"The Book of Revelation exhibits to us the same peculiarities as that of Nature....
The history of the Fall of Man—of the introduction of moral and physical evil, the prediction of the Messiah, the actual advent of our Saviour, His instructions, His miracles, His death, His resurrection, and the subsequent propagation of His religion by the unlettered fishermen of Galilee, are each a stumbling-block to the wisdom of this world....
But though the system of revealed truth which this Book contains is, like that of the universe, concealed from common observation, yet the labors of the centuries have established its Divine origin, and developed in all its order and beauty the great plan of human restoration."
(America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations
(2000) By William J. Federer :474)
Monday, November 29, 2004
The parable of the atheist....
Once upon a time there was an atheist. Like most atheists they did not believe in God because they thought he was a Big Meanie. The argument looks a little like this, "God, why do you let these bad things happen? You know, if you keep letting bad things happen then I will not believe in you. Alright God, you just let another bad thing happen, so now I will not believe in you! You do not exist. So take that, God!"
The bad thing that happened to this atheist was a family member dying. Everyone dies but people get more upset when it happens in certain ways. So the atheist did not blame God for the general matter of death and dying, just that it happened in what they thought was the wrong way in their family. Their mother had died early and their father had already abandoned them at that time. So one earthly creator was not a very good witness nor representative for the Creator and the other died. All these things combined and this atheist piled every evil thing that they could think of high until they came to that point of denying the Creator's existence. It often takes a big mound of things to get there, like a littany of problems that they build in their heads.
One day, they were philosophizing with another man and he said, "The existence of a Creator is a fact, already you know you did not create yourself and so you know you had at least one type of creator. Aristotle just extended this type of thing out to argue for the existence of an ultimate unmoved Mover."
The other man replied, "Yes, there are creators. And I hate my father for abandoning me."
His friend said, "But, he does still exist."
"He's not all powerful like people say God is. If he's so powerful then he should do something. He's just abandoning me too. So even if he does exist he does not matter to me."
"Then be honest and just say that you do not like God, not that he does not exist. God is not your earthly father. In fact, by the complexity of Nature and things of that sort it seems like he is an ultimate Being who does what he wills."
"I know! So if he is all that then he does not matter to me. He's not all that to me if he abandons me and so many other people too. Duh!"
"You know I like to deal with things from a broad philosophical perspective. But as to these personal things, who did he abandon?"
"My mother, she died of cancer."
"Was your mother just matter in motion? If she was then death is just more matter, in more motion. Then it was a delusion that you were ever talking to or loving more than just matter in motion."
"Of course she was not, she was a human being!"
"Who created human beings and so who then ultimately created her?"
"Alright, if I say her parents did then you'll go all the way back to abiogenesis or the Big Bang or something. I know you. And I know you can make evolution seem silly somehow, I can't seem to defend it. So let's just say that God did ultimately make her or cause her to be like you want to. So what? He still abandoned her, just like me."
"Well, you're right that I'm not used to dealing with an argument that is purely emotional. Essentially, it seems that you're saying that God does not do things as you would have God do things and so you refuse to believe in his existence.
Doing some research I read a news account once of a Rwandan mother whose son was murdered in the genocide there. Yet she forgave the killers because of her belief in God. I can give you the account if you like. She seems the opposite of you, she trusts God inspite of her feelings that he is letting things happen that should not happen."
"Just as I say, she has been abandoned and should know it. Look around you, where is God? Invisible?"
"Not another issue....at least we resolved that God does exist but that you believe in disbelieving to punish him for abandonment. So the real issue is if he has abandons people and not if he exists. So you're not actually an atheist but are still anti-God."
"That's fine with me."
"Okay, that was interesting. Maybe we can talk more philosophy another time."
"Alright.....I'm going to think of more ways that God is evil."
"It's a little odd to say that the definition of Good and the Creator of it, is Evil."
"I define what is good!"
"We'll have to talk about it later."
(Continued...)
The bad thing that happened to this atheist was a family member dying. Everyone dies but people get more upset when it happens in certain ways. So the atheist did not blame God for the general matter of death and dying, just that it happened in what they thought was the wrong way in their family. Their mother had died early and their father had already abandoned them at that time. So one earthly creator was not a very good witness nor representative for the Creator and the other died. All these things combined and this atheist piled every evil thing that they could think of high until they came to that point of denying the Creator's existence. It often takes a big mound of things to get there, like a littany of problems that they build in their heads.
One day, they were philosophizing with another man and he said, "The existence of a Creator is a fact, already you know you did not create yourself and so you know you had at least one type of creator. Aristotle just extended this type of thing out to argue for the existence of an ultimate unmoved Mover."
The other man replied, "Yes, there are creators. And I hate my father for abandoning me."
His friend said, "But, he does still exist."
"He's not all powerful like people say God is. If he's so powerful then he should do something. He's just abandoning me too. So even if he does exist he does not matter to me."
"Then be honest and just say that you do not like God, not that he does not exist. God is not your earthly father. In fact, by the complexity of Nature and things of that sort it seems like he is an ultimate Being who does what he wills."
"I know! So if he is all that then he does not matter to me. He's not all that to me if he abandons me and so many other people too. Duh!"
"You know I like to deal with things from a broad philosophical perspective. But as to these personal things, who did he abandon?"
"My mother, she died of cancer."
"Was your mother just matter in motion? If she was then death is just more matter, in more motion. Then it was a delusion that you were ever talking to or loving more than just matter in motion."
"Of course she was not, she was a human being!"
"Who created human beings and so who then ultimately created her?"
"Alright, if I say her parents did then you'll go all the way back to abiogenesis or the Big Bang or something. I know you. And I know you can make evolution seem silly somehow, I can't seem to defend it. So let's just say that God did ultimately make her or cause her to be like you want to. So what? He still abandoned her, just like me."
"Well, you're right that I'm not used to dealing with an argument that is purely emotional. Essentially, it seems that you're saying that God does not do things as you would have God do things and so you refuse to believe in his existence.
Doing some research I read a news account once of a Rwandan mother whose son was murdered in the genocide there. Yet she forgave the killers because of her belief in God. I can give you the account if you like. She seems the opposite of you, she trusts God inspite of her feelings that he is letting things happen that should not happen."
"Just as I say, she has been abandoned and should know it. Look around you, where is God? Invisible?"
"Not another issue....at least we resolved that God does exist but that you believe in disbelieving to punish him for abandonment. So the real issue is if he has abandons people and not if he exists. So you're not actually an atheist but are still anti-God."
"That's fine with me."
"Okay, that was interesting. Maybe we can talk more philosophy another time."
"Alright.....I'm going to think of more ways that God is evil."
"It's a little odd to say that the definition of Good and the Creator of it, is Evil."
"I define what is good!"
"We'll have to talk about it later."
(Continued...)
Sunday, November 28, 2004
A sage of an age....
The good ones generally all say the same sort of things.
A Chinese sage of the distant past was once asked by his disciples what he would do first if he were given power to set right the affairs of the country. He answered: "I should certainly see to it that language is used correctly." The disciples looked perplexed. "Surely," they said, "this is a trivial matter Why should you deem it so important?" And the Master replied: "If language is not used correctly, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will be corrupted; if morals and art are corrupted, justice will go astray; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion."
A Chinese sage of the distant past was once asked by his disciples what he would do first if he were given power to set right the affairs of the country. He answered: "I should certainly see to it that language is used correctly." The disciples looked perplexed. "Surely," they said, "this is a trivial matter Why should you deem it so important?" And the Master replied: "If language is not used correctly, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will be corrupted; if morals and art are corrupted, justice will go astray; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion."
In the beginning was the Image?
Wait, in the beginning was the Word and not an Image....and here is where those who want sight like on MTVeeee begin to get lost. The MTVeeee degeneration begins to want sight more and more, not insight. Here is a little satire I wrote a while back for a Herd of the MTVeee generation who seemed to want sight but not insight. This is how the weak shepherd of the story, gets weak. There are some minds that hide between the lines, away from signs. It is fun to read between the lines and create some signs by design. Then some minds will draw all kinds of lines and designs, for they have their design too, then things get drawn out.
The parable of the strong and weak shepherds,
Once upon a time there was a weak shepherd. He spoke to the Good Shepherd and said, "Give me some good feelings or an Image which will make me feel good?" The Good Shepherd did not answer though, which was the answer no.
The shepherd who would become strong prayed, "Just show me the truth of things, so that I might come to know! That is all that matters to me." The Good shepherd did answer.
Every time the weak shepherd came to a chasm he tried to just jump over it, since that seemed fast and easy. He often broke his leg. The other came to a chasm and slowly built a bridge over and put up a sign, so that little lambs might follow the path. Every time the weak shepherd came to a boulder in the way he tried to just climb over it. As he fell down and hurt himself he thought, "Man, this seems useless." But he kept trying anyway. This weakened him further. The other came to the boulder and sought out a path around it, then put up a sign for little lambs to follow the path. One day these two shepherds happened to meet. The weak shepherd still had a little flock. The strong shepherd thought, "Hmmm, I never have much cared for weak shepherds." Then he saw a little lamb he loved that seemed to have joined the flock and he thought, "Hmmm..."
So he stood in the middle of the Primrose Path which the weak shepherd led his flock down. The weak shepherd was just walking along, minding his own business. He came up to the other and said, "Would you mind? Get out of my way." The other said, "I do mind. Do you mind?" He studied the weak shepherd for a bit, seeing all his bruises and his weaknesses. Then, thwack, thwack, he started hitting the other shepherd. The other said, "Hey! Would you, uh, eh, OUCH! I....would you just cut that out!" The nice shepherd did not know how to fight for he had never learned. All he had learned from books on good herd keeping was for the sake of looking wise in the eyes of little lambs. Then THWACK, the stronger hit him on the leg once. One nice little lamb bleated something meaning, "That's just not nice!" The nice shepherd sat down on a rock and said, "Since you hurt me, I'd rather die than agree about the path!" The stronger just laughed and said, "Well, I am going to continue to live, laugh and walk it! Don't you know how truly nice it is! I will continue to point out the true path to the little lambs even if you say not to." There was also a woolly little lamb who wanted to see things from both sides and he would go from one to another, observing. He saw some shepherd shears on the belt of the strong shepherd and ran back to the other.
The stronger shepherd spied an opportunity and he said to one little lamb, "You know, Mary had a little lamb and she is farther up this straight and narrow path with all the signs posted on it." So that little lamb went up the path.
Then the stronger shepherd walked away.
The parable of the strong and weak shepherds,
Once upon a time there was a weak shepherd. He spoke to the Good Shepherd and said, "Give me some good feelings or an Image which will make me feel good?" The Good Shepherd did not answer though, which was the answer no.
The shepherd who would become strong prayed, "Just show me the truth of things, so that I might come to know! That is all that matters to me." The Good shepherd did answer.
Every time the weak shepherd came to a chasm he tried to just jump over it, since that seemed fast and easy. He often broke his leg. The other came to a chasm and slowly built a bridge over and put up a sign, so that little lambs might follow the path. Every time the weak shepherd came to a boulder in the way he tried to just climb over it. As he fell down and hurt himself he thought, "Man, this seems useless." But he kept trying anyway. This weakened him further. The other came to the boulder and sought out a path around it, then put up a sign for little lambs to follow the path. One day these two shepherds happened to meet. The weak shepherd still had a little flock. The strong shepherd thought, "Hmmm, I never have much cared for weak shepherds." Then he saw a little lamb he loved that seemed to have joined the flock and he thought, "Hmmm..."
So he stood in the middle of the Primrose Path which the weak shepherd led his flock down. The weak shepherd was just walking along, minding his own business. He came up to the other and said, "Would you mind? Get out of my way." The other said, "I do mind. Do you mind?" He studied the weak shepherd for a bit, seeing all his bruises and his weaknesses. Then, thwack, thwack, he started hitting the other shepherd. The other said, "Hey! Would you, uh, eh, OUCH! I....would you just cut that out!" The nice shepherd did not know how to fight for he had never learned. All he had learned from books on good herd keeping was for the sake of looking wise in the eyes of little lambs. Then THWACK, the stronger hit him on the leg once. One nice little lamb bleated something meaning, "That's just not nice!" The nice shepherd sat down on a rock and said, "Since you hurt me, I'd rather die than agree about the path!" The stronger just laughed and said, "Well, I am going to continue to live, laugh and walk it! Don't you know how truly nice it is! I will continue to point out the true path to the little lambs even if you say not to." There was also a woolly little lamb who wanted to see things from both sides and he would go from one to another, observing. He saw some shepherd shears on the belt of the strong shepherd and ran back to the other.
The stronger shepherd spied an opportunity and he said to one little lamb, "You know, Mary had a little lamb and she is farther up this straight and narrow path with all the signs posted on it." So that little lamb went up the path.
Then the stronger shepherd walked away.
Another old parable....
A parable about a metaphysician,
Once upon a time there was a young women who danced naked in the temple and sold graven images of herself for money. There was also a man of business who made as much money as he could. They were both in a crowd one day as a metaphysician spoke, "I tell you the truth, if any man thinks of committing adultery with a woman then it is as if he has already done it."
The young woman called out, "You seemed like a nice guy but now you're threatening my livelihood. I have to make a living. You degrade me!"
She walked away crying. The man of business turned to the metaphysician and said, "Ha! So she's a sinner and a whore." The metaphysician replied, "Go and give her all your money and support her. It is your false business dealings that have resulted in her poverty and her dancing to feed her children." The man of business said, "So you think I'm greedy? The other day, you seemed nice!" He stalked away angrily....
The metaphysician thought to himself, "They know not what they do. I wonder if they will be among those who kill me to kill the Truth I speak?"
Then he turned and saw that the man of business was helping the temple prostitute down the street and comforting her. Sometimes the revenge of the Conscience is sweet indeed.
----------
About the revenge of Conscience, vengeance is His. This often applies to the Herd, right in their own dead heads.
Spoiled Amenity, the nice guy....some spoiled rotten fruit will not like the meaning of true meaning? Is true meaning, meanness?
"Amenity, or complaisance, is the impulse every person has to accommodate himself to all the rest. Like every moral impulse it carries sanctions: in this case, fear of rejection and desire to belong. But as with every moral impulse, the sanctions are only training wheels, preparing us forobedience to a deeper moral principle written on the heart. A mature person accommodates himself to others not just from fearof rejection and desire to belong, but from concern for their legitimate interests. The problem, of course, is that in many of us the impulse never does mature. We continue to rely on the training wheels and never learn to ride. Unfortunately, this makes a difference. Mature amenity draws a boundary; [But the discrimination of that!] precisely because I care about the legitimate interests of others, my willingness to accommodate has a limit. At just the point where going along would not be good for all, I call a halt. Stunted amenity cannot make such distinctions. It cannot stop accommodating; it does not know how. I give Grandma lethal drugs to accommodate my relatives; to accommodate me, Grandma asks for lethal drugs. A girl has an abortion to accommodate her boyfriend; to accommodate his girlfriend, the boy goes along. We know these things are wrong, but for fear of being on the outs with others we do them anyway. In the extreme case, we accommodate each other to death. Of course people suffer remorse when they commit these terrible deeds. For present purposes, the more interesting fact is that they also tend to suffer remorse when they refuse to commit them. When they hold out, when they say no, when they resist the clamor of voices telling them what to do, they feel not only afraid, but in the wrong. This shows that, like prudence, the urge to accommodateis not simply self-regard even when it is spoiled and self-regarding. It draws strength from the very sense of obligation that it corrupts. Conscience always does the best it can; when driven from its proper course, it finds another and flows on.
Spoiled Honor....."
(The Revenge of Conscience:
Politics and the Fall of Man
By J. Budziszewski)
The New Man is a creature of Stolen Honor.
Once upon a time there was a young women who danced naked in the temple and sold graven images of herself for money. There was also a man of business who made as much money as he could. They were both in a crowd one day as a metaphysician spoke, "I tell you the truth, if any man thinks of committing adultery with a woman then it is as if he has already done it."
The young woman called out, "You seemed like a nice guy but now you're threatening my livelihood. I have to make a living. You degrade me!"
She walked away crying. The man of business turned to the metaphysician and said, "Ha! So she's a sinner and a whore." The metaphysician replied, "Go and give her all your money and support her. It is your false business dealings that have resulted in her poverty and her dancing to feed her children." The man of business said, "So you think I'm greedy? The other day, you seemed nice!" He stalked away angrily....
