Perhaps, the Sophistos should lean in and browse the legacy of one of their own. Lyndon Baines Johnson, fighting the good fight for the little man. From his time as a House Democrat during FDR's New Deal, into the end of Harry Truman's presidency, then US Senator from 1949 t0 1961. In a way his ideas reflect the trials and trauma that is theory. LBJ formed from the shadows of FDR's new deal and Darwin under the man, whom was his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin's Zoonomia. What captivated Charles more than ever was how popular his writings became, Huxley and all that.
The EPA is here to stay...Stuart Udell Johnson's Secretary of the Interior from 1963 to 1969, went to great lengths to push mother nature to the public ocular TV. By adapting a liberal energy policy, attempting to have these policies controlled by the government instead of combining market demand and limited regulation from Washington.
Today, the EPA is in its own right is a creation of Darwin's stardom. To launch, untethered from the realm of a naturalist, to an obsessive creationist in his own right. Darwin, bent on creating a link, a scientific link between the evolution of nature's passengers, by trying to link a chain of cohesiveness in nature's survival of the fittest.
Darwin is to the secular, as Marx is to socialisims emergence. Their means to such movements carried forward by their disciples, remains to be grafted into reason, by the means of production, into a creation of the means, and the removal of god, and its duality from historical deduction's Aquinas of reason, to its long march to unreason. Darwinism, can be summed up in a font of removing god from the evolutionary process, dismissed without a trace. Yes, Darwin went beyond the science of his time and drafted several works, including "the origin of species and the descent of man."
Darwin carefully crafted his works based on a reductionist theory. Still, even though his scientific friends, Sedgwick, Henslow, Owen and Lyell, disagreed with Darwin's conclusion of the fossil evidence that he presented in his theories on the evolution of man. Darwin, still had not answered his sceptics on transmutation, thus fueling more suspicion amongst others whom specialized in such fossil findings. With mounting agony, Darwin forged onward trying to piece together a secular materialist vision of man's evolution, based on a catalyst and that being death, through the survival of the fittest.
Mind all of his work was not as unique as the materialists claim, Das Kapital and all. Records point to evolutions earliest origins and can be traced to that earliest known Epicurean philosopher Lucretius. Based on the theory that all of existence can be traced to the random action of atoms in the universe. This premise being the rage of the 18th century sophistos, that it gave way to the deists and the atheist movements of the current era. Then, his precious theory was meet head on by " vestiges of the natural history of creation." Darwin not unique in his conclusions! How can that be?
The folly in such blind faith in theories, because they may fit a certain social concern through which an idea or ideas, can be inserted neatly and scientifically, to fit inside a rhetorical self centered debate, with the idea being the reality. Playing idealistic roulette with inductive science for political and social reasons, are as dangerous as good intentions disguised as science. In a way, LBJ's way, the great society, in a way, the EPA and scientific reductionism. In a way, his way, LBJ had in a precautionary principled way, as in Darwin's day, good intentions.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Second Hand Thinking
Perhaps the politicos might want to rejoice in their perceived unity of faith and second thoughts. The obvious pursuant in burying decisions in a colleague of an Alice in Wonderland world of new ideas and creative social engineered policy makers, in that lies a dialectical Dante's Inferno. Expanding on a Darwinist evolution of specious attacks on free market principles, while standing on their populist soapbox, the progressives stand to lose sight of the nose that rests on the face of Smith's magnum opus on freedom and economics.
Perhaps the war on obesity, trying to regulate the Internet as a public utility, attempting to ultra-regulate all forms of industry leads one down the NRA memory lane. Does this administration really come to the conclusion that the only Washington unabated can lead us from temptation? Whom are we protecting, the cabbie in Hoboken, the blacksmith in Rock Springs, the best boy in Culver City?
Why aren't the principles of freedom, liberty, free markets, capitalism, the natural rights of man, individuals bill of rights, the natural inclination to be free be promoted as virtue and the natural conquest of individuality... instead of being hijacked by the collective thieves of reason?
Reason one...the French miracle, the discover of intellectual reason that lead to two centuries of war and chaos under the guise of revolution. Regardless of the empirical evidence of decline and the conflicts of the intelligentsia in creating an abstract form of reason.
Reason two...the reason being reasoned played from the top down, enlightenment does not formulate from the top it festers in the bottom. This distortion of reality is a common theme found in all intellectual groups, the lack of engendering forms of experience. How far is too far removed?
Reason Three...mistakes in soft science is more destructive than a failure in hard science. The 20th century is full of soft science folly, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Ho Chi Min, Gerhart Eisler, Lukacs, Chavez, Bela Kun, Che', Andre Malraux, Mussolini, Franco, Nazis, Fascists, Communists, Maoists, North Korea, Liberalism, Hitler and Woody Allen.
Reason Four...Maximizing Ideologies...Hailing Hegel, Marx, Malthus, Nietzsche, Darwin, Freud, Marcuse, John Dewey, Wilhelm Reich, The Cheka Intellectuals, Frankfurt school, Muenzenberg,
Anarchy, Nihilism, National Social Democratic party, secularism, Anthropological social engineering, Constitutional perversity, Egalitarianism, Pavlovian Utopia, Relativism realities, Governmental entitlements, Educational tyranny, Spectacle entertainment, Irrelevancy Obsessions, Existentialism.
