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
Thursday, March 27, 2014
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)