I started to write a screed in July in response to a Belmont Club post, Definitions, entitled Those Hellbent On Leading Us Into A New Dark Ages. But I cooled off after I answered a misunderstanding posted by BC commenter 3Case.
In June I wrote "Progressives" Are Demonstrably Dangerous to Human Life, but I still wasn't satisfied. This was to be followed by a part II that had been provoked by Mark Alger here. Instead, it languished incomplete for a couple months. I was feeling downright low about how hard a nut this was going to be to crack.
Many years ago I wrote this of Progressives. My wry humor sprung from the fact that it didn't take long for the Progressive reform movement that grew out of the late 19th Century American Populist movement to degrade into a comfy home for deceptive power seekers who succeeded in breeching our government's constitutional limits incrementally for "only the best of reasons."
In early August, Our Curmudgeon, in the pursuit of another topic, wrote of the treachery of "Progressives" as I've always wished him to do, but it still was not enough. For, on that same day, I had heard parts of a speech by Hilliary Clinton that got me started on another screed that I never finished: The "Progressive" Hatred for People.
And now this last week, Mark Alger needled me with the thought that we who are representative of true progress ought steal the progressive label from the phonies.
ARRRGGGGHHHHHHHH! 8/17/07
Continued on 9/05/07
The people who have been granted (by the PC crowd) the leave to wear the label Progressive are anything but. In addition to having long ago become the home for those whose lust for power may well set a new standard for perversion, they are well on their way to making a pejorative of the word progress just as they have made an unbearable burden for anyone who is truly liberal. Those who would wish we will not progress could not be happier.
More and more I run across both writers on the Internet and casual conversants who see that "Progressive" must be put in scorn quotes whenever we refer to those who claim that label.
This is unacceptable. This is Orwellian Newspeak being thrust upon us because we people who must speak with each other in order to counter this road to serfdom and a new dark age do not control the mainstream news media's effluent. We so badly need a new and widely influential means of communicating our viewpoint so that we can counter the anti-language corps. Where is our John Galt who can pirate, even for a little while, all media outlets away from those who relentlessly destroy our language?
A few days ago I had to contend with the confusion over what is a "Progressive" at The Belmont Club. After my initial comment to Wretchard, I had a short interchange with two of his active readers, Charles and LarryD, over the words Postmodern and Progressive. I think I stumbled on the best way verbally to deal with our tormentors: call them Postmodern Progressives.
In the end I think we were all dancing around the same idea at core. Today's Progressives are not advancers of civilization even if there were once some who could rightly claim to have been. Just as "Liberals" view as progressive the liberal growth of government -- and thereby the growth of restrictions on the liberty of individuals (anti-liberalism) -- so too when something will lead to mankind's diminishment, that is what "Progressives" view as progress (anti-progress).
I think we all understand that "Progressives" are NOT. But what are we who really love to see progress going to do about it?
I am convinced that most "Progressives" fall under the category of the misled. The most troublesome of them are the true-believers who allow themselves to become useful idiots. But the task that we who are optimists must find is how to unmask the mostly quiescent troublemakers who lend their support to the useful idiots, thereby accomplishing what they themselves could never achieve: mankind's self-destruction.
I know from what I've read throughout the web on the Right that most Right thinkers see that the label of Progressive has been stolen every bit as much as classical liberals have had Liberal stolen from them.
We must fight to take back the label Progressive so that those that follow us will be able to progress. So that those that follow do not find themselves under a yoke that so many Americans have fought to keep from being institutionalized on these shores. This is a patriotic battle. This is a battle that the bulk of humanity will always have with the effete elite. Understanding it does not require rocket science. It does not require knowing what Postmodernism is, only that it is something that wants you to return to times of enslavement over men's minds. It wishes for nothing less than a new Dark Age.
My friend Og often suggests that at some point the need to argue must end; that it is time for the cricket bats. He may be close to right.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query progress-of. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query progress-of. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Incrementals -- part 2
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am sick and tired of feeling the need to put scorn quotes on the word Progressives. "Progressives" are the ultimate anti-human progress force in the world today, and it really isn't right for them to hang onto the moral high ground that is deserved by right to those who truly work to achieve real human progress.
"Progressives" is one way to make the point that they are regressive (as in turning back the clock), repressive (aiming to restrict individual liberty), postmodern ("future" is so passé), misanthropic (6.5 billion people will be reduced to ½ billion by hook or by crook), and the class of people who think they are the only ones smart enough to deserve the power they seek. Society's self-assessed aces.
But the problem with "Progressives" is
In retrospect, it seems I was the first to use it in this way. Other words I've coined over the years had multiple authors and so they proliferated. Words like sheeple and republicrats. But it is the self-designated word "Progressive" that still seems to reign supreme when everyone speaks about those who've been scheming for more than a hundred years to incrementally enslave the whole human race.
Today I did a google on the words "incrementals" "progressives." My post on the subject came up as number 1.
Yes I did make a contribution to help defeat the rhetoric of the Incrementals. But I've done a poor job of selling it. Even worse -- I had forgotten to use it!
For someone who believes that the future leadership that can defeat this anti-human squad of perverts has to come from individuals like myself, I have to admit that I make a horrible example. No, not in my ability to think up variations in tactics. Many know I am good at brainstorming. I simply don't fear making an ass of myself. Brainstorming will fall flat and even look stupid a good deal of the time. But if you fear to float ideas, you'll fear floating good ones that you don't know are good until others react to them. Few people are geniuses until they stumble enough for others to realize the genius.
No, my failure manifested itself in my not acquiring the stamina, guts and drive to keep at it day after day. Real leaders WILL do those things that need to be done and then do even more. I've known real leaders, and even still know a few, so I know what one looks like. I fall short. And no matter what, every day I wake up and still don't feel like leading. I'm sure I am not alone. Most of you reading this probably feel the same way. (Still, some of you has a great opportunity to aid decency. Consider learning what it takes to get the drive and go on and become a leader. The risks are high -- but....)
Back to the campaign at hand. It's really simple, much simpler that the long lead-in above.
I really do think, that with the label Incrementals, I've stumbled on a very good and accurate word to describe the not-very-nice people who relentlessly have been seeking great power by gaining it a little bit of the time.
So I will do three more things to help my friends who happen by here to use the word Incrementals as a replacement for "Progressives" every time you write it. I will give you the formatting for 3 different environments so that you may use the words together.
Together we who use this rhetorical tactic may begin to break the back of the Incrementals and end their theft of the word progress and its moral high ground. The goal is to reclaim it as our own.
---------
Blogger has blown it's ability to detect links to conservative blogs again, so...
Much thanks to Crusader Rabbit for aiding with this campaign:
Thanks for going out of your way to help KG!
"Progressives" is one way to make the point that they are regressive (as in turning back the clock), repressive (aiming to restrict individual liberty), postmodern ("future" is so passé), misanthropic (6.5 billion people will be reduced to ½ billion by hook or by crook), and the class of people who think they are the only ones smart enough to deserve the power they seek. Society's self-assessed aces.
But the problem with "Progressives" is
- It doesn't stop them from painting their enemies as "anti" progress rather than anti "progress."
- After a short while the power of mocking the word they chose to describe themselves loses its sting.
- "Progressive" news media and other influential institutions constantly use the word Progressive without a hint of their postmodernism being contrary to true progress.
- It cedes ownership of the narrative to those we need to defeat.
In retrospect, it seems I was the first to use it in this way. Other words I've coined over the years had multiple authors and so they proliferated. Words like sheeple and republicrats. But it is the self-designated word "Progressive" that still seems to reign supreme when everyone speaks about those who've been scheming for more than a hundred years to incrementally enslave the whole human race.
Today I did a google on the words "incrementals" "progressives." My post on the subject came up as number 1.
About 365 results(0.50 seconds)
Pascal Fervor: Incrementals
Jan 18, 2010 ... The Sinister Wingers have chosen “Progressives” for themselves. Let us allow that they are Incrementals. In that they are incremental ...pascalfervor.blogspot.com/2010/01/incrementals.html
Yes I did make a contribution to help defeat the rhetoric of the Incrementals. But I've done a poor job of selling it. Even worse -- I had forgotten to use it!
For someone who believes that the future leadership that can defeat this anti-human squad of perverts has to come from individuals like myself, I have to admit that I make a horrible example. No, not in my ability to think up variations in tactics. Many know I am good at brainstorming. I simply don't fear making an ass of myself. Brainstorming will fall flat and even look stupid a good deal of the time. But if you fear to float ideas, you'll fear floating good ones that you don't know are good until others react to them. Few people are geniuses until they stumble enough for others to realize the genius.