The metaphysician thought to himself, "They know not what they do. I wonder if they will be among those who kill me to kill the Truth I speak?"
Then he turned and saw that the man of business was helping the temple prostitute down the street and comforting her. Sometimes the revenge of the Conscience is sweet indeed.
----------
About the revenge of Conscience, vengeance is His. This often applies to the Herd, right in their own dead heads.
Spoiled Amenity, the nice guy....some spoiled rotten fruit will not like the meaning of true meaning? Is true meaning, meanness?
"Amenity, or complaisance, is the impulse every person has to accommodate himself to all the rest. Like every moral impulse it carries sanctions: in this case, fear of rejection and desire to belong. But as with every moral impulse, the sanctions are only training wheels, preparing us forobedience to a deeper moral principle written on the heart. A mature person accommodates himself to others not just from fearof rejection and desire to belong, but from concern for their legitimate interests. The problem, of course, is that in many of us the impulse never does mature. We continue to rely on the training wheels and never learn to ride. Unfortunately, this makes a difference. Mature amenity draws a boundary; [But the discrimination of that!] precisely because I care about the legitimate interests of others, my willingness to accommodate has a limit. At just the point where going along would not be good for all, I call a halt. Stunted amenity cannot make such distinctions. It cannot stop accommodating; it does not know how. I give Grandma lethal drugs to accommodate my relatives; to accommodate me, Grandma asks for lethal drugs. A girl has an abortion to accommodate her boyfriend; to accommodate his girlfriend, the boy goes along. We know these things are wrong, but for fear of being on the outs with others we do them anyway. In the extreme case, we accommodate each other to death. Of course people suffer remorse when they commit these terrible deeds. For present purposes, the more interesting fact is that they also tend to suffer remorse when they refuse to commit them. When they hold out, when they say no, when they resist the clamor of voices telling them what to do, they feel not only afraid, but in the wrong. This shows that, like prudence, the urge to accommodateis not simply self-regard even when it is spoiled and self-regarding. It draws strength from the very sense of obligation that it corrupts. Conscience always does the best it can; when driven from its proper course, it finds another and flows on.
Spoiled Honor....."
(The Revenge of Conscience:
Politics and the Fall of Man
By J. Budziszewski)
The New Man is a creature of Stolen Honor.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Thanksgiving....
Continental Congress, November 1, 1777
The First National Proclamation of Thanksgiving:
"For asmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received and to implore such further blessing as they stand in need of; and it having pleased Him in His abundant mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of His common Providence.. .to smile upon us as in the prosecution of a just and necessary war for the defense and establishment of our unalienable rights and liberties...
It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart Thursday, the eighteenth day of December next, for the solemn thanksgiving and praise:
That with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favour, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance;
That it may please Him graciously to afford His blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the Providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States, the greatest of all human blessings, independence and peace;
That it may please Him, to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people, and the labour of the husbandman, that our land may yet yield its increase; to take school and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under His nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth “in righteous, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
And it is further recommended, that servile labour, and such recreation as, though at other times innocent, may be unbecoming the purpose of this appointment, be omitted on so solemn an occasion.
(America's God and Country (2000) William J. Federer :147)
The First National Proclamation of Thanksgiving:
"For asmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received and to implore such further blessing as they stand in need of; and it having pleased Him in His abundant mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of His common Providence.. .to smile upon us as in the prosecution of a just and necessary war for the defense and establishment of our unalienable rights and liberties...
It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart Thursday, the eighteenth day of December next, for the solemn thanksgiving and praise:
That with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favour, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance;
That it may please Him graciously to afford His blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the Providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States, the greatest of all human blessings, independence and peace;
That it may please Him, to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people, and the labour of the husbandman, that our land may yet yield its increase; to take school and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under His nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth “in righteous, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
And it is further recommended, that servile labour, and such recreation as, though at other times innocent, may be unbecoming the purpose of this appointment, be omitted on so solemn an occasion.
(America's God and Country (2000) William J. Federer :147)
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
The Sands of the Seashore....something to wonder about.
So now the nations are like the sand of the seashore. But each grain of sand is actually pretty interesting in its own way.
"A grain of sand, which has a size of about 100 microns, is made up of a million atoms and each atom is about a millionth of a millimeter. Each atom is a universe in its own right. At its center is the nucleus made up of protons and neutrons which is surrounded by a cloud of electrons. 99.9% of its volume is an empty vacuum. There are 92 different kinds of atoms, and these constitute the periodic table of naturally occurring elements."
(The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern
Science to the Mind of God
by Roy Abraham Varghese :399)
"A grain of sand, which has a size of about 100 microns, is made up of a million atoms and each atom is about a millionth of a millimeter. Each atom is a universe in its own right. At its center is the nucleus made up of protons and neutrons which is surrounded by a cloud of electrons. 99.9% of its volume is an empty vacuum. There are 92 different kinds of atoms, and these constitute the periodic table of naturally occurring elements."
(The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern
Science to the Mind of God
by Roy Abraham Varghese :399)
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
The artist and the scientist...
Once upon a time there was an artist who painted a picture for a scientist. She gave it to him and hung it on his wall. She noticed that he was looking at it too closely and would not be able to see the big picture. She said, "Stand back here with me."
He replied, "It looks like it is a compound of pigments, some type of material." She said, "I know, come back here with me to be able to see the big picture." He said, "I only look at things scientifically. You know, people talking about looking at the big picture have done terrible things in the name of the big picture!" Then he got out a little magnifying glass and studied a corner of the picture intently. She said, "Look, you know I would not do anything terrible in the name of the big picture. Now would you just come back here and look at the big picture?"
He said, "It's not scientific to look at the big picture. No....and the science of me, that is what is tested and verifiable." Then, he got out a knife to take a scraping of the picture. His friend came forward, grabbed his hand and said, "Stop! What do you think you're doing?" He replied, "I have to test the materials of it to be able to make some observations."
She said, "You're going to ruin it! You should have stood back to observe it with me if you wanted to make observations. But I can see that you do not want to see the big picture. You know, that is really ashame because it is beautiful." Then she took it off the wall and walked out. The scientist caught a glimpse of her big picture as she walked out and it seemed beautiful. Then he thought, "But I once heard that people who see the big picture are a threat to science. Science!" So he turned away from it and went back to his test-tubes.
He replied, "It looks like it is a compound of pigments, some type of material." She said, "I know, come back here with me to be able to see the big picture." He said, "I only look at things scientifically. You know, people talking about looking at the big picture have done terrible things in the name of the big picture!" Then he got out a little magnifying glass and studied a corner of the picture intently. She said, "Look, you know I would not do anything terrible in the name of the big picture. Now would you just come back here and look at the big picture?"
He said, "It's not scientific to look at the big picture. No....and the science of me, that is what is tested and verifiable." Then, he got out a knife to take a scraping of the picture. His friend came forward, grabbed his hand and said, "Stop! What do you think you're doing?" He replied, "I have to test the materials of it to be able to make some observations."
She said, "You're going to ruin it! You should have stood back to observe it with me if you wanted to make observations. But I can see that you do not want to see the big picture. You know, that is really ashame because it is beautiful." Then she took it off the wall and walked out. The scientist caught a glimpse of her big picture as she walked out and it seemed beautiful. Then he thought, "But I once heard that people who see the big picture are a threat to science. Science!" So he turned away from it and went back to his test-tubes.
A Science Experiment..
Once upon a time some scientists figured out how to live forever by using space-time to shift their minds into robotic bodies. But because of gravity's impact on the mind this was only possible on the moon, so that is where they lived as robots. They figured that given a million years they could make anything happen, just like it happened on earth, for intelligent selection would be much faster than any natural selection. They had some water and found some ice caps. So they brought the materials into a room to get started. They would need some organisms.
They tried and tried but the materials just would not come "alive." It was always something mechanical instead, like the machines they lived in that they could create. They could almost make a virus but they were really just complex molecules. These brilliant scientists could not even make on little animal and begin to make the moon habitable.
Then one said, "Maybe natural selection cannot make organisms if we cannot do so by all our intelligent selections?"
Another replied, "Whoever started saying that natural selection could somehow make organisms, anyway? Great, now we are stuck here in a dead world."
They realized that they actually did not want to live forever and that this Cosmos was most likely not going to exist forever anyway. So eventually they were bored to death and turned their robotic body off. One of them thought before he did, "I wish I had paid more attention to religion so I could know something about what might happen to my spirit."
They tried and tried but the materials just would not come "alive." It was always something mechanical instead, like the machines they lived in that they could create. They could almost make a virus but they were really just complex molecules. These brilliant scientists could not even make on little animal and begin to make the moon habitable.
Then one said, "Maybe natural selection cannot make organisms if we cannot do so by all our intelligent selections?"
Another replied, "Whoever started saying that natural selection could somehow make organisms, anyway? Great, now we are stuck here in a dead world."
They realized that they actually did not want to live forever and that this Cosmos was most likely not going to exist forever anyway. So eventually they were bored to death and turned their robotic body off. One of them thought before he did, "I wish I had paid more attention to religion so I could know something about what might happen to my spirit."
Monday, November 22, 2004
Semantics.....
I came accross these quotes looking for something else and I may as well put them here so that I have them archived.
The noble rhetorician,
"The rhetorician seeks to move men. It is reasonable, therefore, to judge his effectiveness by ascertaining whether he has moved any and, if so, how many. But it is precisely this seemingly incontrovertible logic that we must now scrutinize. The base rhetorician seeks to move men toward evil; since it seems to be the nature of man that he wants to go to hell as quickly as possible, it is not surprising that effective base rhetoricians can greatly accelerate this process for millions, and tens or even hundreds of millions of per sons. Marx, Lenin, and Hitler were indeed successful in influencing great multitudes. This is precisely why we consider them eminent rhetoricians, base to be sure, but brilliant. After all, many individuals try to drive men into slavery, as if they were cattle; but only a few succeed. These we hail as “great historical figures.” I submit that we cannot judge the noble rhetorician by this standard. Since he urges men to be better than they are, the noble rhetorician cannot possibly succeed in changing those who prefer to remain as they are or become evil. Indeed, because his task is to bring men to them selves, not to him, the noble rhetorician ought not to be judged by his manifest effect on others at all. Rather, he ought to be judged by the clarity and steadfastness with which he proclaims his counsel. Should not a single person heed his advice, the noble rhetorician would still have to be judged successful in proportion as he succeeds in per fecting his own soul by perfecting his own language. So judged, Kraus’s success is as imposing as that of his ad versaries whom he so “unsuccessfilly” opposed. For, in the final analysis, what Karl Kraus sought was to purify him self by purifying his own language. He achieved his goal. He died a semantic saint in a semantically satanic society."
(Anti-Freud
By Thomas Szasz :56-57)
Later, a young man speaks forth the Truth,
'What is important, what brings together all these questions,' Yorck replied, 'is the totalitarian claim of the State on the individual which forces him to renounce his moral and religious obligations to God.' 'Nonsense!' cried Freisler, and he cut off the young man. [Nazi judges never have liked a word that is like a curse to them, "God."]
....punishment was meted out as soon as the trial had ended on August 8.
....Goebbels is said to have kept himself from fainting by holding his hands over his eyes."
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
By William L. Shirer. (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :240)
The noble rhetorician,
"The rhetorician seeks to move men. It is reasonable, therefore, to judge his effectiveness by ascertaining whether he has moved any and, if so, how many. But it is precisely this seemingly incontrovertible logic that we must now scrutinize. The base rhetorician seeks to move men toward evil; since it seems to be the nature of man that he wants to go to hell as quickly as possible, it is not surprising that effective base rhetoricians can greatly accelerate this process for millions, and tens or even hundreds of millions of per sons. Marx, Lenin, and Hitler were indeed successful in influencing great multitudes. This is precisely why we consider them eminent rhetoricians, base to be sure, but brilliant. After all, many individuals try to drive men into slavery, as if they were cattle; but only a few succeed. These we hail as “great historical figures.” I submit that we cannot judge the noble rhetorician by this standard. Since he urges men to be better than they are, the noble rhetorician cannot possibly succeed in changing those who prefer to remain as they are or become evil. Indeed, because his task is to bring men to them selves, not to him, the noble rhetorician ought not to be judged by his manifest effect on others at all. Rather, he ought to be judged by the clarity and steadfastness with which he proclaims his counsel. Should not a single person heed his advice, the noble rhetorician would still have to be judged successful in proportion as he succeeds in per fecting his own soul by perfecting his own language. So judged, Kraus’s success is as imposing as that of his ad versaries whom he so “unsuccessfilly” opposed. For, in the final analysis, what Karl Kraus sought was to purify him self by purifying his own language. He achieved his goal. He died a semantic saint in a semantically satanic society."
(Anti-Freud
By Thomas Szasz :56-57)
Later, a young man speaks forth the Truth,
'What is important, what brings together all these questions,' Yorck replied, 'is the totalitarian claim of the State on the individual which forces him to renounce his moral and religious obligations to God.' 'Nonsense!' cried Freisler, and he cut off the young man. [Nazi judges never have liked a word that is like a curse to them, "God."]
....punishment was meted out as soon as the trial had ended on August 8.
....Goebbels is said to have kept himself from fainting by holding his hands over his eyes."
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
By William L. Shirer. (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :240)
The Ace and the Turkeys....
Given the cognitive and temperamental patterns required, it is not surprising to find that the ability to fly aircraft successfully in combat is an ability that not many have. Indeed, it is not an ability that even all combat pilots have. Aviation analysts recognize that the majority of combat kills are scored by a small minority of pilots. Mike Spick has observed: "The gulf between the average fighter pilot and the successful one is very wide. In fact it is arguable that there are almost no average fighter pilots; just aces and turkeys; killers and victims."(Buffalo Law Review
As one Air Force pilot stated, "Most guys can master the mechanics of the systems, but it's instinctive to be able to assimilate all the data, get a big picture, and react offensively. Not a lot of guys can do that."
[...]
Ideally, one would have only "aces" or "killers," leaving the "turkeys" and "victims" to another career path. The difficulty lies, however, in the fact that there is no known way to separate the aces and the turkeys prior to combat. Unfortunately, many of those who will end up being turkeys often do not know what they are getting into. These pilots may have the ability, intelligence, and know-how to fly the plane well, but they ultimately lack the "fighting spirit" that they will need in combat.
Winter, 2001
49 Buffalo L. Rev. 51
Women at War: An Evolutionary Perspective
By Kingsley R. Browne)
I was reminded of this when watching a small portion of CBS's 60 minutes on Sunday night. I did not watch much, all I really caught was the end of an interview with a guy who was in the war. He has a mental illness, etc. And I began thinking about it. Perhaps it is like this, perhaps some guys are too wimpy for war just like some guys are Aces and some are Turkeys. Because if you're going to shoot someone in the head then you do not sit down and meditate upon it. You do not try to fight John Kerry's "sensitive war" or replay Vietnam. Out of moral vanity you do not try to get all emotional to prove how sensitive and caring you are. Maybe some guys will just sit down and stare at the blood on their hands and think about how horrible they are while thinking, "The other guys were not being evil for they probably had families. No, instead maybe I am the one who is evil."
There is something more going on here than just blood and guts and the physical. Doctors deal with similar gory sights everyday, yet they do not tend toward "mental illness" in the same way. The real issue seems to be the link between moral certitude and morale so it is little wonder that the West has increasing difficulty in war. Yet do you really think that the Islamists go home and cry about things? Is this what has really happened throughout history too? I will have to think about it some more but what seems to be going on is that the New Man actually wants to feel bad about fighting a war. So that is what he does, he seeks out paths to feel bad about it. Then he feels worse about it, worse and worse.
The New Man is not like an ancient warrior, something has changed for the New Man, perhaps it is this tendency of trying to say that he has the bloody hands.
You probably never heard this story because journalists are too busy constructing the New Man:
On March 25, 2003, then-Lieutenant Brian R. Chontosh, 29, of Rochester, N.Y., was leading his platoon on Highway 1 south of Baghdad when his troops came under a coordinated ambush of mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, and automatic-weapons fire.