Reason Five...Intellectual Purgatory...The rationing of objective reality, by criminalizing empirical evidence. By continually reinventing reality, the sanctimonious sophist or the modern sophisto, have conquered the art of the fallacy. Scientific propaganda has reached epic levels of toxicity, by debasing the value of the individual through ignoring the natural duality of man.
Reason Six...God like symptoms of the universe...Marx expounds on a challenge to god and the hatred of life, "I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above...I wander godlike through the ruins of the world...I feel equal to the creator. Everything in existence is worth being destroyed." No wonder when clarity is suppressed...stupidity itself reigns supreme. The progressives mission is to destroy and not to edify; their passion for destruction is a creative passion.
Reason Seven...The Sophistos visceral contempt for common sense and the common man. Tough with grit and sweat, the common free man and through the death of mercantilism; practical man has unleashed a power of creativity and commerce unmatched at anytime in human history. Such contempt for the productive citizen hath no friend in academia...by centering their focus on the works of the soft science crowd and lacking in the sense that is so common in the common man who has driven Capitalism to new heights, by raising a creativity in free market principles. Without a functioning rational, the intelligentsia remains infused with totalitarian rational as they rationalize resentment...
Reason Eight...Descartes, " I think, therefore I am." A point of self realization and the embryo of moral relativism...By banishing Descartes, we move forward from the abstract of being to a functioning rational of ethics and moral clarity. To think that rational alone moves humanity in such a fashion is clearly folly and fiction. To speak of promise and yet deliver ambiguity of meaning; is unto itself to think like Descartes...
Reason Nine...Paradiso, "all'alta fantasia qui manco`possa," literally looking into the face of god. To be me or just to be...abstract or allegorical? Is this canon or the acceptance of principles bound socially in utilitarian monologues? Kant we just get along...by confusing a moral autonomy for a persons lack of understanding its meaning unto itself. So to ration free will by claiming that it is inconceivable that a person is capable of knowing or understanding their freedom; likens the maxim to control the act, thereby reducing its worth into a categorical imperative of good will and moral duty.
In Kahlil Gibran's "Satan" the traveler is confined by the dilemma of good will and moral duty. The traveller is bound by his utilitarian principles for all the greater good...should I let Satan lie or would God be if the antithesis is gone? To kill god, then fear ceases, to exit from causation results in absence; and utility becomes its own relevance. How can morality be graded on deference if it is perceived as indifferent to its cause? By claiming that morality is in of itself relative to the cultural morality of the society. You invite second hand thinking; to ignore the difference between the morality in supporting and maintaining the promotion of life or cling to the subjective idea, that it is the idea that contains the morality.
Perhaps the war on obesity, trying to regulate the Internet as a public utility, attempting to ultra-regulate all forms of industry leads one down the NRA memory lane. Does this administration really come to the conclusion that the only Washington unabated can lead us from temptation? Whom are we protecting, the cabbie in Hoboken, the blacksmith in Rock Springs, the best boy in Culver City?
Why aren't the principles of freedom, liberty, free markets, capitalism, the natural rights of man, individuals bill of rights, the natural inclination to be free be promoted as virtue and the natural conquest of individuality... instead of being hijacked by the collective thieves of reason?
Reason one...the French miracle, the discover of intellectual reason that lead to two centuries of war and chaos under the guise of revolution. Regardless of the empirical evidence of decline and the conflicts of the intelligentsia in creating an abstract form of reason.
Reason two...the reason being reasoned played from the top down, enlightenment does not formulate from the top it festers in the bottom. This distortion of reality is a common theme found in all intellectual groups, the lack of engendering forms of experience. How far is too far removed?
Reason Three...mistakes in soft science is more destructive than a failure in hard science. The 20th century is full of soft science folly, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Ho Chi Min, Gerhart Eisler, Lukacs, Chavez, Bela Kun, Che', Andre Malraux, Mussolini, Franco, Nazis, Fascists, Communists, Maoists, North Korea, Liberalism, Hitler and Woody Allen.
Reason Four...Maximizing Ideologies...Hailing Hegel, Marx, Malthus, Nietzsche, Darwin, Freud, Marcuse, John Dewey, Wilhelm Reich, The Cheka Intellectuals, Frankfurt school, Muenzenberg,
Anarchy, Nihilism, National Social Democratic party, secularism, Anthropological social engineering, Constitutional perversity, Egalitarianism, Pavlovian Utopia, Relativism realities, Governmental entitlements, Educational tyranny, Spectacle entertainment, Irrelevancy Obsessions, Existentialism.
Reason Five...Intellectual Purgatory...The rationing of objective reality, by criminalizing empirical evidence. By continually reinventing reality, the sanctimonious sophist or the modern sophisto, have conquered the art of the fallacy. Scientific propaganda has reached epic levels of toxicity, by debasing the value of the individual through ignoring the natural duality of man.
