Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Component Collectivist Culture: It's Ideology and How It Changes Our Lives

Today, I'd like to introduce a key to understanding and apprehending the serious and dire consequences of collectivism.

That term is what I've coined Component Collectivism.

Component Collectivism is a neo-collectivist worldview rooted in a dysfunctional and pathological neo-Hegelianistic ideology which is mostly known for being directly tied to the philosophy of Marx, who himself was a young Hegelian (or 'neo'-hegelian).  This is to be starkly contrasted with the self proclaimed "Old Hegelians"; these early students of George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who is generally recognized as being the most influential philosophe in the entirety of Western Philosophy's history, took his"dialectic" to mean an almost anti-thesis to the broad notion of dialectical materialism and- yea, the "hard" notional inclination to view history in terms of evolution as such.  Old Hegelians viewed, according to Robert Solomon (R.I.P.), his dialectic as more an application of Christianity to the methodology of authorship.  Anyone keen to Hegel knows, quite simply, that every discipline at every college/university in America and elsewhere is directly derived and indirectly imprinted from and with GWF's stamp and mark.  Unequivocally.

The early neo-hegelians, amongst which were the first proto-marxists, had quite a different view of the meaning and functional hands-on utilization's of Hegel's tremendously powerful hermeneutics and Christian theological breakthroughs.

Again, Robert Solomon (author of "In The Spirit of Hegel") surmised the neo-hegelian's formulations as defined by the man himself - Karl Marx.

1) Analyze Hegel as science.
2) Remove "geist" from the equation/formula.
3) Replace "geist" with "Materialism".

By materialism as such is indicated the following: Geist, or spirit, is no longer the central organizing moral formulation.  Rather, material goods (i.e. products, computers, phones, homes) determine how a society organizes their cultural focus.
And we all know the webster definition of Marxism; as out of date and irrelevant as it is in our age.  Materials are essentially owned by government not individuals, hence irrevocably betraying the most basic and overlooked philosophy of our nation's founding...

That God grants us the freedom to pursue acquisition of property as well as- yea, the general pursuit of happiness.  The National Review recently wrote of this "happiness" clause in the constitution to signify directly, in the context of when it was written, to farmers that they had the right to endeavor to buy more property.  A bit out-dated and dusty - but in light of Dialectical Materialism, one might glean what the Founding Fathers were attempting to do.  The "Happiness" clause is basically and truly a 'fail safe'.

A genius one at that!

Well, fast forward into the early 1900's.  Early progressives such as Richard T. Ely and John Dewey along with a slew of proto-marxist disciples endeavored to apply their vision of Dialectical Materialism to the then burgeoning American Politik and Gov'ment.

This is nothing, I assure you beloved reader, like anything an NPR listening neo-progressive can conjur to mind from the last Terry Gross snippet on some far removed FDR rumour.

This was absolutely, in the same sense that Noam "Mr. MIT" Chomsky decried for an entire generation of young Che rebels the horror of defining a Corporation as an individual, a near takeover of our sovereign government by - basically and slightly humorously - "Ze Germans".

All of these leading figures of the early progressive movement were literally trained within the borders of pre-war Germany.  All of them learning the scientific (not to mention psychological) methods of inculcating into a society, that is - OUR society, the treasonous philosophy of Dialectical Materialism.

What fruit did their highly successful endeavors yield?

How did this fruit taste and to what degree was it "poisonous"?

Bitter as hell, and with the venom of a viper -

1) Poll Taxes for poor Scotch/Irish and Blacks.
2) Literacy Tests that kept the newly emancipated Blacks from voting.
3) Segregation of the newly emancipated Blacks into ghettos and labor camps.

The fact that the progressive (or "leftist") tide sweeping the South coincided with the darkest moments of the repression of "negros" obviously and painfully belies their current commitment to all things multi-cult.  Though, one - even in the age of 'Bama and the Regime - can still see the heritage of the early elitist intellectuals.  One can see it in the very notion of that ardently fascist cliche - "Progressive".

In fact, the early engineers of all things Darwinian did facts 1-3 institutionally and with scientific rigor precisely because of 'progress' as such.  They believed that the uneducated were, to a point, incapable of understanding freedom or living "free-as-such" lives until they had been sufficiently "Civilized".  Their sociological excursions coupled with remarks about the poor and uneducated's (and I quote) "savage blood" etc. reveal an altogether colloquial attitude towards the (and I quote) "inferior races".
In fact, one leading neo-hegelian progressive even went so far as to say (paraphrase) that "the idea that newly emancipated slaves could live in freedom worked [direct quote] 'disaster' and was [direct quote] 'dogmatism'."

Far removed, I'd say, from today's "pragmatic compassion".

Frederick Douglass would probably, in kind, respond "Good Man.  Bit off the top."

Fast forward, if you will, once more.  To today's age and Politik.
Collectivism has been distilled, through the overthrow of science by neo-darwinists trained in the fine art of profound coffee table quantum physics chattering and tittering, not to mention bulling and cowing, into the deconstruction of the Component as such and the stratification of this verstehen into Collective consciousness.  That Component, in a technological era of increasingly rapid advances in the technology of Hardware-as-such, is to be understood to be a Post-Deconstructionist account of the popular abstraction amongst sophomoric students in colleges and universities of the "single particle" or, more to a point, the ancient metaphysical cliche "mote".