No, my failure manifested itself in my not acquiring the stamina, guts and drive to keep at it day after day. Real leaders WILL do those things that need to be done and then do even more. I've known real leaders, and even still know a few, so I know what one looks like. I fall short. And no matter what, every day I wake up and still don't feel like leading. I'm sure I am not alone. Most of you reading this probably feel the same way. (Still, some of you has a great opportunity to aid decency. Consider learning what it takes to get the drive and go on and become a leader. The risks are high -- but....)
Back to the campaign at hand. It's really simple, much simpler that the long lead-in above.
I really do think, that with the label Incrementals, I've stumbled on a very good and accurate word to describe the not-very-nice people who relentlessly have been seeking great power by gaining it a little bit of the time.
So I will do three more things to help my friends who happen by here to use the word Incrementals as a replacement for "Progressives" every time you write it. I will give you the formatting for 3 different environments so that you may use the words together.
"Progressives"Incrementals- <strike>"Progressives"</strike> Incrementals
- <delete>"Progressives"</delete> Incrementals
Together we who use this rhetorical tactic may begin to break the back of the Incrementals and end their theft of the word progress and its moral high ground. The goal is to reclaim it as our own.
---------
Blogger has blown it's ability to detect links to conservative blogs again, so...
Much thanks to Crusader Rabbit for aiding with this campaign:
“progressives”? nah, ‘incrementals’
Thanks for going out of your way to help KG!
Friday, October 22, 2010
Incrementals -- part 3: Fight to Reclaim Our Language [Updated]
Good news friends.
This evening I heard a promotional ad by Dennis Prager for his radio talkshow.
In it he stated that he bristles when he thinks of how the Left has staked claim to the word progressive. And that it makes it sound as if any who oppose them are anti-progressive. [The following is corrected from before as I promised I'd do.]
Really Dennis? You are still dancing around to their tune. I know you are not really advocating abandoning our not always accurate label (though we could choose a new one for good reasons).
But you are not making the strong case as to why the Left has no legitimate right to call themselves progressive. It is for the same reasons that they had no legitimate claim to the word liberal (which once, long ago, only meant "pertaining to freedom").
The Left has been engaging in language theft my whole life. It's a form of agit-prop meant deliberately to put their opponents off balance. Sadly this one tactic seems to keep some off balance for far too long and all too easily. Jeesh!
I have no faith that you'll ever hear this, but here is what some long departed great uncle would say to you if he could:
Sigh. Well no matter. At the least, Dennis Prager has somehow either caught wind of the meme I started earlier this week or he's independently arrived at the same conclusion -- conservatives need to do something! Sadly, in my view, Mr Prager has chosen a far more difficult way to go to war.
Dennis, you didn't get my memo? It's a lot easier to achieve what you want than you currently are suggesting. We don't have to continue to live with the repressive, regressive Left's dishonest theft of the word progress.
What I do in print is write"Progressives" Incrementals when I refer to them. It's a simple thing really. But it has real meaning as I've explained elsewhere. Don't ask me how I know that this word is important -- I can tell you already sense it too Mr. Prager. I'm just a little blog where maybe a handful of friends will see the idea and run with it on their little bigger blogs. From what I surmise you have the attention of more than 5 million ears each week. You could make a dent in Leftist ownership of "progress" if you wanted to.
Here is what you can do on radio. When referring to them, you can say "the 'Progressives' -- no the Incrementalists actually." And then go on and use the word Incrementalists, and Incremental theft of personal liberty a little at a time, and so on as you refer to them and their actions. Then never use the word progressive again in that session of your talkshow when referring to them. Only use progressive when speaking of wanting real progress, like in job creation, and re-stabilizing our monetary system, and improving home life and restoring traditional values.
When they challenge you -- and you know they will katzenjammer like mad -- point out that the only progress that is of importance to an Incrementalist is what permits him to gain power. Power that is totally self-serving and with which they, as a group, have been demonstrably incompetent. Then go on to demonstrate all the ways it is true. Do you think you have enough material to show that they are regressive, repressive, postmodernist, misanthropic and overall power-mad? Yes, I thought so. So do it!
To make progress against the growing tyranny, do NOT let the Left stay in charge of the narrative. You must fight to reclaim the language.
Oh, and for those who will accuse me of attacking Mr Prager, this demonstrates that I know how he can fire up his delivery quite satisfactorily when his head is screwed on right, and I commend him for it.
-----------------
Posts related to incremental steps:
Post plus exchange of reveries at Neaderpundit.com: Ever Watch a Leaf...?
This evening I heard a promotional ad by Dennis Prager for his radio talkshow.
In it he stated that he bristles when he thinks of how the Left has staked claim to the word progressive. And that it makes it sound as if any who oppose them are anti-progressive. [The following is corrected from before as I promised I'd do.]
He says we on the right ought to change our name "from conservative to morally clear. Why is that any more self-serving than progressive? If you're not for progress you're for regress, right?" [/end update]
Really Dennis? You are still dancing around to their tune. I know you are not really advocating abandoning our not always accurate label (though we could choose a new one for good reasons).
But you are not making the strong case as to why the Left has no legitimate right to call themselves progressive. It is for the same reasons that they had no legitimate claim to the word liberal (which once, long ago, only meant "pertaining to freedom").
The Left has been engaging in language theft my whole life. It's a form of agit-prop meant deliberately to put their opponents off balance. Sadly this one tactic seems to keep some off balance for far too long and all too easily. Jeesh!
I have no faith that you'll ever hear this, but here is what some long departed great uncle would say to you if he could:
Stop whining Dennis.
You have had command of your own microphone for 15 hours every week for roughly 30 years.
Who else on radio -- anywhere -- has had that much access to the minds of Americans?
You have had an unprecedented opportunity to sway not just opinons on the Right, but national opinion.
Are you the opinion maker you ought to be? Or are you a boychick who runs home crying cuz the bullies stole his counntry's future by claiming possession of an important word?
You don't like that the Left has stolen progress? Well be a mensch and fight to take it back!
Sigh. Well no matter. At the least, Dennis Prager has somehow either caught wind of the meme I started earlier this week or he's independently arrived at the same conclusion -- conservatives need to do something! Sadly, in my view, Mr Prager has chosen a far more difficult way to go to war.
Dennis, you didn't get my memo? It's a lot easier to achieve what you want than you currently are suggesting. We don't have to continue to live with the repressive, regressive Left's dishonest theft of the word progress.
What I do in print is write
Here is what you can do on radio. When referring to them, you can say "the 'Progressives' -- no the Incrementalists actually." And then go on and use the word Incrementalists, and Incremental theft of personal liberty a little at a time, and so on as you refer to them and their actions. Then never use the word progressive again in that session of your talkshow when referring to them. Only use progressive when speaking of wanting real progress, like in job creation, and re-stabilizing our monetary system, and improving home life and restoring traditional values.
When they challenge you -- and you know they will katzenjammer like mad -- point out that the only progress that is of importance to an Incrementalist is what permits him to gain power. Power that is totally self-serving and with which they, as a group, have been demonstrably incompetent. Then go on to demonstrate all the ways it is true. Do you think you have enough material to show that they are regressive, repressive, postmodernist, misanthropic and overall power-mad? Yes, I thought so. So do it!
To make progress against the growing tyranny, do NOT let the Left stay in charge of the narrative. You must fight to reclaim the language.
Oh, and for those who will accuse me of attacking Mr Prager, this demonstrates that I know how he can fire up his delivery quite satisfactorily when his head is screwed on right, and I commend him for it.
-----------------
Posts related to incremental steps:
Post plus exchange of reveries at Neaderpundit.com: Ever Watch a Leaf...?
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Friday, May 28, 2010
More Progress-of
Today I became aware that the video I had embedded in my last charting of the "Progressive" advance on their power and the face they are willing to reveal to us, Progress-of, has been removed.
Allegedly "due to terms of use violation."
The video displayed in living color her infamous response "Are you serious? Are you serious?" to the question "Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority for enacting an individual health insurance mandate?"
Fortunately there are still audio recordings.
But still -- can you not envision the evil doer forcing the removal of proof of their evil doing?
Allegedly "due to terms of use violation."
The video displayed in living color her infamous response "Are you serious? Are you serious?" to the question "Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority for enacting an individual health insurance mandate?"
Fortunately there are still audio recordings.
But still -- can you not envision the evil doer forcing the removal of proof of their evil doing?
Chalk this up to the ever more sneering demonstration of the Progress-of power.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Progress-of
Back in July I delineated the progressive peeling back of the facade to reveal the true face of the "Progressive" with the following equation
Altruistic ==► Casuistic ==► Craven ==► Shameless ==► Brazen ==► [TBD]
I've been considering replacing TBD with Sneering for some time as there has been quite a bit of sneering on the part of Obama administration, especially as the healthcare bills have been dragged through Congress, despite constituents and many legislators kicking and screaming.