....He ordered his driver to advance directly into the enemy trench. Chontosh leapt from his vehicle and began firing with his rifle and pistol. But his ammunition ran out. "With complete disregard for his safety," according to the citation, "he twice picked up discarded enemy rifles and continued his ferocious attack.... When his audacious attack ended, he had cleared over 200 meters of the enemy trench, killing more than 20 enemy soldiers and wounding several others.
National Review Online
Reported once in all the Old Press, a local paper:
(St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
June 2, 2004 Wednesday
SECTION: HERNANDO TIMES;
Pg. 4HEADLINE: MILITARY NEWS)
Contrast the current state of the media with the past when an American national hero was praised by Hollywood and the media:
York, a poor farmer from Tennessee, had under gone a religious conversion before World War I and was a professed pacifist. Drafted into the army, York told his company commander, Maj. George E. Buxton, of his convictions. Unusually understanding, Buxton spent a long night discussing the Bible’s teachings on war with York and eventually gave him ten days’ leave to consider whether or not he wanted to fight; had York decided not to do so, Buxton would have given him a noncombat assignment. After much soul-searching, York decided to fight. In October 1918, acting virtually alone, York somehow managed to kill 25 German soldiers and take 132 prisoner, thus earning for himself, among other awards, a French Croix de Guerre and an American Congressional Medal of Honor.(This is the Army: Imagining a Democratic
Military in World War II
By Benjamin L. Alpers
The Journal of American History
Vol. 85, No. 1. (Jun., 1998) pp. 129-163)
So perhaps you can see how things have changed as journalists construct the New Man, even within a short time in history. So now one has to listen to the newly deconstructed New Man who hardly seems to be a man at all sniveling on CBS. It seems that the Leftists on 60 Minutes only want to show American their Turkeys and cannot find our Aces.
I did not watch for that long. I suppose the New Man is the new American hero, very like John Kerry in his heroism. I wonder why that marine that shot the man in the mosque is to be investigated when Kerry openly said he did far worse and he is not investigated? Is it only because he is the New Man with his new "senstive war" and non-lethal weapons? (Makes sense, against those who are already near suicidal, let's try non-lethal weapons so they can be sure they will live. For the tolerance of it all!)
The daily war that goes on, sight unseen.
A little of it.
"There are other types of spikes on the skin. One of the most interesting is a class of molecules called magainins, discovered by a biologist named Mike Zasloff after he wondered why live laboratory frogs that are cut open and sewed back up in nonsterile conditions rarely get infections. He showed that their skin excretes a substance which can kill bacterial cells; Since then, magainins have been discovered in many kinds of animals. But magainins, like the RNA-destroying enzymes, are not precursors to the sophisticated defense systems under the skin of animals.
To find the heavy weaponry we have to peek under our skins. The internal defense system of vertebrates is dizzyingly complicated. Like the modem U.S. army, it has a variety of different weapons that can overlap in their use. But like the weapons we discussed above we must not automatically assume the different parts of the immune system are physical precursors of each other. Although the body’s defenses are still an active area of research, much is known in detail about particular aspects. In this chapter I will discuss selected parts of the immune system and point out the problems they present for a model of gradual evolution. Those who become intrigued by the cleverness of the systems and want to know more are encouraged to pick up any immunology text for the details.
When a microscopic invader breaches the outer defenses of the body, the immune system swings into action. This happens automatically. The molecular systems of the body, like the Star Wars anti-missile system that the military once planned, are robots designed to run on autopilot. Since the defense is automated, every step has to be accounted for by some mechanism. The first problem that the automated defense system has is how to recognize an invader. Bacterial cells have to be distinguished from blood cells; viruses have to be distinguished from connective tissue. Unlike us, the immune system can’t see, so it has to rely initially on something akin to a sense of touch."
(Darwin's Black Box, By Michael J. Behe :119-120)
What narratives based on evolutionism really seem to explain best are viruses. What such hypotheses seem to have the best explanatory power for is degeneration, not generation. Besides a few things like that a lot of evolutionism is hypothesis, not theory.
But there is a summary of some of what goes on in your body, a lot of back and forth fighting, war. You are like a recycler too. When this recycling goes wrong a little girl moves stiffly, her eyes are puffy, she has an enlarged heart and other organs. She has a cough and upper respiratory problems throughout her life. She is severly retarded. She will die before the age of five. All of this because her recycling system is not working.
"In children with the I-cell disease, the garbage is dumped into the disposal as it should be, but the disposal is broken....
As a result garbage piles up, and lysosomes get filled. The cell makes new lysosomes to accomodate the increasing waste, but the new compartments eventually fill up with the detritus of cellular life. Over time the entire cell becomes bloated, tissue becomes enlarged, and the patient dies." (Ib. 113-114)
Some little girl's stories are not those of redemption and some wars are lost. At least in this time...
It is interesting that most people do not realize how healthy they are, until they get sick.
"There are other types of spikes on the skin. One of the most interesting is a class of molecules called magainins, discovered by a biologist named Mike Zasloff after he wondered why live laboratory frogs that are cut open and sewed back up in nonsterile conditions rarely get infections. He showed that their skin excretes a substance which can kill bacterial cells; Since then, magainins have been discovered in many kinds of animals. But magainins, like the RNA-destroying enzymes, are not precursors to the sophisticated defense systems under the skin of animals.
To find the heavy weaponry we have to peek under our skins. The internal defense system of vertebrates is dizzyingly complicated. Like the modem U.S. army, it has a variety of different weapons that can overlap in their use. But like the weapons we discussed above we must not automatically assume the different parts of the immune system are physical precursors of each other. Although the body’s defenses are still an active area of research, much is known in detail about particular aspects. In this chapter I will discuss selected parts of the immune system and point out the problems they present for a model of gradual evolution. Those who become intrigued by the cleverness of the systems and want to know more are encouraged to pick up any immunology text for the details.
When a microscopic invader breaches the outer defenses of the body, the immune system swings into action. This happens automatically. The molecular systems of the body, like the Star Wars anti-missile system that the military once planned, are robots designed to run on autopilot. Since the defense is automated, every step has to be accounted for by some mechanism. The first problem that the automated defense system has is how to recognize an invader. Bacterial cells have to be distinguished from blood cells; viruses have to be distinguished from connective tissue. Unlike us, the immune system can’t see, so it has to rely initially on something akin to a sense of touch."
(Darwin's Black Box, By Michael J. Behe :119-120)
What narratives based on evolutionism really seem to explain best are viruses. What such hypotheses seem to have the best explanatory power for is degeneration, not generation. Besides a few things like that a lot of evolutionism is hypothesis, not theory.
But there is a summary of some of what goes on in your body, a lot of back and forth fighting, war. You are like a recycler too. When this recycling goes wrong a little girl moves stiffly, her eyes are puffy, she has an enlarged heart and other organs. She has a cough and upper respiratory problems throughout her life. She is severly retarded. She will die before the age of five. All of this because her recycling system is not working.
"In children with the I-cell disease, the garbage is dumped into the disposal as it should be, but the disposal is broken....
As a result garbage piles up, and lysosomes get filled. The cell makes new lysosomes to accomodate the increasing waste, but the new compartments eventually fill up with the detritus of cellular life. Over time the entire cell becomes bloated, tissue becomes enlarged, and the patient dies." (Ib. 113-114)
Some little girl's stories are not those of redemption and some wars are lost. At least in this time...
It is interesting that most people do not realize how healthy they are, until they get sick.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Two men, philosophizing.....
Once upon a time two men had a conversation about God, as they sometimes do.
One said, "If God exists then why does he not just appear before me and say so? Yeah, it just so happens that God is invisible.
Of course he is! Right...."
The other replied, "I cannot see what you are saying."
"Why not?" the first said.
"What you are saying seems to be invisible. That is why."
"Well, maybe it is. But I'm sure that you can see my point about God. He should just appear, so then I could see for myself."
The second said, "I cannot see your point."
"Let me guess, because it is invisible. Yeah, funny..."
The second man replied, "Yep. ...but hey, maybe you should make it appear before me and then I could see it."
"How do you expect me to do that?"
"Well, write it down."
So the first man wrote it down and said, "There, now you can see my point!"
Then the other man handed him a Bible and replied, "Here, maybe now you can see God's point."
The first man said, "If I read this will you read what I wrote and see my point?"
The other replied, "As soon as you begin to read the text of Nature too, then we can speak of the visible and invisible. Your denial of the invisible is philosophically absurd. It is like a lil' child not understanding object permanence and crying when their parent leaves the room.
Coochy coo....do you need your diaper changed?"
"Hey, the intolerance of that. I'm a grown man!"
"It's not my fault you are being a crybaby about this."
"I'm going to read this Bible and prove you wrong, so wrong!"
"Yeah, well go ahead and try because you are not doing so well now. So, do you want to watch the football game tonight?"
"Yeah...."
"Alright, see you then..."
One said, "If God exists then why does he not just appear before me and say so? Yeah, it just so happens that God is invisible.
Of course he is! Right...."
The other replied, "I cannot see what you are saying."
"Why not?" the first said.
"What you are saying seems to be invisible. That is why."
"Well, maybe it is. But I'm sure that you can see my point about God. He should just appear, so then I could see for myself."
The second said, "I cannot see your point."
"Let me guess, because it is invisible. Yeah, funny..."
The second man replied, "Yep. ...but hey, maybe you should make it appear before me and then I could see it."
"How do you expect me to do that?"
"Well, write it down."
So the first man wrote it down and said, "There, now you can see my point!"
Then the other man handed him a Bible and replied, "Here, maybe now you can see God's point."
The first man said, "If I read this will you read what I wrote and see my point?"
The other replied, "As soon as you begin to read the text of Nature too, then we can speak of the visible and invisible. Your denial of the invisible is philosophically absurd. It is like a lil' child not understanding object permanence and crying when their parent leaves the room.
Coochy coo....do you need your diaper changed?"
"Hey, the intolerance of that. I'm a grown man!"
"It's not my fault you are being a crybaby about this."
"I'm going to read this Bible and prove you wrong, so wrong!"
"Yeah, well go ahead and try because you are not doing so well now. So, do you want to watch the football game tonight?"
"Yeah...."
"Alright, see you then..."
Some words about thoughts and some thoughts about words.
"It is perfectly safe to attribute [innate mental structures] to 'natura lselection', so long as we realize that there is no substance to this assertion, that it amounts to nothing more than a belief that there is some naturalistic explanation for these phenomena. . . .
In the case of such systems as language. . . . it is not easy even to imagine a course of selection that might havegiven rise to them."
--Noam Chomsky, notable Leftist
"Teleological thinking has been steadfastly resisted by modern biology. And yet, in nearly every area of research biologists are hard pressed to find language that does not impute purposiveness to living forms."
--Timothy Lenior, science historian
If you talk to some biologists it is interesting to watch their language. Just wait, they will use language that imputes purpose, one way or another. Then it is time to give their inner child a richly deserved spanking.
Even the term natural "selection" itself tells the same story because a selection is made by intelligence. Natural accident, natural happenstance, natural occurence or recurrence, etc., would be in line with the philosophy that most biologists believe that their field has to exist in and support. So as biologists, they are always supposed to talk that way. I.e., they have to try to talk dehumanized, which is hard for humans to do. Journalists are similar, with their notion of objectivity as being like a dead, inanimate object.
Compared to other sciences biology seems to be the embattled hold out for the grand ol' mythological narratives of naturalism.
So you mainly have the journalists, biologists, National Geographic and PBS....but who believes PBS anymore?
Just keep in the back of your mind as you listen to these grand ol' mythological narratives of naturalism told by the journalists and biologists things like the existence of thought, language, information and mind. Keep in mind the bird's wing, the fish's gill, the Earth-Moon system, a field of grass, down to the irreducible complexity of biochemical machines....and the list goes on.
Maybe I will cite a biochemist on that last one sometime.
Later.
In the case of such systems as language. . . . it is not easy even to imagine a course of selection that might havegiven rise to them."
--Noam Chomsky, notable Leftist
"Teleological thinking has been steadfastly resisted by modern biology. And yet, in nearly every area of research biologists are hard pressed to find language that does not impute purposiveness to living forms."
--Timothy Lenior, science historian
If you talk to some biologists it is interesting to watch their language. Just wait, they will use language that imputes purpose, one way or another. Then it is time to give their inner child a richly deserved spanking.
Even the term natural "selection" itself tells the same story because a selection is made by intelligence. Natural accident, natural happenstance, natural occurence or recurrence, etc., would be in line with the philosophy that most biologists believe that their field has to exist in and support. So as biologists, they are always supposed to talk that way. I.e., they have to try to talk dehumanized, which is hard for humans to do. Journalists are similar, with their notion of objectivity as being like a dead, inanimate object.
Compared to other sciences biology seems to be the embattled hold out for the grand ol' mythological narratives of naturalism.
So you mainly have the journalists, biologists, National Geographic and PBS....but who believes PBS anymore?
Just keep in the back of your mind as you listen to these grand ol' mythological narratives of naturalism told by the journalists and biologists things like the existence of thought, language, information and mind. Keep in mind the bird's wing, the fish's gill, the Earth-Moon system, a field of grass, down to the irreducible complexity of biochemical machines....and the list goes on.
Maybe I will cite a biochemist on that last one sometime.
Later.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Arafat, another anti-Semite is gone.
For Lincoln,
"Arafat's undisclosed illness is well-known, but has been kept under wraps by the mainstream media." Speaking of media bias, here's a question you won't hear in our bigpapers or on network TV: Does Yasser Arafat have AIDS?" asks Frum, who also writes for the National Post." We know he has a blood disease that is depressing his immune system.We know that he has suddenly dropped considerable weight -- possibly as much as one-third of all his body weight. We know that he is suffering intermittent mental dysfunction. What does this sound like?"
Earlier, John Loftus told John Batchelor on ABC radio on October 26that Arafat is dying from AIDS. Loftus said the CIA has known thisabout Arafat for quite awhile and that as a result the US has encouraged Sharon not to take Arafat out because the US has known Arafat was about done. It was deemed better to have Arafat discredited as a homosexual. Although homosexuality is rife in the Arab world, it is at least officially considered a sin and a crime, and regarded--especially in fundamentalist circles--as a mark of great shame and depravity.
[....]
In his memoirs "Red Horizons," Pacepa relates a conversation in 1978 with Constantin Munteaunu, a general assigned to teach Arafat and thePLO techniques to deceive the West into granting the organization recognition."I just called the microphone monitoring center to ask about the'Fedayee,'" Arafat's code name, explained Munteaunu. "After the meeting with the Comrade, he went directly to the guest house and had dinner. At this very moment, the 'Fedayee' is in his bedroom making love to his bodyguard. The one I knew was his latest lover. He's playing tiger again. The officer monitoring his microphones connected me live with the bedroom[......]
Munteaunu continued: "I've never before seen so much cleverness, blood and filth all together in one man." Munteaunu, wrote Pacepa, spent months pulling together secret reports from Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian intelligence agencies as well as Romanian files." I used to think I knew just about everything there was to know about Rahman al-Qudwa," Arafat's real name, "about the construction engineer who made a fortune in Kuwait, about the passionate collector of racing cars, about Abu Amman," Arafat's nom de guerre, "and about my friend Yasser, with all his hysterics," explained Munteaunu, handing Pacepahis final report on the PLO leader. "But I've got to admit that I didn't really know anything about him." Pacepa wrote: 'The report was indeed an incredible account of fanaticism, of devotion to his cause, of tangled oriental political maneuvers, of lies, of embezzled PLO funds deposited in Swiss banks, and of homosexual relationships, beginning with his teacher when he was a teenager and ending with his current bodyguards. After reading the report, I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat, or even just shaken his hand.'"
(Hospital concealment strengthens suspicion:
Arafat died of AIDS
By israelinsider.com
November 11, 2004)
Compare with,
'Most loathsome of all is the reeking miasma of furtive, unnatural sexuality that fills and fouls the whole atmosphere around him, like an evil emanation. Nother [sic] in this environment is straightforward. Surreptitious relationships, substitutes and symbols, false sentiments and secret lusts - nothing in this man's surroundings is natural and genuine, nothing has the openness of a natural instinct.'0ne of Hitler's reactions which is carefully hidden from the public is his love for pornography."
(A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler, His Life and Legend
Walter C. Langer
Office of Strategic Services Washington, D.C.)