Reason Six...God like symptoms of the universe...Marx expounds on a challenge to god and the hatred of life, "I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above...I wander godlike through the ruins of the world...I feel equal to the creator. Everything in existence is worth being destroyed." No wonder when clarity is suppressed...stupidity itself reigns supreme. The progressives mission is to destroy and not to edify; their passion for destruction is a creative passion.
Reason Seven...The Sophistos visceral contempt for common sense and the common man. Tough with grit and sweat, the common free man and through the death of mercantilism; practical man has unleashed a power of creativity and commerce unmatched at anytime in human history. Such contempt for the productive citizen hath no friend in academia...by centering their focus on the works of the soft science crowd and lacking in the sense that is so common in the common man who has driven Capitalism to new heights, by raising a creativity in free market principles. Without a functioning rational, the intelligentsia remains infused with totalitarian rational as they rationalize resentment...
Reason Eight...Descartes, " I think, therefore I am." A point of self realization and the embryo of moral relativism...By banishing Descartes, we move forward from the abstract of being to a functioning rational of ethics and moral clarity. To think that rational alone moves humanity in such a fashion is clearly folly and fiction. To speak of promise and yet deliver ambiguity of meaning; is unto itself to think like Descartes...
Reason Nine...Paradiso, "all'alta fantasia qui manco`possa," literally looking into the face of god. To be me or just to be...abstract or allegorical? Is this canon or the acceptance of principles bound socially in utilitarian monologues? Kant we just get along...by confusing a moral autonomy for a persons lack of understanding its meaning unto itself. So to ration free will by claiming that it is inconceivable that a person is capable of knowing or understanding their freedom; likens the maxim to control the act, thereby reducing its worth into a categorical imperative of good will and moral duty.
In Kahlil Gibran's "Satan" the traveler is confined by the dilemma of good will and moral duty. The traveller is bound by his utilitarian principles for all the greater good...should I let Satan lie or would God be if the antithesis is gone? To kill god, then fear ceases, to exit from causation results in absence; and utility becomes its own relevance. How can morality be graded on deference if it is perceived as indifferent to its cause? By claiming that morality is in of itself relative to the cultural morality of the society. You invite second hand thinking; to ignore the difference between the morality in supporting and maintaining the promotion of life or cling to the subjective idea, that it is the idea that contains the morality.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The New Frontier- Technosophistoes
Alongside the cultivation and consumption of various canaboids and hallocegenics, the sophistoes have, historically, been utterly active within the fields of history, philosophy and economics. Sophistos have introduced glorious terms such as “expropriation of surplus value”, “dialectics” and the loathed “theory of alienation”. What the sophisto theories have in common is their foundation in pseudo science and their lack of common sense. Common sense and life experience was usually enough for sane people to realize that the dictatorship of proletariat was a mere fiction of imagination, and was subsequently beaten down by the faltered Soviet Union. The sophist model seem to be to take a seemingly absurd idea, prove it with rambling philosophy, avoid real life examples and reinforce it with the iron hand of Stalin. A good example would be socialism; which was “proven” with rambling books by marx and lening which contained thousands of pages of quotes in ancient Greek and French, which was considered scientific at the time, but seemingly no proof based on logic and real life experience. Ironically, in many socialist nations the questioning of these insane theories was usually attributed to mental illness and was rewarded with reeducation or death penalty. 150 years of rambling about the above tedious topics in coffee shops and universities all over the world has, surely, alienated the sophistoes from the rest of the world, and the lack of applicability to everyday life has expropriated them of their value to humanity. Fact is that these old school sophistoes are getting extinct, their failure to actually contribute to society has left them with no sphere of influence. Fact is that sitting on lawns or in coffee shops, while high on thc, has no impact on society, the 60’s are over no one cares. Even the smart sophistoes are dead to the world, their failure to at least get a PhD and ramble away in a classroom has past them by. So is sophistoism dead? Did common sense win? Is the battle over?
The answer is NO!
A new and evolved breed of 21st century sophistoes has taken over. Surprisingly, there are still sophistoes out there, banging their heads against the same walls as their proletarian brethren did many years ago. The new sophisto does not care about the struggles of industrial workers, doesn’t drink coffee and stays far away from both cafés and university campuses. The new sophisto, hereby named “tecno-sophisto”, has unique properties in the sophisto kingdom. Starting with their physical appearance; usually skinny, bad skin and a musculature which would make former proletarians turn in their grave. The tecno-sophisto is usually a high-school dropout with a knack for computer programming and a deep regard for space and star trek. Despite their, often times, advanced scientific knowledge, these pinhead-proletarians exhibit the same braindead drone-like mental aptitude as their cousins, the coffee-shop sophistoes. The difference between the new and old type of sophistoes is that the latter doesn’t exhibit the almost sexual attraction to industrial-workers and Greek philosophers. The new frontier fort the techno-sophistoes is the golden art of pseudo-science! Naturally, one would assume that someone who spends all his time pondering string theory and figuring out the mass of a black-hole would have a scientific mindset and approach issues of science with a clear mind, but this is not the case. The science-sophistoes is on a crusade to legitimize the vastly overrated myth of manmade global warming, using a classical sophisto approach: spreading a political agenda, faking evidence, harassment of disinters and taking themselves too seriously.