But it took a journalist's question and Nancy Pelosi's blunt response to reveal the current face of the "Progressives."
Altruistic ==► Casuistic ==► Craven ==► Shameless ==►
Brazen ==► Sneer at US ==► Contempt for US ==► [TBD]
Stay tuned. Don't dare look in Nancy Pelosi's attic as you're apt to find hidden there a horrifying portrait that has yet to be completed.
***UPDATE2*** 10 April 2015
The posers don't like this video much it seems. it and audio version keep getting deleted. Had to find another one.
The title is "Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it" and it was posted by rexanders8
*** UPDATE *** 28 MAY 2010 ***
Someone does not like it that Madame Pelosi was shown on the video clip above actually displaying her contempt for us.
Her infamous response "Are you serious? Are you serious?" to the question "Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority for enacting an individual health insurance mandate?" has been removed.
Allegedly "due to terms of use violation."
Fortunately there are still audio recordings, but still -- the evil doer forcing the removal of proof of the evil doing is just one more flagrant demonstration of the Progress-of.
Altruistic ==► Casuistic ==► Craven ==► Shameless ==► Brazen ==► [TBD]
I've been considering replacing TBD with Sneering for some time as there has been quite a bit of sneering on the part of Obama administration, especially as the healthcare bills have been dragged through Congress, despite constituents and many legislators kicking and screaming.
But it took a journalist's question and Nancy Pelosi's blunt response to reveal the current face of the "Progressives."
Altruistic ==► Casuistic ==► Craven ==► Shameless ==►
Brazen ==► Sneer at US ==► Contempt for US ==► [TBD]
Stay tuned. Don't dare look in Nancy Pelosi's attic as you're apt to find hidden there a horrifying portrait that has yet to be completed.
***UPDATE2*** 10 April 2015
The posers don't like this video much it seems. it and audio version keep getting deleted. Had to find another one.
The title is "Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it" and it was posted by rexanders8
*** UPDATE *** 28 MAY 2010 ***
Someone does not like it that Madame Pelosi was shown on the video clip above actually displaying her contempt for us.
Her infamous response "Are you serious? Are you serious?" to the question "Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority for enacting an individual health insurance mandate?" has been removed.
Allegedly "due to terms of use violation."
Fortunately there are still audio recordings, but still -- the evil doer forcing the removal of proof of the evil doing is just one more flagrant demonstration of the Progress-of.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Better Late Than Never (Glenn Beck)
This morning I heard Glenn Beck issue a warning about the danger to any who hold Judeo-Christian views. This was prompted by Obama's current assault on Catholic Church managed health providers. He wants listeners to stand with the Catholics. I concur. [UPDATE: Attack On Our Care for Posterity is the new follow-up to this post.]
My own formal warning on this, posted at my old website (PascalFervor.com) in 2006, often cannot be brought up from the WayBack Machine. So I'll repost it again today. Were I to rewrite it today I'd think I write it more to the point, and I'd make sure to explicitly link the Precautionary Principle to the adversaries of the heart of Christianity and Judaism. But I'll let it stand as it is, awkward wording and all.
At the Core of the Judeo-Christian Ethos: What Animates Its
My own formal warning on this, posted at my old website (PascalFervor.com) in 2006, often cannot be brought up from the WayBack Machine. So I'll repost it again today. Were I to rewrite it today I'd think I write it more to the point, and I'd make sure to explicitly link the Precautionary Principle to the adversaries of the heart of Christianity and Judaism. But I'll let it stand as it is, awkward wording and all.
Saturday, 5 August 2006.
At the Core of the Judeo-Christian Ethos: What Animates Its Critics Enemies
By Pascal Fervor
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Mark Levin mocks Professor Elizabeth Warren
On Thursday, Mark Levin had a segment in his last hour in which he demonstrated how to turn the tables on Marxists. If he sounds demagogic against the Left, remember that is his point. This is the Left's tactics, as they use it against businesses and taxpayers, but used on them instead.
The object of his efforts, which is what ours should be, is to try to get well-meaning liberals*, maybe only a handful at a time, to understand what monsters they've helped unleash on the world in their name. It is never too late to ask forgiveness and try to fix the damage that is a consequence of electing politicians who ignore and override the limitations in the U.S. Constitution to the power they wield.
At the very least, it may help get conservative moderates to understand why there is no real compromise with people who want to enslave them. Compromise simply means they'll enslave you piecemeal. (If I have said it once, I've said it a thousand times. The progress that "Progressives" have sought was accomplished by accumulating every niggling bit of power that they could beg, borrow, steal or wrest from individuals and vested it in their collective.)
There is another important point that Mr. Levin partially discusses about the Left's version of the social contract that connects it with the Left's hatred of humanity. If only I can keep from getting distracted and forgetting about it, I will make a separate post explaining it.
For now, read this transcript in an effort to learn from the tactic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*behind whose good intentions the Leftists and Statists hide their greed for power.
The object of his efforts, which is what ours should be, is to try to get well-meaning liberals*, maybe only a handful at a time, to understand what monsters they've helped unleash on the world in their name. It is never too late to ask forgiveness and try to fix the damage that is a consequence of electing politicians who ignore and override the limitations in the U.S. Constitution to the power they wield.
At the very least, it may help get conservative moderates to understand why there is no real compromise with people who want to enslave them. Compromise simply means they'll enslave you piecemeal. (If I have said it once, I've said it a thousand times. The progress that "Progressives" have sought was accomplished by accumulating every niggling bit of power that they could beg, borrow, steal or wrest from individuals and vested it in their collective.)
There is another important point that Mr. Levin partially discusses about the Left's version of the social contract that connects it with the Left's hatred of humanity. If only I can keep from getting distracted and forgetting about it, I will make a separate post explaining it.
For now, read this transcript in an effort to learn from the tactic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*behind whose good intentions the Leftists and Statists hide their greed for power.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Fear and Hatred for Real Leaders
Pursuing themes I raised earlier this month, (causes of civilizational decline, and more specifically, who and what blocks reforms) I spoke with Og the Neanderpundit about how much we providers and guardians of real progress need a true leader. Og, widely known for his love of the simpler life (not to be confused with Luddites), hates red tape more than the average guy, and complicated arguments even more so.
I spoke with Og on this because he is excellent at cutting to the essentials of an issue. For instance, he reduces John Galt's 57 page speech down to the summary: "Liberalism is stupid." When I want to make important points concisely, I find my thoughts condense easier while speaking with him.
Yesterday Og rendered one part of our discussion down to the "simple" question: Why can’t we find a hero? His illumination of the situation facing potential leaders culminates with the rhetorical question: "Sure, why isn’t there a HUGE line of people anxious to serve?" Please read it all and then come back.
The most virulent attacks on emerging heroes will reach you through from our Establishment's media, more widely known as Mainstream media (MSM).
Well, who pays the salaries of MSM? It's customers do. One is forced to the conclusion that a majority of MSM's customers are either comfortable with or favoring such attacks.
Well, who are MSM's customers? No, it is not readers and viewers. Reading and viewing fees provide a small part of all MSM costs, including its salaries and profits. It is advertising that provides the vast bulk of MSM's revenues.
Readers and viewers are merely MSM's audience. And we know from polls that the majority of MSM's audience is beyond tired and is now outright annoyed with most of the inane reporting, reporting spin, and commentary emanating from MSM.
MSM's customers -- the people who pay for the programming and editorial decisions with their advertising fees -- are the heads of our institutions. The bigger the corporation or public servant's office or public or private institution, the more money they will pay to MSM to get out their messages. And the more they spend, the more MSM is inclined to be influenced by its customer.
This situation is in place all before we even consider the political inclinations of the people employed at MSM, which tends to be collectivist in one way or another. And if you think that even the largest corporations do not favor collectivism, you are not paying attention.
The point I am aiming towards is how much those steeped in management perspective - its power and perquisites -- have every reason to be fearful, loathsome and outright hostile to leaders whose actions and abilities sway public opinion simply through the strength of their persona or depth of character. They fear loss of what they now have, and they will play with your fears of losing whatever goods you now have should you dare vote to endanger them.
Leaders of that sort might upset their applecart. They want a handle on every potential leader so much that it has become -- at least in their narrow minds -- a need. They need to be able to bring every leader to heel -- or else -- when the need arises. They are paying big fees to MSM to do so. They will try with every trick at their disposal.
Dear reader, I am hoping you have learned to greet every new revelation about some rising leader with quite a bit of skepticism. At some point in the future, maybe the near future, you will be asked to make a decisions favoring leaders who have compromising situations hounding them. Among them will be real leaders.