Perhaps one of these days a man who has a stygian stench about him will succeed in his anti-Semitism. Who can say? What is it that they try to keep hidden? What is the pattern of being that lurks there? Demonology, it seems to be a lost art. Maybe it was lost by happenstance.
Sometimes to have a chance in a dance you have to take a chance and then make Chance dance. Then Happenstance has to take a stance in the dance.
So take a chance....
"Arafat's undisclosed illness is well-known, but has been kept under wraps by the mainstream media." Speaking of media bias, here's a question you won't hear in our bigpapers or on network TV: Does Yasser Arafat have AIDS?" asks Frum, who also writes for the National Post." We know he has a blood disease that is depressing his immune system.We know that he has suddenly dropped considerable weight -- possibly as much as one-third of all his body weight. We know that he is suffering intermittent mental dysfunction. What does this sound like?"
Earlier, John Loftus told John Batchelor on ABC radio on October 26that Arafat is dying from AIDS. Loftus said the CIA has known thisabout Arafat for quite awhile and that as a result the US has encouraged Sharon not to take Arafat out because the US has known Arafat was about done. It was deemed better to have Arafat discredited as a homosexual. Although homosexuality is rife in the Arab world, it is at least officially considered a sin and a crime, and regarded--especially in fundamentalist circles--as a mark of great shame and depravity.
[....]
In his memoirs "Red Horizons," Pacepa relates a conversation in 1978 with Constantin Munteaunu, a general assigned to teach Arafat and thePLO techniques to deceive the West into granting the organization recognition."I just called the microphone monitoring center to ask about the'Fedayee,'" Arafat's code name, explained Munteaunu. "After the meeting with the Comrade, he went directly to the guest house and had dinner. At this very moment, the 'Fedayee' is in his bedroom making love to his bodyguard. The one I knew was his latest lover. He's playing tiger again. The officer monitoring his microphones connected me live with the bedroom[......]
Munteaunu continued: "I've never before seen so much cleverness, blood and filth all together in one man." Munteaunu, wrote Pacepa, spent months pulling together secret reports from Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian intelligence agencies as well as Romanian files." I used to think I knew just about everything there was to know about Rahman al-Qudwa," Arafat's real name, "about the construction engineer who made a fortune in Kuwait, about the passionate collector of racing cars, about Abu Amman," Arafat's nom de guerre, "and about my friend Yasser, with all his hysterics," explained Munteaunu, handing Pacepahis final report on the PLO leader. "But I've got to admit that I didn't really know anything about him." Pacepa wrote: 'The report was indeed an incredible account of fanaticism, of devotion to his cause, of tangled oriental political maneuvers, of lies, of embezzled PLO funds deposited in Swiss banks, and of homosexual relationships, beginning with his teacher when he was a teenager and ending with his current bodyguards. After reading the report, I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat, or even just shaken his hand.'"
(Hospital concealment strengthens suspicion:
Arafat died of AIDS
By israelinsider.com
November 11, 2004)
Compare with,
'Most loathsome of all is the reeking miasma of furtive, unnatural sexuality that fills and fouls the whole atmosphere around him, like an evil emanation. Nother [sic] in this environment is straightforward. Surreptitious relationships, substitutes and symbols, false sentiments and secret lusts - nothing in this man's surroundings is natural and genuine, nothing has the openness of a natural instinct.'0ne of Hitler's reactions which is carefully hidden from the public is his love for pornography."
(A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler, His Life and Legend
Walter C. Langer
Office of Strategic Services Washington, D.C.)
Perhaps one of these days a man who has a stygian stench about him will succeed in his anti-Semitism. Who can say? What is it that they try to keep hidden? What is the pattern of being that lurks there? Demonology, it seems to be a lost art. Maybe it was lost by happenstance.
Sometimes to have a chance in a dance you have to take a chance and then make Chance dance. Then Happenstance has to take a stance in the dance.
So take a chance....
Mathematics are the schematics and confuse those who desire to be wise in their own eyes.
....seeing that the poetic or mythical accounts of eclipses are false. They are not, as men believed prior to the advent of science, a sign from the gods. Eclipses are beyond the power of the gods. They belong to nature. One need not fear the gods. The theoretical experience is one of liberation, not only negatively—freeing the thinker from fear of the gods—but also positively, simultaneously a discovery of the best way of life.
[....]
What had previously been checked in man’s soul comes into full play. Freedom from the myths and their insistence that piety is best permits man to see that knowing is best, the end for which everything else is done, the only end that without self-contradiction can be said to be final.
(The Closing of the American Mind, By Alan Bloom :271)
The jumping off point for this sort of philosophy is wrong. The philosopher becomes lost in the explanatory power of mathematics to make predictions, to prophesy. Then they want to kneel down before the language rather than try to seek and find the nature of its Writer. So that is what they begin to do, trying to put the language in Nature and then beginning to worship her as in the French Revolution and their temples to the supposed Mother of Reason.
Yet the foundation is not there. Eclipses are designed, the only question is how the signs read. The pseudo-intellectuals are the ones who get lost in the reading and forget to try to seek and find the Writer of questions. Some of evidence that eclipses have been designed with a purpose, to begin with you have to have a planet that is a good observatory of the heavens. It also has to be in a certain portion of its own galaxy. It has to have a certain kind of star, just like the Sun. The Sun and the Earth-Moon system have to have a certain type of size and various intricate relationships, just so, with nothing too much and nothing found wanting. The Earth-Moon system should be referred to as such because the ratios of the relationship are complementary, just so. And so on.
To experience a total solar eclipse is much more than simply to see it. The event summons all the senses. The dramatic drop in temperature was just as much a part of it as the blocked Sun and the “oohs” and “aahs” from the crowd. Just after the total phase ended, many burst into spontaneous applause, as if rewarding a choreographer for a well-executed ballet.
This was only the fourth total solar eclipse visible from India in the twentieth century. Still, I was surprised at the Indians’ interest in this eclipse. National television covered the event, with crews set up at three or four locations spread across the eclipse path. One of them shared our site. Prior to departing India, I received a videotaped copy of the TV coverage from a colleague. A number of scholars were interviewed on the scientific aspects of solar eclipses; others discussed Indian eclipse mythology and superstitions. The TV producers, it seemed, were trying to show the world that India had finally discarded religious superstition and entered the era of scientific enlightenment. But the widespread superstitious practices in evidence during this eclipse, such as people—especially pregnant women—remaining indoors, suggest they were not quite successful.
(The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery
By Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards :3)
Perhaps some women have an intuition about some symbols, the period must come to an end. The marker for a cycle of periods will not last forever, as it is written. Its orbit goes off, bit by bit. It is just a bit.
To those who have sense, more will be given. Those who lack, even what they have will be taken from them, after they pay back their debt of Karma. If only they had one who could make some Karma for them to pay their debt.
Those who have sense, let them make sense. Now that would be nice.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Drivel of the day.
Morals mistaken for fear and prejudice
Ben Lisenby, Wilmington
"The voters have spoken. Sure, our economy is teetering. The budget deficit is a malignant tumor. The armed forces are stretched perilously thin in an unwinnable war based on lies. Former allies despise us. Osama bin Laden is thumbing his nose at us. Our ports and chemical plants are as vulnerable as ever, and our health care system is a national tragedy. Our addiction to oil is squeezing household budgets and crushing businesses, while manufacturing jobs are vanishing as the trade deficit soars."
Littany, a littany of "problems," well they just do not get it. Some of these "problems" are not problems in the first place. Second, they keep losing with their littany of problems. The health care system will be helped by getting rid of the trial lawyers. Yet this guy apparently wanted to elect John Edwards, a smarmy trial lawyer par excellence. And so on, down the list of problems, there are some answers to these things. It's not worth doing. This littany of Leftists does not convince and does not seem to win elections. So it is fine, may as well just let Leftist ideas keep going with the flow of the toilet bowl.
"Decades of hard-won gains in environmental protection, civil rights and human rights are being chipped away."
Mommy earth, mommy earth, she is in danger!? Does he actually know anything or is this his own psychological problem, one might ask.
As to rights, what human rights, what civil rights? Can you have a human right without admitting to what is right? Can you have civil rights sans civilization?
"But pay that no mind. In 11 key states, ballot initiatives told us what was really important in this election: We're gonna see to it that homosexuals don't get hitched. Who do they think they are? Citizens?"
They seem to feel that homosexuality is who they are and defines living a true pattern of life, a lifestyle. That is their mistake, their neurosis. If a nation has virtue then they there will be Liberty. If they are decadent then they will have less and less. Those who are decadent are those all around the world who have less liberty. They inevitably begin to police basic aspects of freedom of speech and free excercise of religion. They want to make all your discriminations for you thanks to their own phobias.
Ironically, it is "gays" who have a whole pattern of phobias. Then they project it onto others. They are Victims par excellence, you see.
"Goodbye, America. Hello, Christian Taliban."
Now he's just being a crybaby.
Ironic, was it not the neo-conservatives who took out the Taliban?
"One thing confuses me."
Hmmm, a lot more than one thing confuses this lil' fella.
"For all the talk about religion and moral values in the polls, it seems to me there is nothing godly or moral about fear and prejudice."
Well, since I just posted this on another place I'll use it here.
Who is phobic? Why do some people irrationally keep claiming fear, fear! It is as if they fear, fear. It's a little humorous. And do you not know that you are dangery dangerous if you believe in basic things of the family like mom being mom, dad being dad and perhaps meeting for Thanksgiving to the dread Creator?
It's all so....frightening! I'll bet that the Taliban has Thanksgiving too, you know. The Leftist moral degenerates do not have common sense when they try to fear monger based on their own phobias. Is the fear of a group of fundamentalistas walking down the street, coming back from Bible study or Church generally rational or irrational?
Phobias are only those fears that are irrational. Who is being phobic?
Would you fear a group of men who defined their own being and the truth by their own sexual desires and appetites. If that was their sort of religion. If they tended to blackmail and manipulations. If they had sex where they pleased and that sort of thing, public restrooms. If there was a group that seemed to have a religion of hedonism.
And what happens if someone gets in the way of religious hedonism?
"They carried signs proclaiming tolerance, whichthey used to knock down the signs representing opposing viewpoints. .....We felt that it was unsafe for our family to participate in this rally opposing the inclusion of gay and lesbian materials in B.C. schools."
(The Vancouver Sun June 10, 1997, Tuesday
Editorial Pg. A14
Christian-bashing
Byline: Peter Fidlay)
The Canadians....conservatives have been losing there. That is certain.
"Parents opposed to a controversial sex kit used in sex education classes in Durham schools will demonstrate in Whitby today. The Life Facts Sexuality kit, approved by the education ministry, has been criticized by the Family Action Council as promoting homosexuality and pornography. 'The documents and pictures are really sexually explicit,' FAC Coordinator Brian Chiasson said. 'There is a picture of a man [Etc., you do not want to know.] ...'"
(The Toronto Sun February 16, 1998, Monday,
NEWS, Pg. 1 Parents Rally to Protest Sex Kit
Byline: Cheryl Waugh)
What happens if religious hedonists get in the way of other hedonists?
"I was the only openly gay person at the Yale Graduate School(1968-1972), a candor that was professionally costly. That anyonewith my aggressive and scandalous history could be called 'homophobic,'as has repeatedly been done, shows just how insanely Stalinist gay activism has become." --Camille Paglia
She misplaced the pattern, Communists did not countenance homosexuality that much. The correct pattern she is dealing with is Nazism, not Italian fascism but Nazism.
"Konrad Heiden (1945, p. 235) went further and described homosexuality as being pervasive and indeed institutionalized within the S.A. movement and its predecessors: “The perversion was widespread in the secret murderers’ army of the post-warperiod and its devotees denied that it was a perversion.They were proud, regarded themselves as ‘different from the others,’ meaning better.” This is perhaps not surprising, since so many of the leaders of the S.A. [Sturmarbeitelung, the Nazi Storm Troopers] were open homosexuals..."
(American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, No. 5, Mar., 1982
Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries
Christie Davies :1057-1038)
"The only criterion for membership in the Party was that the applicant be 'Unconditionally obedient and faithfully devoted to me'. When someone asked if that applied to thieves and criminals, Hitler said, 'Their private lives don't concern me.' [.....] Rauschning (276) expresses a similar sentiment:
'Most loathsome of all is the reeking miasma of furtive, unnatural sexuality that fills and fouls the whole atmosphere around him, like an evil emanation. Nother [sic] in this environment is straightforward. Surreptitious relationships, substitutes and symbols, false sentiments and secret lusts - nothing in this man's surroundings is natural and genuine, nothing has the openness of a natural instinct.'
0ne of Hitler's reactions which is carefully hidden from the public is his love for pornography."
(A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler, His Life and Legend
Walter C. Langer
Office of Strategic Services Washington, D.C.)
And so on, various patterns can be proven historically given the intersection of patterns of mind/psychology and the body politic. No doubt, some may want to challenge various things to maintain their current politics, especially if they are a religious hedonist.
All I will say is that generally nothing gets published in a peer reviewed journal of sociology, history and what have you that is not thoroughly vetted, cited and known. A scholar's professional credibility is on the line there. Use that first and then interpret a secret wartime psychological analysis written by American psychologists in light of other facts, etc.
But if you want to try to question something because of your political philosophy then come here and try. This is a free forum.
I forgot to deal with the irony of all the sniveling about phobias that typically ends the socialist's littany, the lil' list of problems that Leftists like to claim they are the cure for. It's like a little list and a pattern that just keeps repeating. They seem to all feel alike.
I will copy some things over about phobias in the comments section of this post, since I already wrote it for some other place.
Ben Lisenby, Wilmington
"The voters have spoken. Sure, our economy is teetering. The budget deficit is a malignant tumor. The armed forces are stretched perilously thin in an unwinnable war based on lies. Former allies despise us. Osama bin Laden is thumbing his nose at us. Our ports and chemical plants are as vulnerable as ever, and our health care system is a national tragedy. Our addiction to oil is squeezing household budgets and crushing businesses, while manufacturing jobs are vanishing as the trade deficit soars."
Littany, a littany of "problems," well they just do not get it. Some of these "problems" are not problems in the first place. Second, they keep losing with their littany of problems. The health care system will be helped by getting rid of the trial lawyers. Yet this guy apparently wanted to elect John Edwards, a smarmy trial lawyer par excellence. And so on, down the list of problems, there are some answers to these things. It's not worth doing. This littany of Leftists does not convince and does not seem to win elections. So it is fine, may as well just let Leftist ideas keep going with the flow of the toilet bowl.
"Decades of hard-won gains in environmental protection, civil rights and human rights are being chipped away."
Mommy earth, mommy earth, she is in danger!? Does he actually know anything or is this his own psychological problem, one might ask.
As to rights, what human rights, what civil rights? Can you have a human right without admitting to what is right? Can you have civil rights sans civilization?
"But pay that no mind. In 11 key states, ballot initiatives told us what was really important in this election: We're gonna see to it that homosexuals don't get hitched. Who do they think they are? Citizens?"
They seem to feel that homosexuality is who they are and defines living a true pattern of life, a lifestyle. That is their mistake, their neurosis. If a nation has virtue then they there will be Liberty. If they are decadent then they will have less and less. Those who are decadent are those all around the world who have less liberty. They inevitably begin to police basic aspects of freedom of speech and free excercise of religion. They want to make all your discriminations for you thanks to their own phobias.
Ironically, it is "gays" who have a whole pattern of phobias. Then they project it onto others. They are Victims par excellence, you see.
"Goodbye, America. Hello, Christian Taliban."
Now he's just being a crybaby.
Ironic, was it not the neo-conservatives who took out the Taliban?
"One thing confuses me."
Hmmm, a lot more than one thing confuses this lil' fella.
"For all the talk about religion and moral values in the polls, it seems to me there is nothing godly or moral about fear and prejudice."
Well, since I just posted this on another place I'll use it here.
Who is phobic? Why do some people irrationally keep claiming fear, fear! It is as if they fear, fear. It's a little humorous. And do you not know that you are dangery dangerous if you believe in basic things of the family like mom being mom, dad being dad and perhaps meeting for Thanksgiving to the dread Creator?
It's all so....frightening! I'll bet that the Taliban has Thanksgiving too, you know. The Leftist moral degenerates do not have common sense when they try to fear monger based on their own phobias. Is the fear of a group of fundamentalistas walking down the street, coming back from Bible study or Church generally rational or irrational?