The first item on the sophisto agenda is to use non-issues, such as the expropriation of surplus value, to spread a political agenda. One can easily see that the global-warming issue is created for three reasons: increase government control of industrial output, increase taxes and with the help of UN mandated regulatory agencies increase the power of global government. Global warming serves as a vehicle for the communistic ideas of old school sophistos.
The manufacturing of evidence traces back to Stalins attempts to exaggerate industrial output in the Soviet Union in order to increase global faith in communism. Communism was thereby given legitimacy by fake evidence. It is nowadays commonly known that the effects of global warming were vastly exaggerated and mainly a sophisto figment of imagination.
Harassment of dissenters is yet another tactic tracing back to the ABC of Communism by Nikolai Bukharin and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky. Stalin later perfected this tactic by claiming that anyone negative towards communism must be mentally ill. So, ironically, people seeking to discuss issues regarding global warming usually found their e-mail accounts spammed, garden filled with angry protestors and their names defamed on the internet. Furthermore, a suggestion ws made to the EU that disregard for man-made global warming should be considered a mental illness. Déjà vu? I think not!
The issue of these science-sophisos and their questionable legitimacy comes full circle when one takes a look at the fourth and final sophisto trait, namely; taking themselves way too seriously. The science sophistos are seemingly more serious and trustworthy than the common sophisto because of their supposedly focus on science. However one has to remember than even a science-sophisto is still a sophisto, Marx was also considered science 150 years ago. Therefore, ramblings about global warming are just ramblings, an interest for time travel or computer programming doesn’t not make it true.
The answer is NO!
A new and evolved breed of 21st century sophistoes has taken over. Surprisingly, there are still sophistoes out there, banging their heads against the same walls as their proletarian brethren did many years ago. The new sophisto does not care about the struggles of industrial workers, doesn’t drink coffee and stays far away from both cafés and university campuses. The new sophisto, hereby named “tecno-sophisto”, has unique properties in the sophisto kingdom. Starting with their physical appearance; usually skinny, bad skin and a musculature which would make former proletarians turn in their grave. The tecno-sophisto is usually a high-school dropout with a knack for computer programming and a deep regard for space and star trek. Despite their, often times, advanced scientific knowledge, these pinhead-proletarians exhibit the same braindead drone-like mental aptitude as their cousins, the coffee-shop sophistoes. The difference between the new and old type of sophistoes is that the latter doesn’t exhibit the almost sexual attraction to industrial-workers and Greek philosophers. The new frontier fort the techno-sophistoes is the golden art of pseudo-science! Naturally, one would assume that someone who spends all his time pondering string theory and figuring out the mass of a black-hole would have a scientific mindset and approach issues of science with a clear mind, but this is not the case. The science-sophistoes is on a crusade to legitimize the vastly overrated myth of manmade global warming, using a classical sophisto approach: spreading a political agenda, faking evidence, harassment of disinters and taking themselves too seriously.
The first item on the sophisto agenda is to use non-issues, such as the expropriation of surplus value, to spread a political agenda. One can easily see that the global-warming issue is created for three reasons: increase government control of industrial output, increase taxes and with the help of UN mandated regulatory agencies increase the power of global government. Global warming serves as a vehicle for the communistic ideas of old school sophistos.
The manufacturing of evidence traces back to Stalins attempts to exaggerate industrial output in the Soviet Union in order to increase global faith in communism. Communism was thereby given legitimacy by fake evidence. It is nowadays commonly known that the effects of global warming were vastly exaggerated and mainly a sophisto figment of imagination.
Harassment of dissenters is yet another tactic tracing back to the ABC of Communism by Nikolai Bukharin and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky. Stalin later perfected this tactic by claiming that anyone negative towards communism must be mentally ill. So, ironically, people seeking to discuss issues regarding global warming usually found their e-mail accounts spammed, garden filled with angry protestors and their names defamed on the internet. Furthermore, a suggestion ws made to the EU that disregard for man-made global warming should be considered a mental illness. Déjà vu? I think not!
The issue of these science-sophisos and their questionable legitimacy comes full circle when one takes a look at the fourth and final sophisto trait, namely; taking themselves way too seriously. The science sophistos are seemingly more serious and trustworthy than the common sophisto because of their supposedly focus on science. However one has to remember than even a science-sophisto is still a sophisto, Marx was also considered science 150 years ago. Therefore, ramblings about global warming are just ramblings, an interest for time travel or computer programming doesn’t not make it true.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Amoral Politics and Obama's Hobbes
Before Marx there was Thomas Hobbes, in his struggle bring intellectual order to the social and political events of his time. Hobbes grew up in challenging times, poor and a son of a vicar, with the help of a wealthy uncle he went to Oxford. Educated and prepared he found a place as a tutor for the Cavendish's and his journey through important social and political circle begins. Having a place near the wealthy and powerful, Hobbes would have a unique perspective from the loft instead from the proletariat. Hobbes shares a few ideas with Marx in their thesis that the problems of political power must be justified. Where social and economic inequality is prevalent, religious authority is questioned and the concept of equality and the rights of man.
