Liberal ideology often prides itself on being the foremost of scientific prowess and ingenuity, yet the "word" of the left is often far from being capable of holding these titles in terms of legitimacy of opin' and rigor of rhetoric. More often than not, their ideological basis in criminality and lack of intellectual foundation hides a dedication to lack of merit regarding the sanctity of their position-as-such. They oft' espouse integrity, yet find themselves encumbered by a lack of it. They oft' espouse sovereignty on the basis of philosophy, yet go on to persecute this kind of dialectic in practice. They oft' talk of "for the people" ideology, yet undermine personhood on a constant basis.
To ask a liberal, "to what extent is your word worth your act" - is to proffer a dialectic of reason, to a degree.
To ask a liberal, "how much do you hold to your ideals" - is to question the certitude of the leftist ideological underpinning.
To ask a liberal, "what is your promise of sanctity worth" - is to, at a basic level, reveal their own narcissistic atheism through result of act, deed, and worth.
A liberal who speaks necessarily lies about their commitment to deed, action, and purpose. The purpose of liberalism is implicitly to lie about their intentionality. That is the basis of the liberal adherence to atheism. They will simply tell the judeo-christian culture of heavenly adherence whatever they wish, to the end result of hell-bound slave-morality.
They will simply tell all christian culture - "look... we believe in you. We believe, even, what you believe. Just give us an inch... For if you don't, well... You are one of them."
We shouldn't give them an inch.
We shouldn't allow their slave morality to undermine our Christianity.
All we should do is fight against their slave morality tooth and nail.
Because, I'll have you know, slave morality degrades not only the sanctity of reason and the abstract nature of being-as-such. Slave morality degrades the very foundation upon that which was fought and died for has stood upon. Degradation in this respect is the sole constituent of the leftist cause. Bring everything to the rot of it's own.
But we can do something about it...
We can remember, a slaves liberal morality is never worth anything.
We can remember that a slaves liberal virtue is nothing more than a lie,
We can remember that the words of the left are nothing but empty circumstance.
And we can remember that a liberals word is worth nothing.
If you ask a liberal to give you their word, you can trust in one thing. Not that it will be profound, which it is not. Not that it will be humanitarian, which it is not.
You can trust that it will be false. That it will be a lie. That it will be nothing more than pushing you further towards their ends with no recompense.
You can trust this till the day you die.
For to be a liberal is to live, and BE, a lie. To be a liberal is to believe in and succumb to a lie. To be a liberal is to live in service of a lie.
To be a CHRISTIAN, is a far differance.
RT
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
NC Senate Passes Hardline Abortion Reforms
Today in the North Carolina Senate legislation was passed making it tougher for people in this state to get abortions. The legislation will go on to the house next week, and will ultimately end up on Gov. McCrory's desk for approval or veto.
First off, abortion is murder. You are more than free to argue otherwise, but as I've always said - the ill effects of the counter argument, abortion is NOT murder, weighs far less in terms of liability and resultant consequence than if my, and more importantly OUR, position proves to be true in light of history. For example, if abortion is NOT murder then there will simply be more fornicators with little babies to take care of. No small deed to be sure, but that is the ramification of legislation in regards to the "right to choice" platform.
If abortion IS murder... well, I'll leave it to you to make the moral equivalence.
The real story here, however, is our Gov. McCrory's reaction to the Senate's decision.
McCrory said last year, on the record, that he would veto ANY further legislation making it more difficult for people to obtain abortions. This should give the whiner's on the left some cause for comfort, though I hold little hope that his tenacity of moderate opin' will even be noted by those forever sneering conservo belittlers.
Further, he actually went so far as to actively criticize and rebuke the republican held Senate for slamming this legislation through, saying - paraphrase - "it is all to akin to the manner of a Democrat Senate".
Harsh words, once again, from our Governor.
Whether or not this legislation receives a veto upon passage in the house is, to me, beside the point. Ultimately, the conservative demeanor that spawned this very legislation itself will force the Charlotteir Gov. to do the will of his compatriots in the capitol city. Anything other than a signature by the Gov. to this legislation would be, to put it lightly, a very obtuse undertaking.
But if you are, say, a "women's rights" proponent, activist, or sympathizer - I merely ask you to remember that the wages of sin are death. The wages of responsibility? Well, merely giving towards that which ultimately may be other than convenient to your lifestyle.
Think of it, if you will, in terms of utilitarian philosophy. I.E. - More pleasure = More Virtue. More Pain = Less Virtue.
How many women can you find who espouse the beauty of rearing and, yea- giving birth to a child? "Miracle of Life" and all of that?
How many ill begotten pregnancies ending in the MURDER OF A BABY are remembered by those who took part in it with bitterness, tears, and brutal memories of the unnatural?
I doubt anyone can refute this logic.
As is normally the case for utilitarianism.
But let us not forget that this legislation, JUST PASSED IN THE SENATE, not only comes from a genuine source of North Carolinian grit - but does not, as many may argue, stigmatize those who receive abortions.
This legislation is far from a witch hunt for those who have premarital sex.
It is, in fact, a perfect nuance on an already established position of our towns, our states, and our party.
DDU urges Mr. McCrory to remember that the penultimate power in NC comes from not the executive or judiciary - but from the sovereign halls of the capital city. McCrory, upon near promised passage through the house, should not hesitate when time comes for his fine and honorable penmanship to make the mark that further decreases what I think is appropriately termed "MURDER".
RT Stillwell
First off, abortion is murder. You are more than free to argue otherwise, but as I've always said - the ill effects of the counter argument, abortion is NOT murder, weighs far less in terms of liability and resultant consequence than if my, and more importantly OUR, position proves to be true in light of history. For example, if abortion is NOT murder then there will simply be more fornicators with little babies to take care of. No small deed to be sure, but that is the ramification of legislation in regards to the "right to choice" platform.
If abortion IS murder... well, I'll leave it to you to make the moral equivalence.
The real story here, however, is our Gov. McCrory's reaction to the Senate's decision.
McCrory said last year, on the record, that he would veto ANY further legislation making it more difficult for people to obtain abortions. This should give the whiner's on the left some cause for comfort, though I hold little hope that his tenacity of moderate opin' will even be noted by those forever sneering conservo belittlers.
Further, he actually went so far as to actively criticize and rebuke the republican held Senate for slamming this legislation through, saying - paraphrase - "it is all to akin to the manner of a Democrat Senate".
Harsh words, once again, from our Governor.
Whether or not this legislation receives a veto upon passage in the house is, to me, beside the point. Ultimately, the conservative demeanor that spawned this very legislation itself will force the Charlotteir Gov. to do the will of his compatriots in the capitol city. Anything other than a signature by the Gov. to this legislation would be, to put it lightly, a very obtuse undertaking.
But if you are, say, a "women's rights" proponent, activist, or sympathizer - I merely ask you to remember that the wages of sin are death. The wages of responsibility? Well, merely giving towards that which ultimately may be other than convenient to your lifestyle.
Think of it, if you will, in terms of utilitarian philosophy. I.E. - More pleasure = More Virtue. More Pain = Less Virtue.
How many women can you find who espouse the beauty of rearing and, yea- giving birth to a child? "Miracle of Life" and all of that?
How many ill begotten pregnancies ending in the MURDER OF A BABY are remembered by those who took part in it with bitterness, tears, and brutal memories of the unnatural?
I doubt anyone can refute this logic.
As is normally the case for utilitarianism.
But let us not forget that this legislation, JUST PASSED IN THE SENATE, not only comes from a genuine source of North Carolinian grit - but does not, as many may argue, stigmatize those who receive abortions.
This legislation is far from a witch hunt for those who have premarital sex.
It is, in fact, a perfect nuance on an already established position of our towns, our states, and our party.
DDU urges Mr. McCrory to remember that the penultimate power in NC comes from not the executive or judiciary - but from the sovereign halls of the capital city. McCrory, upon near promised passage through the house, should not hesitate when time comes for his fine and honorable penmanship to make the mark that further decreases what I think is appropriately termed "MURDER".
RT Stillwell
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Traditional Definition of Marriage Under Attack
Today the supreme court overruled California's laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman exclusively.
It's remarkable that those who have taken a stand on marriage and its definition as between a single man and a single woman have now, according to the supreme court today, become nothing more than "bigots". It is remarkable for the following reason: Those who have stood up for the bible are now nothing more than some adage decided by vicious leftists who generally hold views not altogether favorable towards tradition, the U.S., and religion itself.
It amounts to hate speech!
If you, as a christian, stand up for biblical values - you are no longer a human. You are just a bigot. A racist. A fascist. A conformist.
Hate speech is defined according to the world community as referring to humans as something non-human. For example, the former President of Iran referring to jews as "cockroaches". By this definition, defining christians who stand up and defend traditional marriage as "bigots" seems to me to be akin to this type of hate speech, functionally.