Phobias are only those fears that are irrational. Who is being phobic?
Would you fear a group of men who defined their own being and the truth by their own sexual desires and appetites. If that was their sort of religion. If they tended to blackmail and manipulations. If they had sex where they pleased and that sort of thing, public restrooms. If there was a group that seemed to have a religion of hedonism.
And what happens if someone gets in the way of religious hedonism?
"They carried signs proclaiming tolerance, whichthey used to knock down the signs representing opposing viewpoints. .....We felt that it was unsafe for our family to participate in this rally opposing the inclusion of gay and lesbian materials in B.C. schools."
(The Vancouver Sun June 10, 1997, Tuesday
Editorial Pg. A14
Christian-bashing
Byline: Peter Fidlay)
The Canadians....conservatives have been losing there. That is certain.
"Parents opposed to a controversial sex kit used in sex education classes in Durham schools will demonstrate in Whitby today. The Life Facts Sexuality kit, approved by the education ministry, has been criticized by the Family Action Council as promoting homosexuality and pornography. 'The documents and pictures are really sexually explicit,' FAC Coordinator Brian Chiasson said. 'There is a picture of a man [Etc., you do not want to know.] ...'"
(The Toronto Sun February 16, 1998, Monday,
NEWS, Pg. 1 Parents Rally to Protest Sex Kit
Byline: Cheryl Waugh)
What happens if religious hedonists get in the way of other hedonists?
"I was the only openly gay person at the Yale Graduate School(1968-1972), a candor that was professionally costly. That anyonewith my aggressive and scandalous history could be called 'homophobic,'as has repeatedly been done, shows just how insanely Stalinist gay activism has become." --Camille Paglia
She misplaced the pattern, Communists did not countenance homosexuality that much. The correct pattern she is dealing with is Nazism, not Italian fascism but Nazism.
"Konrad Heiden (1945, p. 235) went further and described homosexuality as being pervasive and indeed institutionalized within the S.A. movement and its predecessors: “The perversion was widespread in the secret murderers’ army of the post-warperiod and its devotees denied that it was a perversion.They were proud, regarded themselves as ‘different from the others,’ meaning better.” This is perhaps not surprising, since so many of the leaders of the S.A. [Sturmarbeitelung, the Nazi Storm Troopers] were open homosexuals..."
(American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, No. 5, Mar., 1982
Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries
Christie Davies :1057-1038)
"The only criterion for membership in the Party was that the applicant be 'Unconditionally obedient and faithfully devoted to me'. When someone asked if that applied to thieves and criminals, Hitler said, 'Their private lives don't concern me.' [.....] Rauschning (276) expresses a similar sentiment:
'Most loathsome of all is the reeking miasma of furtive, unnatural sexuality that fills and fouls the whole atmosphere around him, like an evil emanation. Nother [sic] in this environment is straightforward. Surreptitious relationships, substitutes and symbols, false sentiments and secret lusts - nothing in this man's surroundings is natural and genuine, nothing has the openness of a natural instinct.'
0ne of Hitler's reactions which is carefully hidden from the public is his love for pornography."
(A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler, His Life and Legend
Walter C. Langer
Office of Strategic Services Washington, D.C.)
And so on, various patterns can be proven historically given the intersection of patterns of mind/psychology and the body politic. No doubt, some may want to challenge various things to maintain their current politics, especially if they are a religious hedonist.
All I will say is that generally nothing gets published in a peer reviewed journal of sociology, history and what have you that is not thoroughly vetted, cited and known. A scholar's professional credibility is on the line there. Use that first and then interpret a secret wartime psychological analysis written by American psychologists in light of other facts, etc.
But if you want to try to question something because of your political philosophy then come here and try. This is a free forum.
I forgot to deal with the irony of all the sniveling about phobias that typically ends the socialist's littany, the lil' list of problems that Leftists like to claim they are the cure for. It's like a little list and a pattern that just keeps repeating. They seem to all feel alike.
I will copy some things over about phobias in the comments section of this post, since I already wrote it for some other place.
Political philosophers and their malcontents, judges who cannot read a text.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
(Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis (Sept. 28,1820) in 15 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 276, 277(Andrew A. Lipscomb & Albert Ellery Bergh eds., 1904) )
What modern judges think,
"Like the character of an individual, the legitimacy of the Court must be earned over time. So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Their belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court INVESTED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL CASES AND SPEAK BEFORE ALL OTHERS FOR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL IDEALS."
112 S. Ct. 2816 (1992) (emphasis added) Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Leftist totalitarians will make all your discriminations for you. And the nicety of them for doing that. They are just looking out for you and defining the text of the Constitution for you. It is a good thing they are there because they are the only ones who know what portions of a text emit penumbras. I wonder if their own judicial opinions written in text also emit lil' penumbras that can mean whatever a reader wants them to mean? How about I make that text emit the penumbra, "The people who wrote this text are arrogant retards."
Or would that be a penumbra of the penumbra?
Lincoln notes the view of modern judges,
"[I]f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in INAUGURAL ADDRESSES OF THE PRESIDENTOF THE UNITED STATES FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON1789 TO GEORGE BUSH 1989, S. DOC. No.10, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 133, 139 (1989))
"I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction . . . . I confess, then, I think it important, in the present case, . . . to set an example against broad construction by appealing for new power to the people."
(Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Cary Nicholas (Sept. 7, 1803), in 8 THE WRITINGS OF THOMASJEFFERSON 247-28 (Paul L. Ford ed., 1897)
What limits judicial socialists is what they will want to use whatever power they have to attack. For then the pet penumbras of such a fascist will be safe.
The Creator makes Right unalienable and text to have transcendent meaning and so the modern judge will have a sort of visceral reaction on this. So "God" is a dirty word to the modern socialist judge. Yet, a person running down the street naked, pornography, throwing excrement around and that sort of thing is to be called "speech" and it must be safeguarded by the same moral degenerate. Odd, yet this is what they do. The Founding Fathers did not say or indicate that was "speech." It's the modern judge that does.
Separation of church and the body politic was based on a religious rationale of freedom of conscience, like separation of mind and body. If your mind, your spirit, merges with your body then it ceases to be what it is.
The philosophy of the Founders is totally inverted by the modern moral degenerates. Instead, they are arguing that separation of church and state means that the body politic is superior to the churches and the churches are or ought to be irrelevant. In contrast, the political philosophers wanted the separation and freedom of thought so that thinking could then come back to the body politic to have its impact on it.
So they say things like this:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Thomas Jefferson,In his Notes on the State of Virginia
"The belief in God all powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it." --James Madison
"Republican government presupposes the existence of [virtue] in a higher degree than any other form."
(THE FEDERALIST No. 55, at 346 (JAMES MADISON)
(Clinton Rossiter and Charles Kesler eds., Mentor 1999)
"Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue? ....And without virtue, there can be no political liberty....Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly? ....I believe no effort in favor of virtue is lost."
--John Adams, this is essentially his summary of the gay lifestyle that seems not so gay.
"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader..... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." --Samuel Adams
Although Americans do some talking about virtue and what not, on the whole, the modern American is still likely to be a moral degenerate. Look to the American cities, there is greater insecurity where there is decadence. Look at the Netherlands in general, their Liberty is draining away like water as they have been decadent for some time.
Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow you will die from doing so.
(Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis (Sept. 28,1820) in 15 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 276, 277(Andrew A. Lipscomb & Albert Ellery Bergh eds., 1904) )
What modern judges think,
"Like the character of an individual, the legitimacy of the Court must be earned over time. So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Their belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court INVESTED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL CASES AND SPEAK BEFORE ALL OTHERS FOR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL IDEALS."
112 S. Ct. 2816 (1992) (emphasis added) Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Leftist totalitarians will make all your discriminations for you. And the nicety of them for doing that. They are just looking out for you and defining the text of the Constitution for you. It is a good thing they are there because they are the only ones who know what portions of a text emit penumbras. I wonder if their own judicial opinions written in text also emit lil' penumbras that can mean whatever a reader wants them to mean? How about I make that text emit the penumbra, "The people who wrote this text are arrogant retards."
Or would that be a penumbra of the penumbra?
Lincoln notes the view of modern judges,
"[I]f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in INAUGURAL ADDRESSES OF THE PRESIDENTOF THE UNITED STATES FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON1789 TO GEORGE BUSH 1989, S. DOC. No.10, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 133, 139 (1989))
"I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction . . . . I confess, then, I think it important, in the present case, . . . to set an example against broad construction by appealing for new power to the people."
(Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Cary Nicholas (Sept. 7, 1803), in 8 THE WRITINGS OF THOMASJEFFERSON 247-28 (Paul L. Ford ed., 1897)
What limits judicial socialists is what they will want to use whatever power they have to attack. For then the pet penumbras of such a fascist will be safe.
The Creator makes Right unalienable and text to have transcendent meaning and so the modern judge will have a sort of visceral reaction on this. So "God" is a dirty word to the modern socialist judge. Yet, a person running down the street naked, pornography, throwing excrement around and that sort of thing is to be called "speech" and it must be safeguarded by the same moral degenerate. Odd, yet this is what they do. The Founding Fathers did not say or indicate that was "speech." It's the modern judge that does.
Separation of church and the body politic was based on a religious rationale of freedom of conscience, like separation of mind and body. If your mind, your spirit, merges with your body then it ceases to be what it is.
The philosophy of the Founders is totally inverted by the modern moral degenerates. Instead, they are arguing that separation of church and state means that the body politic is superior to the churches and the churches are or ought to be irrelevant. In contrast, the political philosophers wanted the separation and freedom of thought so that thinking could then come back to the body politic to have its impact on it.
So they say things like this:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Thomas Jefferson,In his Notes on the State of Virginia
"The belief in God all powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it." --James Madison
"Republican government presupposes the existence of [virtue] in a higher degree than any other form."
(THE FEDERALIST No. 55, at 346 (JAMES MADISON)
(Clinton Rossiter and Charles Kesler eds., Mentor 1999)
"Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue? ....And without virtue, there can be no political liberty....Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly? ....I believe no effort in favor of virtue is lost."
--John Adams, this is essentially his summary of the gay lifestyle that seems not so gay.
"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader..... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." --Samuel Adams
Although Americans do some talking about virtue and what not, on the whole, the modern American is still likely to be a moral degenerate. Look to the American cities, there is greater insecurity where there is decadence. Look at the Netherlands in general, their Liberty is draining away like water as they have been decadent for some time.
Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow you will die from doing so.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
The Constitution...
"Respect for [the Constitution's] authority, compliance with its Laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political Systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all...
All obstructions . . . with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities, are destructive and are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
--George Washington
cf.
(Alabama Law Review
Winter, 1998
49 Ala. L. Rev. 607
"We the People" or "We the Judges": A Reply to Robert R. Baugh's Response
By William P. Gray, Jr.)
All obstructions . . . with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities, are destructive and are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
--George Washington
cf.
(Alabama Law Review
Winter, 1998
49 Ala. L. Rev. 607
"We the People" or "We the Judges": A Reply to Robert R. Baugh's Response
By William P. Gray, Jr.)
It is best to mind, the mind. So don't mind if I do.
"A Frenchman of rank was condemned to death for a crime, and his friends, willing to avoid the scandal of public execution, allowed him to be made the subject of an experiment. He was told that he must be bled to death. His eyes were bandaged, and his arm having been lightly pricked a stream of warm water was made to trickle down it and fall into a basin. While the assistants kept up a running commentary upon his supposed condition. 'He is getting faint, the heart's action is becoming feebler; his pulse is almost gone,' and other remarks of the sort. In a short time the miserable man died with the actual symptoms of cardiac syncope from hemorrage, without having lost a drop of blood."
(Treatment by Hypnotism and Suggestion or
Psycho-Therapeutics, 5th ed., p. 30)
(American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 21,
No. 1, Jul., 1915
The Evolution of Religion
Edward C. Hayes :61)
I had wondered at paramedics sometimes. They always come up and say, "It's going to be okay." Well, if your arm was just chopped off it is not going to be okay. But they say it anyway. They say it, even when they know it is not true "literally."
If they were being objective they would say, "Your arm just got chopped off. Just look at it, the brute fact of it. Wow, I've seen a lot but this one is a dooozy!"
Of course they do not because there is truth in being subjective, concerned with the subject and not just the object.
(Treatment by Hypnotism and Suggestion or
Psycho-Therapeutics, 5th ed., p. 30)
(American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 21,
No. 1, Jul., 1915
The Evolution of Religion
Edward C. Hayes :61)
I had wondered at paramedics sometimes. They always come up and say, "It's going to be okay." Well, if your arm was just chopped off it is not going to be okay. But they say it anyway. They say it, even when they know it is not true "literally."
If they were being objective they would say, "Your arm just got chopped off. Just look at it, the brute fact of it. Wow, I've seen a lot but this one is a dooozy!"
Of course they do not because there is truth in being subjective, concerned with the subject and not just the object.
Blogging...
It can be....
Well, never mind, I just wrote a big story and it lost it on the posting part. I'll rewrite it later tonight. This blogging system does not work that great.
Now, someone has to bother me about something else and so on.
No time...
Later.
Well, never mind, I just wrote a big story and it lost it on the posting part. I'll rewrite it later tonight. This blogging system does not work that great.
Now, someone has to bother me about something else and so on.
No time...
Later.
Journalists....
A parable about them....
Once upon a time there were some story tellers. They called themselves journalists. At first they tried to tell the truth. So that is what they did. They called this being objective.
But eventually, they generally believed that truth was just matter in motion. So the way they viewed being objective changed. Now they felt that the more like an object they were, the more objective and so the more truthful they were. But really, the more like an object they were, the more they became dead in the head.
There was another group of men who came to realize this. And they saw that dead in the head journalists who were like objects might be easy use for some story telling. For journalists were treating false views as if they were true views to prove their objectivity. They would give equal time to false views and true views. Treating the false as equal with the truth came to be common with them.
So the group of men began to be as false and barbaric as possible and this was treated as if it was true. The men began using terror because this would be treated as justified or equal with the truth while at the same time shaping opinion by fear. They became better at this use of the journalists. The journalists did not object so much, for they were just being like objects which meant they were being objective. So they treated all subjects as objects, all equal.
But people came to realize what journalists and terrorists were doing. They realized that both had to be fought. So that is what they began doing. Generally, they won the fight against journalists and terrorists.
But one day some terrorist and journalists caught a good guy and he was layed low by it. Terrorists were using religious places, so that journalists would report that the good guys fighting them were being Big Meanies. They would also play dead and then blow themselves up when marines came. Or try to shoot them in the face, etc. They were relying on the good guys being good guys, you see. This day a good guy thought that all the terrorists were supposed to be dead in one of these places. So when he saw one move, he shot him in the head.
Then a journalist ran off with the story about the shooting in the head of a wounded man, just like the terrorists wanted. It was like a little team, the terrorists and the journalists. One would feed the other the pattern of a story and the other would pay them back by telling it, just the way they wanted it told. For the terrorists were story tellers too.
The good guys wondered why so many good stories remained untold and one asked a journalist this once. The journalist replied, "But we will report on you when you are dead and stop fighting. Then you are an object for us to tell stories about. And can you not see the objectivity of that! Yes, the objectivity of me."
Once upon a time there were some story tellers. They called themselves journalists. At first they tried to tell the truth. So that is what they did. They called this being objective.
But eventually, they generally believed that truth was just matter in motion. So the way they viewed being objective changed. Now they felt that the more like an object they were, the more objective and so the more truthful they were. But really, the more like an object they were, the more they became dead in the head.
There was another group of men who came to realize this. And they saw that dead in the head journalists who were like objects might be easy use for some story telling. For journalists were treating false views as if they were true views to prove their objectivity. They would give equal time to false views and true views. Treating the false as equal with the truth came to be common with them.
So the group of men began to be as false and barbaric as possible and this was treated as if it was true. The men began using terror because this would be treated as justified or equal with the truth while at the same time shaping opinion by fear. They became better at this use of the journalists. The journalists did not object so much, for they were just being like objects which meant they were being objective. So they treated all subjects as objects, all equal.
But people came to realize what journalists and terrorists were doing. They realized that both had to be fought. So that is what they began doing. Generally, they won the fight against journalists and terrorists.