Marx believed that men should work together to not alienate themselves in isolation contrary to the natural state of their nature. Economic classes in capitalism according to Marx, leads directly to the workers' disillusionment of his true natural state of a collective purpose. Hobbes held that it was important to understand the inevitability to save ourselves in his "natural condition of mankind" as a fundamental right. In contrast, Marx strayed away from any fundamental rights of man, especially moral or otherwise.
One aspect of Hobbes, is his disdain of scholastic philosophy infected with faulty political ideas or ideologies. In Leviathan, Hobbes writes, "men vehemently in love with their own new opinions and obstinately bent to maintain them, who give their opinions also that reverenced name of conscience." When words are used without any real points of reference, not only is our thoughts and point meaningless, but the danger is in the interpretation, no less the reaction. Obama's mantra of fundamental change for this country parallels this argument. This in of itself lies the potential for the distortion of the common good and eventually our own good. To be deliberately deceived by the political body in to believing in such a departure from current wisdom and the promise of some future or future events of a perceived right of man. Is as Hobbes puts it "the future being a fiction of the mind," and the perceived benefits of its reliability remains unsound and deductive with in the premise of the argument.
The science of Marx and its future premise of the demise of Capitalism is flawed in that his scientific historical materialism lacks the historical reality of faulty human judgement. Excepting Hobbes' view that "knowledge of consequences" does offer knowledge of the future and therefore can overcome the frailty of human judgement. Marx spends little time on the morals and ethics of humanity in his works, instead he is convinced that dialectical materialism is the theme of the future. Treating a countries citizens like your citizens or the body proletariat is separating the human from his humanity by replacing the individual with the collective.
President Obama lacks the aptitude to separate the scholarly philosophy of failed political ideology and as Obama has stated on many occasions, "the same old tired ideas." The ideas of inalienable rights, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not a historical footnote in the foundation of this nation. They are unchangeable natural laws endowed by our creator and not a gift from government. Even Hobbes struggled with the natural rights of man against the ideas of Locke, both having ties to Thomas Aquinas, but Hobbes believed that man had to be ruled by the state instead of letting it be in a position of free will.
Can it be argued that the state is the master of it's citizens? It can and has been, where Hobbes ends and where Obama begins is a distortion of government's responsibility. This country has been exceptional in it has given more to the world in 234 years than at any time in recorded history. For you loitering sophistos at City Lights or the back alleys of Berkeley, this is for you and your acceptance of such ideological deception from a backroom professor of persuasion. Beware of the Hobbesian Damocles, yet let it not in your preparation to disrupt the plans for your planned society. Hobbes had two egos, one psychological and the other ethical...we can agree that Obama has both in that he is self evident and self fulfilling....
Marx believed that men should work together to not alienate themselves in isolation contrary to the natural state of their nature. Economic classes in capitalism according to Marx, leads directly to the workers' disillusionment of his true natural state of a collective purpose. Hobbes held that it was important to understand the inevitability to save ourselves in his "natural condition of mankind" as a fundamental right. In contrast, Marx strayed away from any fundamental rights of man, especially moral or otherwise.
One aspect of Hobbes, is his disdain of scholastic philosophy infected with faulty political ideas or ideologies. In Leviathan, Hobbes writes, "men vehemently in love with their own new opinions and obstinately bent to maintain them, who give their opinions also that reverenced name of conscience." When words are used without any real points of reference, not only is our thoughts and point meaningless, but the danger is in the interpretation, no less the reaction. Obama's mantra of fundamental change for this country parallels this argument. This in of itself lies the potential for the distortion of the common good and eventually our own good. To be deliberately deceived by the political body in to believing in such a departure from current wisdom and the promise of some future or future events of a perceived right of man. Is as Hobbes puts it "the future being a fiction of the mind," and the perceived benefits of its reliability remains unsound and deductive with in the premise of the argument.
The science of Marx and its future premise of the demise of Capitalism is flawed in that his scientific historical materialism lacks the historical reality of faulty human judgement. Excepting Hobbes' view that "knowledge of consequences" does offer knowledge of the future and therefore can overcome the frailty of human judgement. Marx spends little time on the morals and ethics of humanity in his works, instead he is convinced that dialectical materialism is the theme of the future. Treating a countries citizens like your citizens or the body proletariat is separating the human from his humanity by replacing the individual with the collective.
President Obama lacks the aptitude to separate the scholarly philosophy of failed political ideology and as Obama has stated on many occasions, "the same old tired ideas." The ideas of inalienable rights, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not a historical footnote in the foundation of this nation. They are unchangeable natural laws endowed by our creator and not a gift from government. Even Hobbes struggled with the natural rights of man against the ideas of Locke, both having ties to Thomas Aquinas, but Hobbes believed that man had to be ruled by the state instead of letting it be in a position of free will.