I'm no longer a christian with deep and philosophical beliefs regarding morality... no, I'm just a "bigot" and anything else non-members of the club of "cool" are defined to be. I'm no longer virtuous or honorable or an important contributor to our culture. I'm now, according to the activist judges in the supreme court merely an inhuman, subhuman, non-human person filled with hate against a minority.
The irony is, we are being accused of hate speech on the right - yet the left, in terms of "soft" hate speech is far more guilty of this new way of marginalizing and defaming people on the basis of language and generalizations. We have been accused, as of today, of being "bigots" by the supreme court. They, to a point, have dismissed any rational reasoned argument from the right on the basis of our subhuman "bigotry".
"They want to impugn homosexuality"
- the supreme court (paraphrase)
In fact, upon permanently defining marriage in its traditional sense in my state of North Carolina the air waves were rife with conservo's saying pretty much the following: "WE are not against gays. WE believe that gays are okay. It is GOD who condemns homosexuality."
...and they said it nicely!
But the fact is, gay rights is a stumbling block for the traditions of America and, yea - the world.
My personal thesis is that the supreme court is reacting, to a degree, against the harshly totalitarian laws in Russia against homosexuality - where it is a crime to even acknowledge that homo's exist. With the trouble in syria and the conflict with Russia there increasingly becoming a problem, and increasingly being blacked out of the lamestream media, the supreme court must see their attack on traditional marriage today as a way of standing up to totalitarianism.
What they fail to realize in their dark little bubble of D.C. is that this is not a sociological issue, but an anthropological/cultural one. A culture defines what it approves of and doesn't, and it is not the role of a group of former lawyers isolated in the District of Columbia to decide for ANYONE what it should do regarding such minute and delicate cultural preferences as the definition of marriage.
The fact is, we define marriage as it has been for thousands of years. According to biblical principles.
But the supreme court has overstepped its bounds. Let's just hope they don't aim their sights on NC, where we have upheld the traditional definition as between a man and a woman in our constitution.
It's remarkable that those who have taken a stand on marriage and its definition as between a single man and a single woman have now, according to the supreme court today, become nothing more than "bigots". It is remarkable for the following reason: Those who have stood up for the bible are now nothing more than some adage decided by vicious leftists who generally hold views not altogether favorable towards tradition, the U.S., and religion itself.
It amounts to hate speech!
If you, as a christian, stand up for biblical values - you are no longer a human. You are just a bigot. A racist. A fascist. A conformist.
Hate speech is defined according to the world community as referring to humans as something non-human. For example, the former President of Iran referring to jews as "cockroaches". By this definition, defining christians who stand up and defend traditional marriage as "bigots" seems to me to be akin to this type of hate speech, functionally.
I'm no longer a christian with deep and philosophical beliefs regarding morality... no, I'm just a "bigot" and anything else non-members of the club of "cool" are defined to be. I'm no longer virtuous or honorable or an important contributor to our culture. I'm now, according to the activist judges in the supreme court merely an inhuman, subhuman, non-human person filled with hate against a minority.
The irony is, we are being accused of hate speech on the right - yet the left, in terms of "soft" hate speech is far more guilty of this new way of marginalizing and defaming people on the basis of language and generalizations. We have been accused, as of today, of being "bigots" by the supreme court. They, to a point, have dismissed any rational reasoned argument from the right on the basis of our subhuman "bigotry".
"They want to impugn homosexuality"
- the supreme court (paraphrase)
In fact, upon permanently defining marriage in its traditional sense in my state of North Carolina the air waves were rife with conservo's saying pretty much the following: "WE are not against gays. WE believe that gays are okay. It is GOD who condemns homosexuality."
...and they said it nicely!
But the fact is, gay rights is a stumbling block for the traditions of America and, yea - the world.
My personal thesis is that the supreme court is reacting, to a degree, against the harshly totalitarian laws in Russia against homosexuality - where it is a crime to even acknowledge that homo's exist. With the trouble in syria and the conflict with Russia there increasingly becoming a problem, and increasingly being blacked out of the lamestream media, the supreme court must see their attack on traditional marriage today as a way of standing up to totalitarianism.
What they fail to realize in their dark little bubble of D.C. is that this is not a sociological issue, but an anthropological/cultural one. A culture defines what it approves of and doesn't, and it is not the role of a group of former lawyers isolated in the District of Columbia to decide for ANYONE what it should do regarding such minute and delicate cultural preferences as the definition of marriage.
The fact is, we define marriage as it has been for thousands of years. According to biblical principles.
But the supreme court has overstepped its bounds. Let's just hope they don't aim their sights on NC, where we have upheld the traditional definition as between a man and a woman in our constitution.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Marco Rubio is Destroying America: Why the Repub Party Needs to Exile R.I.N.O.'s
Compromise on immigration seems to be the current path to reforming the waves of illegal hispanics in the senate. Muckrakers would make a fuss about the amendment, agreed to on both sides of the aisle initially, that prohibited any action until the border is secure, but this is beside the point altogether. The lone fact is - Marco Rubio is a R.I.N.O. or republican in name only.
His "reform" seems to be nothing more than ushering even more immigrants into our dear country on the basis of his nostalgic RNC speech: more American dream for immigrants and sons of an immigrant like himself. Personally, I believe his credentials to be not altogether vetted properly by the party. Rubio's involvement with his nation of origin, Cuba, has not sufficiently been investigated; and DDU calls on the republican party proper to inquir into how genuine of a repub Rubio actually is. I mean this literally.
You see, ever since the term "Compassionate Conservativism" was coined in a fit of genius, those not even coming close to being actual conservative republicans have attempted to defame the legacy of reagan and all of his cold war splendor by positing a kinder, gentler conservatism. Basically, without going into too much detail, the politics of pre-meditative compromise to the left.
Why should we compromise? Why can't at least an effort to build fences succeed?
Because, I would wager, some number cruncher in the G.O.P. has a penchant for fiscal conservatism and the strength of "cowboy export". I.E. - some dullard who sincerely lacks belief in creationism or other related theories believes, in his heart of liberal bleeding hearts, that bue to the complete inability of anyone to stop the inflow of hispanics into our country, the former USA, that the G.O.P. must stoop to the immigrant hoardes. Probably due to the pervasiveness of "tolerance" and "evolution of culture", the egghead weenies in washington think, unequivocally, that we should welcome these non-natives "infrastructure".
It is the opin' of DOMESTIC DEMOCRACY UNITED that we ought to, en' mass as a republic, deport all of them who come here illegally.
For it is due to the myth that jobs taken by low wage immigrants are undesirable to natives of OUR country that we make such ignoble and untimely compromises.
Those compromises such as offering hispanic immigrants subsidized healthcare. That we should welcome them into our communities. That we need to change all infrastructure to stoop to their little brown level and force godfearing christians to hear some kind of cheap blooded demon speak.
Marco Rubio - GO BACK TO CUBA
His "reform" seems to be nothing more than ushering even more immigrants into our dear country on the basis of his nostalgic RNC speech: more American dream for immigrants and sons of an immigrant like himself. Personally, I believe his credentials to be not altogether vetted properly by the party. Rubio's involvement with his nation of origin, Cuba, has not sufficiently been investigated; and DDU calls on the republican party proper to inquir into how genuine of a repub Rubio actually is. I mean this literally.
You see, ever since the term "Compassionate Conservativism" was coined in a fit of genius, those not even coming close to being actual conservative republicans have attempted to defame the legacy of reagan and all of his cold war splendor by positing a kinder, gentler conservatism. Basically, without going into too much detail, the politics of pre-meditative compromise to the left.
Why should we compromise? Why can't at least an effort to build fences succeed?
Because, I would wager, some number cruncher in the G.O.P. has a penchant for fiscal conservatism and the strength of "cowboy export". I.E. - some dullard who sincerely lacks belief in creationism or other related theories believes, in his heart of liberal bleeding hearts, that bue to the complete inability of anyone to stop the inflow of hispanics into our country, the former USA, that the G.O.P. must stoop to the immigrant hoardes. Probably due to the pervasiveness of "tolerance" and "evolution of culture", the egghead weenies in washington think, unequivocally, that we should welcome these non-natives "infrastructure".
It is the opin' of DOMESTIC DEMOCRACY UNITED that we ought to, en' mass as a republic, deport all of them who come here illegally.
For it is due to the myth that jobs taken by low wage immigrants are undesirable to natives of OUR country that we make such ignoble and untimely compromises.
Those compromises such as offering hispanic immigrants subsidized healthcare. That we should welcome them into our communities. That we need to change all infrastructure to stoop to their little brown level and force godfearing christians to hear some kind of cheap blooded demon speak.
Marco Rubio - GO BACK TO CUBA
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
NC's "Farm Bill": Populism Hiding Redistributionism
Recently, a bill was proposed in North Carolina that is a perfect example of everything wrong with populism. For those that don't know, "Populism", better known as pandering with a perfectly crafted southern accent, is an evil ideology that literally fleeces the south of its heritage proper.