But one day some terrorist and journalists caught a good guy and he was layed low by it. Terrorists were using religious places, so that journalists would report that the good guys fighting them were being Big Meanies. They would also play dead and then blow themselves up when marines came. Or try to shoot them in the face, etc. They were relying on the good guys being good guys, you see. This day a good guy thought that all the terrorists were supposed to be dead in one of these places. So when he saw one move, he shot him in the head.
Then a journalist ran off with the story about the shooting in the head of a wounded man, just like the terrorists wanted. It was like a little team, the terrorists and the journalists. One would feed the other the pattern of a story and the other would pay them back by telling it, just the way they wanted it told. For the terrorists were story tellers too.
The good guys wondered why so many good stories remained untold and one asked a journalist this once. The journalist replied, "But we will report on you when you are dead and stop fighting. Then you are an object for us to tell stories about. And can you not see the objectivity of that! Yes, the objectivity of me."
A thought experiment...
Try this experiment, never think or ink/write this thought, "I do not think." Or, "I do not think so." and "I do not think such and such." and so on.
Take a day and try to always think, "I think such and such." "I think this." "I think so." "I do think that!"
Or with belief, try to always be believing and avoid, "I do not believe that." Instead, always be believing what you do believe. So, "I believe this and not that."
Given some people's pattern of not thinking, this lil' experiment will give them quite a headache. But it is good for them. After that, they will probably need their coffee, cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, a visit to a shrink or some form of therapizing that they normally use.
Then try, try again.....and perhaps eventually, things change. I know that those caught up in therapizing do not think that such things can change. I think they are correct about that.
It is right to be right, write that down.
Take a day and try to always think, "I think such and such." "I think this." "I think so." "I do think that!"
Or with belief, try to always be believing and avoid, "I do not believe that." Instead, always be believing what you do believe. So, "I believe this and not that."
Given some people's pattern of not thinking, this lil' experiment will give them quite a headache. But it is good for them. After that, they will probably need their coffee, cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, a visit to a shrink or some form of therapizing that they normally use.
Then try, try again.....and perhaps eventually, things change. I know that those caught up in therapizing do not think that such things can change. I think they are correct about that.
It is right to be right, write that down.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
A parable about aliens....
Once upon a time there were some alien beings. They decided to create a world and to create some little beings in it too. So they did.
Most of the little beings in that world came to the conclusion that some type of alien beings must have created it. For it was pretty obvious that they did not create themselves and that the world could not on its own either. But they disagreed with each other about things and so on. There were some people who thought that the world was all there was. They seemed to like denying the obvious. Some of them even denied their own existence. The alien beings observed all this and said, "That's interesting. And I wonder how we can convince those weird ones that we exist?"
Another said, "Well, yes, it all is quite interesting."
The first said, "Well, let's choose some of the little beings, make them think that we exist and then move our world around some for them. We'll let them know what we think of all the silliness, too."
The other said, "Okay. They are silly. But I kind of like these lil' things, if we get rid of that."
So they got a group of creatures and made them believe that they existed. One alien said, "It's a little odd that we have to make them believe something so obvious." The selected group of creatures began to know the world better than others and became more intelligent.
Other groups of creatures in the world began to imitate some of the same things that they said and did. They picked up on and told some of the same sort of stories that the selected group did. This combined with their own knowledge of the world and so they sort of acted like the selected group too.
The second alien creator said, "How about we select some more of these things and enlist the lil' things help? That way, the process can continue but we can get started on a new world." The other replied, "Why not, I kind of like these lil' things too." So then the second one did some things in their little world. This time he stirred the creatures up quite a bit. So they scurried around wondering at the signs about things. Eventually, the story of the aliens made it through all of the little world.
But as everyone had more and more knowledge the creatures gained more power over the little world. They kept fighting among themselves. Then they were about to destroy the whole place one day.
The aliens saw it, well in advance. So the aliens put the lil' creatures who believed that they existed in the new world they had made and threw the old one the fire place.
One alien said to another, "Those ones who did not believe we existed, that was odd."
The other replied, "Yes, the more extreme the signs of our actions written about for them, the more they wrote it off as a false account. Although, we did not exactly break our world or create something new in it, just moving some things and changing them around.
Yet, the less extreme signs we left for them they said were just part of the world we made. I wonder if they were expecting us to use a lil' space ship to visit them?"
The first replied, "No....they seemed to want to live as they wanted to live and not by our design. That was it. No amount of signs we gave or visitations ever changed a rebellious will. Nor did they change each other's rebellious wills, in the end."
Then he got the old world out of the fire place and set it next to the new so that those in the new world could be reminded of it. Those in the new saw it and told a story about how there were once some creatures who rebelled against their creators.
Most of the little beings in that world came to the conclusion that some type of alien beings must have created it. For it was pretty obvious that they did not create themselves and that the world could not on its own either. But they disagreed with each other about things and so on. There were some people who thought that the world was all there was. They seemed to like denying the obvious. Some of them even denied their own existence. The alien beings observed all this and said, "That's interesting. And I wonder how we can convince those weird ones that we exist?"
Another said, "Well, yes, it all is quite interesting."
The first said, "Well, let's choose some of the little beings, make them think that we exist and then move our world around some for them. We'll let them know what we think of all the silliness, too."
The other said, "Okay. They are silly. But I kind of like these lil' things, if we get rid of that."
So they got a group of creatures and made them believe that they existed. One alien said, "It's a little odd that we have to make them believe something so obvious." The selected group of creatures began to know the world better than others and became more intelligent.
Other groups of creatures in the world began to imitate some of the same things that they said and did. They picked up on and told some of the same sort of stories that the selected group did. This combined with their own knowledge of the world and so they sort of acted like the selected group too.
The second alien creator said, "How about we select some more of these things and enlist the lil' things help? That way, the process can continue but we can get started on a new world." The other replied, "Why not, I kind of like these lil' things too." So then the second one did some things in their little world. This time he stirred the creatures up quite a bit. So they scurried around wondering at the signs about things. Eventually, the story of the aliens made it through all of the little world.
But as everyone had more and more knowledge the creatures gained more power over the little world. They kept fighting among themselves. Then they were about to destroy the whole place one day.
The aliens saw it, well in advance. So the aliens put the lil' creatures who believed that they existed in the new world they had made and threw the old one the fire place.
One alien said to another, "Those ones who did not believe we existed, that was odd."
The other replied, "Yes, the more extreme the signs of our actions written about for them, the more they wrote it off as a false account. Although, we did not exactly break our world or create something new in it, just moving some things and changing them around.
Yet, the less extreme signs we left for them they said were just part of the world we made. I wonder if they were expecting us to use a lil' space ship to visit them?"
The first replied, "No....they seemed to want to live as they wanted to live and not by our design. That was it. No amount of signs we gave or visitations ever changed a rebellious will. Nor did they change each other's rebellious wills, in the end."
Then he got the old world out of the fire place and set it next to the new so that those in the new world could be reminded of it. Those in the new saw it and told a story about how there were once some creatures who rebelled against their creators.
Cut and Paste....
Another discussion,
"Nah, I'm just looking at facts... which is hard for the Religious types to understand... for the most part, religion is a mental disorder, at least the gay stuff is rooted in biology..."
The genetic code is written in biology and it reads a little like this, "No society can be sex-blind because the sexes are complementary." Biology refutes the gay stuff.....
Code is not written by natural processes, no more than computer code comes from them. Nor is there evidence that energy fields and so on created in the Big Bang can self-organize into complex patterns of information that fit a mathematical language which describes them.
This fitting of language is itself, quite fitting. "[T]he laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics." --Galileo
Natural processes do not explain the code that is the plan and design for a bird's wing, a human eye nor their capacity for adaptation and self-healing which seems to be in their design. Mutation is generally degenerative and not a beneficial adaptation but adaptations can be triggered in the code by something degenerative to Life. Mutation used to trigger adaptations can also be used by intelligent design, intelligent breeding of animals. Intelligent selection is far faster than any natural pseudo-selection.
So the code is modified. In some sense, evolutionary biologists seem to be saying that it is not a code at all because they argue that there is no Writer.
But,
"Code is code, whether expressed in binary digits or in the ATCG alphabet of molecular biology. Having long "conceived of genetic information and electronic information as information," we now "have the technical capability to make good on this conception." Gerald Edelman won the 1972 Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering how antibodies enable the immune system to identify and remember patterns and thereby to attack invaders without harming itself.
Seemingly simple organisms, real or virtual, have solved mazes and performed other complex pathfinding tasks. Computer scientists have experimented with DNA itself as a parallel processor. Professional taxonomy - the time-honored task of classifying all living things - stands on the verge of an electronically driven revolution that harnesses the storage and search capacities of the Internet. Bioinformatics represents merely one tendril of the scientific rhizome that has grown from the double helix. At any level - evolutionary, ecological, organismal, physiological, cellular, or molecular - biology is displaying the "emergent behavior" of "complex adaptive systems." Just as the novel term lex informatica describes the deployment of technological constraints on electronic information as a source of policy, the neologism lex genetica expresses the same idea with respect to bioengineered constraints on genetic information. In short, 'information is information, whether the medium is a double helix or an optical disk.' "
(Iowa University
January, 2004
89 Iowa L. Rev. 495
ARTICLE: Webs of Life: Biodiversity Conservation as
a Species of Information Policy
By Jim Chen)
William Dembski's argument about the creation of information by minds, intelligent
design:
On one hand - SETI interprets Information as Intelligent Design. SETI is looking for a high information content signal. If a signal is found, SETI will conclude it is from alien life - i.e. intelligent origin and design. Specified complexity is used as evidence of design.
On the other hand - Evolution interprets Information as a recording of Nature based processes. The inanimate, not the animate...
Life exhibits extremely high information content. DNA alone contains much more information than a whole set of encyclopedias. Evolution assumes that life arose by a series of Nature based processes. In the end, it is all chance. So evolution concludes this high information content in life arose completely by chance.
Why is this the way things are, with a consistent double standard applied to God? For they will accept aliens but not God. It is probably because atheists are the ultimate bigots when it comes to their lil' buzzword "religion." If they begin to sense whatever they feel "religion" is then they seem to run around in circles screaming their heads off. Then they become totalitarians trying to police what you can say to who and when. It is quite an annoying pattern.
But they are the ultimate literalists, every symbol, even the genetic code, is really just matter in motion to them. Ironic, this sort of literalism. It dissolves itself. It is as if you go to the library and say, "Well, this place is full of wood pulp with some strange ink marks on it." and then walk out.
Atheists do not know what they are talking about. In some sense, literally....because they create information when they write and yet they are arguing that mommy Nature selected their code/writing for them by natural selections.
So Nature calls and their usual excrement happens.
Only excrement seems to be selected, naturally.....
"Nah, I'm just looking at facts... which is hard for the Religious types to understand... for the most part, religion is a mental disorder, at least the gay stuff is rooted in biology..."
The genetic code is written in biology and it reads a little like this, "No society can be sex-blind because the sexes are complementary." Biology refutes the gay stuff.....
Code is not written by natural processes, no more than computer code comes from them. Nor is there evidence that energy fields and so on created in the Big Bang can self-organize into complex patterns of information that fit a mathematical language which describes them.
This fitting of language is itself, quite fitting. "[T]he laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics." --Galileo
Natural processes do not explain the code that is the plan and design for a bird's wing, a human eye nor their capacity for adaptation and self-healing which seems to be in their design. Mutation is generally degenerative and not a beneficial adaptation but adaptations can be triggered in the code by something degenerative to Life. Mutation used to trigger adaptations can also be used by intelligent design, intelligent breeding of animals. Intelligent selection is far faster than any natural pseudo-selection.
So the code is modified. In some sense, evolutionary biologists seem to be saying that it is not a code at all because they argue that there is no Writer.
But,
"Code is code, whether expressed in binary digits or in the ATCG alphabet of molecular biology. Having long "conceived of genetic information and electronic information as information," we now "have the technical capability to make good on this conception." Gerald Edelman won the 1972 Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering how antibodies enable the immune system to identify and remember patterns and thereby to attack invaders without harming itself.
Seemingly simple organisms, real or virtual, have solved mazes and performed other complex pathfinding tasks. Computer scientists have experimented with DNA itself as a parallel processor. Professional taxonomy - the time-honored task of classifying all living things - stands on the verge of an electronically driven revolution that harnesses the storage and search capacities of the Internet. Bioinformatics represents merely one tendril of the scientific rhizome that has grown from the double helix. At any level - evolutionary, ecological, organismal, physiological, cellular, or molecular - biology is displaying the "emergent behavior" of "complex adaptive systems." Just as the novel term lex informatica describes the deployment of technological constraints on electronic information as a source of policy, the neologism lex genetica expresses the same idea with respect to bioengineered constraints on genetic information. In short, 'information is information, whether the medium is a double helix or an optical disk.' "
(Iowa University
January, 2004
89 Iowa L. Rev. 495
ARTICLE: Webs of Life: Biodiversity Conservation as
a Species of Information Policy
By Jim Chen)
William Dembski's argument about the creation of information by minds, intelligent
design:
On one hand - SETI interprets Information as Intelligent Design. SETI is looking for a high information content signal. If a signal is found, SETI will conclude it is from alien life - i.e. intelligent origin and design. Specified complexity is used as evidence of design.
On the other hand - Evolution interprets Information as a recording of Nature based processes. The inanimate, not the animate...
Life exhibits extremely high information content. DNA alone contains much more information than a whole set of encyclopedias. Evolution assumes that life arose by a series of Nature based processes. In the end, it is all chance. So evolution concludes this high information content in life arose completely by chance.
Why is this the way things are, with a consistent double standard applied to God? For they will accept aliens but not God. It is probably because atheists are the ultimate bigots when it comes to their lil' buzzword "religion." If they begin to sense whatever they feel "religion" is then they seem to run around in circles screaming their heads off. Then they become totalitarians trying to police what you can say to who and when. It is quite an annoying pattern.
But they are the ultimate literalists, every symbol, even the genetic code, is really just matter in motion to them. Ironic, this sort of literalism. It dissolves itself. It is as if you go to the library and say, "Well, this place is full of wood pulp with some strange ink marks on it." and then walk out.
Atheists do not know what they are talking about. In some sense, literally....because they create information when they write and yet they are arguing that mommy Nature selected their code/writing for them by natural selections.
So Nature calls and their usual excrement happens.
Only excrement seems to be selected, naturally.....
Test...
You may have to hit refresh on this blog some.
I don't know that I'll post much substantial tonight. Maybe, maybe not....maybe just post some old things I have already.
Later.
I don't know that I'll post much substantial tonight. Maybe, maybe not....maybe just post some old things I have already.
Later.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Perspective and historical patterns....
....on Margaret Sanger and the pattern of her ideas and movement. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood. What is the plan? Well, at least she would tell you the plan instead of just saying she had one. The plan is for there to be less parents who are genetically "unfit." That was her plan for parenthood.
Also, history may give a little perspective to conservatives who are nostalgic about the past. Many of the same issue and patterns were on the table then in politics, as now. This also highlights how powerful women can be in politics, for good or bad. Women did a lot of good before they even had the vote. Voting is not everything, you know.
Here is some of what socialist socialites did that was Evil. It seems to never be a story of redemption with this type of socialite. Instead it is to be death or some other form of maternalistic totalitarian control of Life based on the socialite's "choice."
".....the women eagerly studied the work and writings of national birth-control pioneers, especially Margaret Sanger, whom the women “worshipped like a god,” and philanthropist-physician Clarence J. Gamble, whom they periodically contacted for support. Both Sanger and Gamble participated actively in the national eugenics movement. Sanger wrote frequently about limiting reproduction by the unfit; Gamble promoted and distributed model sterilization laws."
("In The Finest, Most Womanly Way:" Women
in The Southern Eugenics Movement
By Edward J. Larson
The American Journal of Legal History,
Vol. 39, No. 2. (Apr., 1995), pp. 139)
"Utilizing their prominent social positions and the support of the local medical community, Nixon and her fellow committee women met with lawmakers and arranged talks on birth-control and sterilization to civic groups throughout the state. The talks sometimes featured such national birth-control pioneers as Edna Rankin McKinnon, the sister of America’s first female member of congress.
'For the past few months, the lay public have been actively engaged in presenting our plea on sterilization of the mentally deficient,' the MAG’s legislation committee reported in 1934.
