I endorse Thom Tillis for U.S. Senate, to represent NC in that dark city of Washinton D.C.
He is truly a breath of fresh air for this repub, and I know that with proper foresight and conviction he will clench the nomination and the office.
Endorsed by the National Rifle Association and given an A plus rating by said establishment, Thom Tillis gets not only my vote, but my sincere congratulations on his support given by the NRA. We need someone in Washington who can stop the persecution of rifle owners.
Tillis is not only the best candidate for the U.S. Senate, but achieves his status as top dog contender with the ease and grace of a true Christian - who GETS the ways of our fair state of North Carolina. He CAN win, WILL win, and deserves to win. The NRA has backed Tillis, ensuring all of us in his district that the conservative ascendancy is one of proportions nearing the true character of the south.
Tillis not only has aptly refused to respond to the insipidly stupid attack ads leveled at him so far in the lamestream media, but shows a real attitude of conviction of principle. I say OF, due to the fact that his principled stance on the second amendment shows he GETS IT. He gets what we care about, he gets what matters - the constitution - and he understands the true care and concern of the southerner typically.
If I see another attack ad, coupling his free enterprise philosophy with environmental "concerns-as-such", i may sincerely get angry. The union organized mafioso club-of-the-profane has spent their wad most likely already, trying to convince average citizens of North Carolina, USA, that future Senator Tillis is a crony capitalist dedicated to big industry. It's laughable, not to mention annoying for a hardworking joe or jane to have to sit through, however brief, whilst getting the weather at 6 and 7 p.m. EST. The unioners should halt these vicious and ill timed attack ads, lest they show their hand in the political game to be exactly what it is for millions of NCers - a sham parlor trick meant for decidedly middle class overeducated global warming nutbags. Lay off unions!
Thom Tillis is what NC needs, and this Tea Party patriot succinctly would like to endorse Tillis with the following:
"Do you want a fucking hippy communist senator, or would you like to vote for a true patriot and southern republican Christian? I don't care. VOTE TILLIS."
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
On The Conservative Character: Post-Deconstructionist Republicanism
Deconstructionism, otherwise known as post-moderninism, was basically the End of Philosophy-as-such. It was massively in vogue for many years, and has remained a cultural icon for many, including the counter-culture. Basically one can look at Po-Mo ideology as a hip european import, taken as true by the majority of academia for most of last century more or less by virtue of it's elite, hip, and altogether "cool" status as an anti-philosophy. One could, as a teacher, dismiss most of the philosophies of the continent throughout history by simply making a cursory reference to the current psychological sciences and physics-as-such.
However, we must all surely admit that Post-Modernism - given a nomenclature that seems decidedly futuristic - has run it's course and is now, like many philosophical movements of the past, merely another development in how Academics rationalize away the Christian truth of the Bible. It may have been all the rage for both exceedingly intelligent learned people and counter-cultural drop-outs looking for something to dote on whilst sipping latte's at their coffee den of choice; but we must all admit the truth: That Post-Modernism is dead.
We now live in an age of what could be called Post-Deconstructionism; that is, the era following the Post-Modernist time. It's a blithe term that I've coined, no doubt - and surely won't catch fire in academic circles or find anything approaching respectability; however, Post-Deconstructionist philosophy/theology is a force to be dealt with.
Think of Post-Deconstructionism as a return to the originators of Po-Mo ideology.
Hegel and Heidegger, for example.
Both of these decidedly Germanic philosophes are generally acknowledged to have spurned Po-Mo's initial conceptualization. Indeed, without Hegel and Heidegger there would be no Post-Modernism as is understood academically and, more to the point, in the works of Derrida - the author most closely tied to Post-Modernism's genesis.
If you are still wondering what I'm going on about this for, you could contrast the Po-Mo thinkers and authors with a philosopher I'm sure everyone is familiar with: Sartre. Obviously he was anti-thetical to Post-Modernism, and many Po-Mo authors spent a great deal of time making polemic assaults on Sartre the man as well as Sartre's works.
So all of this pointless analytical word salad is merely to bring to a head the main thrust of my argument, which I've made before in previous entries... that is, Po-Mo ideology-as-such is almost entirely atheistic while the authors who created works that inspired the very existence of Post-Modernism were very, very Christian. Hegel and Heidegger too centered their dialectic and ontology respectively around God-as-such. This is, despite the whining of many left wing black t-shirt clad Po-Mo cultists, an honest to goodness fact.
On a side note, to all of the readers of DDU's Politalk who may still be scratching their heads at the use of Heidegger, here is a short video of the man himself:
However, we must all surely admit that Post-Modernism - given a nomenclature that seems decidedly futuristic - has run it's course and is now, like many philosophical movements of the past, merely another development in how Academics rationalize away the Christian truth of the Bible. It may have been all the rage for both exceedingly intelligent learned people and counter-cultural drop-outs looking for something to dote on whilst sipping latte's at their coffee den of choice; but we must all admit the truth: That Post-Modernism is dead.
We now live in an age of what could be called Post-Deconstructionism; that is, the era following the Post-Modernist time. It's a blithe term that I've coined, no doubt - and surely won't catch fire in academic circles or find anything approaching respectability; however, Post-Deconstructionist philosophy/theology is a force to be dealt with.
Think of Post-Deconstructionism as a return to the originators of Po-Mo ideology.
Hegel and Heidegger, for example.
Both of these decidedly Germanic philosophes are generally acknowledged to have spurned Po-Mo's initial conceptualization. Indeed, without Hegel and Heidegger there would be no Post-Modernism as is understood academically and, more to the point, in the works of Derrida - the author most closely tied to Post-Modernism's genesis.
If you are still wondering what I'm going on about this for, you could contrast the Po-Mo thinkers and authors with a philosopher I'm sure everyone is familiar with: Sartre. Obviously he was anti-thetical to Post-Modernism, and many Po-Mo authors spent a great deal of time making polemic assaults on Sartre the man as well as Sartre's works.
So all of this pointless analytical word salad is merely to bring to a head the main thrust of my argument, which I've made before in previous entries... that is, Po-Mo ideology-as-such is almost entirely atheistic while the authors who created works that inspired the very existence of Post-Modernism were very, very Christian. Hegel and Heidegger too centered their dialectic and ontology respectively around God-as-such. This is, despite the whining of many left wing black t-shirt clad Po-Mo cultists, an honest to goodness fact.
On a side note, to all of the readers of DDU's Politalk who may still be scratching their heads at the use of Heidegger, here is a short video of the man himself:
How does all of this apply to Conservatism/Republicanism in America?
Simply as such;
The key tenet that defines Republicanism is the idea of a Bible centered culture, rather than a secular one. There may well be atheist republicans, such as author Tom Wolfe, but the key tenet of Republicanism is the christian ethic-as-such. The left looks at things in a far more holistic manner, in which Bible and Government are to remain explicitly and implicitly heterogeneous. They often loudly cite Ben Franklin's account of the separation of Church and State... However, the philosophical integrity that layeth behind the Republican Party's family friendly platform and image always has a pointed and oft' historically minded retort to almost all of the whiner progressive's qualms; in this instance, Ben Franklin is known, factually, to merely have been addressing the notion of having an official government religion. It is a far cry to say that this indicates that we must, say, remove the Pledge from the classroom as Dukakis did in the eighties.
