprise.  Is it possible that with the D.E.M. (Democrat Establishment Machine) falling into supposed disuse and fraudulent ideological positioning, we're witnessing the triumph of Democracy and the fall of an ancient criminal cartel?  Obviously not, but the comparison seems apt.  I can imagine Mrs. Purdue, a lady of certain distinction within the N.C. D.E.M., struggling to save face with family and friends as her gang of ideologues crumble under the weight of the new conservative ascendency.  I don't mean to sound at all coy, but National Review sums up the current political war-map thusly, "The host state of the national convention now has a barely functioning party organization, one that faces the prospect of loosing both the governor's office and the legislature  to the Republicans for the first time since General Sherman's troops were camped outside the state capitol."  With all this said and played out, I'd wager if it is, in fact, true that the Obama Campaign is ignoring the N.C. D.E.M. - it surely must have something to do with Obama's distaste for all things southern and rural, the Regime's inflexibility regarding how to deal with rank and file members of it's own organization, or perhaps simply the gut-check reaction of pedestrians passing by a violent crime on the street without wanting to become involved in the affair.  I'd wager the last is inevitably true, and should Obama refuse to give fair credence to the honor of Sir Walter Raleigh  he and his green-eyed czars will sleep a little less soundly knowing that their rank and file members living two states down from D.C. are set for major losses.  I think the question we're all asking is, what now?  I know, starting September 3rd, Democrat National Convention in McCrory country.  Should be, to the best of my knowledge, an historic and monumental occasion for people of all creeds, colors, and convictions to have it out for all the world to see - though for many people, it would seem that this is a one-way street.

Obamerica on Bath-Salts

I've recently received intel from a trusted source within the growing Healthcare Caste that the rumors of leaks from with-in the federal government, the information presented by the press as a result of said leaks, and much of the political climate taking hold in our country of Obamerica is at worst a devious designed conspiracy, at best a pathetic re-election bid.  More than likely the leaks that have been reported on of late (of which I'm not familiar apart from the purported tuesday 'dronings') in the press are teleological contrivances derived directly from the Exec office.  According to the source, the 'leaks' which the Regime's messiah addressed last week as young people across the nation graduated from school and began their summer festivities are, in fact, purposeful unofficial press releases intended to release classified information to the public through what Limbaugh aptly termed the 'State Controlled Media'.  That is to say, when Obama said last week in his conspicuous address to the nation 'anyone from my administration caught leaking information will be prosecuted accordingly', his disingenuous tone was appropriate considering the authenticity of the words spewing from the teleprompter.  This is, as I said, according to a trusted source.  I can only relate this purported contrivance by the Regime and deviance from the S.O.P. for those possessing confidential information relating to National Security with the disclaimer that it may or may not be true, and I may or may not agree with the sources' position, as I generally try to temper how far my ideology goes when it comes to intentional malfeasance and malice in government institutions, as odd as that may sound considering my previous positioning of Collectivism - however, if it is true that Obama and his Regime are intentionally leaking information about events within the White House as part of the new Forward campaign, I can only cringe in terror when I think of the National Security implications of this kind of amateurism.  One thing which I believe gives this story credibility is the way in which one can empathize - I mean, suppose you were the 'captain of club america', and you were doing all of this 'super-cool but classified stuff' - yet the majority of the public still despised you.  Wouldn't you want to try and let the people know about some of the 'super cool' stuff you and your cronies were doing so that they know how cool you really are?  I don't know how far that goes really, but I'd wager if this story of Obama covertly leaking information to the press and then overtly condemning the leaks is true, the above childish train of thought probably strikes a chord with the actual sentiment behind such an egregious error as toying around with National Security childishly.  I still regard former President Bush's stoicism and virtual silence as the press thrashed his administration before the two election season's of 2004 and 2008 to be the mark of a true leader, not to mention strategist.  Probably the result of Ham Rove or some such thing.  Anyhow, Obama is clearly high on bath-salts - and will surely try and eat the face of the mainstream American electorate very soon.  I'd wager, right about the time the confused 2012 constituency sits down to clarify ethically obtuse angles of politics and life.  I'm sure they'll be provided with fruitfull examples of why they believe what they don't actually believe by the Mainstream Hit n Run Media, be given ample substantiation of why those born with vast intellect and political malice know what's best for them by the Democrat Establishment Machine, be persuaded in how to vote by faint lofty memories of white racism and the klu klux klan, and finally in November be ushered into the voting booths by black boot and nightstick regalia'd members of the Black Panther Party - knowing that they know what they know even thought they don't know what they know and have a clean conscious... and a face scraped clean of flesh by the gaping maw of bath-salted collectivism.

