tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87651260955082300212024-02-20T07:14:41.176-08:00Sophisto SurvivorUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-34228133558889611412014-03-22T16:28:00.000-07:002014-03-22T16:32:53.464-07:00Selective Outrage (Follow the Money)The post modern utilitarian is back at it again, from boycotting dates from Israel to selective environmentalism. Somewhere and some how the academic sophistos are convinced that Chicken Little was a historical figure and that the proverbial ski fell upon mankind. From the cottage industries of Climate change, "follow the money." Racism, "follow the money" Income inequity, "follow the money." Green industries, "follow the money." ACA, "follow the money."<br />
<br />
Their need to disrupt and deconstruct western culture with the relabellings of historical events thru out the world, clinging to the notation that their activism, "follow the money," some how raises the awareness bar to Icarus like heights. Not only does this set the format for the argument that in order to progress, we need to repress, like Icarus, "common dude." Since Icarus has his feathered wings covered with wax by his father and was told not to fly too close to the sun,, "the sophisto's knowledge base,"or the wax coating "reality," would melt from his wings. So, Icarus flew too high, by his own choice, trying to reach the heights of the sophisto supermen.<br />
<br />
So, we set the bar for progress, for the sake of progress, thereby creating an alternate reality, where the shophistos roam free, and to create their own version of Sir Thomas More's utopian, intolerant vacillating plane of existential reality at any cost. Wind energy at an environmental cost such as the deaths of hundreds of migratory birds, birds of prey, bats and so on, sometimes into the thousands. The enviros response, selective outrage when an animal is found dead next to an oil well, kill the Keystone pipeline!<br />
<br />
Want a narrow and intolerant selective outrage, manufacture an emotional response, pick a target, get funding and then, attack. Create a helpless group of a potential voting block, create a point of selective outrage,"voter identification" add some racism and a heavy does of disenfranchising, "follow the money."<br />
Immigration reform, "follow the money." It is not what is good for the country, but what can "MY," the activist's narrow vision of what the definition of "my" agenda, and what can I get from it no matter the cost or damage to society.<br />
<br />
Make work irrelevant, create leisure time all the time, do not agree with me, sue me, do not want personal responsibility, blame me, hate America, blame me, class warfare, blame me, inequity, blame me, hate your life, blame me. Consume, but with equality, share with your enlightened frivolity, be free to create any form of social outrage, real or not, be cool, be a hipster, tell me that you are smarter than me. Select what I cannot see, be gentle with me and do tell me that, I should not think like me, as only you can select for me, the outrage that is righteous for me. <br />
<br />
<br />Ensign Pulverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356837263203980029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-89616766212777533992012-09-19T15:01:00.001-07:002012-09-19T15:05:29.412-07:00No Class, but their classHere we go again, the classless are on the move with their policies and politics. Make no bones about this election, as the phony call for the middle class to be rounded up and feed the propaganda of a hijacked republic is in full swing. How many cliches does it take for the folks out there to wake up and realize that it is not about the so called middle class, but the sophisto class at the policy blackboard. With their phony racism, class struggle, fairness, do what is right relativism madness that bends to the policies that do not benefit anybody but, their class.<br />
<br />
You idiots in the media, or whatever you call yourselves. Making points that belong in a propagandist camp of dead German idealists; and then you package it as fact, like shrink wrapped existentialism. You factoid pushers, stick that needle into the arm of relevancy and push the smack of the classless into the beast of your phoney class warfare titans. You hold the drinks of the classless, you shame the free press as you buy more drinks for the classless. You stick the profound ideas that formed this republic into a nice little footnote of an historical outdated deleted file of simple idiots. You spit on everyone that is not you, except the classless.<br />
<br />
Since it is your Hegelian duty to inform the mass class of little idiots, that your classless elites do not use government to politic, proclaim benefactor to their wealth, become the law, take your property, benefit their ponzi monetary policies, lie about wealth creation, by propagating the falsehoods of the multipliers that constitute economic growth.<br />
<br />
What is good for the policy makers is almost never good for the wage earner, there is no argument that the press can give on government policy that even remotely benefits the earning power of the average wage earner in America. Blame the money changers, yet hide the thieves and cheer on the virtues of social policy disguised as crony capitalism.<br />
<br />
Want progress for the class that drives the economy, let them create wealth, in turn let them invest as they please, restructure the tax system, kill the special interest lobbying extortionists, curb the state and it's police powers, reform the tort system, streamline government, make national security the top priority of government, no salary for legislators as they should earn a living like the rest of us, on their own two feet.<br />
<br />
For shame, that you phony free press fascists are no better that the classless elites that you protect as the keepers and providers of faceless, forgotten, huddled, leaderless, frightened, ignorant, hapless, uneducated, moronic classes, saturated with nitwits, halfwits, dimwits and endless supply of imbeciles. Waiting for the message from superman that help is on the way. There is no class, middle or forgotten, only the governing class, that has no class, and remains interested in their class and no more, or less. <br />