For every ideological position of the Left, there is a bold and thorough philosophical retort.
But the left wing is so brazen that not only will they refuse to hear it; not only will they refuse to let us speak it to others; but they in fact silence any opposition whatsoever, most often through the media and academia.
Intelligence warrants that theology and philosophy be taken seriously.
But those on the left, as per Po-Mo cultism, disallow us to preach the truth by saying
a) Philosophy is dead.
b) The Bible is Myth.
The fact is, Democracy-as-such would never have taken off if Po-Mo ideology had been the existent philosophy of the Founding Fathers, etc.
Democracy requires purpose,
and purpose
requires
god.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Review of "George And Laura: Portrait Of An American Marriage"
No presidency has been as rife with controversy, conspiracy theories, polemical abuse, reactionary media bias and all around disdain from the Left as the Bush presidency. Recall the 2003/2007 fervor from the lamestream media against W. Everything from calling him a 'War Criminal' to lambasting all Christians as fundamentalist kooks. They made every attempt to dethrone W. from his presidency in 2003, and failed. This type of victory by the right should be analyzed by theoreticians of the political variety, as the 2016 election will undoubtedly receive the exact same level of unbiased media treatment.
Bush, one thing to note, probably took LSD according to the recent book "George and Laura". As a matter of fact, so did Laura Bush - more than likely. This is a bold claim, but "George and Laura" seems to hint at the fact that Laura bush went through a phase of wearing bellbottoms and tie-dyed shirts - and W. had a "wide-eyed" period where he almost certainly smoked SOME amount of marijuana and, as I said is indicated in "George and Laura", probably took hallucinogens. To historical sceptics, it does in fact note that all of his friends and compatriots have been quoted as saying that W. smoked no marijuana or took any hallucinogens, but as presented in "George and Laura" this is merely an indicator that this was a controversy laden issue, more than likely pointing to the fact that W. experimented with LSD in the 70's.
This was one of the most startling aspects of "George and Laura"... Just how rebellious both of these "squares" were in their early years. George obviously had his partying days, and Laura has been a social drinker for her entire life up until the present. However, the way in which their faiths coalesced in a purposive marriage after Laura Bush and George W. Bush met is a definitively awesome example of how two people can come together in a union of teleological prescience. I mean this by the way in which both of their lives came to a tip when they met, and continued to be a real blessed and graceful movement of teleological purposiveness for years and years, sinning or not.
An interesting aspect of the book that really presented something you wouldn't be able to find in Oliver Stone's treatment of their lives is the role Jenna and Barbara played in George W. Bush's presidency. Saddled with the same type of lifestyle W. had lived in his former years, they took being the president's children in the post-deconstructionist age with a fair amount of angst and even malice in regards to their role in history. Jenna AND Barbara were both caught at various points in the presidency drinking lavishly with fake I.D.'s and whooping it up to near promethean fervor, decidedly down and out about having to be in the limelight of the POTUS, with all of the controversy and press that this includes.
But on 9/11 everything changed, and Jenna and Barbara became far closer to their previously somewhat estranged parents. They started calling eachother every day. Making visits to the whitehouse where they had previously declined to do so.
Everything changed on 9/11.
However, by far the most fascinating tale told in "George and Laura" is the history of Laura Bush's family. It's as if Laura was ripped from the pages of a Flannery O'Connor novel and shoved into the light of full prestige. Her trip from humanitarian elementary school teacher, searching for Mr. Right, into the first lady of the U.S. is remarkable, if only as a tale of differance into being-alongside-others.
Anybody who perhaps has had a drink or drug before will find a great deal to revel over in "George and Laura", where the recounting of W.'s hard-partying days is far more humanized and sentimentalized than in the hit film/hit piece "W". Rollicking good ole' boy tumultuous revelry and a seemingly softer side to the greatest cowboy in history provides a tale of intrigue and evanescence - a story oft' ignored about Georgie's early years. From telling off color jokes to fights with George Sr. and including but not limited to about the hardest partying anyone this side of the mississippi can imagine in waking life, the recounting of W.'s early years is a joy for any political insider to drink up and wash with in the morning.
But there remain many key insights into the former first lady and POTUS himself that remain unique to "George and Laura: Portrait of an American Marriage".
1) W. was a class clown in elementary school.
2) Laura actually murdered her highschool sweetheart and got away with it!
3) W. was caught picking his nose on T.V. in the 80's.
4) Laura was originally a a southern Democrat, and never completely strayed from this kind of belief system.
5) W. became successful in school, business, and politics almost entirely due to his charisma and charm, playing mischievous pranks and caining pet names for people, always getting the laugh.
6) Laura took her experience as a teacher to launch literacy programs as first lady; a bright contrast to Ron Paul and ilk's "right to illiteracy" platform.
7) W. made so many off color jokes that it made people around him uncomfortable, an admirable quality in any christian.
8) George W. Bush went to bed almost every night at 9:00 pm, and got up every morning around 4:50 am to read the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. during his presidency.
"George and Laura" is a good buy for anyone looking for something other than the lamestream media bias about the previous POTUS, and I urge all interested parties to click this link and pick up a copy (on sale for next to nothing):
George And Laura: Portrait Of An American Marriage
Bush, one thing to note, probably took LSD according to the recent book "George and Laura". As a matter of fact, so did Laura Bush - more than likely. This is a bold claim, but "George and Laura" seems to hint at the fact that Laura bush went through a phase of wearing bellbottoms and tie-dyed shirts - and W. had a "wide-eyed" period where he almost certainly smoked SOME amount of marijuana and, as I said is indicated in "George and Laura", probably took hallucinogens. To historical sceptics, it does in fact note that all of his friends and compatriots have been quoted as saying that W. smoked no marijuana or took any hallucinogens, but as presented in "George and Laura" this is merely an indicator that this was a controversy laden issue, more than likely pointing to the fact that W. experimented with LSD in the 70's.
This was one of the most startling aspects of "George and Laura"... Just how rebellious both of these "squares" were in their early years. George obviously had his partying days, and Laura has been a social drinker for her entire life up until the present. However, the way in which their faiths coalesced in a purposive marriage after Laura Bush and George W. Bush met is a definitively awesome example of how two people can come together in a union of teleological prescience. I mean this by the way in which both of their lives came to a tip when they met, and continued to be a real blessed and graceful movement of teleological purposiveness for years and years, sinning or not.
An interesting aspect of the book that really presented something you wouldn't be able to find in Oliver Stone's treatment of their lives is the role Jenna and Barbara played in George W. Bush's presidency. Saddled with the same type of lifestyle W. had lived in his former years, they took being the president's children in the post-deconstructionist age with a fair amount of angst and even malice in regards to their role in history. Jenna AND Barbara were both caught at various points in the presidency drinking lavishly with fake I.D.'s and whooping it up to near promethean fervor, decidedly down and out about having to be in the limelight of the POTUS, with all of the controversy and press that this includes.