Know this to be a fact. Those currently in positions of greatest consequence and power will fear the most heroic. MSM's customers will wish them to be feared and detested by the majority of us for all the wrong reasons. MSM will find some and any cause to rain upon your heroes' heads; all kinds of visually compelling nastiness. MSM is well on its way to owning and controlling YouTube. There are countless reasons to believe how every other delivery system on the web could come under moneyed control too in one way or another.
It's going to be up to you more than ever to improve your analytical capabilities and communication skills in order to keep the web the potent new forum it is quickly becoming. Forces bigger than us are working against your interests -- against what's good for you in the long haul -- simply to protect their short-term goals and to lengthen their retention of power.
The most powerful in our world -- a kind of new aristocracy we have little control over -- wants to control every potential real leader. They feel they have paid for that right. They will control the leader or they'll aim to destroy him.
There is a risk to us all from every popular new leader. Hopefully the checks and balances will still work in that regard. The best leader will do more than merely give lip service to it. So that is one important test we can make. But there is a bigger risk.
If will don't permit them to grow, if we aren't aware enough or courageous enough to back those we like (for the most part) in the role of reforming new leader, we will lose in the long run. The reforms most needed involve ending the growth of government and large institutions. As things stand, those who think they know better have gotten to where they think they can overwhelm opposition to their fondest wish: to control every aspect of our lives. To defeat it will require a leader much like Ronald Reagan in his appeal, but for whom the well-established entrenched are willing and are planning to destroy. The entrenched mentality that is managing 21st Century America is in position and ready to convince you and your fellow citizens to fear and hate the next real leader.
Be prepared.
I spoke with Og on this because he is excellent at cutting to the essentials of an issue. For instance, he reduces John Galt's 57 page speech down to the summary: "Liberalism is stupid." When I want to make important points concisely, I find my thoughts condense easier while speaking with him.
Yesterday Og rendered one part of our discussion down to the "simple" question: Why can’t we find a hero? His illumination of the situation facing potential leaders culminates with the rhetorical question: "Sure, why isn’t there a HUGE line of people anxious to serve?" Please read it all and then come back.
The most virulent attacks on emerging heroes will reach you through from our Establishment's media, more widely known as Mainstream media (MSM).
Well, who pays the salaries of MSM? It's customers do. One is forced to the conclusion that a majority of MSM's customers are either comfortable with or favoring such attacks.
Well, who are MSM's customers? No, it is not readers and viewers. Reading and viewing fees provide a small part of all MSM costs, including its salaries and profits. It is advertising that provides the vast bulk of MSM's revenues.
Readers and viewers are merely MSM's audience. And we know from polls that the majority of MSM's audience is beyond tired and is now outright annoyed with most of the inane reporting, reporting spin, and commentary emanating from MSM.
MSM's customers -- the people who pay for the programming and editorial decisions with their advertising fees -- are the heads of our institutions. The bigger the corporation or public servant's office or public or private institution, the more money they will pay to MSM to get out their messages. And the more they spend, the more MSM is inclined to be influenced by its customer.
This situation is in place all before we even consider the political inclinations of the people employed at MSM, which tends to be collectivist in one way or another. And if you think that even the largest corporations do not favor collectivism, you are not paying attention.
The point I am aiming towards is how much those steeped in management perspective - its power and perquisites -- have every reason to be fearful, loathsome and outright hostile to leaders whose actions and abilities sway public opinion simply through the strength of their persona or depth of character. They fear loss of what they now have, and they will play with your fears of losing whatever goods you now have should you dare vote to endanger them.
Leaders of that sort might upset their applecart. They want a handle on every potential leader so much that it has become -- at least in their narrow minds -- a need. They need to be able to bring every leader to heel -- or else -- when the need arises. They are paying big fees to MSM to do so. They will try with every trick at their disposal.
Dear reader, I am hoping you have learned to greet every new revelation about some rising leader with quite a bit of skepticism. At some point in the future, maybe the near future, you will be asked to make a decisions favoring leaders who have compromising situations hounding them. Among them will be real leaders.
Know this to be a fact. Those currently in positions of greatest consequence and power will fear the most heroic. MSM's customers will wish them to be feared and detested by the majority of us for all the wrong reasons. MSM will find some and any cause to rain upon your heroes' heads; all kinds of visually compelling nastiness. MSM is well on its way to owning and controlling YouTube. There are countless reasons to believe how every other delivery system on the web could come under moneyed control too in one way or another.
It's going to be up to you more than ever to improve your analytical capabilities and communication skills in order to keep the web the potent new forum it is quickly becoming. Forces bigger than us are working against your interests -- against what's good for you in the long haul -- simply to protect their short-term goals and to lengthen their retention of power.
The most powerful in our world -- a kind of new aristocracy we have little control over -- wants to control every potential real leader. They feel they have paid for that right. They will control the leader or they'll aim to destroy him.
There is a risk to us all from every popular new leader. Hopefully the checks and balances will still work in that regard. The best leader will do more than merely give lip service to it. So that is one important test we can make. But there is a bigger risk.
If will don't permit them to grow, if we aren't aware enough or courageous enough to back those we like (for the most part) in the role of reforming new leader, we will lose in the long run. The reforms most needed involve ending the growth of government and large institutions. As things stand, those who think they know better have gotten to where they think they can overwhelm opposition to their fondest wish: to control every aspect of our lives. To defeat it will require a leader much like Ronald Reagan in his appeal, but for whom the well-established entrenched are willing and are planning to destroy. The entrenched mentality that is managing 21st Century America is in position and ready to convince you and your fellow citizens to fear and hate the next real leader.
Be prepared.
Monday, September 09, 2013
Are You a Target of the Susnuts?
Or are you one of their mindless bots who believes you are somehow special?
At Liberty's Torch, Weetabix asked me a question whose answer is too long to put into a small comment.
The answer is even too long for a single post, but I need try at least this once.
For my recent thoughts, the Sustainability label at my blog will provide you many examples of news that spurred me to note the connection.
Our host, Fran, beginning in 2004, ran an exhaustive series called "The Death Cults." The participation of mainstream elected leaders were much less brazen then. But they did permit non-profit status to be bestowed upon a load of Malthusian extremists. The same IRS that blocked TEA Party groups from (c4) status lets those guys thrive under (c3).
I've a not too complex theory that has withstood my tests over time. It is time to let others take some shots at it. If it only needs some adaptations and it can be refined, maybe there is hope that can be snatched from the knowledge. Know thy enemy and know thyself, and you will win every war said Sun Tsu.
Thomas Malthus' theories arose about 50 years after Pascal's death. The Age of Reason was beginning to undermine the Ancien Régimes. Many rulers saw and welcomed the benefits of liberty. But two kinds, both powerful, hated it. Those who hate the common man, and those who love concentrated power. Sometimes they're the same, and sometimes not. Malthus provided a "moral" cloak to hide both the explicit and implicit hatred of humanity -- even from themselves. By being able to convince even themselves that their vision is righteous, they can remain calm and seemingly benign as they convince large numbers
(The ancient Sophists understood power and how to get and keep it. One of their chief ways of keeping it was through fostering ideas that attract casuists -- men who sought the moral path based on studying cases of conduct -- and let them do the heavy lifting, often with little expense or risk to the Sophists' masters, spurred by a few demagogues, and fueled considerably by the zeal of the useful idiots. Eric Hoffer, by popularizing the more easily understood term of "true believer," did us a disservice by disconnecting the Greek designation for them, and thus their historically implied connection to the power seeking schemers. The humanity haters may believe they now have sufficient armies of those who are enthralled by the indirect means to achieving a new (old) religion (see below). It is one that will provide them moral authority to achieve their goals. The real powers only have to support the activists when things get tough. Mostly they have historically chosen to be silent partners. Today -- not so silent.)
A tactical note. What I'd like to make popular is the term Susnuts (or something like it), for the worshipers of Sustainability. (It really does fit the open ones. What I'd like is for the term to affect those who remain hidden. Some, who retain some of their humanity, will feel tainted by it). They believe their goal is righteous: to save us all from the one thing (they believe) that the planet has too much of -- human beings. They know that targets will not appreciate it, so they can't easily announce it. But they could not help leaving mountains of evidence as they progress.
It has all the earmarks of a religion. Ancient pagan ones. The ones that flung live babies into holocausts and virgins to the wolves. Its "priests" are instigating wars with the competition; that is, with all people who still adhere to the Judeo-Christian ethos whether or not they are religious.
For instance, you are seeing today with the witch hunts to rid the military of people who dare stand by their religion. Any religion that has in its books the promise "God will provide" -- the contrary idea to their conviction that we will run out of sustainable items -- is anathema to them. The phrase linked to Hitler "the Jewish disease" expresses the major cultural foundational obstacle to the earliest Susnuts (eugenics embracing Progressives such as H.G. Wells and Margaret Sanger) long before Hitler was born.