This bill, which is nothing more than an expanse of food stamps for blacks and (especially) latinos, actually has the decidedly convincing veneer of being at all related to farming and agriculture. It is not. Maybe 20 percent of the bill is applicable. The remainder is simply part of the tug of war over providing free food for non-whites.
The proposed legislation wouldn't be so offensively grotesque were it not for the fact that it's being sold to carpet-bagger's and universalist christian's alike as a noble "juss' helpin the farmer" sentiment whilst hiding a decidedly redistributionist policy. It seeks to provide millions free food. Free food provided by the fat skimmed off of the top of other's and industry's wealth.
If this at all sounds problematic, it isn't.
It's merely big Washington Democrat Establishment machinery being shoved down the southern christian populous's throat. What isn't so apparent, is that not only is the DEM constituency pro Farm Bill for laughable reasons, but they are (as low information voters) entirely oblivious as to the contents of the legislation. Ask your fellow DEM about the substance of the bill, and all of them will reply something other than to do with Food Stamps.
NC will deny the bill passage, but the insult of populism remains. Talking southern may buy vote's, but being disingenuous in order to advance a streamlined big government agenda doesn't. It buys contempt.
This bill, which is nothing more than an expanse of food stamps for blacks and (especially) latinos, actually has the decidedly convincing veneer of being at all related to farming and agriculture. It is not. Maybe 20 percent of the bill is applicable. The remainder is simply part of the tug of war over providing free food for non-whites.
The proposed legislation wouldn't be so offensively grotesque were it not for the fact that it's being sold to carpet-bagger's and universalist christian's alike as a noble "juss' helpin the farmer" sentiment whilst hiding a decidedly redistributionist policy. It seeks to provide millions free food. Free food provided by the fat skimmed off of the top of other's and industry's wealth.
If this at all sounds problematic, it isn't.
It's merely big Washington Democrat Establishment machinery being shoved down the southern christian populous's throat. What isn't so apparent, is that not only is the DEM constituency pro Farm Bill for laughable reasons, but they are (as low information voters) entirely oblivious as to the contents of the legislation. Ask your fellow DEM about the substance of the bill, and all of them will reply something other than to do with Food Stamps.
NC will deny the bill passage, but the insult of populism remains. Talking southern may buy vote's, but being disingenuous in order to advance a streamlined big government agenda doesn't. It buys contempt.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Irretrievable Grace: Why the Recent Build-up in Security Leaves "Grace" Behind
Many people, at this point in U.S. conscience and falling from grace, feel perfectly free from guilt or remorse in lue of an untenable allegiance to collectivism in practical application. The price for this may be subject to payment. What will we pay for sticking our heads in the sand in light of the encroachment upon Freedom as understood by those who remember pre-Regime American life?
What will we pay?
The debt, of course, won't be nearly as severe as the price of the damages in Oklahoma after the recent multi-billion dollar tragedy that befell those in the mid-west.
But it will be something which we may never be capable of retrieving... True "grace-as-such".
The grace of civility in matters of security and conflict domestically may be gone with the wind.
The truth and rights meant for our everyday lives by the Founding Fathers is something which could lose it's real sense of spirituo-religious grace, a peculiar existent sentiment honored and revered by most all in the U.S. for centuries. Sometimes this sense of grace was understood to be the legitimate and prevalent sentiment known as "spirit". This recognition of spirit, in the sense of, say, school spirit, as the primary mode of being-in-the-world has maintained an order of spirituality for decades.
If this sounds at all susceptible to undermining instincts it's because it very much is!
The "spirit" of a nation, of a culture, of an individual is fragile.
Grace, embodied or in some sort of differing abstract sense, is not merely finesse and mastery, though it is that in a sense. It is the innocence of majesty. Majesty, in it's pristine and noble condition outside of the constraints of disobedience. We are in danger of losing this child-like sense of majesty and spirit. Why?
Precisely this.
Tom Brokaw appearing on television directly after the Tragedy in MA. proclaiming it was time to live in a "new america" with higher security. Telling us, as the voice of a generation of boomers, to "get used to it".
The key to understanding the degeneracy of Grace is in the conceptualizations in Negative Rights, or the right to be uninhibited by government. Our freedom-as-such, in a negative sense, preserves our innocence and integrity as humans. Human's who are distinct from the "lower forms" restricted by brute sin and instinctual degradation. We stand in danger of degenerating to the status of birds in a park...
"It's like you once commented on the birds... they were all grabbing for scraps of food."
We're losing the grace intended for us by our ancestral forefathers of olde.
How can we save it?
By being graceful, each of us, in our own lives.
saying that, here are two examples of grace I've created for i-tunes:
mozart "switched on"
bach "switched on"
What will we pay?
The debt, of course, won't be nearly as severe as the price of the damages in Oklahoma after the recent multi-billion dollar tragedy that befell those in the mid-west.
But it will be something which we may never be capable of retrieving... True "grace-as-such".
The grace of civility in matters of security and conflict domestically may be gone with the wind.
The truth and rights meant for our everyday lives by the Founding Fathers is something which could lose it's real sense of spirituo-religious grace, a peculiar existent sentiment honored and revered by most all in the U.S. for centuries. Sometimes this sense of grace was understood to be the legitimate and prevalent sentiment known as "spirit". This recognition of spirit, in the sense of, say, school spirit, as the primary mode of being-in-the-world has maintained an order of spirituality for decades.
If this sounds at all susceptible to undermining instincts it's because it very much is!
The "spirit" of a nation, of a culture, of an individual is fragile.
Grace, embodied or in some sort of differing abstract sense, is not merely finesse and mastery, though it is that in a sense. It is the innocence of majesty. Majesty, in it's pristine and noble condition outside of the constraints of disobedience. We are in danger of losing this child-like sense of majesty and spirit. Why?
Precisely this.
Tom Brokaw appearing on television directly after the Tragedy in MA. proclaiming it was time to live in a "new america" with higher security. Telling us, as the voice of a generation of boomers, to "get used to it".
The key to understanding the degeneracy of Grace is in the conceptualizations in Negative Rights, or the right to be uninhibited by government. Our freedom-as-such, in a negative sense, preserves our innocence and integrity as humans. Human's who are distinct from the "lower forms" restricted by brute sin and instinctual degradation. We stand in danger of degenerating to the status of birds in a park...
"It's like you once commented on the birds... they were all grabbing for scraps of food."
We're losing the grace intended for us by our ancestral forefathers of olde.
How can we save it?
By being graceful, each of us, in our own lives.
saying that, here are two examples of grace I've created for i-tunes:
mozart "switched on"
bach "switched on"
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
The Answer to Our Problems: Why Communism is Terrorism, Not Acceptable
A COMMUNIST PLOT AGAINST THE FREE WORLD POLICE
BRENDAN O'Connell: Thanks sir. I have some information. I shall be glad to tell the committee what I have learned and hope it will dull the point of the communist sickle.
I was born in Richmond VA and educated in Pittsboro NC @ Pittsboro Elementary, Horton Middle School, and Northwood High School.
The imperative is that the New World Police be kept currently informed of the subversive activities of the Communist Conspiracy and how this effects the rights of citizens of the Free World, with the Communist Conspiracy's activities and how they turn us into the unwitting tools or victims of a specific campaign of subversion.
Many of us know what is back of the mob violence which we have been considering. It is probable, however, that few of the demonstrators realize that they are victims of a war that is being waged in the free world today. It is a life and death struggle between communism, which makes the people the slaves of the state, and free world democracy, in which the state carries out the will of the people.
Our police are among the foremost gaurdians of freedom and thus a major target of the communists. The better the force, the greater it's efficiency, the bigger it's competence in preserving the peace, the more vital it is for the communists to destroy it. I understand the commitee's desire that I outline the tactics of the comminust subversion and describe several case histories illustrating their techniques for attacking police.
The international Communist organization provides a training manual for espionage agents in which their duties are enumerated. This pamphlet was seized in europe. Let me paraphrase the tasks assigned to agents in one of the countries of the free world.
First, make investigation and report on the activities of the police and security services.
Second, investigate and repress those security organizations that support the government.
I would assume this remains till today.
Third, find ways to infiltrate the police and security organizations to steal documents-particularly those recording their knowledge of communism-and to destroy everything of value.
I beleive that the manual is specific in those instructions.
I have an example. Let me describe briefly the history of the Communist war against the police in one of the major countries of the free world.
Until the Communist politicians started to create trouble in recent years there had never been an incident on the record showing political interference with the administration of the police force.
The communist technique has been directed primarily toward the discrediting the police in the eyes of the people.
The communists, of course, try to tell the people that police are in the pay of foreign powers. Efforts were made to penetrate the police and recruit personel in headquarters and provicial offices in security units. Further, a smear campaign attempted to discredit the leaders among the rank and file. The more outstanding and upright the senoir police officers, the more certain they were to become a communist target.