'It appears, in the present light, that they may prepare the minds of the legislators better than we have done. Many talks on the subject have been given before organizations all over the state, and the voters seem ready to demand that a suitable bill be passed.'
This report referred to the work of the Augusta Junior League. That work, building on years of advocacy by mental-health experts and physicians, set the stage for the 1935 legislative session, when Georgia lawmakers first seriously considered a sterilization bill."
(Ib. :141)
I would note here, at least Leftists did not do things through mere judicial diktat back then. It seems that they did not go around sniveling about how "religious" people were imposing their values on the "scientific" people. Instead, they had a vision that they thought was true and they advocated it in the light of day. In actual legislation....but now socialists have turned largely to intellectual cowardice and want the Courts to make the discriminations to make their type of laws. Why can they not actually convince people that the laws they want are correct?
They used to actually pass a law. E.g.
"[The] bill [was] to cover only “patients” at any state custodial institution who “would be likely, if released without sterilization, to procreate a child, or children, who would have a tendency to serious physical, mental, or nervous disease or deficiency.” Patients would be sterilized upon the recommendation of their institution’s super intendent, subject to the approval of a three-member State Board of Eugenics. [......]
The amended bill was overshadowed during the session by other progressive reforms.....
Nevertheless, the General Assembly did not overlook the bill. Backed by the chairman of the state medical board and the physician’s lobby, the measure generated little debate as it passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming vote of 117 to 29.
One of the few negative floor comments came from an Atlanta law maker who protested against “trying legislation on something that ought to be left to God to take care of.” In explaining the bill’s easy passage after years of inaction, the progressive Augusta Chronicle noted, “The very intelligent campaign for a sterilization law in Georgia which was conducted by a number of prominent young Augusta women did much toward educating the members of the Legislature and the people of Georgia generally as to the great necessity for such a law in this state.”
The Chronicle went on to urge prompt Senate action “in voting for a sterilization law, which would place Georgia among those progressive states in the Union which are doing their part to stamp out insanity, imbecility, and crime.” [.....]
[The governor] surprisingly vetoed the sterilization bill. His only public explanation for this action came in a light-hearted remark to Adjutant General Lindley W. Camp while signing the veto. “They made no provision in here to except the governor and the adjutant general,” Talmadge observed. “Lindley, you and I might go crazy some day and we don’t want them working on us.” In a phrase, the governor had personalized the concerns that populists had always felt towards eugenics; and certainly, his poor and working-class white supporters would not object to his veto.
[.....]
Talmadge later bragged “that he threw every New Deal bill in the trash can without even reading. If so, the sterilization measure went in with the rest."
Predictable reaction greeted this veto. The Augusta Chronicle editorialized:
'We are sorry that Governor Talmadge has struck a blow at progress, at social security for the future and in favor of a continuation of such terrible conditions that will mean more and more insane, more and more feeble-minded, with crimi nals augmented and hospitals filled to capacity.’
Another leading progressive newspaper agreed.
“The scientific reasons for sterilization are so well established and so sound that the governor is flying in the face of accepted practice in vetoing the bill,” the Columbus Enquirer wrote. The absence of such a law may cause the parents and relatives of feeble-minded persons from other states to fly to Georgia, because most other states now have sterilization laws or are wisely preparing to pass them.'"(Ib. :141-144)
The journalists, socialist women and socialist doctors seems to be a repeating pattern and they still say these same type of things to this day. The conservative answer to them back then was decidely limpid. Then after Nazism was drawn out and a full eugenic ideology seen, suddenly all the socialists hid. They will not say what they are choosing, just that they are "pro-choice." They will not pass bills, they will hide in the Courts.
Zell Miller noted that the Democratic party is a "national party no more." But that is one cadaver in the body politic that is certain to rise up as soon as the new hiding place of the judiciary seems threatened. So wait for the President to appoint a person who believes that text has transcendent meaning to the Courts and then you will see some moral degenerates come out of the closet again. And they will be saying the same sort of things that they have always said when they do.
Also, history may give a little perspective to conservatives who are nostalgic about the past. Many of the same issue and patterns were on the table then in politics, as now. This also highlights how powerful women can be in politics, for good or bad. Women did a lot of good before they even had the vote. Voting is not everything, you know.
Here is some of what socialist socialites did that was Evil. It seems to never be a story of redemption with this type of socialite. Instead it is to be death or some other form of maternalistic totalitarian control of Life based on the socialite's "choice."
".....the women eagerly studied the work and writings of national birth-control pioneers, especially Margaret Sanger, whom the women “worshipped like a god,” and philanthropist-physician Clarence J. Gamble, whom they periodically contacted for support. Both Sanger and Gamble participated actively in the national eugenics movement. Sanger wrote frequently about limiting reproduction by the unfit; Gamble promoted and distributed model sterilization laws."
("In The Finest, Most Womanly Way:" Women
in The Southern Eugenics Movement
By Edward J. Larson
The American Journal of Legal History,
Vol. 39, No. 2. (Apr., 1995), pp. 139)
"Utilizing their prominent social positions and the support of the local medical community, Nixon and her fellow committee women met with lawmakers and arranged talks on birth-control and sterilization to civic groups throughout the state. The talks sometimes featured such national birth-control pioneers as Edna Rankin McKinnon, the sister of America’s first female member of congress.
'For the past few months, the lay public have been actively engaged in presenting our plea on sterilization of the mentally deficient,' the MAG’s legislation committee reported in 1934.
'It appears, in the present light, that they may prepare the minds of the legislators better than we have done. Many talks on the subject have been given before organizations all over the state, and the voters seem ready to demand that a suitable bill be passed.'
This report referred to the work of the Augusta Junior League. That work, building on years of advocacy by mental-health experts and physicians, set the stage for the 1935 legislative session, when Georgia lawmakers first seriously considered a sterilization bill."
(Ib. :141)
I would note here, at least Leftists did not do things through mere judicial diktat back then. It seems that they did not go around sniveling about how "religious" people were imposing their values on the "scientific" people. Instead, they had a vision that they thought was true and they advocated it in the light of day. In actual legislation....but now socialists have turned largely to intellectual cowardice and want the Courts to make the discriminations to make their type of laws. Why can they not actually convince people that the laws they want are correct?
They used to actually pass a law. E.g.
"[The] bill [was] to cover only “patients” at any state custodial institution who “would be likely, if released without sterilization, to procreate a child, or children, who would have a tendency to serious physical, mental, or nervous disease or deficiency.” Patients would be sterilized upon the recommendation of their institution’s super intendent, subject to the approval of a three-member State Board of Eugenics. [......]
The amended bill was overshadowed during the session by other progressive reforms.....
Nevertheless, the General Assembly did not overlook the bill. Backed by the chairman of the state medical board and the physician’s lobby, the measure generated little debate as it passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming vote of 117 to 29.
One of the few negative floor comments came from an Atlanta law maker who protested against “trying legislation on something that ought to be left to God to take care of.” In explaining the bill’s easy passage after years of inaction, the progressive Augusta Chronicle noted, “The very intelligent campaign for a sterilization law in Georgia which was conducted by a number of prominent young Augusta women did much toward educating the members of the Legislature and the people of Georgia generally as to the great necessity for such a law in this state.”
The Chronicle went on to urge prompt Senate action “in voting for a sterilization law, which would place Georgia among those progressive states in the Union which are doing their part to stamp out insanity, imbecility, and crime.” [.....]
[The governor] surprisingly vetoed the sterilization bill. His only public explanation for this action came in a light-hearted remark to Adjutant General Lindley W. Camp while signing the veto. “They made no provision in here to except the governor and the adjutant general,” Talmadge observed. “Lindley, you and I might go crazy some day and we don’t want them working on us.” In a phrase, the governor had personalized the concerns that populists had always felt towards eugenics; and certainly, his poor and working-class white supporters would not object to his veto.
[.....]
Talmadge later bragged “that he threw every New Deal bill in the trash can without even reading. If so, the sterilization measure went in with the rest."
Predictable reaction greeted this veto. The Augusta Chronicle editorialized:
'We are sorry that Governor Talmadge has struck a blow at progress, at social security for the future and in favor of a continuation of such terrible conditions that will mean more and more insane, more and more feeble-minded, with crimi nals augmented and hospitals filled to capacity.’
Another leading progressive newspaper agreed.
“The scientific reasons for sterilization are so well established and so sound that the governor is flying in the face of accepted practice in vetoing the bill,” the Columbus Enquirer wrote. The absence of such a law may cause the parents and relatives of feeble-minded persons from other states to fly to Georgia, because most other states now have sterilization laws or are wisely preparing to pass them.'"(Ib. :141-144)
The journalists, socialist women and socialist doctors seems to be a repeating pattern and they still say these same type of things to this day. The conservative answer to them back then was decidely limpid. Then after Nazism was drawn out and a full eugenic ideology seen, suddenly all the socialists hid. They will not say what they are choosing, just that they are "pro-choice." They will not pass bills, they will hide in the Courts.
Zell Miller noted that the Democratic party is a "national party no more." But that is one cadaver in the body politic that is certain to rise up as soon as the new hiding place of the judiciary seems threatened. So wait for the President to appoint a person who believes that text has transcendent meaning to the Courts and then you will see some moral degenerates come out of the closet again. And they will be saying the same sort of things that they have always said when they do.
Another Letter....
A few are dictating what morality is now
Peter Tupitza, Elkton, Md
"Fundamentalists are defining what Christianity is while apparently not going so far as to define what a Pharisee would be in this age."
-----
Pharisee 1 capitalized : a member of a Jewish sect of the intertestamental period noted for strict observance of rites and ceremonies of the written law and for insistence on the validity of their own oral traditions concerning the law
-----
That was easy. Already one can see that he may not know the difference between ritual and ethical Law. Ritual or symbolic laws that serve as a sign can be fulfilled. Moral Law is transcendent, as in men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, based on what is right. That notion should ring some Liberty Bells for Americans.
What does he most likely mean about "defining" Christianity? His assumption is that Christianity is something to be defined, not adhered to. It is an inversion of the Founding Fathers who believed that self evident truths were there whether they are admitted to or not. They are there because the Maker is there regardless of human "definition." Instead, he seems to be saying that truth regarding morality is a matter of how we define things, probably based on feelings, will and whim.
"The most financially profitable Christian churches are successfully defining what morality is. So-called moral heterosexuals are trying to dictate what rights homosexuals may claim."
This is a deeply ironic claim in many ways. First, he seems to argue not to define morality. Then he argues that groups of people can be defined as immutable types or groups by their sexual desires or behavior.
He is defining morality. His definition looks a little like this: "Your sexual desires define you as a person. These define your rights for you and what is right to you. Anything less than being defined by and ruled by certain types and patterns of sexual desires is living a lie. For they define what is true and moral."
And so on. Moral degenerates will seldom state all their reasoning clearly, or "define" it. Instead, they attack definition in general and then whatever "just happens," happens. It is very juvenile.
As to this,
The "financially profitable" Churches are defining morality because they have money? Despite all the sniveling about victimization self defined gays are the most wealthy and privileged class of Americans. They spent a lot of money on a lot of marketing to proselytize this sort of religious identity having to do with hedonism. They are joined by other hedonists in entertainment, journalism and so on who also have a lot of money and power. Is the Church really comparable? Given the experience of the Weimar Republic, one can only hope that the Churches generally are powerful enough to withstand the usual forces of decadence. It seems that the only way is if the Maker makes this so.
"Nearly a century-long study of human sexuality would suggest that at least 5 percent of them are self-loathing homosexuals. "
It seems that every person who has same sex sexual desires is self-loathing. Even those who choose to avow homosexuality openly are still full of self-loathing. That is why they use homosexuality as an insult or as a way of discrediting others. Actually, that's sort of what he just did. For you see, it is assumed that homosexuality leads people to be irrational. And it does seem to. So he makes use of this fact. Yet, at the same time he seems to want to say how good, so very good it is.
What seems the biggest mystery is how any man could deny the beauty of woman. Maybe this denial has something to do with the self-loathing that comes through in so many ways among men who do deny her beauty.
"White people decide the level of opportunity nonwhite people receive."
Excrement. That is a racist attitude. The more nonwhites who actually believe that, the worse off they all will be. There are few who will listen but Bill Cosby is just repeating an old message.
If whites believed in some Victim status, the worse off they would be too. If one of the most victimized group of people ever to walk the face of the earth started being Victims, they would be worse off too. But Jews do not seem to take on that status so much as other groups have chosen to in history.
"We have a class problem. "
There are problems that can be created by Marxist, if one let's them go their way. They'll even set up classes based on sexual desires and then tell you about that problem too. They seem to want their Collectives and Victims. This seems to suit their moral vanity that is never quite "defined."
"We have a race problem."
There is a problem with tribalists.
"We have a moral problem. "
With a morality he cannot seem to "define" openly. Maybe the problem is with moral degenerates who refuse to deal with morality openly, with definition and Law. Instead, they tend to ask a series of passive agressive questions trying to come to some conclusion as other letter writers have. Or like this one, they simply avoid an open definition and plead to American pop-culture identities like gay and straight which historically speaking have been constructed quite recently.
"And there are few nonpartisan venues outside of the opinion pages of local newspapers (no matter what bias you may perceive) where we can start a public dialogue."
He could try blogs and other places where there is total free speech. But he would get his Leftist butt kicked all over the place. He is the one who needs the journalists and the editors to "shape" things because his ideas are inferior.
James Careville noted that Leftists have been creatures of littanies for some time. Healthcare, the environment and Big Meanies is what I would call "Leftist talk." But it is just talk. John Kerry was hopefully its dying gasp.
"I have a plan!"
What is it?
"Well, I plan to have a plan!"
Is this just a bunch of talk?
"You're not pro-choice! I decide, to have a decision. If you disagree then you are a threat to my freedom to decide my decision, like the Taliban!"
And so on.
They have little to no vision or insight. They have a littany of "problems" mixed in with some pandering and buzzwords, identity politics. If you'll notice, this letter writer also fit this littany of "problems" pattern. They keep losing, yet they keep going with it. It is odd.
I suppose they cannot even have insight and vision about why they are losing. Even James Carville after saying that, settled into the same old patterns on the same show he said it on.
Peter Tupitza, Elkton, Md
"Fundamentalists are defining what Christianity is while apparently not going so far as to define what a Pharisee would be in this age."
-----
Pharisee 1 capitalized : a member of a Jewish sect of the intertestamental period noted for strict observance of rites and ceremonies of the written law and for insistence on the validity of their own oral traditions concerning the law
-----
That was easy. Already one can see that he may not know the difference between ritual and ethical Law. Ritual or symbolic laws that serve as a sign can be fulfilled. Moral Law is transcendent, as in men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, based on what is right. That notion should ring some Liberty Bells for Americans.
What does he most likely mean about "defining" Christianity? His assumption is that Christianity is something to be defined, not adhered to. It is an inversion of the Founding Fathers who believed that self evident truths were there whether they are admitted to or not. They are there because the Maker is there regardless of human "definition." Instead, he seems to be saying that truth regarding morality is a matter of how we define things, probably based on feelings, will and whim.
"The most financially profitable Christian churches are successfully defining what morality is. So-called moral heterosexuals are trying to dictate what rights homosexuals may claim."
This is a deeply ironic claim in many ways. First, he seems to argue not to define morality. Then he argues that groups of people can be defined as immutable types or groups by their sexual desires or behavior.
He is defining morality. His definition looks a little like this: "Your sexual desires define you as a person. These define your rights for you and what is right to you. Anything less than being defined by and ruled by certain types and patterns of sexual desires is living a lie. For they define what is true and moral."
And so on. Moral degenerates will seldom state all their reasoning clearly, or "define" it. Instead, they attack definition in general and then whatever "just happens," happens. It is very juvenile.
As to this,
The "financially profitable" Churches are defining morality because they have money? Despite all the sniveling about victimization self defined gays are the most wealthy and privileged class of Americans. They spent a lot of money on a lot of marketing to proselytize this sort of religious identity having to do with hedonism. They are joined by other hedonists in entertainment, journalism and so on who also have a lot of money and power. Is the Church really comparable? Given the experience of the Weimar Republic, one can only hope that the Churches generally are powerful enough to withstand the usual forces of decadence. It seems that the only way is if the Maker makes this so.