Each "mote", in the concrete modern sense, can then be taken from deconstruction and comported (so to speak) in whichever direction our Ideologue Kings desire.  Generally, much to the discredit of the Left's "cause", this direction is one which leads the voter down a narrow corridor to a shallow slope of moral and ethical erosion that opens up into an iced-over pond in which the voter is gently but firmly urged to walk to the center and sit down.  Shouting from the safety of land, they then yell to the poor soul: "SPIN!"

Component Collectivism could be adequately understood as a "call", understood in the classical Christian sense, which is not of God nor Christian Tradition.

I.E. The removal of "Spirit" from the equation/formula of GWF and it's replacement with - let's just say - thin ice.

I'd say it were diabolical if that didn't understate the real and irrefutable treason that Marxism inherently entails.

Thank you!

RT Stillwell of the Birchers

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Leftist Pathology: Why the Progressive Cabal Is Near Criminal

This indictment, which is based primarily in a piece in the NR which I reported on last year regarding one Mr. Saul Alinsky and his mob connections, is following an inquiry into the role of Religion in the public square.  The founders were quite clear on the freedom to speak what one had on ones conscience; and I've found evidence of unconstitutionality if not criminality regarding progressive ideology.  Like the 'mob', the left is conspiratorially committed to silence in questions of their interpretation of Biblical truth.  Further, this silence often conceals a committment to Alinskian "social justice" or proto-communism.

Saul Alinsky is a man who created what conservatives have decried publicly; a little understood phrase "community organizing".  Obama himself has said "I'm still organizing".  What does organizing mean for Mr. Obama?

Legally representing an organization which had to close it's doors due to a scandal involving setting up whorehouses for underage illegal immigrants, or ACORN.

He acted as lawyer for ACORN during his up-and-coming years, representing an organization which was set up by Alinsky acolytes. 

Alinsky's tactics could be seen in the 2012 election, in which fraud coupled with organized labor was implemented by a supposedly 'sovereign' government to "get out the vote".  Alinsky, you must understand, learned his tactics of manipulation from the mob.  And Barack Obama's "chicago-style" politics have followed suit with a viciousness not seen in any previous administration.

And those kool-aid drinkers on the left have no sense of humility whatsoever when it comes to disallowing other's expressions of Christian philosophy/theology - perhaps with the exception of the perfunctory 'pope talk' with fellow automatons of the anti-god.

The very phrase, Jesus is Lord, spoken publicly elicits criticism, scoffing, or ethical condemnation.

This is due to the Leftist Cabal literally enslaving the population.  Enslaving them with their mind-numbing ideology.  Enslaving them with the creation of their wicked imaginations.  Enslaving them with their ideology.

It all began in the early 1900's when early progressive thinkers trained in 'neo-hegelian' philosophy (i.e. marxist philosophy) began to take control of America.  They believd that freedom came not from God but from the Government. 

Ever since, they have sought to make every gain possible, with the ends always justifying their evil means.

So, how is this criminal?  How is this pathological?
Collectivism itself is an ideology of pathology.

RT Stillwell

Monday, March 4, 2013

Sequestration on the Hill

The prescient news in Washington seems to be the looming "across the board" cuts to defense and entitlements that seem to be leaving both Dems and Repubs cold.  I'm of the opinion that while these cuts in spending are a major story, there seems to be something going on underneath the surface which has more to do with why leading figures appear to be so viscerally upset.  If I had to make an uninformed guess as to what this, in fact, is - I'd wager it has to do with the negligence and lack of bi-partisan communication that is endemic to Washington D.C. more and more these days.

Bob Woodward on "Meet the Press" described there being a "Bunker Mentality" amongst Washington elites, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this is altogether true.   My own governer McCrory. upon a recent visit to D.C. described the situation there to be "very troubling" and "dysfunctional", which is a fairly forward thing for the new Governer to say publicly.

But something eludes me, it seems.  There must be something going on in the annals of the executive office and congress that is politely being left unsaid.  I can't, for the life of me, put my finger on it.  Is it that each side of the partisan divide is steaming mad at each other?  Is it that the Repubs have made compromises to the president and feel like they are getting little in return?  Mr. Woodward accused the president of "not taking hold of the presidency", so perhaps it's that no one in Washington is taking any initiative on getting anything substantive done.  No matter the case, I am of the opin' that there is something rotten in Denmark, and the American publik is being left in the dark about it.

How bad is our debt?

Does China really, for all intents and purposes, own the U.S.?

What is going to "change" in the lives of everyday Americans this year?

Why can't congress and the president work together?

What happened to the "transparency" we were all promised?

These are all questions kindly being avoided at the moment, not to mention questions that we don't even have the information to know to ask about!

The unanimous consent of the press seemed to be that sequestration is a bad thing.  Is it really?

The only conclusion I can come to is that Washington must be reorganized, for the sake of the united states of America.

Domestic Democracy United