The above example is a rather awesome example of Communist techniques against the police... Fortunately I can report that in this instance they failed. The fine traditions of the free world police have been restored in this nation and we're on a road to true Freedom and Democracy.
As you know, there are two general aspects of Communist activity:
(1) The subversion aspect where efforts are made to penetrate and control every phase of political, economic and cultural life of a country.
(2) the militant aspect which involves agitation, demonstrations, riots, insurrection, and rebellion. Police must have have a capability of dealing with both the subversive and militant aspects of communism. This requires an internal security mechanism which provides an investigative apparatus capable of identifying and developing information on subversive individuals and organizations and capable of neutralizing their activities. It also is necessary that highly trained and highly specialized investigative apparatus be supported by a larger force capable of controlling demonstration, riots, and other civil disorders.
Communism will work openly and legally where it can. But it will work secretly and illegally where it must. Its capability for conspiratorial work largely accounts for the survival of the International Communist conspiracy.
Their international movement has developed a system of defensive measures to protect itself against the police, against intelligence agencies and against a hostile public. Knowledge of party activities is carefully organized. An intraparty detective service and a controlled commision guard against police penetration.
Plans for offensive action are carefully devised and except for minor local adaptations constitute a detailed blueprint for worldwide agitation.
None of us should feel that the task is easy, nor that victory will be quick. The commies are dangerous, feindishly clever, ruthless, and determined enemies. Their potential loot? The biggest possible... Control of the world. They will not give up the goal as long as they last.
DDU - NC, 2013
(DEVISED FROM THE BIRCHERS)
BRENDAN O'CONNELL
BRENDAN O'Connell: Thanks sir. I have some information. I shall be glad to tell the committee what I have learned and hope it will dull the point of the communist sickle.
I was born in Richmond VA and educated in Pittsboro NC @ Pittsboro Elementary, Horton Middle School, and Northwood High School.
The imperative is that the New World Police be kept currently informed of the subversive activities of the Communist Conspiracy and how this effects the rights of citizens of the Free World, with the Communist Conspiracy's activities and how they turn us into the unwitting tools or victims of a specific campaign of subversion.
Many of us know what is back of the mob violence which we have been considering. It is probable, however, that few of the demonstrators realize that they are victims of a war that is being waged in the free world today. It is a life and death struggle between communism, which makes the people the slaves of the state, and free world democracy, in which the state carries out the will of the people.
Our police are among the foremost gaurdians of freedom and thus a major target of the communists. The better the force, the greater it's efficiency, the bigger it's competence in preserving the peace, the more vital it is for the communists to destroy it. I understand the commitee's desire that I outline the tactics of the comminust subversion and describe several case histories illustrating their techniques for attacking police.
The international Communist organization provides a training manual for espionage agents in which their duties are enumerated. This pamphlet was seized in europe. Let me paraphrase the tasks assigned to agents in one of the countries of the free world.
First, make investigation and report on the activities of the police and security services.
Second, investigate and repress those security organizations that support the government.
I would assume this remains till today.
Third, find ways to infiltrate the police and security organizations to steal documents-particularly those recording their knowledge of communism-and to destroy everything of value.
I beleive that the manual is specific in those instructions.
I have an example. Let me describe briefly the history of the Communist war against the police in one of the major countries of the free world.
Until the Communist politicians started to create trouble in recent years there had never been an incident on the record showing political interference with the administration of the police force.
The communist technique has been directed primarily toward the discrediting the police in the eyes of the people.
The communists, of course, try to tell the people that police are in the pay of foreign powers. Efforts were made to penetrate the police and recruit personel in headquarters and provicial offices in security units. Further, a smear campaign attempted to discredit the leaders among the rank and file. The more outstanding and upright the senoir police officers, the more certain they were to become a communist target.
The above example is a rather awesome example of Communist techniques against the police... Fortunately I can report that in this instance they failed. The fine traditions of the free world police have been restored in this nation and we're on a road to true Freedom and Democracy.
As you know, there are two general aspects of Communist activity:
(1) The subversion aspect where efforts are made to penetrate and control every phase of political, economic and cultural life of a country.
(2) the militant aspect which involves agitation, demonstrations, riots, insurrection, and rebellion. Police must have have a capability of dealing with both the subversive and militant aspects of communism. This requires an internal security mechanism which provides an investigative apparatus capable of identifying and developing information on subversive individuals and organizations and capable of neutralizing their activities. It also is necessary that highly trained and highly specialized investigative apparatus be supported by a larger force capable of controlling demonstration, riots, and other civil disorders.
Communism will work openly and legally where it can. But it will work secretly and illegally where it must. Its capability for conspiratorial work largely accounts for the survival of the International Communist conspiracy.
Their international movement has developed a system of defensive measures to protect itself against the police, against intelligence agencies and against a hostile public. Knowledge of party activities is carefully organized. An intraparty detective service and a controlled commision guard against police penetration.
Plans for offensive action are carefully devised and except for minor local adaptations constitute a detailed blueprint for worldwide agitation.
None of us should feel that the task is easy, nor that victory will be quick. The commies are dangerous, feindishly clever, ruthless, and determined enemies. Their potential loot? The biggest possible... Control of the world. They will not give up the goal as long as they last.
DDU - NC, 2013
(DEVISED FROM THE BIRCHERS)
BRENDAN O'CONNELL
Thursday, May 23, 2013
DDU DIALUP -DNC TEA Protester confronts the Commie Conspiracy in NC
harlot charlotte
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Academia, Government, Media and Science: The Four Pillars of Deceit
Science. Irrefutable.
Academia. Required.
Media. Everywhere.
Government. Universally despised and sparsely refuted.
These four pillars of what is appropriately described as the deceit of Citizens in our time are all similar in one respect.
I'll ask you, readers and thinkers, to ponder what School, Science, the Media and Government all hold common...
Ready?
All of the pillars of deceit are, to a point, mandatory. As in, extreme stigma and sanctioning if the pillar's resultant morality are not internalized, adhered to in convention and philosophy and, to a certain extent, propounded as intrinsically correct publicly.
God forbid one decisively and with determination oppose them!
Let's start our dialectic of the corrupt fruit of science with it's resultant ideologies. One accepts science, one - except in rare and slightly forgivable circumstances - disregards religious tradition. One studies science, one - with little exception - disregards all tradition. One studies science, one - with or without exalting morality - condemns the right. Inevitably.
In today's climate of intellectual sloven obedience, science has become and is becoming and had been simply a quasi-ethics of obfuscation packaged to dullards and those impressively "special" students as an assurance of profundity in thought and action.
In truth, it is the anti-thesis of such inclinations and, at it's worst and most oxen-like, simply those of an ignoble slave-cast turning the valuations of our existent class system on it's head. I'd say it was "revaluation", yet that would seem to give to those of the decidedly scientific persuasion the honor that normally befits actual philosophy and artistic creation. Drudging up psychologically engineered data from some un-vetted textbook publisher would fall quite short of such sentiments, it would seem.
"What about Newton?" I can only assume isn't a retort that would spring to mind for most of the scientific faithful.
Despite early Christian science's clearly important contributions, I've encountered a surprisingly disproportionate number of oxen-like dullards who, amidst their wandering and impotent dialectic, seem to feel perfectly fine dismissing the discovery of why things go towards the ground without any compunction whatsoever.
I suppose E=mc2 IS so profound that early discoveries of functional Truth aren't salient, prescient, or worth scientific inquiry.
No.
Just open up while we shove Evolutionary Theory down your hapless throat.
Now take Academia, which proceeds from science-as-such.
I have no criticism of Academia that would be anything apart from trite.
All I'll mention is - I dropped out of High School upon an urging from my conscience. I, goaded into satiating the beast of private/public "education" went back to the local college for those as dispassionate about selling my soul for academic pedigree as myself discovered - de facto - the ideology of eugenics being taught within the first day of a class. I suppose I should've taken the notion that the world is overfull and deserves "depopulation for environmental concerns" seriously, but I did not. I walked away immediately.
So this simple question to you!
What is the result of not walking away?
Government, as we all know, is tied to all things and rests in recompense.
I don't think it takes too serious of an ideological leap to take seriously the inclination to view government, in some sense, as deceitful. In fact, this pillar of deceit lies in truth.
So, despite many misgivings by myself, I should note that government is, objectively, the least harmful pillar of deceit. It remains a deceit with intentions pure. It becomes much less for many and much more for a few. Spirit, it would seem, is transparency...
Yet, the absolute limits of government are defined by the constitution of America-as-such. These limits are the only epistemology I've known as being at all legitimate in the sense of pragmatico-teleological priority. The priority of service to that which redeems one in the light of a fallen earth. What is this redemption, if not derived from government and defined by church?