One more thing. The old labels do not apply here. Even those who call themselves religious or conservative will say "but there are too many people." They might be reachable. If even 50% reading this blog don't say that, then that would be wonderful news. But, if Armageddon really is imminent, forget about large numbers. Then, as Revelation predicts, the majority are already deluded. What can I say? The ones who seek to save their souls will be reached.
I say that as an agnostic. I literally do not know. But the evidence is hard to deny. Believing the world is overpopulated has to be deluded, because it leads inevitably to world-wide wipe-outs. This goes back to "Progressive" thought of the late 1800s. Those who most want children cannot be tolerated by the Progs lest they over-populate with all "the wrong" types. HG Wells' eugenic euphemism of "people of the abyss" is what they do not want as survivors.
If we are stoked into a civil war, it will be between peoples who have been set upon each other by these schemers seeking to obliterate the current population of the planet. I used the term 1/13 as a guess for their target number, because it fits their vision so well. A normal deck of 52 playing cards has only 4 aces; 4/52 = 1/13. Only Aces will be permitted to survive. Ace rocket scientists down to ace housekeepers and gardeners I guess. Don't ask me how they plan on living well if they do manage somehow to survive their man-made cataclysm. They're the whiz-kids. Ask them.
I look at this pessimistic thought process of the Susnuts, their craven misanthropic backers and their foolish followers and I see a clear demarcation between them and people who I'd say are filled with common human decency. That is a charitable streak which shows itself most nobly in times of crisis often in stark contrast to the less than noble behaviors that occur then too. In short its captured by the phrase "we are all in the same boat; let's make the best of it."
The Susnut creed, with its religious like belief in the inevitability of Malthusian catastrophes, and which has created a moral imperative derived from the specious Precautionary Principle, has to hide its intentions from its victims.
And if you agree with them, then "are you useful?"
Enough?
For how long?
Well? Are you a target of the Susnuts?
At Liberty's Torch, Weetabix asked me a question whose answer is too long to put into a small comment.
Pascal - I must admit up front that a surfeit of current projects has undermined my normal willingness to research - have you any links to further explain the "Malthusian Sustainability nuts?"
The answer is even too long for a single post, but I need try at least this once.
For my recent thoughts, the Sustainability label at my blog will provide you many examples of news that spurred me to note the connection.
Our host, Fran, beginning in 2004, ran an exhaustive series called "The Death Cults." The participation of mainstream elected leaders were much less brazen then. But they did permit non-profit status to be bestowed upon a load of Malthusian extremists. The same IRS that blocked TEA Party groups from (c4) status lets those guys thrive under (c3).
I've a not too complex theory that has withstood my tests over time. It is time to let others take some shots at it. If it only needs some adaptations and it can be refined, maybe there is hope that can be snatched from the knowledge. Know thy enemy and know thyself, and you will win every war said Sun Tsu.
Thomas Malthus' theories arose about 50 years after Pascal's death. The Age of Reason was beginning to undermine the Ancien Régimes. Many rulers saw and welcomed the benefits of liberty. But two kinds, both powerful, hated it. Those who hate the common man, and those who love concentrated power. Sometimes they're the same, and sometimes not. Malthus provided a "moral" cloak to hide both the explicit and implicit hatred of humanity -- even from themselves. By being able to convince even themselves that their vision is righteous, they can remain calm and seemingly benign as they convince large numbers
"Leave it to us boys. We know what needs be done. Really."
(The ancient Sophists understood power and how to get and keep it. One of their chief ways of keeping it was through fostering ideas that attract casuists -- men who sought the moral path based on studying cases of conduct -- and let them do the heavy lifting, often with little expense or risk to the Sophists' masters, spurred by a few demagogues, and fueled considerably by the zeal of the useful idiots. Eric Hoffer, by popularizing the more easily understood term of "true believer," did us a disservice by disconnecting the Greek designation for them, and thus their historically implied connection to the power seeking schemers. The humanity haters may believe they now have sufficient armies of those who are enthralled by the indirect means to achieving a new (old) religion (see below). It is one that will provide them moral authority to achieve their goals. The real powers only have to support the activists when things get tough. Mostly they have historically chosen to be silent partners. Today -- not so silent.)
A tactical note. What I'd like to make popular is the term Susnuts (or something like it), for the worshipers of Sustainability. (It really does fit the open ones. What I'd like is for the term to affect those who remain hidden. Some, who retain some of their humanity, will feel tainted by it). They believe their goal is righteous: to save us all from the one thing (they believe) that the planet has too much of -- human beings. They know that targets will not appreciate it, so they can't easily announce it. But they could not help leaving mountains of evidence as they progress.
It has all the earmarks of a religion. Ancient pagan ones. The ones that flung live babies into holocausts and virgins to the wolves. Its "priests" are instigating wars with the competition; that is, with all people who still adhere to the Judeo-Christian ethos whether or not they are religious.
For instance, you are seeing today with the witch hunts to rid the military of people who dare stand by their religion. Any religion that has in its books the promise "God will provide" -- the contrary idea to their conviction that we will run out of sustainable items -- is anathema to them. The phrase linked to Hitler "the Jewish disease" expresses the major cultural foundational obstacle to the earliest Susnuts (eugenics embracing Progressives such as H.G. Wells and Margaret Sanger) long before Hitler was born.
One more thing. The old labels do not apply here. Even those who call themselves religious or conservative will say "but there are too many people." They might be reachable. If even 50% reading this blog don't say that, then that would be wonderful news. But, if Armageddon really is imminent, forget about large numbers. Then, as Revelation predicts, the majority are already deluded. What can I say? The ones who seek to save their souls will be reached.
I say that as an agnostic. I literally do not know. But the evidence is hard to deny. Believing the world is overpopulated has to be deluded, because it leads inevitably to world-wide wipe-outs. This goes back to "Progressive" thought of the late 1800s. Those who most want children cannot be tolerated by the Progs lest they over-populate with all "the wrong" types. HG Wells' eugenic euphemism of "people of the abyss" is what they do not want as survivors.
If we are stoked into a civil war, it will be between peoples who have been set upon each other by these schemers seeking to obliterate the current population of the planet. I used the term 1/13 as a guess for their target number, because it fits their vision so well. A normal deck of 52 playing cards has only 4 aces; 4/52 = 1/13. Only Aces will be permitted to survive. Ace rocket scientists down to ace housekeepers and gardeners I guess. Don't ask me how they plan on living well if they do manage somehow to survive their man-made cataclysm. They're the whiz-kids. Ask them.
I look at this pessimistic thought process of the Susnuts, their craven misanthropic backers and their foolish followers and I see a clear demarcation between them and people who I'd say are filled with common human decency. That is a charitable streak which shows itself most nobly in times of crisis often in stark contrast to the less than noble behaviors that occur then too. In short its captured by the phrase "we are all in the same boat; let's make the best of it."
The Susnut creed, with its religious like belief in the inevitability of Malthusian catastrophes, and which has created a moral imperative derived from the specious Precautionary Principle, has to hide its intentions from its victims.
Are you with them or are you against them?
- The boat we call Earth has limited resources, so we enlightened geniuses must decide who stays and what useless souls must be thrown overboard.
- We love humanity so much we must cull it properly in order to save it.
- Our morality (live and let die) trumps yours (live and let live) so much that we can't even speak of it openly because the majority are benighted souls who simply do not understand us.
And if you agree with them, then "are you useful?"
Enough?
For how long?
Well? Are you a target of the Susnuts?
Saturday, September 15, 2012
The Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge
It is my opinion that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both Statists. Both will seek ways to gain more power for government at the expense of individuals. How can I put this nicely? Both will continue to look at the Constitutional limitations on their power as a challenge to be overcome.
It is also my opinion that Bummer will take us over the cliff faster than will Bumney. So, therefore, I would prefer to see Bumney elected. It's only to buy us some more time. It may be hopeless; but if it is true that time heels all wounds, maybe time will be on the side of our republic. And so I'd like to buy her some more of it.
There may be some Libertarian voters out there who'd like to vote in such a manner that slows the progress of Statism somewhat more than less. However, they plan on voting for Gary Johnson because the thought of voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. But in that statement is the recognition that one evil is worse than the other.
There are several states in which the presidential vote tally may be very close. Every vote not for Bumney increases the margin for Bummer, allowing him to win several of those states.
There are also several states where it is a foregone conclusion that Obama will capture their Electoral College votes. In such an instance, a vote for the largest of the 3rd party candidates is not a wasted vote against the worst of the main party candidates, but a vote registered in protest that the existing parties are both far too statist.
For those Libertarian voters living in swing states who think that slowing the evil is preferable to speeding it along, I have a proposal.