"Nearly a century-long study of human sexuality would suggest that at least 5 percent of them are self-loathing homosexuals. "
It seems that every person who has same sex sexual desires is self-loathing. Even those who choose to avow homosexuality openly are still full of self-loathing. That is why they use homosexuality as an insult or as a way of discrediting others. Actually, that's sort of what he just did. For you see, it is assumed that homosexuality leads people to be irrational. And it does seem to. So he makes use of this fact. Yet, at the same time he seems to want to say how good, so very good it is.
What seems the biggest mystery is how any man could deny the beauty of woman. Maybe this denial has something to do with the self-loathing that comes through in so many ways among men who do deny her beauty.
"White people decide the level of opportunity nonwhite people receive."
Excrement. That is a racist attitude. The more nonwhites who actually believe that, the worse off they all will be. There are few who will listen but Bill Cosby is just repeating an old message.
If whites believed in some Victim status, the worse off they would be too. If one of the most victimized group of people ever to walk the face of the earth started being Victims, they would be worse off too. But Jews do not seem to take on that status so much as other groups have chosen to in history.
"We have a class problem. "
There are problems that can be created by Marxist, if one let's them go their way. They'll even set up classes based on sexual desires and then tell you about that problem too. They seem to want their Collectives and Victims. This seems to suit their moral vanity that is never quite "defined."
"We have a race problem."
There is a problem with tribalists.
"We have a moral problem. "
With a morality he cannot seem to "define" openly. Maybe the problem is with moral degenerates who refuse to deal with morality openly, with definition and Law. Instead, they tend to ask a series of passive agressive questions trying to come to some conclusion as other letter writers have. Or like this one, they simply avoid an open definition and plead to American pop-culture identities like gay and straight which historically speaking have been constructed quite recently.
"And there are few nonpartisan venues outside of the opinion pages of local newspapers (no matter what bias you may perceive) where we can start a public dialogue."
He could try blogs and other places where there is total free speech. But he would get his Leftist butt kicked all over the place. He is the one who needs the journalists and the editors to "shape" things because his ideas are inferior.
James Careville noted that Leftists have been creatures of littanies for some time. Healthcare, the environment and Big Meanies is what I would call "Leftist talk." But it is just talk. John Kerry was hopefully its dying gasp.
"I have a plan!"
What is it?
"Well, I plan to have a plan!"
Is this just a bunch of talk?
"You're not pro-choice! I decide, to have a decision. If you disagree then you are a threat to my freedom to decide my decision, like the Taliban!"
And so on.
They have little to no vision or insight. They have a littany of "problems" mixed in with some pandering and buzzwords, identity politics. If you'll notice, this letter writer also fit this littany of "problems" pattern. They keep losing, yet they keep going with it. It is odd.
I suppose they cannot even have insight and vision about why they are losing. Even James Carville after saying that, settled into the same old patterns on the same show he said it on.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Some history, for those who are prone to forget.
Socialism and eugenics,
"....far from expressing views that were unique Haldane’s linked beliefs in socialism, inequality, and eugenics were widely shared on the left, particularly amongst Marxists and Fabians with scientific interests. Beatrice and Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Havelock Ellis, Eden and Cedar Paul, H.J. Laski, Graham Wallas, Emma Goldrnan, H.G. Wells, Edward Aveling, Julian Huxley, Joseph Needham, C.P. Snow, H.G. Muller and Paul Karnmerer—to note just some of the more prominent figures—all advocated (though in varying forms; some “positive” and some “negative,” some here and now and some only in the socialist future) the improvement of the genetic stock of the human race through selective breeding. It was Shaw who argued that “there is now no reasonable excuse for refusing to face the fact that nothing but a eugenic religion can save our civilization,” Eden Paul that “unless the socialist is a eugenicist as well, the socialist state will speedily perish from racial degradation” and H.J. Lash that “the different rates of fertility in the sound and pathological stocks point to a future swamping of the better by the worse. As a nation, we are faced by race suicide.” In the approximate half-century separating the work of Galton from the rise of fascism (which more than any other factor was responsible for the collapse of socialist enthusiasm for eugenics), such views were common."
(Eugenics and the Left
by Diane Paul
Journal of the History of Ideas,
Vol. 45, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1984), pp. 567-568)
She has long lists of impeccable cites about this. For that's the way a peer reviewed journal of history is. Leftists seem to have forgotten quite a bit about how their use of "science" as a buzzword was already abused repeatedly to cloak philosophic naturalism in the past. They still are trying to construct a contradiction between "science" and "religion" and then claim that their ideology is just scientific.
Now it is the stem cells that the actors, writers, etc., are after. This will cure things. The caculated killing of some human lives so that other humans may live better is one step further removed, even down into things you cannot really see. So it is easier and easier to see no Evil, hear no Evil....which is actually the way it went in the past too. They did not have cameras everywhere in the past so much. In general, people did not know was going on, anymore than people these days are up to date on abortion procedures and know the details of them.
Instead, all of these things are secret. You will be censored on these types of issues the more you bring to light any brutality, like the so-called "gay rights" issue and all the terrible truths about it. If you begin to bring to light some things there then be prepared because you have just stirred something up that wants to remain hidden. It seems to have to do with fascism and that type of philosophy. They are always attacking against the person who tries to tell the truth. It seems that they dare not actually deal with what is being said as an issue of "Is it true."
For their scholarship is weak, quite weak. Fascist scholarship's "weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiated all moral and spiritual values."
(Hitler's Proffessors: The Part of Scholarship in
Germany's Crimes against the Jewish People
By Max Weinreich (New York:The Yiddish
Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)
The term science is just a buzzword to them, which means that you agree with the mental retardation that comes with philosophic naturalism.
"For the biologists, the test of a scientific outlook was generally identified with a society’s attitude towards eugenics; that is, its willingness to adopt a genuinely scientific stance towards questions of what used to be called “race betterment.” The Marxist and Fabian biologists believed that Western societies had largely failed this test."
(Eugenics and the Left
by Diane Paul
Journal of the History of Ideas,
Vol. 45, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1984), pp. :569)
It's important to remember that Nazism was very popular among the elites, very like the American Republic's blue states where the journalists and culture shapers tend to live. Fascism as a form of socialism was very popular among scientists and so on, as well.
(See: Hitler's Scientists, by John Cromwell)
How quickly this is forgotten by the same, those still trying to practice the same pseudo-science of evolutionism and their lil' fanboys, the journalists. The journalists tend to be even more mentally retarded about it. It is written in their use of buzzwords for the sake of simplistic Leftist pretentions about science and religion.
"....far from expressing views that were unique Haldane’s linked beliefs in socialism, inequality, and eugenics were widely shared on the left, particularly amongst Marxists and Fabians with scientific interests. Beatrice and Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Havelock Ellis, Eden and Cedar Paul, H.J. Laski, Graham Wallas, Emma Goldrnan, H.G. Wells, Edward Aveling, Julian Huxley, Joseph Needham, C.P. Snow, H.G. Muller and Paul Karnmerer—to note just some of the more prominent figures—all advocated (though in varying forms; some “positive” and some “negative,” some here and now and some only in the socialist future) the improvement of the genetic stock of the human race through selective breeding. It was Shaw who argued that “there is now no reasonable excuse for refusing to face the fact that nothing but a eugenic religion can save our civilization,” Eden Paul that “unless the socialist is a eugenicist as well, the socialist state will speedily perish from racial degradation” and H.J. Lash that “the different rates of fertility in the sound and pathological stocks point to a future swamping of the better by the worse. As a nation, we are faced by race suicide.” In the approximate half-century separating the work of Galton from the rise of fascism (which more than any other factor was responsible for the collapse of socialist enthusiasm for eugenics), such views were common."
(Eugenics and the Left
by Diane Paul
Journal of the History of Ideas,
Vol. 45, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1984), pp. 567-568)
She has long lists of impeccable cites about this. For that's the way a peer reviewed journal of history is. Leftists seem to have forgotten quite a bit about how their use of "science" as a buzzword was already abused repeatedly to cloak philosophic naturalism in the past. They still are trying to construct a contradiction between "science" and "religion" and then claim that their ideology is just scientific.
Now it is the stem cells that the actors, writers, etc., are after. This will cure things. The caculated killing of some human lives so that other humans may live better is one step further removed, even down into things you cannot really see. So it is easier and easier to see no Evil, hear no Evil....which is actually the way it went in the past too. They did not have cameras everywhere in the past so much. In general, people did not know was going on, anymore than people these days are up to date on abortion procedures and know the details of them.
Instead, all of these things are secret. You will be censored on these types of issues the more you bring to light any brutality, like the so-called "gay rights" issue and all the terrible truths about it. If you begin to bring to light some things there then be prepared because you have just stirred something up that wants to remain hidden. It seems to have to do with fascism and that type of philosophy. They are always attacking against the person who tries to tell the truth. It seems that they dare not actually deal with what is being said as an issue of "Is it true."
For their scholarship is weak, quite weak. Fascist scholarship's "weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiated all moral and spiritual values."
(Hitler's Proffessors: The Part of Scholarship in
Germany's Crimes against the Jewish People
By Max Weinreich (New York:The Yiddish
Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)
The term science is just a buzzword to them, which means that you agree with the mental retardation that comes with philosophic naturalism.
"For the biologists, the test of a scientific outlook was generally identified with a society’s attitude towards eugenics; that is, its willingness to adopt a genuinely scientific stance towards questions of what used to be called “race betterment.” The Marxist and Fabian biologists believed that Western societies had largely failed this test."
(Eugenics and the Left
by Diane Paul
Journal of the History of Ideas,
Vol. 45, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1984), pp. :569)
It's important to remember that Nazism was very popular among the elites, very like the American Republic's blue states where the journalists and culture shapers tend to live. Fascism as a form of socialism was very popular among scientists and so on, as well.
(See: Hitler's Scientists, by John Cromwell)
How quickly this is forgotten by the same, those still trying to practice the same pseudo-science of evolutionism and their lil' fanboys, the journalists. The journalists tend to be even more mentally retarded about it. It is written in their use of buzzwords for the sake of simplistic Leftist pretentions about science and religion.
Those who have ears, let them hear.
Let them hear the songbird sing their lil' songs.
"While these and other avian theories are useful, [I may disagree....] it leaves the primary question entirely unanswered. And that’s how matter allowed all this to happen. Ecological factors may have unlocked the capabilities of the organisms in question, but where did these innate capabilities, the unique flight feathers with its aerodynamic capabilities, the respiratory system found in no other mammal, come from? And how is it that such adaptation to ecology was possible? Take it down to the genetic level; even with random mutations, the genetic material must ultimately have contained the capabilities we now see manifested in sparrows and robins, meadowlarks and woodpeckers. Or if you go back before the origin of life, you ask how the matter fields existing before the origin of life acquired all the capabilities that were to manifest themselves after the genesis of life and living beings. Were those innate capabilities, and if so, how did matter come to have such properties and how is it then able to manifest them?
The point is that there’s something involved here beyond quantum fields, and this right from the very beginning. When we see birds take off with a runway of inches or fly across continents for months at a time, we have a right and an obligation to be wonder-struck. To lightly dismiss them as products of evolutionary adaptation is to ignore the questions of (a) where did the entity that does the evolving come from, (b) how did it come to have its innate capabilities, and (c) why is reality structured so that adaptation is possible.
[....]
So the next time you see a bird, don’t view it simply as a twig on the evolutionary tree, a vehicle of natural selection or matter in motion. Consider its displays of intelligent, even extraordinary, behavior, and assess these displays on their own terms. Listen to it sing. This is not just a disturbance of fields (although it is that) or phonons gone berserk. It’s a bird singing. And it’s here, now. Its existence is as marvelous and moving as the most beautiful painting. Yes, it emerged through progressive modifications from primordial times but the endgame is what matters, as surely as the end painting makes sense of the initial pigments. Its properties of intelligence and beauty bespeak a source, in the ultimate analysis, that is intelligent."
(The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern
Science to the Mind of God
by Roy Abraham Varghese :310)
There is a problem here, you might note. The philosopher and scholar acquainted with ontology, energy fields and quantum mechanics says, "There is no concievable story indicating that what we see could come from energy fields and mere matter in motion." But in my view he accepts too much of a narrative/story based on philosophic naturalism in biology, another field.
A maverick biologist might say, "There is no way to concieve of a naturalistic narrative for the design of birds by known processes." But perhaps he misunderstands the Big Bang and accepts philosophic naturalism there based on Stephen Hawking's "imaginary time." For once upon a time, there was no time, except some imaginary time! That time seemed to have arrived just in time to maintain the usual atheistic kookiness.
The biochemist Michael Behe who rejects a naturalistic type narrative in his own field, accepts narratives about common descent.
Generally, it seems that philosophic naturalism is the easy way, the path of least resistance. I.e., it's the type of thing that journalists believe. You just say, "It's matter in motion. For just look at it!" That's about it, sight without insight. Whatever it looks like prima facie becomes the story of the journalist.
I.e. a lil' story. Like so, "Once upon a time, people looked like monkeys....for some reason they were divided into two sexes. It does not seem that efficient as far as survival of the fittest and procreation. But, we'll think of something eventually. So their lil' private parts just evolved, each one, just so!"
And so on.
"While these and other avian theories are useful, [I may disagree....] it leaves the primary question entirely unanswered. And that’s how matter allowed all this to happen. Ecological factors may have unlocked the capabilities of the organisms in question, but where did these innate capabilities, the unique flight feathers with its aerodynamic capabilities, the respiratory system found in no other mammal, come from? And how is it that such adaptation to ecology was possible? Take it down to the genetic level; even with random mutations, the genetic material must ultimately have contained the capabilities we now see manifested in sparrows and robins, meadowlarks and woodpeckers. Or if you go back before the origin of life, you ask how the matter fields existing before the origin of life acquired all the capabilities that were to manifest themselves after the genesis of life and living beings. Were those innate capabilities, and if so, how did matter come to have such properties and how is it then able to manifest them?
The point is that there’s something involved here beyond quantum fields, and this right from the very beginning. When we see birds take off with a runway of inches or fly across continents for months at a time, we have a right and an obligation to be wonder-struck. To lightly dismiss them as products of evolutionary adaptation is to ignore the questions of (a) where did the entity that does the evolving come from, (b) how did it come to have its innate capabilities, and (c) why is reality structured so that adaptation is possible.
[....]
So the next time you see a bird, don’t view it simply as a twig on the evolutionary tree, a vehicle of natural selection or matter in motion. Consider its displays of intelligent, even extraordinary, behavior, and assess these displays on their own terms. Listen to it sing. This is not just a disturbance of fields (although it is that) or phonons gone berserk. It’s a bird singing. And it’s here, now. Its existence is as marvelous and moving as the most beautiful painting. Yes, it emerged through progressive modifications from primordial times but the endgame is what matters, as surely as the end painting makes sense of the initial pigments. Its properties of intelligence and beauty bespeak a source, in the ultimate analysis, that is intelligent."
(The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern
Science to the Mind of God
by Roy Abraham Varghese :310)
There is a problem here, you might note. The philosopher and scholar acquainted with ontology, energy fields and quantum mechanics says, "There is no concievable story indicating that what we see could come from energy fields and mere matter in motion." But in my view he accepts too much of a narrative/story based on philosophic naturalism in biology, another field.
A maverick biologist might say, "There is no way to concieve of a naturalistic narrative for the design of birds by known processes." But perhaps he misunderstands the Big Bang and accepts philosophic naturalism there based on Stephen Hawking's "imaginary time." For once upon a time, there was no time, except some imaginary time! That time seemed to have arrived just in time to maintain the usual atheistic kookiness.
The biochemist Michael Behe who rejects a naturalistic type narrative in his own field, accepts narratives about common descent.
Generally, it seems that philosophic naturalism is the easy way, the path of least resistance. I.e., it's the type of thing that journalists believe. You just say, "It's matter in motion. For just look at it!" That's about it, sight without insight. Whatever it looks like prima facie becomes the story of the journalist.
I.e. a lil' story. Like so, "Once upon a time, people looked like monkeys....for some reason they were divided into two sexes. It does not seem that efficient as far as survival of the fittest and procreation. But, we'll think of something eventually. So their lil' private parts just evolved, each one, just so!"
And so on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)