Finally, the final and most sinful pillar of deceit: the media.
Media is so influential in the bathtubs of the world that many and many more make a substantial amount of sustenance perpetuating the myth that the State controlled media is legit.
It is not.
The state controlled media is not merely increasingly disappointing as a form of entertainment for weary world-goers.... It is, by great broad strokes and greater than cartoon-like hyperbole, a trainwreck delivered to the Publik on a daily basis - one failing to do that which was intended for it by early disciples of the Eternal Flame such as Ed Bernays.
Why is the Media-as-such failing so glaringly?
By virtue of the progressive "evolving" influence of the previous Pillars.
We literally gulp, digest, shit - and then open up for a heaping dose of Deceit.
Science: A pillar of deceit.
Academia: A pillar of deceit.
Media: A pillar of deceit.
Government: Glaringly without sovereignty and without transparency or accountability.
Nice house you built. Furnishings are so garish and upper middle class I'd like to move out, but will more than likely simply sit amidst their trash and lack of class. Reminds me a bit of....
Reminds me a bit of the house old Mr. Jimmy Carter built.
You remember that one? The house with the annoyingly gaush 70's decor?
At least we're ALL doing something good!
At least we can sleep at...
RT Stillwell
Academia. Required.
Media. Everywhere.
Government. Universally despised and sparsely refuted.
These four pillars of what is appropriately described as the deceit of Citizens in our time are all similar in one respect.
I'll ask you, readers and thinkers, to ponder what School, Science, the Media and Government all hold common...
Ready?
All of the pillars of deceit are, to a point, mandatory. As in, extreme stigma and sanctioning if the pillar's resultant morality are not internalized, adhered to in convention and philosophy and, to a certain extent, propounded as intrinsically correct publicly.
God forbid one decisively and with determination oppose them!
Let's start our dialectic of the corrupt fruit of science with it's resultant ideologies. One accepts science, one - except in rare and slightly forgivable circumstances - disregards religious tradition. One studies science, one - with little exception - disregards all tradition. One studies science, one - with or without exalting morality - condemns the right. Inevitably.
In today's climate of intellectual sloven obedience, science has become and is becoming and had been simply a quasi-ethics of obfuscation packaged to dullards and those impressively "special" students as an assurance of profundity in thought and action.
In truth, it is the anti-thesis of such inclinations and, at it's worst and most oxen-like, simply those of an ignoble slave-cast turning the valuations of our existent class system on it's head. I'd say it was "revaluation", yet that would seem to give to those of the decidedly scientific persuasion the honor that normally befits actual philosophy and artistic creation. Drudging up psychologically engineered data from some un-vetted textbook publisher would fall quite short of such sentiments, it would seem.
"What about Newton?" I can only assume isn't a retort that would spring to mind for most of the scientific faithful.
Despite early Christian science's clearly important contributions, I've encountered a surprisingly disproportionate number of oxen-like dullards who, amidst their wandering and impotent dialectic, seem to feel perfectly fine dismissing the discovery of why things go towards the ground without any compunction whatsoever.
I suppose E=mc2 IS so profound that early discoveries of functional Truth aren't salient, prescient, or worth scientific inquiry.
No.
Just open up while we shove Evolutionary Theory down your hapless throat.
Now take Academia, which proceeds from science-as-such.
I have no criticism of Academia that would be anything apart from trite.
All I'll mention is - I dropped out of High School upon an urging from my conscience. I, goaded into satiating the beast of private/public "education" went back to the local college for those as dispassionate about selling my soul for academic pedigree as myself discovered - de facto - the ideology of eugenics being taught within the first day of a class. I suppose I should've taken the notion that the world is overfull and deserves "depopulation for environmental concerns" seriously, but I did not. I walked away immediately.
So this simple question to you!
What is the result of not walking away?
Government, as we all know, is tied to all things and rests in recompense.
I don't think it takes too serious of an ideological leap to take seriously the inclination to view government, in some sense, as deceitful. In fact, this pillar of deceit lies in truth.
So, despite many misgivings by myself, I should note that government is, objectively, the least harmful pillar of deceit. It remains a deceit with intentions pure. It becomes much less for many and much more for a few. Spirit, it would seem, is transparency...
Yet, the absolute limits of government are defined by the constitution of America-as-such. These limits are the only epistemology I've known as being at all legitimate in the sense of pragmatico-teleological priority. The priority of service to that which redeems one in the light of a fallen earth. What is this redemption, if not derived from government and defined by church?
Finally, the final and most sinful pillar of deceit: the media.
Media is so influential in the bathtubs of the world that many and many more make a substantial amount of sustenance perpetuating the myth that the State controlled media is legit.
It is not.
The state controlled media is not merely increasingly disappointing as a form of entertainment for weary world-goers.... It is, by great broad strokes and greater than cartoon-like hyperbole, a trainwreck delivered to the Publik on a daily basis - one failing to do that which was intended for it by early disciples of the Eternal Flame such as Ed Bernays.
Why is the Media-as-such failing so glaringly?
By virtue of the progressive "evolving" influence of the previous Pillars.
We literally gulp, digest, shit - and then open up for a heaping dose of Deceit.
Science: A pillar of deceit.
Academia: A pillar of deceit.
Media: A pillar of deceit.
Government: Glaringly without sovereignty and without transparency or accountability.
Nice house you built. Furnishings are so garish and upper middle class I'd like to move out, but will more than likely simply sit amidst their trash and lack of class. Reminds me a bit of....
Reminds me a bit of the house old Mr. Jimmy Carter built.
You remember that one? The house with the annoyingly gaush 70's decor?
At least we're ALL doing something good!
At least we can sleep at...
RT Stillwell
Friday, April 19, 2013
The Terror is Over, says Fox News : NSA Warns of Playing Junior G - Man
I am loathe to type anything whatsoever after the vicious and alarming tragedy which struck the city of Boston last wed. However, we can all - left and right - breathe easily now. The terrorist threat is no more, unequivocally. Our country is now, as of the capture (and exhibition of the identity of) of the terrorists who shook America to it's boots, authentically free from immediate threat. Boston, objectively, has been vindicated.
The major story, as I once commented on in regards to an Occupy protest I soured and spat at directly at the DNC, is not the Lamestream picture being pumped into every goof-box of every hardworking citizen of the world; in fact, the major story is one which no one may ever become aware of!
The major story's are the behind the scenes Police work of Gov'ment agencies far and wide and - to be sure - in the country's city of Boston. This is the only interesting angle to many of us, and is surely something I wouldn't be qualified to speculate on. But the distance between average Harold free citizen and the Boston city and people-hood has been removed.
We
are
all
Bostonians.
...Today it seems.
But the victory of State and/or Federal government agencies in capturing these viciously leftist Russians should and, according to DDU INFO HEADQUARTERS in Raleigh, NC - ahem, will signal for many that we are out of danger. The fear is now unnecessary.
Domestic Democracy United,
Founder and Member on Friday, after the attack which forever shook our nation and ex shoom-gang member Barack "Hussein" Obama's administry and elect.
"Thank you, I would like to say that I'm praying for all of the people of Boston and the people of Texas, not to even speak of the fine officials of State and/or Federal Government. I absolutely apologize for my sick joke -
Which is, of course this blog. The only thing I would like to be official about myself is the valuations made within this blog. No, I don't like to say these things - I'm just doing my duty (no pun intended). Thanks for reading, but I recommend not viewing this page anymore. Please go to www.nationalreview.com for all substantive political commentary for the time being."
- Brendan O'Connell aka RT Stillwell aka Clip & Carbine aka John Oswald aka Emo Headache aka Aecorpn
DDU OFFICIAL STATEMENT HERE:
http://www.politalk2.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-cold-war-aint-over.html
^Indicates that Politalk's use of Private Investigation philosophy and methodology was plenty keen to the threat of Russian/Ethnic terrorist/communist and it's presence in the worldhood of the world. Russia - no offense, we don't like you. DDU wants you to stop visiting this page. Ihonestlypityyoupeople.
The major story, as I once commented on in regards to an Occupy protest I soured and spat at directly at the DNC, is not the Lamestream picture being pumped into every goof-box of every hardworking citizen of the world; in fact, the major story is one which no one may ever become aware of!
The major story's are the behind the scenes Police work of Gov'ment agencies far and wide and - to be sure - in the country's city of Boston. This is the only interesting angle to many of us, and is surely something I wouldn't be qualified to speculate on. But the distance between average Harold free citizen and the Boston city and people-hood has been removed.
We
are
all
Bostonians.
...Today it seems.
But the victory of State and/or Federal government agencies in capturing these viciously leftist Russians should and, according to DDU INFO HEADQUARTERS in Raleigh, NC - ahem, will signal for many that we are out of danger. The fear is now unnecessary.
Domestic Democracy United,
Founder and Member on Friday, after the attack which forever shook our nation and ex shoom-gang member Barack "Hussein" Obama's administry and elect.
