The Case Against Big Government: Why Pioneers Prefer a Reigned In Whitehouse

Considering just how knee-jerk anti-establishmentarian the left wing of America often is, one would wonder why the counterculture doesn't embrace the right wing more.  Reagan once said, "The government that governs best governs least."

Does this imply that despite all the talk about the evils of society-as-such, the left wing in fact enjoys bigger government?

A cure-all?

Somehow I don't think this gets to the heart of the matter.

Ostensibly, the Left proper believes that not everyone is born free.  It comes down to this basic tenet.

It may sound odd, but the Left has never fully been able to comport with the concept of inherent freedom by virtue of existence-as-such.  In fact, if many counter-cultural iconoclast worshippers knew the truth, they might well go running into the arms of the, currently, immediately unlikable and stodgy Christie!

I doubt they would care enough, though.

The left has never really cared for freedom - they would rather limit freedom, limit other's sovereignty, limit the peaks of excellence.  To them, freedom-as-such is like a taco they order at a fast food chain - not an existent god-garaunteed right, endowed to all by virtue of life in-and-of-itself.  

"I'd like my cheesy crunchy crisp freedom with a large coke." They say.

Let me, for a moment, assume there is an off chance that you - dear reader - are of the Left wing school of thought.  Now I know, you don't like the idea of Christie.  I know.

But,

Just think of your own party's dirty little secret...

That is, that Progressive Democrats don't believe that everyone is born free, as the constitution clearly states.  Your party, in fact, believes it is very important that this is not the case - though they won't tell you so out loud.  No, in fact - the left believes in one thing by virtue of it's commitment to the notion that the government can and should fix the ailments and ills so eloquently underscored in soc. 101 -

They believe that one must EARN freedom.

So, one isn't born with freedom - one must earn it.

It's not something they like being public about, but trust me - a central component of the Left's ideology is that freedom-as-such must be earned, and it is not a god given right.

So, will you consider voting for someone who believes in the sovereignty of every individual?

Will you "buy into" voting for the square that believes in the sanctity of the Constitution?

Will you vote Christie?

The fact remains;  This country has an identity.

Hegel's Christianity: Why This Author Sought To Shine a Light On Christ

G.W.F. Hegel, author of such works as The Philosophy of Right and the monumental Phenomenology of Spirit (alternatively translated Phenomenology of Mind) has, notably, been demonized by conspiracy theorists upon the web as being a number of things.  Generally, these theorists such as Alex Jones and ilk connect Hegel loosely - somehow or for some reason or another - to the "New World Order".  I know little about what these hit journalists find so offensive in "The Philosophy of Right".  To proffer the young (or Neo-) Hegelian's communism I think would be far too generous.  What they more than likely object to in Hegel is his overwhelmingly influential hermeneutics, which have - according to many including myself - been the currency of not only philosophical thought ever since, but virtually every discipline from Law to Science.

But previously, there was a far more prescient question regarding Hegel's respectability. This was, of course, the question of whether or not the man himself was genuinely Christian.  

Hegel himself, at very least in his early "Phenomenology...", makes numerous references not only to God-as-such but to Christ himself.  Critics of Hegel at the time and Neo-Hegelian apologists have noted that these references were not so much wholeheartedly central aspects of Hegel's philosophy, but merely a way of avoiding Kant's fall from full intellectual authority due to the question of the authenticity of his Christianity - the main conclusion being drawn of course was that Kant was not - in fact - Christian.  The Neo-Hegelians surmise that any author at the time was, to be respected and taken seriously by the State, near required to proclaim their Christian faith...

I think this is, at very best, a troublesome claim.

The fact is, Truth as espoused by Christ was exactly what Hegel was doing in his "Phenomenology...". Shining a light upon God-as-such, or proclaiming the Word - in his own words.

Any other interpretation I'm afraid is far too inadequate for anyone who's actually immersed themselves in his "Phenomenology..." to take seriously for even a second.

Hegel, understood in the non-communist Christian mindset, was shining a light upon Christ and the Word-as-such.  He sought to, through his "born-again" Christianity, bring to light the manner in which God's word testifies to his Absolute truth.  Why was this not merely the veneer on a decidedly German expression of the Enlightenment's romanticism?  

Because Hegel talked - or more accurately 'wrote' - The Word.