As a California voter, I’m really frustrated that my vote for Romney will not count. Romney cannot win here, thanks in large part to the ham-stringing of the California GOP by national party headquarters back in 2002 and continued ever since.
I will vote for Gary Johnson in California if you will vote for Mitt Romney in your state.
This is all on the honor system. It may not make a big difference, but sometimes what seems like a gargantuan task can be accomplished if a bunch of little guys can agree that the worst schemers in this world ought to run into annoying opposition every now and again.
If I am correct, and there are a lot of pissed off people out there, a lot of Libertarians and conservatives will be willing to take this pledge.
The way to notice if our effort made a difference is to note the vote tallies the day after the election.
Red State Conservatives have no direct roll in this pledge. But you can encourage friends in Blue and Swing states to participate. Please see
It is also my opinion that Bummer will take us over the cliff faster than will Bumney. So, therefore, I would prefer to see Bumney elected. It's only to buy us some more time. It may be hopeless; but if it is true that time heels all wounds, maybe time will be on the side of our republic. And so I'd like to buy her some more of it.
There may be some Libertarian voters out there who'd like to vote in such a manner that slows the progress of Statism somewhat more than less. However, they plan on voting for Gary Johnson because the thought of voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. But in that statement is the recognition that one evil is worse than the other.
There are several states in which the presidential vote tally may be very close. Every vote not for Bumney increases the margin for Bummer, allowing him to win several of those states.
There are also several states where it is a foregone conclusion that Obama will capture their Electoral College votes. In such an instance, a vote for the largest of the 3rd party candidates is not a wasted vote against the worst of the main party candidates, but a vote registered in protest that the existing parties are both far too statist.
For those Libertarian voters living in swing states who think that slowing the evil is preferable to speeding it along, I have a proposal.
As a California voter, I’m really frustrated that my vote for Romney will not count. Romney cannot win here, thanks in large part to the ham-stringing of the California GOP by national party headquarters back in 2002 and continued ever since.
I will vote for Gary Johnson in California if you will vote for Mitt Romney in your state.
This is all on the honor system. It may not make a big difference, but sometimes what seems like a gargantuan task can be accomplished if a bunch of little guys can agree that the worst schemers in this world ought to run into annoying opposition every now and again.
If I am correct, and there are a lot of pissed off people out there, a lot of Libertarians and conservatives will be willing to take this pledge.
The way to notice if our effort made a difference is to note the vote tallies the day after the election.
- For Libertarians: if your total votes are increased, the Libertarian Party and all who are ticked off with the status quo will have left their mark.
- For Conservatives: we will see that Bummer is retired and will then have 4 years to whittle away or obstruct Bumney's Statist inclinations.
Red State Conservatives have no direct roll in this pledge. But you can encourage friends in Blue and Swing states to participate. Please see
Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge, Part 2
Also, some objections have been fielded too.Vote Swapping Pledge Part 3, Objections Answered.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Progress-of
Altruistic ==► Casuistic ==► Craven ==► Shameless ==► Brazen ==►[TBD]
The decline of the seemingly intelligent Progressives, "blessed" with an abundance of influence, money and power, is one of life's very sad ironies.
Progressives have so bought into the idea of population growth being a zero sum game, they've been blind to their inevitable fate due their contribution to the progress of Zero's home game.
BTW, Zero may aptly fit the current puppet of the power-mad, but it is to another, older Zero to which I allude.
The decline of the seemingly intelligent Progressives, "blessed" with an abundance of influence, money and power, is one of life's very sad ironies.
Progressives have so bought into the idea of population growth being a zero sum game, they've been blind to their inevitable fate due their contribution to the progress of Zero's home game.
BTW, Zero may aptly fit the current puppet of the power-mad, but it is to another, older Zero to which I allude.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Attack On the Big Bang Theory Was Inevitable — Updated
I read today how the Big Bang theory is under attack.
I'm a much too simple man. I figured out long ago that this day was coming. See, even before that, the young fool in me thought of the question, 'Well if you think the answer is simply that God created the universe, who created God?'
As I got older and a little bit wiser, the words recorded by a shepherd who claimed to have spoken with God had rattled around in my little head long enough.
It occurred to me that there was a simple way to align current axiomatic cosmological physics to Judeo-Christian theology, and it also answered the question of which that juvenile thought was only a quip.
The axiomatic portion was that it all started with a big bang. That would be the beginning of recorded time if records could have been kept.
But just like that juvenile quipster who asked who created God, these great minds are troubled that time could actually have a beginning, even though they'd never be satisfied with the answer. (Sounds like rent-seeking cosmologists if you ask me, but who would bother asking, and what do I really know of what sort of character would hide out in the sciences?)
Anyway, just for the record, here is how what Moses told us fits the Big Bang.
Moses recorded that God told him His name was I Am.
Now this is at that time in history, right? And -- well I'm talking to the non-religious to anti-religious now -- it's all come out of the mind of a poor goat herder; right? Nothing really of significance could possibly be there, right?
YET? Yet that goat herder seems to have arrived at the same place so many brainy scientists have taken (you should forgive the phrase) as gospel for the last 50 years or so. How's that? Here's how.
Recognize that the infinitive of is is to be.
For those who insist on a single word to be a name, let's choose the French Etre.
Universe: It Is.
Let's face it folks. The big bang was in trouble with the secular anti-theists from the very beginning. But it was propounded in the day when Statism was hardly a word ever spoken or understood, let alone about to burst upon the scene openly.
Since the philosophical environment in which the Big Bang theory was introduced is no longer the case, well – the Big Bang just has to go. QED
Someone once avered: Liberty will be lost not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Thanks to a comment from the above link's author, Mike Gray, I have an ***Update*** after the break.
The Big Bang cosmological model is in trouble, but its adherents, reluctant to abandon the theory, are busily attempting to shore it up. – “All Effect and No Cause”: Colliding Branes, Bouncing Universes, Promiscuous Singularities, and Fashionable Nothings — Five Versions of How It All Began.
I'm a much too simple man. I figured out long ago that this day was coming. See, even before that, the young fool in me thought of the question, 'Well if you think the answer is simply that God created the universe, who created God?'
As I got older and a little bit wiser, the words recorded by a shepherd who claimed to have spoken with God had rattled around in my little head long enough.
It occurred to me that there was a simple way to align current axiomatic cosmological physics to Judeo-Christian theology, and it also answered the question of which that juvenile thought was only a quip.
The axiomatic portion was that it all started with a big bang. That would be the beginning of recorded time if records could have been kept.
But just like that juvenile quipster who asked who created God, these great minds are troubled that time could actually have a beginning, even though they'd never be satisfied with the answer. (Sounds like rent-seeking cosmologists if you ask me, but who would bother asking, and what do I really know of what sort of character would hide out in the sciences?)
Anyway, just for the record, here is how what Moses told us fits the Big Bang.
Moses recorded that God told him His name was I Am.
"I Am that I am."That is He Is, but in the first person singular.
Now this is at that time in history, right? And -- well I'm talking to the non-religious to anti-religious now -- it's all come out of the mind of a poor goat herder; right? Nothing really of significance could possibly be there, right?
YET? Yet that goat herder seems to have arrived at the same place so many brainy scientists have taken (you should forgive the phrase) as gospel for the last 50 years or so. How's that? Here's how.
Recognize that the infinitive of is is to be.
For those who insist on a single word to be a name, let's choose the French Etre.
- Theologically we have God on one hand, where Etre has yet to complete and implement His plan.
- On the other hand we have, in cosmological physics, The Great Potential to be the Universe.
- Theologically, Etre would ponder a move from the infinite infinitive.
- Cosmologically, the Universe, it says nothing.
- Etre's ponders are essentially splitting the infinitive into the interrogative:
To Be?
- OTOH: The Universe -- it says nothing.
- Etre stops pondering, and converts the interrogative into the imperative:
Be!
- The Universe -- it bangs biggly.
Universe: It Is.
Let's face it folks. The big bang was in trouble with the secular anti-theists from the very beginning. But it was propounded in the day when Statism was hardly a word ever spoken or understood, let alone about to burst upon the scene openly.
Since the philosophical environment in which the Big Bang theory was introduced is no longer the case, well – the Big Bang just has to go. QED
Someone once avered: Liberty will be lost not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Thanks to a comment from the above link's author, Mike Gray, I have an ***Update*** after the break.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Permitting Leaders to Be Shameless Dumps the Shame Onto Us
Regular readers know I have charted the ever increasing boldness of they who aim to rule us. My most recent additions to that chart may be found at Progress-of.
My point of the charting was to highlight how fast the "Progressives" have moved since they decided they would no longer feel shame for seeking the power they've always lusted after. It is now our shame -- to our heritage and to our posterity -- that we let them advance so far.