"Thank you, I would like to say that I'm praying for all of the people of Boston and the people of Texas, not to even speak of the fine officials of State and/or Federal Government. I absolutely apologize for my sick joke -
Which is, of course this blog. The only thing I would like to be official about myself is the valuations made within this blog. No, I don't like to say these things - I'm just doing my duty (no pun intended). Thanks for reading, but I recommend not viewing this page anymore. Please go to www.nationalreview.com for all substantive political commentary for the time being."
- Brendan O'Connell aka RT Stillwell aka Clip & Carbine aka John Oswald aka Emo Headache aka Aecorpn
DDU OFFICIAL STATEMENT HERE:
http://www.politalk2.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-cold-war-aint-over.html
^Indicates that Politalk's use of Private Investigation philosophy and methodology was plenty keen to the threat of Russian/Ethnic terrorist/communist and it's presence in the worldhood of the world. Russia - no offense, we don't like you. DDU wants you to stop visiting this page. Ihonestlypityyoupeople.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Empathy and Compassion: Sentiments of Heart
"Until in anger he
And his cheeks are flushed with shame,
Unholy every note of his song."
- Friedrich Holderlin
Each of us in our own way is shut off from Sympathy, by virtue of our having been estranged from that which is closest to our core senses, one is torn in the alienation of having become. And yet, the bound meaning of world and morals renders void an indominable sense of kinship.
The clown of the corporeal etherealizations, "heaven on earth" ethic and posture, remain even until tomorrow the unbecoming anti-natural inclinations inherent in love as an interlude between lust, happiness, and the mortal coil. One would observse such inclinations in the animal kingdom.
We always understand in a direct, basic sense what the apprehension of subjective selfhood entombs as our objective worldliness. If you have no television, the idea of subjective selfhood seems agape in it's obtrusive ideological candor. The esotericism entrenched in neo-pragmatism makes it's own limits explicit in lasting absolute obscenity.
This obscene alienation is the heart of Sympathy, Empathy and Compassion.
Post-Deconstructionism posits that for-the-sake-of this is meant that of God's mercy, and should one posit anything whatsoever regarding this Enlightenment-Era constitution, need nothing remain posture nor recompense. The need of being-alongside-others is made concrete in the formulations of the classical-as-such. The necessity to be-for-others makes concrete the drive for classical "Rights".
For the only regress of an intolerable hatred for tolerance-as-such is in a kind of trace. The trace of worldhood, as an entity, making explicit the worldliness of a totality-of-tools. The ready-to-hand makes itself known to us in light of ontical-ontological priority. What is a service, lest it be in the name of priority?
Let's go to another point of recompense.
That of the delimiting of dasein in the world.
The limits of dasein.
The limit of knowledge is merely that which makes itself known in the immediate.
Everyday dasein is that which is true. Alienation, the fixture of servitude and malice. Thinking beyond self...
The limits remain.
The easy way out remains beyond, in fact, the limitations of delimiting.
From "Variations on the Devil"
And his cheeks are flushed with shame,
Unholy every note of his song."
- Friedrich Holderlin
Each of us in our own way is shut off from Sympathy, by virtue of our having been estranged from that which is closest to our core senses, one is torn in the alienation of having become. And yet, the bound meaning of world and morals renders void an indominable sense of kinship.
The clown of the corporeal etherealizations, "heaven on earth" ethic and posture, remain even until tomorrow the unbecoming anti-natural inclinations inherent in love as an interlude between lust, happiness, and the mortal coil. One would observse such inclinations in the animal kingdom.
We always understand in a direct, basic sense what the apprehension of subjective selfhood entombs as our objective worldliness. If you have no television, the idea of subjective selfhood seems agape in it's obtrusive ideological candor. The esotericism entrenched in neo-pragmatism makes it's own limits explicit in lasting absolute obscenity.
This obscene alienation is the heart of Sympathy, Empathy and Compassion.
Post-Deconstructionism posits that for-the-sake-of this is meant that of God's mercy, and should one posit anything whatsoever regarding this Enlightenment-Era constitution, need nothing remain posture nor recompense. The need of being-alongside-others is made concrete in the formulations of the classical-as-such. The necessity to be-for-others makes concrete the drive for classical "Rights".
For the only regress of an intolerable hatred for tolerance-as-such is in a kind of trace. The trace of worldhood, as an entity, making explicit the worldliness of a totality-of-tools. The ready-to-hand makes itself known to us in light of ontical-ontological priority. What is a service, lest it be in the name of priority?
Let's go to another point of recompense.
That of the delimiting of dasein in the world.
The limits of dasein.
The limit of knowledge is merely that which makes itself known in the immediate.
Everyday dasein is that which is true. Alienation, the fixture of servitude and malice. Thinking beyond self...
The limits remain.
The easy way out remains beyond, in fact, the limitations of delimiting.
From "Variations on the Devil"
Monday, April 1, 2013
Beyond Collectivism: Anti-Capitalistic Ideologies and Where They Stand
I've talked a bit recently about the ideologies stemming from early philosophers from the young Hegelian school of thought, and tied it to the general term, collectivism. To focus this in the broader spectrum of various ideologies, I will be giving a short bucket list:
1) Communism - This ideology places all of the power of a country or state in the hands of government. Left Wing.
2) Anarchism - No Government. Right Wing.
3) Libertarianism - There is a role for government, but it should be strictly limited. Right Wing.
4) Tea Party - a Centrist Position. Neither right nor left wing.
5) Soft Socialism - Refers to a "Mixed economy" in line with the european model. Left Wing.
6) Fascism - A form of socialism. Left Wing.
Some, such as the tea party and libertarianism are explicitly pro-capitalism. Others such as Fascism, Anarchism, and Communism are implicitly anti-capitalism. Soft Socialism, as such, is neither explicitly anti-capitalism nor implicitly pro-capitalism.
The spectrum, in degree's of extremity of position, consists of the following.
<---communism -="" :="" anarchism---="" fascism="" libertarianism="" party="" socialism="" soft="" tea="">
All of those on the left side are collectivist ideologies and all those on the right side are individualist philosophies. In fact, if one were to gauge the political spectrum as such, from communism on the farthest left to anarchism on the farthest right - one would seem to be, with the political orientation in our age as it is, conducting some perverse form of Criminology.
Truly, with the exception of the Tea Party and Soft Socialism, this would be an apt judgement in any capitalistic system worthy of its salt.
DDU INFORMATION HEADQUARTERS
1) Communism - This ideology places all of the power of a country or state in the hands of government. Left Wing.
2) Anarchism - No Government. Right Wing.
3) Libertarianism - There is a role for government, but it should be strictly limited. Right Wing.
4) Tea Party - a Centrist Position. Neither right nor left wing.
5) Soft Socialism - Refers to a "Mixed economy" in line with the european model. Left Wing.
6) Fascism - A form of socialism. Left Wing.
Some, such as the tea party and libertarianism are explicitly pro-capitalism. Others such as Fascism, Anarchism, and Communism are implicitly anti-capitalism. Soft Socialism, as such, is neither explicitly anti-capitalism nor implicitly pro-capitalism.
The spectrum, in degree's of extremity of position, consists of the following.
<---communism -="" :="" anarchism---="" fascism="" libertarianism="" party="" socialism="" soft="" tea="">
All of those on the left side are collectivist ideologies and all those on the right side are individualist philosophies. In fact, if one were to gauge the political spectrum as such, from communism on the farthest left to anarchism on the farthest right - one would seem to be, with the political orientation in our age as it is, conducting some perverse form of Criminology.
Truly, with the exception of the Tea Party and Soft Socialism, this would be an apt judgement in any capitalistic system worthy of its salt.
DDU INFORMATION HEADQUARTERS
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Component Collectivist Culture: It's Ideology and How It Changes Our Lives
Today, I'd like to introduce a key to understanding and apprehending the serious and dire consequences of collectivism.
That term is what I've coined Component Collectivism.
Component Collectivism is a neo-collectivist worldview rooted in a dysfunctional and pathological neo-Hegelianistic ideology which is mostly known for being directly tied to the philosophy of Marx, who himself was a young Hegelian (or 'neo'-hegelian). This is to be starkly contrasted with the self proclaimed "Old Hegelians"; these early students of George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who is generally recognized as being the most influential philosophe in the entirety of Western Philosophy's history, took his"dialectic" to mean an almost anti-thesis to the broad notion of dialectical materialism and- yea, the "hard" notional inclination to view history in terms of evolution as such. Old Hegelians viewed, according to Robert Solomon (R.I.P.), his dialectic as more an application of Christianity to the methodology of authorship. Anyone keen to Hegel knows, quite simply, that every discipline at every college/university in America and elsewhere is directly derived and indirectly imprinted from and with GWF's stamp and mark. Unequivocally.