Can it be argued that the state is the master of it's citizens? It can and has been, where Hobbes ends and where Obama begins is a distortion of government's responsibility. This country has been exceptional in it has given more to the world in 234 years than at any time in recorded history. For you loitering sophistos at City Lights or the back alleys of Berkeley, this is for you and your acceptance of such ideological deception from a backroom professor of persuasion. Beware of the Hobbesian Damocles, yet let it not in your preparation to disrupt the plans for your planned society. Hobbes had two egos, one psychological and the other ethical...we can agree that Obama has both in that he is self evident and self fulfilling....
Monday, February 1, 2010
Natural Law and Scopes
The Scopes Monkey Trial was not only a challenge between evolution and creationism by having its base in the anti evolution laws that were migrating their way into law in the southeastern parts of the United States. But, also a challenge for states rights and the defense of individual liberty. Even though this trial that took place in the eastern Tennessee town of Dayton in 1925. It still provokes the debate of science, religion, public education and the policies of today's government with it's secular progressive tilt away from natural law to relativism and the post modernist.
Regardless of ones stand on the scientific truth at the moment or theory of man's evolution from primate in to a complex being with the ability to create and expose ideas from a realm of theory and ideas. These ideas spawned a continuel play on modern thought and their possible effects on mankind, and its unintended consequences. Absolutism meets a relative reality. In the halls of a matrix of possibilities, there lies a gambit and a gauntlet, morality and ethics. Based on the long standing empirical historical evidence toward the guidance of natural law. The price of secularism as a quasi religion riding the coat tails of dialectical conceptual relativism has descended upon our modern world.
Even though Clarence Darrow made it a point to belittle William Jennings Bryan during this trial pushed through by the ACLU with the literary help of east coast newspapers, and the prosecution's exploitation of one teacher named John Scopes. Scopes insisted on teaching Darwinian evolution and thus breaking the anti evolution law of Tennessee at the time. Even though it was a misdemeanor with a possible moderate fine, it turned into the modern foundation of the 20th centuries continuous attack on person liberty and the natural rights of man held as inalienable put forth in our constitution.
Planning to put Bryan in the hot seat, Darrow put the burden of proof on Bryan as to the science of the bible. William Jennings Bryan, at one time was considered a friend of the progressive movement, a populist in America in the latter part of the 19th century. He had a friend in the press, secular education, angry at Wall Street. he even defended the common man and he was known as the commoner thought the trial.
As Bryan, an outstanding stump speaker and fiery orator opted the challenge the Copernican explanation of the universe, he took the populist tone of the fundamentalist Christian in 1925, especially in the south. The 1920's at that time in America was where the theory of the evolution of man was taking hold in secular academia and most public schools. With the discovery of a small piece of a human skull in Piltdown Common in Sussex, the English geologist Charles Dawson set in motion a possible link or missing link to the evolution of mankind. Ironically, the fragment was located only 30 mile from Charles Darwin's country home. The discovery took place in 1909, the 50th anniversary of Darwin's Evolution of species. Of course, science and the press took off with the evidence that would once and for all kill the debate of the origin of man.
Here the debate arrives in 1925 in a court room in Dayton, TN. After all the hoopla, the trial begins, after the discovery and presenting each sides witnesses. The moment is at hand with Darrow directing his questions at Bryan on the witness stand. Firing questions at Bryan the exchange begins. Darrow's angle attempts to pick apart Mr. Bryan's defense of the time frame of the creation of the universe in 6 days...while resting on the seventh or sabbath. Darrow as today's modernest directed his scepticism at the so called miracles in the bible, thus undermining fundamentalism directly by ridiculing such so called literal evidence as simplistic and easily scientifically debunked.
Clarence Darrow then unleashed a flurry of attacks on Bryan's attempted rationalization of of certain biblical passages challenged by Mr. Darrow. The questioning went into the realm of the actual time frame in the creation of universe via the fiat of god. Why did god stop the earth instead of the sun, was the sun created on the fourth day, there was four periods without sun and so on. Bryan did the best he could in answering the questions based on his understanding of biblical periods describing the creation of the universe. Finally, Bryan settled for his belief in these biblical events, even if he could not explain it...he would still except it as truth.
After the trial the defense took the case as a victory for evolutionary science and the prosecution a win for the court upholding the original charge. The unintended consequences of the secular progressives was the birth of the modern christian movement. It's roots expanded over the centuries, adopted from Judaism in which our laws, morals, ethics and the concept of the individual and the personal relationship with god. For you wheel of life Sophisto's outside the rings of such time tested ethos, as the struggle of good and evil as not just an interpretation, but a reality outside of Nietzsche's boundaries...is god dead?