The Left's hatred for America has never found resonance in anyone in so high an office as now. Its icon, President Obama, keeps finding new ways to demonstrate his disregard for our country's constitution and its moral foundations, and now, with his shunning his head of state honors on Memorial Day, for our nation's fallen heroes.
Michael Savage yesterday, after expressing his dislike for Obama's shunning of Arlington, summed up a number of the screened calls with the question that prompted the following rant. (This is was transcribed from The Savage Nation podcast archive:)
What is Obama doing Doc Savage?
Obama is rubbing our noses in our shame. The sooner we get used to it, the better.
My point of the charting was to highlight how fast the "Progressives" have moved since they decided they would no longer feel shame for seeking the power they've always lusted after. It is now our shame -- to our heritage and to our posterity -- that we let them advance so far.
The Left's hatred for America has never found resonance in anyone in so high an office as now. Its icon, President Obama, keeps finding new ways to demonstrate his disregard for our country's constitution and its moral foundations, and now, with his shunning his head of state honors on Memorial Day, for our nation's fallen heroes.
Michael Savage yesterday, after expressing his dislike for Obama's shunning of Arlington, summed up a number of the screened calls with the question that prompted the following rant. (This is was transcribed from The Savage Nation podcast archive:)
1:01:45
Caller's question: "Why is Obama Doing this?"
Am I making too much of this?
Okay, let's start again.
I'm an alarmist. I'm just a right wing alarmist.
We should be haaaappy that Obama's not going to the Arlington National Cemetery.
We should be happy that he's not going to the breakfast for the Goldstar Families who've lost loved ones in a military conflict.
We should be glad that he's not a militarist.
We should all be happy that he's downplaying the military.
Because we don't really need a military.
What we need are... well, not the military exactly. We certainly don't need guns.
We need something along the lines of, ummm, men who march with wooden guns. And sort of wooden tanks.
And the ships are being used properly: I'm glad that they're not firing a shot.
It's very good that we haven't fired one shot at Iran or at North Korea.
It's better that they are used basically as social service agencies with propellers.
It's good to take children from the inner cities and give them a uniform and shoes and let them become pregnant on the ship.
Because that's what the feminists want. That's what they expect out of the military.
The military is not meant for defending America. The military is meant to get the children off the streets so they can just have sex on the ships, get pregnant, and then raise a child on the taxpayers' dime.
You don't want to know any of that because no one tells you that.
It's the best kept secret in the U.S. Navy.
It's why not a shot is fired anymore.
It's why we have to call in the Spanish or the Portuguese navy to take on the pirates because our navy has become useless.
Worthless.
Worth nothing.
I have no idea why we have ships. They do nothing.
I don't know how a commander on a ship can take this anymore. I guess they know that if they won't do what they're told they get fired.
I know that if any of them spoke out they'd be fired by Mullin, the usher in chief there. Admiral Mullin, the usher from Hollywood.
Look -- ughhhhh -- what can I tellya? Something's wrong with this picture. Why is Obama doing it? I have no idea -- it's a disaster [pause] for the Democrat Party." 1:03:40As for me, I feel what Obama is doing, so I know.
What is Obama doing Doc Savage?
Obama is rubbing our noses in our shame. The sooner we get used to it, the better.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. -- George Orwell, 1984
Monday, October 04, 2010
Goal In Sight...
...so "Progressives" are telling us what has REALLY been on their minds all along (h/t Katabasis 10:10 - The best response yet):
By the way -- what follows is only 24 seconds long (and so is probably not what you first thought it was).
[NOTE: If you are on my main blog page, there is supposed to be a video below that may not display here. Click the title of this blog-post above to see it. ]
"The Final Solution"? You betcha.
Regular readers of these blatherings will recall I've been publishing an on-going analysis as "Progressives" incrementally unmask and reveal their true selves.
So, there we have it: For sustainability, the Final Solution.
Of all the stages listed above, for the most part "Progressives" have been craven well in excess of 90 years.
Oh. Speaking of craven cowards. How exactly does that magic red button work?
By the way -- what follows is only 24 seconds long (and so is probably not what you first thought it was).
[NOTE: If you are on my main blog page, there is supposed to be a video below that may not display here. Click the title of this blog-post above to see it. ]
"The Final Solution"? You betcha.
Regular readers of these blatherings will recall I've been publishing an on-going analysis as "Progressives" incrementally unmask and reveal their true selves.
Progress-of "Progressives"
Altruistic ==► Casuistic ==► Craven ==► Shameless ==► Brazen ==► Sneer at US ==► Contempt for US ==► The Final SolutionSo, there we have it: For sustainability, the Final Solution.
Of all the stages listed above, for the most part "Progressives" have been craven well in excess of 90 years.
 |
| Charming image of the grasping, disingenuous "Progressive" |
Oh. Speaking of craven cowards. How exactly does that magic red button work?
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Precautionary Principle Is Older Than 1999
Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West -- part 5.
I've heard a disheartening remark from at least two people who already understand how the Precautionary Principle is a threat not only to progress but to liberty. "Most people are too stupid to understand, so why bother discussing it?" For me such an attitude recalls the smartassery "beauty may only be skin deep, but ugly goes clear down to the bone."
Sunday, June 24, 2007
The Dual Nature of Man; Key Biblical Warnings - Part 2
These thoughts are brought to you by an agnostic; a seeker. I am an agnostic who studies scripture in hopes to find what supports belief, not that which undermines it. My understanding increases with discussions I have with others. By sharing my synthesis of all these ideas I hope I am repaying my debt to those who have endeavored to enlighten me.
[Readers note: Part 1 has not yet been published.]
It appears to me that man wants two primary things after basic needs are met.
In short, man wants both to be carefree and taken seriously.
There certainly appears to be a dilemma in choosing between the two. Is the conflict unresolvable? Those who want it all can be said to be seeking a perfectibility of human desires. Or, quite simply, seeking the perfectibility of mankind.
Are they kidding themselves? More importantly, are they a danger to others for wishing it so?
So. How is this dichotomy revealed in scripture? Is it resolved there?
Let me make something clear. Not all biblical warnings are explicit. While I could be in error to believe that this biblical warning is unstated, I know this warning is implied in many ways.
For example, with "Dust thou art; and to dust thou will return," scripture is clearly warning that we individuals ought very well consider our humble origins before thinking too grandly of ourselves.
We love the earth out of which we were formed. We'd love to be able to shape the earth to deliver to us our fondest delights. As more and more this comes to pass, what do we find happening? Many people look at that success, and consider it to have been inevitable. They see it as a consequence of our mastery.
In a humbler time, a sense of gratitude for success was at least given lip service to Something outside of man. It seems that today, when there is any gratitude for this grand success -- our progress -- there seems no end of men willing to accept the honor. Rather than see it all as having been put there for us, there are those of us who are inclined to think -- and have the rest of us grateful for "the fact" -- that it was all made accessible by them.
Funny that. Also funny is how this attitude feeds those with the affliction I explore in part 1.
Isaac had twin sons, as different as could be. One carried out his obligations, the other pleased his worldly desires.
The pronoun "his" in the last sentence works as a double-entendre, for both Isaac and each son's inclinations. Isaac favored the latter, but grudgingly accepted the former's claims as superior. This last sentence is also a double-entendre. Both the son and each son's mission were for what Isaac had dual feelings.
This almost certainly ties back to the seminal event in Isaac's life: his being offered to God as a burnt offering. Surely Isaac had dual feelings about the covenant with The Creator to which he and his dad, Abraham, had agreed.
I do not think the dichotomy is ever resolved in the old testament. It repeats regularly.
Without a doubt, many take the new testament to be witness to One Who avoided life's finer things.
But was it that He avoided life's finer things, or really that He avoided acquiring those things for what they would tell the world about Him? The enjoyment of the finer things cannot itself be bad for one; but He warns that the wishing for them could be. He said the path to Him is narrow. Be careful in your choices.
So I think the dichotomy continues.
For me perhaps the following is the most revealing evidence as to why I think man is imperfectible. The universe has its physical laws. Everything within it decays. Yet some men want to live forever: certainly when they are untroubled, especially when they are taken seriously. How can man's wants ever be satisfied? In the pursuit of sating the insatiable, those who succeed to sufficient power have never stopped short of consuming other men.
There are on the horizon those who wish to live forever and who demand to be taken seriously.
The more mankind achieves, the greater too many think they have become. And with that thought is accompanied something quite dark: a greater threat to far too many by those who feel obligated to control those lesser than themselves.
[Readers note: Part 1 has not yet been published.]
It appears to me that man wants two primary things after basic needs are met.
- To enjoy themselves as much as possible.
- To think that they matter; that they are important.
In short, man wants both to be carefree and taken seriously.
There certainly appears to be a dilemma in choosing between the two. Is the conflict unresolvable? Those who want it all can be said to be seeking a perfectibility of human desires. Or, quite simply, seeking the perfectibility of mankind.