<br />
<br />Ensign Pulverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356837263203980029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-66673043013263864832011-12-03T18:54:00.000-08:002011-12-03T21:31:04.496-08:00Stern's Andy Griffith MomentAndy Stern's Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal, reminds us real simple folk, that an idiot can use the word empirical in an effort to sell the gobbil'in globalist fantasy, that a planned economy is the new wave and that free market system is a fossil and a relic. Toss it into the trash heap of history, states the former head of the Service Employees International Union. Mr. Stern is compounding his argument with the unequivocal belief and confidence, that the Chinese planned top down Austrian model, is the new wave of economic and financial equity with justice for all; well, maybe we'll skip the justice for all part.<br /><br />Mr. Stern or SEIU President Emeritus, has discovered through the claim of empirical evidence, that the China way is the right way for the working man. In his article, not once does he explain the empirical evidence of his findings that lead him to such a conclusion that the Chicago model is dead. The effects of a government that has no limited powers over it's citizens, no Constitution, private property rights for the individual, checks and balances, personal liberty, the value of the individual, you get the picture.<br /><br />Let us examine his thoughtful and sophomoric attempt at positioning his position; since Mr. Stern seems ambiguous in his artful assumptions that in planning an economy, that all the blocks, people,the unpredictability of a complex society, based on his rhetorical mindset, shall somehow mesh into his view of the future of new global engine. Missing in his dream like oratory, is the empirical evidence, that the crash cart of Maoist misery is all over his fallacy. Mao's Great Leap Forward was a central planners dream in as far as control was out of the hands of the individual. Mao happy Andy, forgets one important thing, that a man that who is perched, does not need the flock to be closer to the sky.<br /><br />Privatizing some aspects of the Chinese economy, such as in Hong Kong and the Guangzhou area, both having a history of European business practices, allows China to reach out to a few citizens without having to follow up on any free market principles. Allowing some of the fruits of Capitalism to trickle down is the glove for the invisible hand. But, Mr. Stern ignores the signs and signals of trouble in big China; Beijing's decision to cut bank's reserve requirement ration for the first time in about three years. The PMI dropped 1.4% in October as a sign of further market contraction.<br /><br />And the obvious, what to do with its huddled masses, once the planned good times fade away into the opium of it's citizen memories. Does Andy the Exemplar, have a grasp of the tidal volume of his lack of understanding, and his overstating of the so called virtues of authoritarian controlled economies; Andy the hangover is coming. One cannot ignore that China has more than economic contraction to worry about, it has social problems within its own proletariat; less the free Tibet crowd, troubled waters are on the horizon.<br /><br />Until people like Mr. Stern can decipher their wishes from the obvious, then there will always be, Andy, Opie, Aunt Bee, Goober, Gomer, Barney and the town that will always be, Mayberry RFD.Ensign Pulverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356837263203980029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-91256560162258225422011-03-24T16:27:00.000-07:002011-04-04T14:58:39.945-07:00Tsumami EconomicsThe current status of the American economy can be attributed in part to crony capitalism. Take General Electric and tie that into the green markets, with wind turbines, solar panels and even nuclear power. Without federal subsidies, there would not be a market for our friends or fiends, at the place where good things come to life. Is there really a free market for nuclear reactors? GE is into transportation, energy, public utilities as a supplier of equipment, the medical device industry.<br /><br />Who supported Obama care, not I said the little man, but GE, said the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Hobbsion</span></span> gadfly. So he who rides on my plane so to tell, yet he must still remain, if we are to refrain in , said the prince of all that is Machiavellian. Why Mr. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Immelt,</span></span> I should say; but nave, is it not so, that I am for the forgotten man. No my prince, whom rules over all that is less then thou, it is truly in your best interest, to be feared, and not loved to distraction, in order to disguise the fear, with the need for a redeemer. Alas, then all shall love you as the great emancipator of the common ignorant, and perhaps, just maybe, you'll be the next emancipator of the constitutionaly chained, and done so with homage and utility .<br /><br />Pull us up by the bootstraps and settle the score, as America is settled, and you my prince settled the score. Prop up the housing market with subsidies, with glee, and programs that are funded by the second <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">QE</span></span>. Who needs the basement he said with a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">sigh</span>, when we have <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">GSE</span> to raise the risks to on high. To be brilliant or right, to be clever with facility, with data, intellectual cleverness, supported with quickness, less with fact, that is the persuasion.