The Scopes Monkey trial gives us a unique introspective and historical insight to the struggle between liberty as conjoined in natural law and the law of relativism's. Coffee house verbal revolution in 18th century Britain, pales to the birth of the secular movement, the French Revolution....Hegel never had it so good. Far from Hume, Smith and the others of the Scottish enlightenment...the Sophistos find their truth in argarian fields of dreams, friends of all that is nature, population reduction, market statism, economic equality ad nauseum. Where does it end...it does not, the use of language, the nudging of liberty from the individual to the collective, state control of quid pro quo ...The post modernist Sophist's Sophisto's cavalier defense of their relativism as a world view, lies in the misinterpretation of Einstein's theory of relativity, as a gateway to their version of a bookend reality.
Regardless of ones stand on the scientific truth at the moment or theory of man's evolution from primate in to a complex being with the ability to create and expose ideas from a realm of theory and ideas. These ideas spawned a continuel play on modern thought and their possible effects on mankind, and its unintended consequences. Absolutism meets a relative reality. In the halls of a matrix of possibilities, there lies a gambit and a gauntlet, morality and ethics. Based on the long standing empirical historical evidence toward the guidance of natural law. The price of secularism as a quasi religion riding the coat tails of dialectical conceptual relativism has descended upon our modern world.
Even though Clarence Darrow made it a point to belittle William Jennings Bryan during this trial pushed through by the ACLU with the literary help of east coast newspapers, and the prosecution's exploitation of one teacher named John Scopes. Scopes insisted on teaching Darwinian evolution and thus breaking the anti evolution law of Tennessee at the time. Even though it was a misdemeanor with a possible moderate fine, it turned into the modern foundation of the 20th centuries continuous attack on person liberty and the natural rights of man held as inalienable put forth in our constitution.
Planning to put Bryan in the hot seat, Darrow put the burden of proof on Bryan as to the science of the bible. William Jennings Bryan, at one time was considered a friend of the progressive movement, a populist in America in the latter part of the 19th century. He had a friend in the press, secular education, angry at Wall Street. he even defended the common man and he was known as the commoner thought the trial.
As Bryan, an outstanding stump speaker and fiery orator opted the challenge the Copernican explanation of the universe, he took the populist tone of the fundamentalist Christian in 1925, especially in the south. The 1920's at that time in America was where the theory of the evolution of man was taking hold in secular academia and most public schools. With the discovery of a small piece of a human skull in Piltdown Common in Sussex, the English geologist Charles Dawson set in motion a possible link or missing link to the evolution of mankind. Ironically, the fragment was located only 30 mile from Charles Darwin's country home. The discovery took place in 1909, the 50th anniversary of Darwin's Evolution of species. Of course, science and the press took off with the evidence that would once and for all kill the debate of the origin of man.
Here the debate arrives in 1925 in a court room in Dayton, TN. After all the hoopla, the trial begins, after the discovery and presenting each sides witnesses. The moment is at hand with Darrow directing his questions at Bryan on the witness stand. Firing questions at Bryan the exchange begins. Darrow's angle attempts to pick apart Mr. Bryan's defense of the time frame of the creation of the universe in 6 days...while resting on the seventh or sabbath. Darrow as today's modernest directed his scepticism at the so called miracles in the bible, thus undermining fundamentalism directly by ridiculing such so called literal evidence as simplistic and easily scientifically debunked.
Clarence Darrow then unleashed a flurry of attacks on Bryan's attempted rationalization of of certain biblical passages challenged by Mr. Darrow. The questioning went into the realm of the actual time frame in the creation of universe via the fiat of god. Why did god stop the earth instead of the sun, was the sun created on the fourth day, there was four periods without sun and so on. Bryan did the best he could in answering the questions based on his understanding of biblical periods describing the creation of the universe. Finally, Bryan settled for his belief in these biblical events, even if he could not explain it...he would still except it as truth.
After the trial the defense took the case as a victory for evolutionary science and the prosecution a win for the court upholding the original charge. The unintended consequences of the secular progressives was the birth of the modern christian movement. It's roots expanded over the centuries, adopted from Judaism in which our laws, morals, ethics and the concept of the individual and the personal relationship with god. For you wheel of life Sophisto's outside the rings of such time tested ethos, as the struggle of good and evil as not just an interpretation, but a reality outside of Nietzsche's boundaries...is god dead?
The Scopes Monkey trial gives us a unique introspective and historical insight to the struggle between liberty as conjoined in natural law and the law of relativism's. Coffee house verbal revolution in 18th century Britain, pales to the birth of the secular movement, the French Revolution....Hegel never had it so good. Far from Hume, Smith and the others of the Scottish enlightenment...the Sophistos find their truth in argarian fields of dreams, friends of all that is nature, population reduction, market statism, economic equality ad nauseum. Where does it end...it does not, the use of language, the nudging of liberty from the individual to the collective, state control of quid pro quo ...The post modernist Sophist's Sophisto's cavalier defense of their relativism as a world view, lies in the misinterpretation of Einstein's theory of relativity, as a gateway to their version of a bookend reality.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Mao was right!