But on 9/11 everything changed, and Jenna and Barbara became far closer to their previously somewhat estranged parents. They started calling eachother every day. Making visits to the whitehouse where they had previously declined to do so.
Everything changed on 9/11.
However, by far the most fascinating tale told in "George and Laura" is the history of Laura Bush's family. It's as if Laura was ripped from the pages of a Flannery O'Connor novel and shoved into the light of full prestige. Her trip from humanitarian elementary school teacher, searching for Mr. Right, into the first lady of the U.S. is remarkable, if only as a tale of differance into being-alongside-others.
Anybody who perhaps has had a drink or drug before will find a great deal to revel over in "George and Laura", where the recounting of W.'s hard-partying days is far more humanized and sentimentalized than in the hit film/hit piece "W". Rollicking good ole' boy tumultuous revelry and a seemingly softer side to the greatest cowboy in history provides a tale of intrigue and evanescence - a story oft' ignored about Georgie's early years. From telling off color jokes to fights with George Sr. and including but not limited to about the hardest partying anyone this side of the mississippi can imagine in waking life, the recounting of W.'s early years is a joy for any political insider to drink up and wash with in the morning.
But there remain many key insights into the former first lady and POTUS himself that remain unique to "George and Laura: Portrait of an American Marriage".
1) W. was a class clown in elementary school.
2) Laura actually murdered her highschool sweetheart and got away with it!
3) W. was caught picking his nose on T.V. in the 80's.
4) Laura was originally a a southern Democrat, and never completely strayed from this kind of belief system.
5) W. became successful in school, business, and politics almost entirely due to his charisma and charm, playing mischievous pranks and caining pet names for people, always getting the laugh.
6) Laura took her experience as a teacher to launch literacy programs as first lady; a bright contrast to Ron Paul and ilk's "right to illiteracy" platform.
7) W. made so many off color jokes that it made people around him uncomfortable, an admirable quality in any christian.
8) George W. Bush went to bed almost every night at 9:00 pm, and got up every morning around 4:50 am to read the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. during his presidency.
"George and Laura" is a good buy for anyone looking for something other than the lamestream media bias about the previous POTUS, and I urge all interested parties to click this link and pick up a copy (on sale for next to nothing):
George And Laura: Portrait Of An American Marriage
Friday, March 21, 2014
Hippocrates: Emboldened Sage Demon
Hippocrates, known for his pagan oathe required by all doctors of medicine, is truly an emblem of the taxation and misrepresentation engendered by modern healthcare intrusion. Intrusion into the lives of everyday people, in that we now must have a doctor in the house - and that doctor is bound by a pagan oathe, the hippocratic oathe.
There are some in the Christian community who view the conflagration between the bible and pagan Greek philosophy as something resolved by thinkers such as Aquinas and Augustine. This is a grim farce.
The fact is, pagan Greek philosophy and Christian philosophy are diametrically opposed.
This was resolved by many of the recent thinkers in post-modernism, but also profoundly disputed by myself in the following respect:
Thinkers in pagan Greek philosophy believed in, to all you doubters, what is referred to as "polytheism" - according to many postmodern thinkers as well as christian fundamentalists this in no way comports with Christianity, proper.
I've met some in the institutional bureaucracy that is healthcare who truly have a refined faith in completely refuted philosophers such as Aquinas and Augustine - they are dead wrong.
And to take a pagan oathe upon becoming a minister of health is far from appropriate in a Christian nation such as the U.S.A. -
but this is really the "former U.S.A." as doctors are now, in some sense, arbiters of our everyday lives!
It's a crying shame, and one which should surely be revealed as what it is in-and-for-itself... an ancient pagan game of lecherous proportions. Why not add a leach to my abdomen?
Pagans really were engaged in an evil act - Polytheism.
Christianity really DOES need to be first and foremost when it comes to the administration of Health-as-such!
The fact is, nerds suck!
DDU 2013 R.T. Stillwell
There are some in the Christian community who view the conflagration between the bible and pagan Greek philosophy as something resolved by thinkers such as Aquinas and Augustine. This is a grim farce.
The fact is, pagan Greek philosophy and Christian philosophy are diametrically opposed.
This was resolved by many of the recent thinkers in post-modernism, but also profoundly disputed by myself in the following respect:
Thinkers in pagan Greek philosophy believed in, to all you doubters, what is referred to as "polytheism" - according to many postmodern thinkers as well as christian fundamentalists this in no way comports with Christianity, proper.
I've met some in the institutional bureaucracy that is healthcare who truly have a refined faith in completely refuted philosophers such as Aquinas and Augustine - they are dead wrong.
And to take a pagan oathe upon becoming a minister of health is far from appropriate in a Christian nation such as the U.S.A. -
but this is really the "former U.S.A." as doctors are now, in some sense, arbiters of our everyday lives!
It's a crying shame, and one which should surely be revealed as what it is in-and-for-itself... an ancient pagan game of lecherous proportions. Why not add a leach to my abdomen?
Pagans really were engaged in an evil act - Polytheism.
Christianity really DOES need to be first and foremost when it comes to the administration of Health-as-such!
The fact is, nerds suck!
DDU 2013 R.T. Stillwell
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
In Support of Chris Christie
DDU believes that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie makes an astounding candidate for the presidential bid in 2016. He will continue to garner widespread support from the republican constituency and mainstream voter base, and hopefully ride the tide into a great victory for the Republican party in 2016.
Chris Christie has two things that make a president great; both of which are controversial but all too true.
1. Bridges, bridges and bridges.
2. Bridges, bridges and bridges.
I mean, let's face it ~
A leader who can shut down infrastructure at his political whim is the kind of leader we want to enact revenge on the democrat party for 8 years of social justice activism, massive taxation and a legacy of tyranny. We need a president with resolve, on who is willing to do the dirty work that it takes to get this country going great again - not some left wing whiny baby with penis envy, am I right?
A leader who can effectively cause significant harm to the constituencies of the left? That's the kind of leader I want running our country! One who can shut down bridges, close roads, cancel building permits, make dems feel uncomfortable and out of place etc. We need someone who can bring the stigma, and make it stick ~ and Christie can do it.
One thing about Christie that has been underplayed in the newsmedia is his devout Christianity. He is a profoundly Christian leader, who offered his unequivocal support to one of our nation's most Christian leaders of late in his 2000 POTUS run, George W. Bush. He and former President Bush share one thing in common, despite their notably different dialects: They both put God first and foremost, and politics second.
We need a leader who can get the job done, send em home and pay the bills. A big boss, who can keep the busses running on time and keep the schedule in order. Not some wimpy know it all with a penchant for the radical.
Hillary Clinton's honors thesis was "An Analysis of the Alinsky Model" - that is, an analysis of the author of "Rules for Radicals" who dedicated the book to "Lucifer... the first radical".
Big government with it's little hidden world is NOT what we need more of. What we need more of is governance, New Jersey style.
And what a losing game the lamestream media will play in spinning a Christie presidency! I can see it already. SNL making fun of New Jersey residents as white trash. Off color remarks his weight. Using that image to present him as a crony capitalist! It's so perfect... perfect for the dems to lose in 2016.