The early neo-hegelians, amongst which were the first proto-marxists, had quite a different view of the meaning and functional hands-on utilization's of Hegel's tremendously powerful hermeneutics and Christian theological breakthroughs.
Again, Robert Solomon (author of "In The Spirit of Hegel") surmised the neo-hegelian's formulations as defined by the man himself - Karl Marx.
1) Analyze Hegel as science.
2) Remove "geist" from the equation/formula.
3) Replace "geist" with "Materialism".
By materialism as such is indicated the following: Geist, or spirit, is no longer the central organizing moral formulation. Rather, material goods (i.e. products, computers, phones, homes) determine how a society organizes their cultural focus.
And we all know the webster definition of Marxism; as out of date and irrelevant as it is in our age. Materials are essentially owned by government not individuals, hence irrevocably betraying the most basic and overlooked philosophy of our nation's founding...
That God grants us the freedom to pursue acquisition of property as well as- yea, the general pursuit of happiness. The National Review recently wrote of this "happiness" clause in the constitution to signify directly, in the context of when it was written, to farmers that they had the right to endeavor to buy more property. A bit out-dated and dusty - but in light of Dialectical Materialism, one might glean what the Founding Fathers were attempting to do. The "Happiness" clause is basically and truly a 'fail safe'.
A genius one at that!
Well, fast forward into the early 1900's. Early progressives such as Richard T. Ely and John Dewey along with a slew of proto-marxist disciples endeavored to apply their vision of Dialectical Materialism to the then burgeoning American Politik and Gov'ment.
This is nothing, I assure you beloved reader, like anything an NPR listening neo-progressive can conjur to mind from the last Terry Gross snippet on some far removed FDR rumour.
This was absolutely, in the same sense that Noam "Mr. MIT" Chomsky decried for an entire generation of young Che rebels the horror of defining a Corporation as an individual, a near takeover of our sovereign government by - basically and slightly humorously - "Ze Germans".
All of these leading figures of the early progressive movement were literally trained within the borders of pre-war Germany. All of them learning the scientific (not to mention psychological) methods of inculcating into a society, that is - OUR society, the treasonous philosophy of Dialectical Materialism.
What fruit did their highly successful endeavors yield?
How did this fruit taste and to what degree was it "poisonous"?
Bitter as hell, and with the venom of a viper -
1) Poll Taxes for poor Scotch/Irish and Blacks.
2) Literacy Tests that kept the newly emancipated Blacks from voting.
3) Segregation of the newly emancipated Blacks into ghettos and labor camps.
The fact that the progressive (or "leftist") tide sweeping the South coincided with the darkest moments of the repression of "negros" obviously and painfully belies their current commitment to all things multi-cult. Though, one - even in the age of 'Bama and the Regime - can still see the heritage of the early elitist intellectuals. One can see it in the very notion of that ardently fascist cliche - "Progressive".
In fact, the early engineers of all things Darwinian did facts 1-3 institutionally and with scientific rigor precisely because of 'progress' as such. They believed that the uneducated were, to a point, incapable of understanding freedom or living "free-as-such" lives until they had been sufficiently "Civilized". Their sociological excursions coupled with remarks about the poor and uneducated's (and I quote) "savage blood" etc. reveal an altogether colloquial attitude towards the (and I quote) "inferior races".
In fact, one leading neo-hegelian progressive even went so far as to say (paraphrase) that "the idea that newly emancipated slaves could live in freedom worked [direct quote] 'disaster' and was [direct quote] 'dogmatism'."
Far removed, I'd say, from today's "pragmatic compassion".
Frederick Douglass would probably, in kind, respond "Good Man. Bit off the top."
Fast forward, if you will, once more. To today's age and Politik.
Collectivism has been distilled, through the overthrow of science by neo-darwinists trained in the fine art of profound coffee table quantum physics chattering and tittering, not to mention bulling and cowing, into the deconstruction of the Component as such and the stratification of this verstehen into Collective consciousness. That Component, in a technological era of increasingly rapid advances in the technology of Hardware-as-such, is to be understood to be a Post-Deconstructionist account of the popular abstraction amongst sophomoric students in colleges and universities of the "single particle" or, more to a point, the ancient metaphysical cliche "mote".
Each "mote", in the concrete modern sense, can then be taken from deconstruction and comported (so to speak) in whichever direction our Ideologue Kings desire. Generally, much to the discredit of the Left's "cause", this direction is one which leads the voter down a narrow corridor to a shallow slope of moral and ethical erosion that opens up into an iced-over pond in which the voter is gently but firmly urged to walk to the center and sit down. Shouting from the safety of land, they then yell to the poor soul: "SPIN!"
Component Collectivism could be adequately understood as a "call", understood in the classical Christian sense, which is not of God nor Christian Tradition.
I.E. The removal of "Spirit" from the equation/formula of GWF and it's replacement with - let's just say - thin ice.
I'd say it were diabolical if that didn't understate the real and irrefutable treason that Marxism inherently entails.
Thank you!
RT Stillwell of the Birchers
http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/support-your-local-police
That term is what I've coined Component Collectivism.
Component Collectivism is a neo-collectivist worldview rooted in a dysfunctional and pathological neo-Hegelianistic ideology which is mostly known for being directly tied to the philosophy of Marx, who himself was a young Hegelian (or 'neo'-hegelian). This is to be starkly contrasted with the self proclaimed "Old Hegelians"; these early students of George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who is generally recognized as being the most influential philosophe in the entirety of Western Philosophy's history, took his"dialectic" to mean an almost anti-thesis to the broad notion of dialectical materialism and- yea, the "hard" notional inclination to view history in terms of evolution as such. Old Hegelians viewed, according to Robert Solomon (R.I.P.), his dialectic as more an application of Christianity to the methodology of authorship. Anyone keen to Hegel knows, quite simply, that every discipline at every college/university in America and elsewhere is directly derived and indirectly imprinted from and with GWF's stamp and mark. Unequivocally.
The early neo-hegelians, amongst which were the first proto-marxists, had quite a different view of the meaning and functional hands-on utilization's of Hegel's tremendously powerful hermeneutics and Christian theological breakthroughs.
Again, Robert Solomon (author of "In The Spirit of Hegel") surmised the neo-hegelian's formulations as defined by the man himself - Karl Marx.
1) Analyze Hegel as science.
2) Remove "geist" from the equation/formula.
3) Replace "geist" with "Materialism".
By materialism as such is indicated the following: Geist, or spirit, is no longer the central organizing moral formulation. Rather, material goods (i.e. products, computers, phones, homes) determine how a society organizes their cultural focus.
And we all know the webster definition of Marxism; as out of date and irrelevant as it is in our age. Materials are essentially owned by government not individuals, hence irrevocably betraying the most basic and overlooked philosophy of our nation's founding...
That God grants us the freedom to pursue acquisition of property as well as- yea, the general pursuit of happiness. The National Review recently wrote of this "happiness" clause in the constitution to signify directly, in the context of when it was written, to farmers that they had the right to endeavor to buy more property. A bit out-dated and dusty - but in light of Dialectical Materialism, one might glean what the Founding Fathers were attempting to do. The "Happiness" clause is basically and truly a 'fail safe'.
A genius one at that!
Well, fast forward into the early 1900's. Early progressives such as Richard T. Ely and John Dewey along with a slew of proto-marxist disciples endeavored to apply their vision of Dialectical Materialism to the then burgeoning American Politik and Gov'ment.
This is nothing, I assure you beloved reader, like anything an NPR listening neo-progressive can conjur to mind from the last Terry Gross snippet on some far removed FDR rumour.
This was absolutely, in the same sense that Noam "Mr. MIT" Chomsky decried for an entire generation of young Che rebels the horror of defining a Corporation as an individual, a near takeover of our sovereign government by - basically and slightly humorously - "Ze Germans".
All of these leading figures of the early progressive movement were literally trained within the borders of pre-war Germany. All of them learning the scientific (not to mention psychological) methods of inculcating into a society, that is - OUR society, the treasonous philosophy of Dialectical Materialism.
What fruit did their highly successful endeavors yield?
How did this fruit taste and to what degree was it "poisonous"?
Bitter as hell, and with the venom of a viper -
1) Poll Taxes for poor Scotch/Irish and Blacks.
2) Literacy Tests that kept the newly emancipated Blacks from voting.
3) Segregation of the newly emancipated Blacks into ghettos and labor camps.
The fact that the progressive (or "leftist") tide sweeping the South coincided with the darkest moments of the repression of "negros" obviously and painfully belies their current commitment to all things multi-cult. Though, one - even in the age of 'Bama and the Regime - can still see the heritage of the early elitist intellectuals. One can see it in the very notion of that ardently fascist cliche - "Progressive".