As chairman Mao proudly explained; “a revolution is not a dinner party”, and it surely isn’t, just ask the French. During the election-process Chairman O pulled out his proverbial guillotine and went Robespierre on everything that assembled common sense. Our behavior, as related to climate, healthcare and war against our enemies, both home and abroad, was subjected to a Jacobine treatment a la Terreur. The invisible hand of Smith was supposed to lose its grip on healthcare in favor of the iron fist of Stalin, our Chairmans global empeacement tour was suposed to hit its crecendo by raised gas taxes and lowered industrial production and our enemies home and abroad were saved by a Nobel price and a ban on guns and a global peace effort. The sophistoes where celebrating in coffe shops and libraries all over the country. The only thing standing between the Potchemkin-sized changes proposed by our Chairman and our liberties was us, the proverbial les enragés, strait out of the reign of terror! One after another the sophisto bricks nonsensical Freudianism fell and crumbled like the Berlin wall.
The sophisto revolution started with Chairman O making promise after promise of free healthcare for all and peace to all mankind. O made no mention of tax hikes, sub-standard treatment and overfilled hospitals financed by 5 year plans and tremendous lending from his brothers in the east. Ironically, the politburo, fueled by pure sophisto arrogance, lost the orcas seat and suddenly a monkey wrench of reality was thrown into the doomsday device of socialist-healthcare machinery. Sophisto style dictatorship of the unemployed proletariat was thwarted by good old American democracy.
Second on the list was a global appeasement tour starting with kisses, hugs and bows to sultans and kings in the Far East, culmination with a Nobel peace prize and a global warming conference in Copenhagen of Hamlets Denmark. Much like Shakespeare’s play, the trip to Denmark turned in to a tragedy of Orwellian proportions for Chairman O and his sophisto minions. The sophisto onslaught was massive; the “academic” community agreed that the evil capitalism and freedom of choice was to blame for the massive climate changes once discovered by noted scientist Al Gore. The sophisto offensive took a page out of Comrade Stalins book and even suggested that denial of the teachings of Rev.Gore cold be classified as a mental disorder. Following in the footstep of Rev.Gore, Chairman O was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by a handful of drunken Scandinavian university sophisotes. One can only imagine the self-loving smirk they had on their faces when they crawled home from the French-red-wine-binge at the local bar that night. However, common sense once again prevailed! Global warming was debunked as a fraud, the communist climate agreements caved in to free market common sense and Rev.Gore was nowhere to be found. The Peace Price wasn’t even legitimized in its home country and the ceremony was largely ignored by the common man.
The third nail on Chairman O’s revolutionary trident was to give peace to our enemies, home and abroad. Terrorists were supposed to liberated and treated with hugs and kisses instead of good old torture. In communist USA we have no enemies! Guns were to be taken away and leave to common man dependent on the government for protection, in communist USA we are all brothers! Luckily common sense and outrage prevailed! Our enemies are still given what they deserve and gun sales are soaring all over the nation.
It turns out that public outcries in the shape of tea-parties are leading a revolution of their own! Chairman Mao was right about a revolution not being a dinner party! The peoples revolution is a tea-party!
The sophisto revolution started with Chairman O making promise after promise of free healthcare for all and peace to all mankind. O made no mention of tax hikes, sub-standard treatment and overfilled hospitals financed by 5 year plans and tremendous lending from his brothers in the east. Ironically, the politburo, fueled by pure sophisto arrogance, lost the orcas seat and suddenly a monkey wrench of reality was thrown into the doomsday device of socialist-healthcare machinery. Sophisto style dictatorship of the unemployed proletariat was thwarted by good old American democracy.
Second on the list was a global appeasement tour starting with kisses, hugs and bows to sultans and kings in the Far East, culmination with a Nobel peace prize and a global warming conference in Copenhagen of Hamlets Denmark. Much like Shakespeare’s play, the trip to Denmark turned in to a tragedy of Orwellian proportions for Chairman O and his sophisto minions. The sophisto onslaught was massive; the “academic” community agreed that the evil capitalism and freedom of choice was to blame for the massive climate changes once discovered by noted scientist Al Gore. The sophisto offensive took a page out of Comrade Stalins book and even suggested that denial of the teachings of Rev.Gore cold be classified as a mental disorder. Following in the footstep of Rev.Gore, Chairman O was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by a handful of drunken Scandinavian university sophisotes. One can only imagine the self-loving smirk they had on their faces when they crawled home from the French-red-wine-binge at the local bar that night. However, common sense once again prevailed! Global warming was debunked as a fraud, the communist climate agreements caved in to free market common sense and Rev.Gore was nowhere to be found. The Peace Price wasn’t even legitimized in its home country and the ceremony was largely ignored by the common man.
The third nail on Chairman O’s revolutionary trident was to give peace to our enemies, home and abroad. Terrorists were supposed to liberated and treated with hugs and kisses instead of good old torture. In communist USA we have no enemies! Guns were to be taken away and leave to common man dependent on the government for protection, in communist USA we are all brothers! Luckily common sense and outrage prevailed! Our enemies are still given what they deserve and gun sales are soaring all over the nation.
It turns out that public outcries in the shape of tea-parties are leading a revolution of their own! Chairman Mao was right about a revolution not being a dinner party! The peoples revolution is a tea-party!