I can see why Ann Coulter was an early Christie supporter!
DDU Founder and Member, Brendan O'Connell
Chris Christie has two things that make a president great; both of which are controversial but all too true.
1. Bridges, bridges and bridges.
2. Bridges, bridges and bridges.
I mean, let's face it ~
A leader who can shut down infrastructure at his political whim is the kind of leader we want to enact revenge on the democrat party for 8 years of social justice activism, massive taxation and a legacy of tyranny. We need a president with resolve, on who is willing to do the dirty work that it takes to get this country going great again - not some left wing whiny baby with penis envy, am I right?
A leader who can effectively cause significant harm to the constituencies of the left? That's the kind of leader I want running our country! One who can shut down bridges, close roads, cancel building permits, make dems feel uncomfortable and out of place etc. We need someone who can bring the stigma, and make it stick ~ and Christie can do it.
One thing about Christie that has been underplayed in the newsmedia is his devout Christianity. He is a profoundly Christian leader, who offered his unequivocal support to one of our nation's most Christian leaders of late in his 2000 POTUS run, George W. Bush. He and former President Bush share one thing in common, despite their notably different dialects: They both put God first and foremost, and politics second.
We need a leader who can get the job done, send em home and pay the bills. A big boss, who can keep the busses running on time and keep the schedule in order. Not some wimpy know it all with a penchant for the radical.
Hillary Clinton's honors thesis was "An Analysis of the Alinsky Model" - that is, an analysis of the author of "Rules for Radicals" who dedicated the book to "Lucifer... the first radical".
Big government with it's little hidden world is NOT what we need more of. What we need more of is governance, New Jersey style.
And what a losing game the lamestream media will play in spinning a Christie presidency! I can see it already. SNL making fun of New Jersey residents as white trash. Off color remarks his weight. Using that image to present him as a crony capitalist! It's so perfect... perfect for the dems to lose in 2016.
I can see why Ann Coulter was an early Christie supporter!
DDU Founder and Member, Brendan O'Connell
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Why Liberalism is Wrong: A Tiresome Dialectic
Liberalism is wrong because of it's ideologically derived affinity for misunderstanding. Misunderstanding of such basic and primordial terms as "caring" and "coping" and "Concern".
Concern-as-such isn't merely a knee jerk worrisome reaction to an other, but a nuanced and complex way of being-in-the-world. Reason-in-itself dictates that words have not just a representative meaning, not just a meaning in which we bestow the meaning with virtue, but that the representative meaning corresponds to or, in-fact, IS the object of consciousness. There is no reason to delimit the meaning of words to one's own inadequately synthesized understanding-for-itself, a priori.
The truth of "coping" is that it is not a slavish and immoral basic-being-as-such that needs to be civilized into an entity, in a ontical sense, in which appropriate behavior (as per behaviorism) is capable of being known or embodied. Coping is, in fact, nothing progressive...
To cope, as liberalism believes is a slavish inadequate form of being-in-the-world-as-such, is merely to be in a world in which one realizes their own spirit as the definitive form-as-such of an image of Hosana-in-itself. The fallenness of being-alongside-others defines the terms of a priori synthesis in-itself and for-itself, as the Being of the world is an ontical image of the Absolute individual. If coping were something, as liberalism believes, to be stopped then this comporting of linguistic formulae - as in ideological contrivance - would be an untrue and ungodly faux pas of ethical understanding as per the post-modern and post-deconstructionist infrastructure in-and-of-itself.
Liberalism adheres to ideology in that it takes the means to be an end for-the-sake-of-which one's own fleeting sense of recompense to Hosana is nil, and there need be no repentance in-and-for-itself.
One is quick to repentance, it is said, precisely because of the fallenness of being-in-the-world and the world-in-and-of-itself.
One is reluctant to repent due to, more often than not, one's own sense of ideological prescience.
Liberalism is wrong exactly due to the fact that ideological adherence is no guarantee of philosophical ontological authority!
Why does one, as per liberalism, make amends to a means with which the a priori synthesis has no verstehen of the ends-for-the-means? Why sacrifice anything at all? Sacrifice is no service, no care nor concern. Sacrifice is merely a way of getting beyond the limits of one's own ultimate Absolute Being-in-the-world!
If one was to say coping is what one needs to move beyond, then one implicitly denies the teleological authority needed for authentic Care-as-such. If one moves beyond the limits of one's own innate and inherently fallen Being, the ontico-ontological priority of repentance becomes a melodrama of inappropriate one-in-all Universalism.
One can never be all.
All-for-one is only an absolutely singular end delimiting the means of itself.
So, as-such, one can only truly be just if one takes into account the way in which the philosophy of the left is self-defeating.
A self defeating philosophical priority to it's own means-in-and-for-itself.
...and the ends never justify the means!
DDU 2014
R.T.
"VOTE CHRISTIE"
-Brendan O'Connell, DDU FOUNDER AND MEMBER
Concern-as-such isn't merely a knee jerk worrisome reaction to an other, but a nuanced and complex way of being-in-the-world. Reason-in-itself dictates that words have not just a representative meaning, not just a meaning in which we bestow the meaning with virtue, but that the representative meaning corresponds to or, in-fact, IS the object of consciousness. There is no reason to delimit the meaning of words to one's own inadequately synthesized understanding-for-itself, a priori.
The truth of "coping" is that it is not a slavish and immoral basic-being-as-such that needs to be civilized into an entity, in a ontical sense, in which appropriate behavior (as per behaviorism) is capable of being known or embodied. Coping is, in fact, nothing progressive...
To cope, as liberalism believes is a slavish inadequate form of being-in-the-world-as-such, is merely to be in a world in which one realizes their own spirit as the definitive form-as-such of an image of Hosana-in-itself. The fallenness of being-alongside-others defines the terms of a priori synthesis in-itself and for-itself, as the Being of the world is an ontical image of the Absolute individual. If coping were something, as liberalism believes, to be stopped then this comporting of linguistic formulae - as in ideological contrivance - would be an untrue and ungodly faux pas of ethical understanding as per the post-modern and post-deconstructionist infrastructure in-and-of-itself.
Liberalism adheres to ideology in that it takes the means to be an end for-the-sake-of-which one's own fleeting sense of recompense to Hosana is nil, and there need be no repentance in-and-for-itself.
One is quick to repentance, it is said, precisely because of the fallenness of being-in-the-world and the world-in-and-of-itself.
One is reluctant to repent due to, more often than not, one's own sense of ideological prescience.
Liberalism is wrong exactly due to the fact that ideological adherence is no guarantee of philosophical ontological authority!
Why does one, as per liberalism, make amends to a means with which the a priori synthesis has no verstehen of the ends-for-the-means? Why sacrifice anything at all? Sacrifice is no service, no care nor concern. Sacrifice is merely a way of getting beyond the limits of one's own ultimate Absolute Being-in-the-world!
If one was to say coping is what one needs to move beyond, then one implicitly denies the teleological authority needed for authentic Care-as-such. If one moves beyond the limits of one's own innate and inherently fallen Being, the ontico-ontological priority of repentance becomes a melodrama of inappropriate one-in-all Universalism.