In fact, the early engineers of all things Darwinian did facts 1-3 institutionally and with scientific rigor precisely because of 'progress' as such. They believed that the uneducated were, to a point, incapable of understanding freedom or living "free-as-such" lives until they had been sufficiently "Civilized". Their sociological excursions coupled with remarks about the poor and uneducated's (and I quote) "savage blood" etc. reveal an altogether colloquial attitude towards the (and I quote) "inferior races".
In fact, one leading neo-hegelian progressive even went so far as to say (paraphrase) that "the idea that newly emancipated slaves could live in freedom worked [direct quote] 'disaster' and was [direct quote] 'dogmatism'."
Far removed, I'd say, from today's "pragmatic compassion".
Frederick Douglass would probably, in kind, respond "Good Man. Bit off the top."
Fast forward, if you will, once more. To today's age and Politik.
Collectivism has been distilled, through the overthrow of science by neo-darwinists trained in the fine art of profound coffee table quantum physics chattering and tittering, not to mention bulling and cowing, into the deconstruction of the Component as such and the stratification of this verstehen into Collective consciousness. That Component, in a technological era of increasingly rapid advances in the technology of Hardware-as-such, is to be understood to be a Post-Deconstructionist account of the popular abstraction amongst sophomoric students in colleges and universities of the "single particle" or, more to a point, the ancient metaphysical cliche "mote".
Each "mote", in the concrete modern sense, can then be taken from deconstruction and comported (so to speak) in whichever direction our Ideologue Kings desire. Generally, much to the discredit of the Left's "cause", this direction is one which leads the voter down a narrow corridor to a shallow slope of moral and ethical erosion that opens up into an iced-over pond in which the voter is gently but firmly urged to walk to the center and sit down. Shouting from the safety of land, they then yell to the poor soul: "SPIN!"
Component Collectivism could be adequately understood as a "call", understood in the classical Christian sense, which is not of God nor Christian Tradition.
I.E. The removal of "Spirit" from the equation/formula of GWF and it's replacement with - let's just say - thin ice.
I'd say it were diabolical if that didn't understate the real and irrefutable treason that Marxism inherently entails.
Thank you!
RT Stillwell of the Birchers
http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/support-your-local-police
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Leftist Pathology: Why the Progressive Cabal Is Near Criminal
This indictment, which is based primarily in a piece in the NR which I reported on last year regarding one Mr. Saul Alinsky and his mob connections, is following an inquiry into the role of Religion in the public square. The founders were quite clear on the freedom to speak what one had on ones conscience; and I've found evidence of unconstitutionality if not criminality regarding progressive ideology. Like the 'mob', the left is conspiratorially committed to silence in questions of their interpretation of Biblical truth. Further, this silence often conceals a committment to Alinskian "social justice" or proto-communism.
Saul Alinsky is a man who created what conservatives have decried publicly; a little understood phrase "community organizing". Obama himself has said "I'm still organizing". What does organizing mean for Mr. Obama?
Legally representing an organization which had to close it's doors due to a scandal involving setting up whorehouses for underage illegal immigrants, or ACORN.
He acted as lawyer for ACORN during his up-and-coming years, representing an organization which was set up by Alinsky acolytes.
Alinsky's tactics could be seen in the 2012 election, in which fraud coupled with organized labor was implemented by a supposedly 'sovereign' government to "get out the vote". Alinsky, you must understand, learned his tactics of manipulation from the mob. And Barack Obama's "chicago-style" politics have followed suit with a viciousness not seen in any previous administration.
And those kool-aid drinkers on the left have no sense of humility whatsoever when it comes to disallowing other's expressions of Christian philosophy/theology - perhaps with the exception of the perfunctory 'pope talk' with fellow automatons of the anti-god.
The very phrase, Jesus is Lord, spoken publicly elicits criticism, scoffing, or ethical condemnation.
This is due to the Leftist Cabal literally enslaving the population. Enslaving them with their mind-numbing ideology. Enslaving them with the creation of their wicked imaginations. Enslaving them with their ideology.
It all began in the early 1900's when early progressive thinkers trained in 'neo-hegelian' philosophy (i.e. marxist philosophy) began to take control of America. They believd that freedom came not from God but from the Government.
Ever since, they have sought to make every gain possible, with the ends always justifying their evil means.
So, how is this criminal? How is this pathological?
Collectivism itself is an ideology of pathology.
RT Stillwell
Saul Alinsky is a man who created what conservatives have decried publicly; a little understood phrase "community organizing". Obama himself has said "I'm still organizing". What does organizing mean for Mr. Obama?
Legally representing an organization which had to close it's doors due to a scandal involving setting up whorehouses for underage illegal immigrants, or ACORN.
He acted as lawyer for ACORN during his up-and-coming years, representing an organization which was set up by Alinsky acolytes.
Alinsky's tactics could be seen in the 2012 election, in which fraud coupled with organized labor was implemented by a supposedly 'sovereign' government to "get out the vote". Alinsky, you must understand, learned his tactics of manipulation from the mob. And Barack Obama's "chicago-style" politics have followed suit with a viciousness not seen in any previous administration.
And those kool-aid drinkers on the left have no sense of humility whatsoever when it comes to disallowing other's expressions of Christian philosophy/theology - perhaps with the exception of the perfunctory 'pope talk' with fellow automatons of the anti-god.
The very phrase, Jesus is Lord, spoken publicly elicits criticism, scoffing, or ethical condemnation.
This is due to the Leftist Cabal literally enslaving the population. Enslaving them with their mind-numbing ideology. Enslaving them with the creation of their wicked imaginations. Enslaving them with their ideology.
It all began in the early 1900's when early progressive thinkers trained in 'neo-hegelian' philosophy (i.e. marxist philosophy) began to take control of America. They believd that freedom came not from God but from the Government.
Ever since, they have sought to make every gain possible, with the ends always justifying their evil means.
So, how is this criminal? How is this pathological?
Collectivism itself is an ideology of pathology.
RT Stillwell
Monday, March 4, 2013
Sequestration on the Hill
The prescient news in Washington seems to be the looming "across the board" cuts to defense and entitlements that seem to be leaving both Dems and Repubs cold. I'm of the opinion that while these cuts in spending are a major story, there seems to be something going on underneath the surface which has more to do with why leading figures appear to be so viscerally upset. If I had to make an uninformed guess as to what this, in fact, is - I'd wager it has to do with the negligence and lack of bi-partisan communication that is endemic to Washington D.C. more and more these days.
Bob Woodward on "Meet the Press" described there being a "Bunker Mentality" amongst Washington elites, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this is altogether true. My own governer McCrory. upon a recent visit to D.C. described the situation there to be "very troubling" and "dysfunctional", which is a fairly forward thing for the new Governer to say publicly.
But something eludes me, it seems. There must be something going on in the annals of the executive office and congress that is politely being left unsaid. I can't, for the life of me, put my finger on it. Is it that each side of the partisan divide is steaming mad at each other? Is it that the Repubs have made compromises to the president and feel like they are getting little in return? Mr. Woodward accused the president of "not taking hold of the presidency", so perhaps it's that no one in Washington is taking any initiative on getting anything substantive done. No matter the case, I am of the opin' that there is something rotten in Denmark, and the American publik is being left in the dark about it.
How bad is our debt?
Does China really, for all intents and purposes, own the U.S.?
What is going to "change" in the lives of everyday Americans this year?
Why can't congress and the president work together?
What happened to the "transparency" we were all promised?
These are all questions kindly being avoided at the moment, not to mention questions that we don't even have the information to know to ask about!
The unanimous consent of the press seemed to be that sequestration is a bad thing. Is it really?
The only conclusion I can come to is that Washington must be reorganized, for the sake of the united states of America.
Domestic Democracy United
Bob Woodward on "Meet the Press" described there being a "Bunker Mentality" amongst Washington elites, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this is altogether true. My own governer McCrory. upon a recent visit to D.C. described the situation there to be "very troubling" and "dysfunctional", which is a fairly forward thing for the new Governer to say publicly.
But something eludes me, it seems. There must be something going on in the annals of the executive office and congress that is politely being left unsaid. I can't, for the life of me, put my finger on it. Is it that each side of the partisan divide is steaming mad at each other? Is it that the Repubs have made compromises to the president and feel like they are getting little in return? Mr. Woodward accused the president of "not taking hold of the presidency", so perhaps it's that no one in Washington is taking any initiative on getting anything substantive done. No matter the case, I am of the opin' that there is something rotten in Denmark, and the American publik is being left in the dark about it.
How bad is our debt?
Does China really, for all intents and purposes, own the U.S.?
What is going to "change" in the lives of everyday Americans this year?
Why can't congress and the president work together?
What happened to the "transparency" we were all promised?
These are all questions kindly being avoided at the moment, not to mention questions that we don't even have the information to know to ask about!
The unanimous consent of the press seemed to be that sequestration is a bad thing. Is it really?
The only conclusion I can come to is that Washington must be reorganized, for the sake of the united states of America.
Domestic Democracy United
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)