When people start regarding reality as such as being "crazy", we have to ask ourselves why is this? Craziness itself is a lack of authentic reality, and centers around delusions. So why are college educated people more and more nowadays when confronted with the truth, responding "that's crazy'? It seems to me to be problematic for our culture, yes, and vapid in terms of linguistics. More and more today we find ourselves fallen like the Tower of Babel. Misunderstandings in communication are more and more common, no pun intended. What has become of the English language? Colloquialisms and slang term criticism aside, it would seem that people now view the innate pathology of our humanity as stable sane and rational, and view the very real dark side of life on Earth as insane. Maybe this is just a nice college educated sense of humor, but something about looking at a tragedy and decrying the reality of that tragedy as insane or crazy doesn't seem to me to be rational, reasonable, or responsible. What is reality one might ask? Is it a mass hallucination? What is crazy? Is it belief in our own narcissistic endeavors? Why do we ask these questions? I know that for me, the mass of Americans seem to me to be degenerating more and more into idiocy. What was once a standard of civility in our Western Civilization, has now degenerated and degraded into obscenity. This common vulgar baseness is unbecoming for a country as Grand as the United States of America. But more and more as we live online in the world wide web, we have to ask is what we call reality a hallucination? Well think about vision! Our eyeballs actually see the world as upside down, and it isn't until the phenomena of consciousness gets to the brain that it flips it right side up. So is the reality that we're living upside down in a crazy world? it would seem so. As often times our representations relate to what amounts to a mass hallucination, I remain doubtful that what we call reality is the same thing as what Kant called the noumenon. In philosophy there's the dichotomy of phenomenon and noumenon. The phenomenon represents what we experience through our five senses. The noumenon would be the world apart from our representations of it. So therefore, the craziness of collectivism is finding itself ideologically incapable of accounting for the world as such. Being, is something to investigate phenomenologically. How is it that we know that we exist? How is it that we know there is such a thing as a world? How do we even know that what we consider to be reality is not an insanity that we inherited as a sinful human race? It would seem to me that if we analyze the phenomenon of experience, we find that much of it is suffering. And when we go through the world we can consider ourselves lucky and fortunate if we're not in a great degree of suffering. All life is suffering, experiencing pain. Experience of pain is something that you can phenomenologically think about, and analyze through circumspection. What is it like to be in immense pain? Interestingly enough I was speaking to my mother about the pain of childbirth, and she described it as something that seems to me to be central to God's creation. She said that it was an immense pain but there was a pleasure to it because she knew she was bringing a life into this world. So perhaps the utilitarian argument that pain and pleasure are a central dichotomy doesn't account for the unification of pleasure and pain that a woman experiences when giving birth to a son or daughter. Therefore I would say that creation itself is considered to be crazy by agnostics. They have every right to think that our understanding of creation is insane, because their vision of creation has nothing to do with God. As a matter of fact I'll come right out and say the theory of evolution is crazy. Look at it like this. It took eons and eons of slow but sure incremental steps to create a society as degenerated as our own. Does this really make sense? To me there seems to be an aspect of vanity in the whole eons and eons of time perspective. It may seem crazy, but I know the truth is that this world is not much older than 10,000 years, if that. If you really look at the theory of evolution as I haven't thank God, you'd see that it's a fairly self-aggrandizing theory. And people may say how can you say that's rational you must be crazy because we have evidence that the universe is millions of years old! This is something that I can't help repeat over and over, apart from God's creation of the flagella motor on a cellular level, which is radiocarbon dating is a flawed pseudoscience. Radiocarbon dating would seem to be the geological proof that my claim that the universe is about 10,000 years old if that is the really insane viewpoint. Crazy, right? I'm not going to reference Lucy here, but I will go on and on about this carbon fixation our science heads have. If we look at the global warming issue, we have to ask ourselves what is the nature of our environment when it comes to climate ecology? Well it has something to do with time, and eras of our society over long periods. So when we look at climate change, we must as republicans acknowledge that the climate is changing. However the climate has always been changing since our records started. It's undergone particularly cold ages and particularly warm ages. So this is proof of our planet Earth changing over time. Now take the example of radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating is the one science that they're leaning all of their eons in eons of evolution worldview upon. Because our science as we understand it in our post deconstructuralist age says that we can find the age of sediment and rocks, and that radio carbon dating applies to sediment and rocks proves that the world has been here longer than 10,000 years, which I'm telling you all right now is a fact. Well look at climate change and apply it to radio carbon dating. Radio carbon dating operates on one fundamental constant. this fundamental constant which is used to draw the scientific dates on how old rocks are in geology assumes that the temperature of the Sun has been the same forever. That's how they draw these numbers of eons and eons of rock life or whatever! They use the temperature of the Sun as a constant. So if we know that the Earth changes in temperature over long periods of time, wouldn't it be safe to say that radio carbon dating is flawed because there's a likelihood that the sun was vastly hotter for a number of years, and this is just a fact of life. The scientific psychiatric cartel, which is hedging its bets and some kind of intellectual authority which it never has and never will have, is mistaken on so many issues they have to know just how poor their science really is. They're living and promulgating a collective psychosis, a collectivist hallucination.
Rt Stillwell
Domestic democracy United
No comments:
Post a Comment