One can never be all.
All-for-one is only an absolutely singular end delimiting the means of itself.
So, as-such, one can only truly be just if one takes into account the way in which the philosophy of the left is self-defeating.
A self defeating philosophical priority to it's own means-in-and-for-itself.
...and the ends never justify the means!
DDU 2014
R.T.
"VOTE CHRISTIE"
-Brendan O'Connell, DDU FOUNDER AND MEMBER
Thursday, February 27, 2014
The Department of Health and Human Services Needs To Be Stopped
DHHS is not only out of it's mind with it's intent for the peoples of this country, but almost surely acting unconstitutionally and nearly of an instinctually pathological mindset as an institution. This department, which Domestic Democracy United feels should be defunded as soon as possible, has no care for everyday ordinary citizens whatsoever. The irony is, it's unconstitutional actions and reformations are all sold on the basis of this 'care' for people - yet DHHS is merely another bloated wet dream of those fanatics in D.C. The Department of Health and Human Services needs to be stopped.
Obviously, there is something far more sinister behind it's decision to attempt to mandate prophylactics' dissemination in institutions of the religious variety. What could it be?
One word: Eugenics.
We as North Carolinians need to tell the DHHS to "go home", as in our state Eugenics is explicitly forbidden. And as far as I remember, certain religious organizations are forbidden by doctrine to have anything to do with contraception.
It reminds me of one of the texts I saw in my short attempt at taking the current farce that is Big Education seriously for brief time: A BIO 110 textbook which stated that "the world is overpopulated and needs to be depopulated due to environmental concerns".
They, the higher ups in the DHHS, can claim that sexual concerns require sexual education and free condoms and subsidized abortions if they like; but we, the citizens of North Carolina, know for a fact that the only thing that makes a substantive difference is promotion of Abstinence before marriage.
They, the social engineers who have run amok in our country for the last 6 years, can claim that contraception is promoted to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy, but I - founder of DDU - know the awful truth behind this practice of eugenics...
That is, that more condoms being given out at places of employment etc. is actually a 'population control' procedure; which amounts, unequivocally, to eugenics.
Everyone knows that teaching abstinence is the only correct policy. Sex Ed and other DHHS wet dreams that I won't bother mentioning at the moment by virtue of the fact that it would be far too controversial, are not only stupidly created, not only inappropriate for workplaces and schools, but actually detrimental to society's morals, standards and well being; a sentiment the viciously wicked cartel known as the Department of Health and Human Services claims to have in mind when forcing normal godfearing Christians to take part in their almost humorously vacuous 'condom campaign'.
I'm reticent to mention eugenics, as it can be a touchy issue; especially for those who actively believe in the very existent 'academic eugenics' ideology. But the fact is, it's a touchy issue not by virtue of it's existence in schools, workplaces and philosophy - but because of the fact that some higher ups on the Left believe that promoting eugenics secretly is so important that those who speak out against it should be marginalized.
Just as per collectivism, any attempt to indict someone implicitly in agreement with eugenics is met with denial, obfuscation and the kind of bobbing and weaving one expects from a boxer!
Take for example noted Hegel scholar and aussie extraordinaire Peter Singer.
His ideology is a perfect example of eugenics:
He believes that animals are actually more important than humans (save the trees etc), that live human babies should be allowed to be murdered after they're born, and that - of all things - Hegel's dialectic is one of historical evolution.
I'm kidding of course...
But the fact is, every so often one of these elite intellectuals are discovered as holding similarly eugenicist views - Why let these eggheads run our government?
Why let some sick freak make our Churches into little public institutions?
Why let the DHHS have any more of our tax money?
DEFUND DHHS! NOW!
DDU 2014 - Brendan O'Connell
Founder and Member of Domestic Democracy United
Obviously, there is something far more sinister behind it's decision to attempt to mandate prophylactics' dissemination in institutions of the religious variety. What could it be?
One word: Eugenics.
We as North Carolinians need to tell the DHHS to "go home", as in our state Eugenics is explicitly forbidden. And as far as I remember, certain religious organizations are forbidden by doctrine to have anything to do with contraception.
It reminds me of one of the texts I saw in my short attempt at taking the current farce that is Big Education seriously for brief time: A BIO 110 textbook which stated that "the world is overpopulated and needs to be depopulated due to environmental concerns".
They, the higher ups in the DHHS, can claim that sexual concerns require sexual education and free condoms and subsidized abortions if they like; but we, the citizens of North Carolina, know for a fact that the only thing that makes a substantive difference is promotion of Abstinence before marriage.
They, the social engineers who have run amok in our country for the last 6 years, can claim that contraception is promoted to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy, but I - founder of DDU - know the awful truth behind this practice of eugenics...
That is, that more condoms being given out at places of employment etc. is actually a 'population control' procedure; which amounts, unequivocally, to eugenics.
Everyone knows that teaching abstinence is the only correct policy. Sex Ed and other DHHS wet dreams that I won't bother mentioning at the moment by virtue of the fact that it would be far too controversial, are not only stupidly created, not only inappropriate for workplaces and schools, but actually detrimental to society's morals, standards and well being; a sentiment the viciously wicked cartel known as the Department of Health and Human Services claims to have in mind when forcing normal godfearing Christians to take part in their almost humorously vacuous 'condom campaign'.
I'm reticent to mention eugenics, as it can be a touchy issue; especially for those who actively believe in the very existent 'academic eugenics' ideology. But the fact is, it's a touchy issue not by virtue of it's existence in schools, workplaces and philosophy - but because of the fact that some higher ups on the Left believe that promoting eugenics secretly is so important that those who speak out against it should be marginalized.
Just as per collectivism, any attempt to indict someone implicitly in agreement with eugenics is met with denial, obfuscation and the kind of bobbing and weaving one expects from a boxer!
Take for example noted Hegel scholar and aussie extraordinaire Peter Singer.
His ideology is a perfect example of eugenics:
He believes that animals are actually more important than humans (save the trees etc), that live human babies should be allowed to be murdered after they're born, and that - of all things - Hegel's dialectic is one of historical evolution.
I'm kidding of course...
But the fact is, every so often one of these elite intellectuals are discovered as holding similarly eugenicist views - Why let these eggheads run our government?
Why let some sick freak make our Churches into little public institutions?
Why let the DHHS have any more of our tax money?
DEFUND DHHS! NOW!