Review of Kierkegaard's 'The Present Age'

Our age, which can be surmised as a combination of apocalyptic sensibilities, jarring misuses of technology and intellectual prowess, and a strain of political nihilism so devoid of faith that it will describe Christian belief itself as nihilistic, can use a little bit of the temperament found in Kierkegaard's brief essay, "The Present Age".

The man who accepts majority opinion is often at odds with individualism, just as one who glorifies the self finds their own sense of importance at odds with collectivism.  Both would surely do well with a good dose of the anti-establishment philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard, who rails not only against the ideology of the technocrats of his time, but against an entire society which condemns the individual self as merely components of a mechanistic system of parts and parcels.

Of course, many of the post modern strain of anti-philosophical 'philosophy' as classical definitions bequeath unto us tirelessly and ad infinitum have decried religion as an absurdity of the 'in itself', reacting to Christianity with the bile so reserved for members of the intellectual establishment in our age.  But what most of them fail to adequately realize is that the entirety of the End of Philosophy as defined by Po-Mo ideology is born from the seminal work "Zein und Zeit" by Martin Heidegger - who, as anyone savvy with the modern day disciples of the above powerhouse of western thought knows, is fully dedicated (in terms of his Ontology) to the kind of Kierkegaardian individualist philosophical strain of the Western Tradition as properly defined and forgotten consistently by the majority of today's academic cabal.

Many have bemoaned and dismissed Christian faith and theology with a kind of off-hand reference to various authors or thinkers of the atheist/pagan variety without giving much of a second thought to the great minds which built our very intellectual identity itself, I suppose preferring a kind of impotent analysis of the dissemination of information.

What these same mongrels fail to remember, and forget to a near painfull degree of certitude, is that Kierkegaard was not just a counter-cultural hipster cafe hero, but (to put it mildly) devoutly Christian.  'Christian' in that very special individualistic sense, which often carries with it the fervor which settled many of the problematics brought about by early conflations of Greek philosophy with Christianity by such thinkers as Augustine and Aquinas, and set philosophy on a course towards 'liberty' for generations upon generations to come.

Of course, the hypocrisy of our own age is no glory, and Kierkegaard in many ways inspired what we today define as 'Passionate' philosophy.  The strength of simultaneous sin was criticized by Kierkegaard as the definition of collectivism, and unlike many of his contemporaries, he led the kind of life which give such bold proclamations ground in action.

Kierkegaard very often makes reference to thinkers within his society at the time in "The Present Age", thus limiting to a degree the timelessness of of this particular work.  Very often, as many individualist philosophes tend to do, he seems to be finding himself in analysis of what Douglass Rushkoff termed 'the other'.  However, more often than not he is 'on' the mark as opposed to  'off' the mark in terms of asserting objective truths about the obligatory failings and musings of an age which see's itself as something more than simply another generation.

Clearly, the time in which Kierkegaard lived was, much like the time of the early Christians, an age of "prophecies, apocalypses, glances at and studies of the future."  What is found in "The Present Age" is a philosophy of the lonesome and goading, and the author is very often kindly making the absurdity of the collectivist tendencies of the Hoarde of his age and every age to come politely leave the discussion so that 'real gentlemen' can adequately discuss the 'Real World'.

In terms of actual critique of the 'philosophy' as such of Kierkegaard in "The Present Age", it is classically difficult - but for the 'new age', such analysis of Kierkegaard has always been easy, and this impass is a slight not forgiven.  The ease of thinking regarding Kierkegaard's 'passionate' philosophy has always been skickered at a bit by Christian Theologians and Thinkers throughout history - however, the way in which there is a sense of true love for philosophy in "The Present Age" makes this work in particular far more of an appropriate read for one not well versed in, say, the differences between lower immediacy and higher immediacy, or in the rivalry between Kierkegaard and G.W.F. Hegel, etc.

The purely fictitious design of possessing the manifold ideologies of the current political sensibilities is nothing more than a conflagration of the self in which one's own narcissism becomes a basis for critique.  Many in our own present age have not admitted their own sin of Pride and how it relates to the values they place on eros and the conflation there-of - an absolute contradiction.

Prophetically, Kierkegaard said in "The Present Age", quote - "Even in the most enthusiastic ages people have always liked the favor of ideology."

What most of the disciples of Kierkegaard and Post-Modernism seem to be incapable of either discovering or admitting is the way in which the End of Philosophy as such was brought about by Faith itself.

Thanks for reading - I, founder of Domestic Democracy United, recommend that anyone who has waded through my review pick up a copy of Soren Kierkegaard's notably light read, "The Present Age", which more than likely is prescient for the young people of our time in this year of our Lord, 2012 - but will, in all probability, be ignored by the young minds of America in favor of short excerpts from less salient works coupled with contrite PHI 101 style analysis, which is very much a shame.

_REVIEW BY Brendan O'Connell - FOUNDER OF DDU