Are they kidding themselves? More importantly, are they a danger to others for wishing it so?
So. How is this dichotomy revealed in scripture? Is it resolved there?
Let me make something clear. Not all biblical warnings are explicit. While I could be in error to believe that this biblical warning is unstated, I know this warning is implied in many ways.
For example, with "Dust thou art; and to dust thou will return," scripture is clearly warning that we individuals ought very well consider our humble origins before thinking too grandly of ourselves.
We love the earth out of which we were formed. We'd love to be able to shape the earth to deliver to us our fondest delights. As more and more this comes to pass, what do we find happening? Many people look at that success, and consider it to have been inevitable. They see it as a consequence of our mastery.
In a humbler time, a sense of gratitude for success was at least given lip service to Something outside of man. It seems that today, when there is any gratitude for this grand success -- our progress -- there seems no end of men willing to accept the honor. Rather than see it all as having been put there for us, there are those of us who are inclined to think -- and have the rest of us grateful for "the fact" -- that it was all made accessible by them.
Funny that. Also funny is how this attitude feeds those with the affliction I explore in part 1.
Isaac had twin sons, as different as could be. One carried out his obligations, the other pleased his worldly desires.
The pronoun "his" in the last sentence works as a double-entendre, for both Isaac and each son's inclinations. Isaac favored the latter, but grudgingly accepted the former's claims as superior. This last sentence is also a double-entendre. Both the son and each son's mission were for what Isaac had dual feelings.
This almost certainly ties back to the seminal event in Isaac's life: his being offered to God as a burnt offering. Surely Isaac had dual feelings about the covenant with The Creator to which he and his dad, Abraham, had agreed.
I do not think the dichotomy is ever resolved in the old testament. It repeats regularly.
- Abraham's two sons.
- Jacob's two wives.
- Joseph's two sons.
- Moses and Aaron.
- Saul and David.
- Life and Sacrifice.
- Justice and Charity.
- Naivety and Innocence.
- Wise in ones own eyes and wise indeed.
- Enjoyment and Obligation.
Without a doubt, many take the new testament to be witness to One Who avoided life's finer things.
But was it that He avoided life's finer things, or really that He avoided acquiring those things for what they would tell the world about Him? The enjoyment of the finer things cannot itself be bad for one; but He warns that the wishing for them could be. He said the path to Him is narrow. Be careful in your choices.
So I think the dichotomy continues.
For me perhaps the following is the most revealing evidence as to why I think man is imperfectible. The universe has its physical laws. Everything within it decays. Yet some men want to live forever: certainly when they are untroubled, especially when they are taken seriously. How can man's wants ever be satisfied? In the pursuit of sating the insatiable, those who succeed to sufficient power have never stopped short of consuming other men.
There are on the horizon those who wish to live forever and who demand to be taken seriously.
The more mankind achieves, the greater too many think they have become. And with that thought is accompanied something quite dark: a greater threat to far too many by those who feel obligated to control those lesser than themselves.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
So Much to Say That Focus Suffers
Even though you've picked up the pace of your blog entries in the last two months, there are times when there is quite a bit of news and yet you don't seem to publish. Why Pascal?I really haven't been idle these past few weeks. The thing which has troubled me is: "to whom should you address your thoughts?" I find that I'm not that far ahead of many people, and indeed sometimes lag. Thus it may be less effective if I continue to address my essays to the ordinary person. I could write with scorn directed at those who think and -- what is worse -- behave as if they are better than ordinary people. I've done that a few times already, and it is not without effective precedent. If you look at the introduction at the top of this blog, you can see that I believe we may achieve some relief by writing in that manner.
The question arises: Will anyone in higher stations notice such an affront to their self assessment? In at least one instance, I know I have pierced those who afflict us, so I know it is possible.
Here are the working titles of incomplete essays (often because Mr. OCD is not satisfied) and the dates I started on them, along with a short synopsis.
- The "Progressive" Sneer - Aug 16 - The stage that follows brazen.
- Repression Viewed As Progress - Aug 28 - Going over a comment I made in 2007 about the film I Am Legend that foresaw our present political state.
- "Reactionary" -- A Reorientation - Sep 6 - Now that they own the Establishment, it is a designation that better fits "Progressives" who wish to retain their power rather than the "conservative" individual who merely wants to be left in peace.
- Know Your Role - Sep 8 - One cannot rely on professional politicians to preserve your rights.
- America Once Viewed Egotism As Disqualifying - Sep 9 - I suggest we need to restore humility and gratitude as a key cultural value: the meaning of Thanksgiving. Perhaps if we demanded more humility of our leaders we might actually receive better government.
- The Ruling and Subject Parties - Sep 9 - The professional politicians versus the rest of us. Betrayal is too often dismissed when it should be costly. This involves reviewing and reworking one of my very oldest analyses of political reality in order to understand what it is that is fighting us.
- What Convinced You That the Death Cults Were Going Mainstream? - Sep 9 - Reviewing the earliest months of GWBush's presidency.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Progressed to Contempt Acknowledged
"Oh Pascal, you're over-wrought."That was the overwhelming reaction to my Progress-Of series of posts.
Yet, today, in reporting on the Indiana Democrats fleeing their state to avoid voting on legislation they don't like (following the Wisconsin Dem slime trail), Drew M concludes:
They call themselves "Democrats" but refusing to debate and vote is fundamentally un-democratic. In November, voters made it clear business as usual was over and that the public fisc would no longer be the piggy bank for the Democrats coalition and this is how they respond...with contempt. [emphasis mine]My last entry in the Progress-Of series, 18 Nov 2009, was
Altruistic ==► Casuistic ==► Craven ==► Shameless ==►So there you go. Ace of Spades HQ has finally acknowledged what I've been trying to convey to a wider audience. Better late than never.
Brazen ==► Sneer at US ==► Contempt for US ==► [TBD]
This contempt for America by the Statists and their Left shock troops will only get uglier as the days wear on. Be the leader and warn all you care about.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Happy New Year: Implacable Enemy Within the West -- part 3
Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West (part 3)
Exactly ten years ago today, a comment appeared at Free Republic in a thread based on the publication “Human Sacrifice Rationalization in 7th Grade Curriculum .” The Precautionary Principle was not directly mentioned, but it was clearly present in the thinking of those who scoff at men filled with faith, optimism and the love of mankind.
Here is the summary of that comment:
A fundamental disparity appears to set up the battleground, the reason, the cause celebre, for the confrontation predicted in Revelations known as Armageddon.Institutional rot concomitant to advancing authoritarianism have only gotten worse since then.
- The God-fearing belief they must be allowed to procreate, to obey what they see as God’s wishes, that the choice to have children ought be left solely to the couple and providence. They note that no matter how many people on the planet, God has provided when man is free to worship freely. The overwhelming success of this country is testament to that.
- Those without faith in God have a different belief: the unshakable, Malthusian driven fear that believers in God must be neutralized in order to save the planet from the inevitable geometric growth of humanity if the wishes of “the great unwashed” are left unchecked. They fear the planet cannot stand further human growth, and are therefore dead-set against any who promote it. So they have aided, abetted and employed the God-scoffers to indoctrinate our children against God and belief in Him. Our children are being indoctrinated to not have this faith in God, to believe man must limit himself. Our children will be warned not to believe that God said be “fruitful and multiply.” Our children will think it patriotic to not have children of their own. Our children are being taught to believe that those who “breed” are traitors.
Even non-believers ought be able to see how this conflict sets the God scoffers against the God believers.
Over the last week I’ve been flogging how the Precautionary Principle is at the core to morphing Western culture into accepting authoritarian rule. And that authoritarian rule is deliberately regressive in nature because true progress causes humanity to thrive — as happened when the ideas from the Age of Reason led to the toppling of authoritarian rule in British America.
The Precautionary Principle is the prime reason for the new morality that views population reduction as a moral necessity. The useful idiots who actually believe that “we must assume Malthus was right so we can prevent massive uncontrolled deaths” are delivering the West (the progenitor and protector of individual liberty) into the hands of power mad monsters. History is quite clear: power mad monsters always rain death.
More anon.
Comment cross posted at TrueblueNZ. (Great additional comments there too.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
View My Stats
The rot is much bigger than even these unnamed lawyers could have meant. That big iceberg extends well past healthcare.
In this story, the British bureaucracy stole a child from a mother by means of ordering a doctor to declare her insane. They paid him exorbitant fees to do so. Whatever fee the adoptive parent paid for that child I'd say was dwarfed by its cost to British society. Who could believe that societal harmony and confidence could be further trashed? I imagine that some evil counter-culturalists would be celebrating were they not too busy cooking up another outrage to surpass it.