DDU 2014 - Brendan O'Connell
Founder and Member of Domestic Democracy United
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
A Letter to a Ukrainian Dissident
Dear Ukrainian dissident,
I've been flattered by people in your country frequenting my blog page, presumably due to the protest movement in your country's need for an authentic philosophy of the west. I wish I could offer anything substantive, but what I've coined "Domestic Democracy United" is just that - a domestic organization. I rarely address the tumult of the overseas world, precisely because of the fact that all I know for sure are the long stretches of the U.S. interstate, the legacy of our founding fathers, and my own inadequately educated understanding of what I intuit democracy to be in-and-for-itself. However, it bequeaths me to address these deadly clashes that have been escalating in your country, of which I know little beyond the fires, tear gas, and relation to the former U.S.S.R. - Russia. It is not only a bold decision to ardently oppose seeming annexation by "mother Russia", but a wise one politically. It can be hard to stand in contrary poise to such an overwhelming enemy, perhaps deadly - but you can stand as such with the truth of your convictions, the philosophy of the right and correct, and the will of the Almighty decidedly on your side. However, perhaps the Che flags are, how do I put it, a terrible choice. This sort of protest, with the liberalism and communism that it entails, is far from what is needed in what is essentially a fledgling democracy movement and I condemn the use of such communism as a hypocritical and self defeating tactic. However, one must note that there are certain "fringe elements" in any protest movement, and you would do well to distance your own movement from that of the international communist conspiracy, that uses any opportunity to advance it's cause. What seems most touching about your practically suicidal struggle is that you stand in opposition to Russia. Why? Is it due to some long standing grudge? A history of conflict with said nation? A need for opposition to the Goliath of the east? I would simply note that you are right to oppose such a needless use of the former U.S.S.R.'s iron fist - which is far from just, righteous or even remotely capable of anything approaching sovereignty. Take a key from the Tea Party! Throw Russian products into a river or some such thing! And I'm still very interested in why exactly Russia-as-such feels the need to dictate over a country that it has no dominion over... Stinks to high heaven in my book, and Domestic Democracy United stands by your principled stance. With a little good luck and the will of the Lord of Hosts on your side, you may yet achieve victory for your cause, albeit a limited one that has almost no hope of a peaceful outcome. Camus once said, "The only philosophical question of any importance is that of suicide." You'd do well to take this seriously, if only as an ontology. Russia has always been an inherently communist country. It's claim to having gotten over that period of it's history is the equivalent of enemy propaganda rolling over the picket line. The cold war isn't over, and despite the left's inability to stand up to or admit of Russia's "Commie Problem", DDU 2014 stands with you in your struggle. The American right had made a commitment to helping nation's like yours stand in opposition to Russia, and while the current administration may founder in this instance, I'm sure you can take some solace that portion's of the American Republican Party stand with you and believe, in the absence of those ridiculous Che Guevara flags, that you are 'in the right'.
Thanks!
Brendan O'Connell, Domestic Democracy United: Founder and Member
Suggested reading:
GWF Hegel "Philosophy of Right"
Joseph Farrah "The Tea Party Manifesto"
Heidegger "Zein und Zeit"
Rush Limbaugh "Rush Revere"
I've been flattered by people in your country frequenting my blog page, presumably due to the protest movement in your country's need for an authentic philosophy of the west. I wish I could offer anything substantive, but what I've coined "Domestic Democracy United" is just that - a domestic organization. I rarely address the tumult of the overseas world, precisely because of the fact that all I know for sure are the long stretches of the U.S. interstate, the legacy of our founding fathers, and my own inadequately educated understanding of what I intuit democracy to be in-and-for-itself. However, it bequeaths me to address these deadly clashes that have been escalating in your country, of which I know little beyond the fires, tear gas, and relation to the former U.S.S.R. - Russia. It is not only a bold decision to ardently oppose seeming annexation by "mother Russia", but a wise one politically. It can be hard to stand in contrary poise to such an overwhelming enemy, perhaps deadly - but you can stand as such with the truth of your convictions, the philosophy of the right and correct, and the will of the Almighty decidedly on your side. However, perhaps the Che flags are, how do I put it, a terrible choice. This sort of protest, with the liberalism and communism that it entails, is far from what is needed in what is essentially a fledgling democracy movement and I condemn the use of such communism as a hypocritical and self defeating tactic. However, one must note that there are certain "fringe elements" in any protest movement, and you would do well to distance your own movement from that of the international communist conspiracy, that uses any opportunity to advance it's cause. What seems most touching about your practically suicidal struggle is that you stand in opposition to Russia. Why? Is it due to some long standing grudge? A history of conflict with said nation? A need for opposition to the Goliath of the east? I would simply note that you are right to oppose such a needless use of the former U.S.S.R.'s iron fist - which is far from just, righteous or even remotely capable of anything approaching sovereignty. Take a key from the Tea Party! Throw Russian products into a river or some such thing! And I'm still very interested in why exactly Russia-as-such feels the need to dictate over a country that it has no dominion over... Stinks to high heaven in my book, and Domestic Democracy United stands by your principled stance. With a little good luck and the will of the Lord of Hosts on your side, you may yet achieve victory for your cause, albeit a limited one that has almost no hope of a peaceful outcome. Camus once said, "The only philosophical question of any importance is that of suicide." You'd do well to take this seriously, if only as an ontology. Russia has always been an inherently communist country. It's claim to having gotten over that period of it's history is the equivalent of enemy propaganda rolling over the picket line. The cold war isn't over, and despite the left's inability to stand up to or admit of Russia's "Commie Problem", DDU 2014 stands with you in your struggle. The American right had made a commitment to helping nation's like yours stand in opposition to Russia, and while the current administration may founder in this instance, I'm sure you can take some solace that portion's of the American Republican Party stand with you and believe, in the absence of those ridiculous Che Guevara flags, that you are 'in the right'.
Thanks!
Brendan O'Connell, Domestic Democracy United: Founder and Member
Suggested reading:
GWF Hegel "Philosophy of Right"
Joseph Farrah "The Tea Party Manifesto"
Heidegger "Zein und Zeit"
Rush Limbaugh "Rush Revere"
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Unions: Raw Facts
Some facts about public/private sector labor unions:
"Nationwide, unions collect some $14 billion a year in dues, more than half of which comes from government employees."
"I think that one of the reasons Gray Davis was recalled in 2003 was his cave in to unions. He accepted a $500,000 contribution from the prison gaurds' union immediately before he signed a bill massively increasing their benefits."
- Jon Coupal
"Dues money and union power were the real issue in" the effort to recall me. 'After it became clear we were serious about our union reforms... the union leaders couldn't wait to throw their members under the bus by saying they could live with higher contributions for health and pension benefits, but they would not bend on collective bargaining or dues deductions"
- Scott Walker
"...it is well recognized that if you take away the mechanism of payroll deduction, you won't collect a penny from these people, and it has nothing to do with the nature of the beast, and the beasts who are our teachers...simply don't come up with money regardless of purpose."
- Robert Chanin
The unions collect "more revenue than 65 percent of the Fortune 500 companies, giving unions huge money to spend on politics-almost all of which goes to Democrats."
- Mallory Factor
"...under current law, the unions have a guaranteed income stream that can threaten political leaders and bring them to heel."
- John Fund
Unions are the number one problem in the U.S. domestically when viewed in terms of their disproportionate influence on public-sector employees. One would have to wonder, what are the real effects of public-sector unions when it comes to homeland security? Do unions make their influence known in the NSA? Do government workers, both small and large, really have to bend to their overwhelming presence in the workplace?
We generally think of unions in cliche'd ways - at the docks, down by the waterfront...
But compare that nostalgia with the NEA!
That is the National Education Association.
Do we really allow the NEA to control our children's education?
If so, for the love of god WHY?
It's not as if unions have any accountability!