It would be hard for your average Neo-Hegelian scholar to take this seriously, as well as offensive to many Christians today.  But the fact remains,  if it wasn't, as such, THE WORD itself, it was at very least the Word in-and-of-itself.

The Enlightenment was a born again Christian phenomenon, as far as I can tell.  Hegel saw his writing, his country, and his time as the culmination of all things - an historical epoche which had never before been seen.  And as much as philosophers love discounting the romanticism sweeping europe (and presumably the U.S.) at the time, this romanticism was clearly a born again Christian phenomenon!

Hegel wrote about Christ in some of the most influential works of, at very least, Western philosophy precisely because of his genuine "born again"-ness.

TY

HERE ARE SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY VIDS REGARDING HEGEL:
(I recommend not watching unless you'd like to be bored, however, I'm merely illustrating the existence of ACTUAL anti-Hegel conspiracy theories.)

...and it goes on like this!

DDU 2013 RT Stillwell

Constitutional Conservatism

One of the primary aspects of conservatism is adherence to constitutional spirit as defined by the founding fathers of the U.S.  As stodgy and traditionalist as this can appear, the belief in tradition as defined by the founders is far from conformist. You may have heard the ideology that spawned such gems as "The founders owned slaves" and "The period in history of the nation's founding is far removed from the modern or post-modern age" or "The original sentiments of the founders are irrelevant for our technologically oriented era".

These are all, unequivocally, excuses.
Unforgivable excuses for "changing" the constitution to suit the needs of a far less glorious generation than of those who fought and died to build the America intended by god himself.

Conservatives look at the constitution a little differently than your average progressive.

Where they see opportunity, we see duty.
Where they see the future, we remember the past.
Where progressive dems see change, conservative repubs recall tradition.

The idea that the constitution is a "malleable" document, meant to be changed to fit the times and circumstances is inherently based in a progressive ideology from the beginning of last century; an ideology espoused by early thinkers trained in german schools of neo-hegelianism - that is, the belief in dialectical materialism, or communism proper.

They have tried, from the beginning of the last century until today, to define the Hegelian dialectic as an historical entity-as-such.  This is incorrect.

Classical Hegalians, or "old Hegelians", looked at his profound dialectic as merely the movement of spirit in "authorship"-as-such.  The dialectic is not 'historical; according to the old Hegelians.  Dialectic is inherently spiritual.  Some have even argued that this dialectic is Hegel's synthesis of the father, the son, and the holy spirit - translated; thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Yet these "progressives" believe the dialectic to be inherently revolutionary.  A force, an opposing force, a struggle and then the victory of one over the other.  This is inherently communist, and progressives know it.

The fact is, Marx, one of GWF Hegel's early ardent students, had a mistaken interpretation of Hegel's hermeneutics and dialectic - as did ALL of the young Hegelians.  Yet somehow we allowed their interestingly inadequate strain of political nihilism to overrun all civilized discourse.

What Marx and all progressives are doing in their revolutionary, foreign, and unpatriotic thought is attempting to remove Spirit-as-such from the equation and replace it with materialism.  The identity of a country, according to the progressive commies, is not the spirit or mind of the times and tradition - but rather, the materials.  They effectively replaced 'spirit' with 'goods', removing Christ the Lord from Hegel's formula and replacing it with something far more secular.

It was and IS a dire shame!

Yet we continue to let progressives regress tradition to a hobbesian behaviorist era in thought!

I say, bring back SPIRIT.

DDU 2013

RT

What is Psychical Energy and Why Is It Inherently Evil?

Early discoveries in psychology have yielded some troublesome results - among them, Freud's notion of what he termed "Psychical Energy".  That's right, not cyclical - not physical; but 'psychical' energy.  That is, as in - psychic energy.

It's an idea that Freud writes about quite extensively, yet is a darkly held secret amongst the psychologist cabal of today.  Freud believed that the mind has 'energy', beyond the mere physical electro-chemical charge, and this yielded an interesting yet problematic psuedo-science that has, inevitably, resulted in an inherently evil use of human spirit.

Without being too descriptive as to what exactly Freud meant by this queer 'psychical' energy, I think we all - as christians - can agree that the 'psychic' world is one of pagan evil.

