Monday, May 16, 2011


In order to have courage, you first need something that is more important than your own life. Then you're ready to put your own life in the path of whatever threatens that something. Where your certainties have been undermined -- like by the moral relativism of the Cultural Marxists -- the ground you need to support that courage will not be there when you need it most. There is a moral absolute your author still retains. See if you can figure it out.

I cannot explain to myself why I feel this way, but for me I have found courage in my attempts to protect the idea of protecting innocent human life.  I've suffered slings and arrows and lost friendships and shunning in the process. I have to imagine that I'm not alone. I had hoped to meet more than I have in the years I've been on line. What bothers me is the number of smart people who once were my allies who have turned their backs without any cogent explanation. Maybe their courage is not found where mine is, so they rather not be associated with me.

The enemies of innocent human life (innocence as judged by the Judeo-Christian ethic) have established what I would call a liberal religion. I'll speak at length on liberalism as religion another time [future update]. Because liberalism does not call itself a religion, it thereby has managed to gain the upper hand in our governing bodies and in our institutions because it could not be declared in violation of the 1st Amendment of U.S. Constitution. Yet it is very clearly a belief system that is intertwined in both of our two major political parties in the form of "selective tolerance". What is tolerated is very subjective to change. The domination of this line of thinking achieved its hegemony by imposing a sort of intellectual bigotry -- "oh, he's good at his job, but he doesn't think like the rest of us, so is not a candidate for an executive position." What was once identified as the unspoken "gentleman's agreement" still flourishes on the path to power.

To speak against this situation is another (less clear danger) where courage is needed.
First it takes courage to address it so others can comprehend what it is.
Then it takes courage to see that it exists.
Then it takes courage to buck the power structure that exists because of it.
And have no mistake about it. Liberalism is not the religion of the most powerful, and they do not really believe it themselves. They have simply encouraged such beliefs and tolerance and niceness because it served their growing hunger for power. Their religion is their self.

The enemies of innocent human life also have allowed to grow lunatic fringe elements who traffic in much of the truth. Why? But putting the spotlight on lunatics who have been proclaiming the truth, then when normal people discover the truth they can be lambasted by the ages old demagogic fallacy of "guilt by association."  We saw this used against the TEA party movement. The lunatic left can be the pigs they are all the time in their demonstrations, but the media deliberately lied by associating the left's demonstrations with the TEA party demonstrators in every manner, even after the lies had been exposed.

An example of this was sent to me by email. Am I wrong, but isn't Alex Jones associated with Trutherism?
Well, here he is speaking of the video "The Soviet Story" which I highlighted here and here early this year.

If you watch that, please stick to the first 70 seconds. Here is what you'll hear
 "You must all know half a dozen people at least who are of no use in this world. Who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say; 'Sir or madame. Now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?' If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight on the social rope, if you are not producing as much as you consume, or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us, it can't be of very much use to yourself." -- George Bernard Shaw as the Utilitarian/Eugenicist/Misanthrope in his own words.

I personally can't stand hearing Jones' voice. Still, Jones rightly focused on the segment. Jones is simply another broken clock there. Please don't let that deter you. Our enemies certainly are counting on our fear of their slander campaigns.

You see our problem. Because Alex Jones highlights this video and this segment, it will put off many people from looking at it and the truth it exposes. If they overcome that fear, and they DO watch it, there's more fears to overcome. They next will fear guilt by association for responding as Jones did.

Or it could be even worse than that. They could fear guilt by association simply for coming to the unmistakable conclusion I've highlighted just below my masthead: "If our 'leaders' are so humanitarian, how is it that we never hear them direct a harsh word at the Malthusian, Utilitarian and Green nutcases?" How is it our cultural mavens still considers George Bernard Shaw a genius without reservation? Silence is agreement.

I've had the courage to call out our leaders on their silence in this matter for a very long time -- long before the Johnny-come-lately Alex Jones got here.

Dear Readers, it is always nice to hear I am not alone, and I do enjoy hearing from you. But it would be a Godsend to hear many more calling out our "leaders" on this, their ignominious silence.

It takes courage to know what is right and accurate no matter how complex the lies have been arranged, and stand firm with courage to defend what is worth defending. In my case, it is for defending innocents and the meaning of innocence from those who hate humanity. In about 12 out of 13 instances (based upon our enemies' plans), that means I am trying to defend you.

No comments:

Post a Comment

View My Stats