They were guilty of all kinds of misappropriation of justice during the 2008 POTUS election; bussing in dispassionate voters in union vans... even forcing workers who were members of the labor union to drive the busses and round them up!
Forget that unions have one thing in mind: money, and you forget where real corruption layeth.
We're always told by the left about the travesty of ethics that is the free market and the much demonized and vilified "corporation" - they make the claim that they are unethical. Yet is not business ethics a mandatory class in business administration education? Are we really to believe that the management and administration of a corporation is - honestly - particularly unethical?
I don't buy it.
But unions, public and private sector, are intrinsically unethical - de facto!
with unions, it's "all about the money" according to NR columnist John Fund...
"After his victory in the recall election, Governor Shwarzenegger resurrected Wilson's ballot initiative to end automatic dues deduction, a move he said would break the stranglehold unions have over legislature and the budget. But he was too outspent..."
- John Fund
I remind the reader that unions are so prevalent in government that even our own "right to work" state of North Carolina has a union office right downtown Raleigh - The AFL-CIO.
What is the real influence of unions in our fair state?
I say, the repub party should look at fighting unions' influence through massive legislation after the immigration issue subsides - I mean after all, the real danger of Obamacare is implicitly related to the unionization of healthcare!
Thanks for reading!
DDU 2014
DDU 2014
"Nationwide, unions collect some $14 billion a year in dues, more than half of which comes from government employees."
"I think that one of the reasons Gray Davis was recalled in 2003 was his cave in to unions. He accepted a $500,000 contribution from the prison gaurds' union immediately before he signed a bill massively increasing their benefits."
- Jon Coupal
"Dues money and union power were the real issue in" the effort to recall me. 'After it became clear we were serious about our union reforms... the union leaders couldn't wait to throw their members under the bus by saying they could live with higher contributions for health and pension benefits, but they would not bend on collective bargaining or dues deductions"
- Scott Walker
"...it is well recognized that if you take away the mechanism of payroll deduction, you won't collect a penny from these people, and it has nothing to do with the nature of the beast, and the beasts who are our teachers...simply don't come up with money regardless of purpose."
- Robert Chanin
The unions collect "more revenue than 65 percent of the Fortune 500 companies, giving unions huge money to spend on politics-almost all of which goes to Democrats."
- Mallory Factor
"...under current law, the unions have a guaranteed income stream that can threaten political leaders and bring them to heel."
- John Fund
Unions are the number one problem in the U.S. domestically when viewed in terms of their disproportionate influence on public-sector employees. One would have to wonder, what are the real effects of public-sector unions when it comes to homeland security? Do unions make their influence known in the NSA? Do government workers, both small and large, really have to bend to their overwhelming presence in the workplace?
We generally think of unions in cliche'd ways - at the docks, down by the waterfront...
But compare that nostalgia with the NEA!
That is the National Education Association.
Do we really allow the NEA to control our children's education?
If so, for the love of god WHY?
It's not as if unions have any accountability!
They were guilty of all kinds of misappropriation of justice during the 2008 POTUS election; bussing in dispassionate voters in union vans... even forcing workers who were members of the labor union to drive the busses and round them up!
Forget that unions have one thing in mind: money, and you forget where real corruption layeth.
We're always told by the left about the travesty of ethics that is the free market and the much demonized and vilified "corporation" - they make the claim that they are unethical. Yet is not business ethics a mandatory class in business administration education? Are we really to believe that the management and administration of a corporation is - honestly - particularly unethical?
I don't buy it.
But unions, public and private sector, are intrinsically unethical - de facto!
with unions, it's "all about the money" according to NR columnist John Fund...
"After his victory in the recall election, Governor Shwarzenegger resurrected Wilson's ballot initiative to end automatic dues deduction, a move he said would break the stranglehold unions have over legislature and the budget. But he was too outspent..."
- John Fund
I remind the reader that unions are so prevalent in government that even our own "right to work" state of North Carolina has a union office right downtown Raleigh - The AFL-CIO.
What is the real influence of unions in our fair state?
I say, the repub party should look at fighting unions' influence through massive legislation after the immigration issue subsides - I mean after all, the real danger of Obamacare is implicitly related to the unionization of healthcare!
Thanks for reading!
DDU 2014
DDU 2014
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Dirty Laundry: Collectivism?
Collectivism as defined by Webster, psychological and sociological disciplines and critics of the mere mention of an anti-collectivist philosophy-as-such has little relevant meaning to the dire, and dear to me, dangers incurred to Western Civilization by virtue of Collectivism as an ideological fixture-in-itself.
Collectivism simply means group-mind over individual-spirit.
How is this problematic and, indeed, definitively dangerous for Citizens of the U.S.?
I'll answer this, bearing my recent article "What Is Psychical Energy and How Is It Inherently Evil?" in mind, with a short list of Collectivism-as-such's DIRTY LAUNDRY:
Collectivists, along with many adherents to the false god of ideology-in-itself, deny the positions of the heart-as-such and characteristic being-alongside-others, the intention of their circumstance, their own genuine beliefs and morays not to mention anything that could be deemed questionable in-itself. If questioned on authentic platform positions and posturing regarding their politik, a Collectivist will inevitably seek to obfuscate rather than shine a light upon their intents, a priori moral equivocations, and - not to be too trite and brutish with language - their "ends-as-such". What are the ends of Collectivism? One thing, in-and-of-itself... heaven on earth.
Collectivism, by seeking to eliminate all opposition, clearly reveals what makes the "means-as-such" of ideology-in-itself and collectivism in-and-of-itself so devastatingly destructive to any opposition in the U.S.
That is - the alpha character-as-such and how collectivism's ramifications engender this character upon unwilling participants in a schemata which knowingly places it's adherents in bondage-for-itself.
Collectivism, unlike Individualism-in-itself, is not only loathe to take any role in a society other than that of the Alpha and Omega; but, in fact is incapable of it. When put in a subordinate position, Collectivists thrash about like wounded bears on LSD.
It leads to many personal problems for MANY people!
Think of shootings, merciless and destructive and cruel as they are...
Shootings are, more often than not, the result of frustrated, annoyed and uncontrollably tumultuous collectivism in-itself and for-itself, or in-and-of-itself! It's a fact.
Let's move on to the next central swatch of soiled linen - I won't take a minute of your time...
Collectivism engenders group-think, which is - in lue of my "What Is Psychical Energy..." piece - not only inappropriate for workplaces, a degenerative force on children's fragile Freedom, abused subversively much too frequently in informing and gossip-for-itself - but it is a dangerously 'unsecured channel' so to speak.
Who's to say that this same 'mind' of-and-for-itself is of the same paradigm as manners, etiquette...
Western Civilization proper?
That is to say, psychical energy and it's systematization may be susceptible to possible encroachment by terrorists.
Group-mind is dangerous and, not to be too glib, an insufficiently examined security risk for the U.S.
Further, to continue with this dreadful grasping of straws, group-think requires people to give their rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution of America, to the sweaty palms and clenched fists of a Regime; to the whims and notional inclination of whatever reigning "ethic" happens to result from Collectivism-as-such's barbarity or neurosis.