If one IS to intuit what is on another person's mind, it inevitably must be a kind of grotesquely imaginative act - and this is far more moderate than what Freud had in mind when he studied the 'psychical energy' of the mind as a science.  I made the bold claim a while ago, mildly conspiratorial, that when Freud posited that the mind directly correlates to the structure of the universe he systematized something that before then had remained ethically unexamined.  This may not, in fact, be true -

However, I don't think that anyone can argue for the telephone psychic's authentic christianity.

Psychical energy and it's use remains and will continue to be inherently pagan.

This isn't to discount ALL psychological discoveries or ALL of Freud's ideas.  To be frank, I believe that if Freud himself saw how his discoveries have been misapplied in today's technological era, he would be gravely saddened.  Too bad for him, eh?

But what do we make of the bold claim itself that there even exists such a 'psychical' energy?

Obviously discounting it as inherently preposterous is the ethical reaction, but today it would seem this has become an impossibility.  How does one account for the fact that the most outrageously superstitious notion imaginable, that is - that one can quote "read minds" - how does one account for it's scientific analysis and systematization?

I honestly have no idea - all I'll say for now is that the term 'psychical energy' exists, it is generally not recognized publicly, and it is, according to my own beliefs, inherently pagan and evil.


Thank you
Brendan O'Connell founder and member of Domestic Democracy United

DDU 2013

Punk Rock Republicanism: It DOES Exist

from wiki:

Johnny Ramone was known within the punk rock community as one of its notable conservatives, and was a staunch supporter of the Republican Party. Johnny made his political affiliation known to the world in 2002, when the Ramones were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. After thanking all who made the honor possible—clad in his trademark T-shirt, ripped blue jeans and leather jacket—he said "God bless President Bush, and God bless America".^[10] He said in an interview, when questioned on his conservatism, "I think Ronald Reagan was the best President of my lifetime." In this same interview he claimed that "Punk is right wing".^[11]
Johnny is quoted by The Observer as saying: "People drift towards liberalism at a young age, and I always hope they change when they see how the world really is."


In an attempt to distance conservatism, to a degree, from the liberal presentation of all repubs as the definition of 'square' I will be - in an attempt to start my future book "The Conservative Character" - trying to paint those who would be republican or ARE republican as defying the stereotypes leftist progressives attach to our character so mercilessly and tirelessly and typifying the true, authentic punk ethic.

Let's start with this: DIY

...or Do It Yourself.

Barack Obama during the last presidential campaign said famously "You Didn't Build It".

This is precisely the reason why liberals never find themselves truly embracing individualism.  Exactly because, as cultural studies indicate, if one adheres to an ideology in which any success attained is by virtue of Collectivism-as-such then surely such fine and time honored traditions as doing it oneself, or sheer grit and determination, or self-reciprocation etc. would be found in sour disrepute amongst the leftist cabal.

Mr. Hussein Obama said if one succeeds it is only because of some teacher that one had during mandatory educational services!  What a joke!
All success is directly despite the meddling of intellectualism, social engineering, or oversized central government.  Why?
Because of the slight of hand in "reformations".  All of the whole of the task of reforming young people undercuts Freedom-as-such...  and all success, public or private, eminates from the genuine article of Freedom-as-such.  Where there is no freedom of Spirit, there can be no freedom to excel.  Where there is no freedom to excel there can be no capitalism. 

Conservatives such as Johnny Ramone have succeeded in defining entire era's.  Succeeded in worldwide fame and notoriety.  Succeeded monetarily and with women.

But it would seem that autonomous talent is actually a threat to the collectivist mindset.
They resent, quite frankly, the fact that someone who doesn't buy into the liberal BS could be vastly more influential than they, themselves are!  All of the terrible things that have been said about Johnny, they're futile - Ramones still continue to offer vast works of bubble gum punk, with such as lyrics as "Don't talk to commies" and "I don't like communists" and "let me see you go go go go to Cuba" (Which btw - I used as a chant upon an impromptu mocking of an occupy encampment a while ago)!  

Without the public recognizing that the stodgy, grey haired repub cliche doesn't accurately represent the republican constituency we stand no chance in 2016.

We should all remember, MANY prominent musicians filmmakers and authors are Republicans - and are often attacked for it within the lamestream media!

So, remember - JOHNNY RAMONE - guitar player for RAMONES - lifelong repub.

VOTE NIXON

DDU2013