Trusting in collectivism-as-such is of kin to trusting in a pack of subdued wildebeests - untamed by anything other than the reigning order inherent in the oft-enjoyed "Natural Plane".
To trust in the Natural Plane-as-such is to trust that god resides in the woods.
Collectivism leads us, inevitably to this conclusion.
The state of nature as order.
It's a crying lie. In fact, notable theologian R.C. Sproul has made a great case for the conceptualization of the "Natural Plane-in-itself" as the locale of lucifer!
But I digress...
Collectivism gives to all an inheritance of profane obedience, in direct opposition to individual duty.
Honor, repentance, tradition all degenerate under collectivist rule!
Think of how a, say, multi-culturalist/universalist thinker regards concessions to obedience in opposition to the directly apposite conceptualization of duty towards Honor in-and-of-itself.
Bring to the fore how one might be led to give away the true meaning of repentance. The whole 'turning from sin' as cessation of bad behavior theory regarding what many consider to be the most central and important aspect of redemption-in-actuality.
No offense to the sober and church-going;
But the "Turning from Sin" interpretation of repentance is, more often than not, overwhelmingly inadequate as representative of it's original meaning.
My personal opinion?
Repentance is far more of kin to, say, a formal apology to Hosana on High than the odd notional/episcopalian framing of 'turning from sin' being a kind of repentance-as-change.
Collectivism, for the sake of a kind of diluted and meaningless pragmatism, must of necessity make the authentic and time-honored traditions of the Bible as a very fierce and, to put it mildly, grave work into a kind of farce-in-itself. For-the-sake-of-which the only lesson is one of learning to transform. Transfer into the jackass who repeats, by virtue of repetition, the repetitions of what was repeated - an holy 'friendlier and more compatible' interpretation of the original works of the Bible.
I mean, that really IS the main garment, soaked in urine which stinks to high heaven - and everyone smells it who sits calmly, patiently in the white walled room in which the garment lay:
That little sweet stench is not only the result of collectivism, but is part and parcel with the maneuverings and deceptions resulting from ideological rather than philosophical priority.
Ideology is the means of collectivism.
2/2/2014
thanks,
R.T. Stillwell of Domestic Democracy United
Collectivism simply means group-mind over individual-spirit.
How is this problematic and, indeed, definitively dangerous for Citizens of the U.S.?
I'll answer this, bearing my recent article "What Is Psychical Energy and How Is It Inherently Evil?" in mind, with a short list of Collectivism-as-such's DIRTY LAUNDRY:
Collectivists, along with many adherents to the false god of ideology-in-itself, deny the positions of the heart-as-such and characteristic being-alongside-others, the intention of their circumstance, their own genuine beliefs and morays not to mention anything that could be deemed questionable in-itself. If questioned on authentic platform positions and posturing regarding their politik, a Collectivist will inevitably seek to obfuscate rather than shine a light upon their intents, a priori moral equivocations, and - not to be too trite and brutish with language - their "ends-as-such". What are the ends of Collectivism? One thing, in-and-of-itself... heaven on earth.
Collectivism, by seeking to eliminate all opposition, clearly reveals what makes the "means-as-such" of ideology-in-itself and collectivism in-and-of-itself so devastatingly destructive to any opposition in the U.S.
That is - the alpha character-as-such and how collectivism's ramifications engender this character upon unwilling participants in a schemata which knowingly places it's adherents in bondage-for-itself.
Collectivism, unlike Individualism-in-itself, is not only loathe to take any role in a society other than that of the Alpha and Omega; but, in fact is incapable of it. When put in a subordinate position, Collectivists thrash about like wounded bears on LSD.
It leads to many personal problems for MANY people!
Think of shootings, merciless and destructive and cruel as they are...
Shootings are, more often than not, the result of frustrated, annoyed and uncontrollably tumultuous collectivism in-itself and for-itself, or in-and-of-itself! It's a fact.
Let's move on to the next central swatch of soiled linen - I won't take a minute of your time...
Collectivism engenders group-think, which is - in lue of my "What Is Psychical Energy..." piece - not only inappropriate for workplaces, a degenerative force on children's fragile Freedom, abused subversively much too frequently in informing and gossip-for-itself - but it is a dangerously 'unsecured channel' so to speak.
Who's to say that this same 'mind' of-and-for-itself is of the same paradigm as manners, etiquette...
Western Civilization proper?
That is to say, psychical energy and it's systematization may be susceptible to possible encroachment by terrorists.
Group-mind is dangerous and, not to be too glib, an insufficiently examined security risk for the U.S.
Further, to continue with this dreadful grasping of straws, group-think requires people to give their rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution of America, to the sweaty palms and clenched fists of a Regime; to the whims and notional inclination of whatever reigning "ethic" happens to result from Collectivism-as-such's barbarity or neurosis.
Trusting in collectivism-as-such is of kin to trusting in a pack of subdued wildebeests - untamed by anything other than the reigning order inherent in the oft-enjoyed "Natural Plane".
To trust in the Natural Plane-as-such is to trust that god resides in the woods.
Collectivism leads us, inevitably to this conclusion.
The state of nature as order.
It's a crying lie. In fact, notable theologian R.C. Sproul has made a great case for the conceptualization of the "Natural Plane-in-itself" as the locale of lucifer!
But I digress...
Collectivism gives to all an inheritance of profane obedience, in direct opposition to individual duty.
Honor, repentance, tradition all degenerate under collectivist rule!
Think of how a, say, multi-culturalist/universalist thinker regards concessions to obedience in opposition to the directly apposite conceptualization of duty towards Honor in-and-of-itself.
Bring to the fore how one might be led to give away the true meaning of repentance. The whole 'turning from sin' as cessation of bad behavior theory regarding what many consider to be the most central and important aspect of redemption-in-actuality.
No offense to the sober and church-going;
But the "Turning from Sin" interpretation of repentance is, more often than not, overwhelmingly inadequate as representative of it's original meaning.
My personal opinion?
Repentance is far more of kin to, say, a formal apology to Hosana on High than the odd notional/episcopalian framing of 'turning from sin' being a kind of repentance-as-change.
Collectivism, for the sake of a kind of diluted and meaningless pragmatism, must of necessity make the authentic and time-honored traditions of the Bible as a very fierce and, to put it mildly, grave work into a kind of farce-in-itself. For-the-sake-of-which the only lesson is one of learning to transform. Transfer into the jackass who repeats, by virtue of repetition, the repetitions of what was repeated - an holy 'friendlier and more compatible' interpretation of the original works of the Bible.
I mean, that really IS the main garment, soaked in urine which stinks to high heaven - and everyone smells it who sits calmly, patiently in the white walled room in which the garment lay:
That little sweet stench is not only the result of collectivism, but is part and parcel with the maneuverings and deceptions resulting from ideological rather than philosophical priority.
Ideology is the means of collectivism.
2/2/2014
thanks,
R.T. Stillwell of Domestic Democracy United
Thursday, January 30, 2014
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.
Monday, January 20, 2014
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.)
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
Monday, January 13, 2014
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
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
Saturday, January 4, 2014
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
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
Thursday, January 2, 2014
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)