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Soren</span> Kierkegaard once said, " Life can only be understood backward, but it must be lived forward." Take the notion that systemic risk can be somehow regulated through the bureaucracy, is likened to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Dodd</span>-Frank act, as being a reefer of fiscal sanity. Economist Frank Knight once stated, that knowing in no uncertainty that you know the odds of future events, but in turn you cannot know the odds. So is uncertainty uncertain, of course not, it is as certain as not knowing the odds of knowing, the odds of certainty.<br /><br />Take Sir Isaac Newton's rule, as it relates to the South Sea company of 1720 and its conjoined bubble. Mr. Newton purchased stock, doubles his investment and then sold out. Systemic risk, sure, uncertainty, why yes, ingenious, maybe not, a genius, not exactly. Well timed, sure at that moment before the bubble burst! Sir Isaac Newton, genius in his field, absolutely! A transferable genius in understanding systemic risk in market ventures, no way! Newton buys stock in the South Sea company again, as it's value rises, the market tanks, the bubble cooks off, and Isaac is left holding his Newtonian <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">brilliance</span>. In the aftermath, Sir Isaac Newton reflects on his understanding of the occasion as stated, "I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people."<br /><br />To use intellect as a substitute for the practical, and cleverness as a gauge for reading the financial tea leafs, is dangerous at best. The dangers of good intention and persuasion, leads us to the micro encroachments of vested interests, and in turn contribute to the exaggeration of those ideas. Green energy, urban utopias, clean living via education and collective conditioning. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">GSE</span> housing exchanges, the promise of an intellectual immortality, through science and technology. Clever as it may seem, the techno-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">sophisto</span> has even suggested, that artificial intelligence has a place in reducing Systemic Risk.<br /><br />Really: A.I. The intellectual seems to have with clever temptress, found another solution to quickly install a modem in which the argument can be made, based on persuasion alone. By affirming the affirmative, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">sophisto</span>, uses a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">modus</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">ponens</span> to establish so called fact, by branding the affirmed idea as fact. In fact, they argue that to be brilliant is to be right, in the fact that their premise forms the affirmation, that they must be right. Right; to play to the ideas of persuasion as Mr. Keynes once professed, " after a certain interval, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests which are dangerous, for good or evil." It is the Newton rule, that plays to the vested interests, that ride the economic wave of a Machiavellian brilliance that most certainty is, not always right.Ensign Pulverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356837263203980029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-2520058071249037422011-02-08T11:27:00.001-08:002011-02-08T11:27:58.820-08:00Sophisto Anti-SemitismIn general, sophisto hatred is beleaguered toward virtues such as, but not limited to; freedom, happiness and success. Sophisto support, on the other hand, is usually focused on minorities, women and victims of historical injustice. Surprisingly, sophisto hate towards Jews trumps all the before mentioned virtues. Seemingly, if there is sophistoism, there is anti-semitism. In fact, anti-Semitism is as old as classic Greek- sophistoism, as Greek philosopher Philostratus spoke about the Jews and their “strange customs”. Ubersophistos such as Nietzsche, Lenin, Marx, and Stalin all hated the Jews and illustrates the historical connection between sophistos and anti-Semitism which is strikingly hard to disregard. <br /><br />Historically, Jews have been one of the most prevalent and ill-treated minorities in the western world; deprived of a homeland the Jewish people have been scattered all over Europe and the United States. Hell, Jews are even a minority in their own part of the world! In other words; Jews are the ultimate minority, more so than whatever aborigine, pigmy or Eskimo you can think of. Even better if the so called “minority” can provide some good peyote or weed in exchange for some support. So, naturally, the sophisto mindset should be to engage in drum-circles, pow-wows and other “supportive” actions to defend and cuddle the vulnerable minority from the evils of capitalism and freedom? Well, the sophisto mind works in mysterious ways; maybe the Jewish minority lacks the connection to narcotics or maybe they are too successful? For some reason the drum-circles were replaced with systematic killing and raping of Jewish settlements and the pow-wows got replaced with slander and defamatory literature. The sophisto mind works in mysterious ways.<br /><br />Sophistos have a, seemingly, schizophrenic relationship to women, which in some ways is rather normal but on further exploration appears as neurotic as all other sophisto behavior. In the sophisto universe women are women, men are women and gender-neutrality is the ultimate goal. Sophistos work hard to spread the gospel of gender neutrality all over the world, and when in doubt they always side with the most gender neutral culture in any conflict. However, there is one exeption; the Middle East! In the Middle East there is pretty much only one nation not governed by the female-hating sharia-law, namely Israel. In a conflict where 99% of the countries involved have a long history questionable actions towards women, and 1% of the countries (Israel) treats women with the same respect as in the western world, which side should the sophistos support? Hmm, is it worth the effort to save the women if we have to support the Jews? Well, the sophisto mind works in mysterious ways.<br /><br />Lastly, does the sophisto love for victims of historical injustices trump their hate for the Semites? So called “victims of historical injustices” might be one of the most important issues for sophistos all over the globe. American sophistos rant and rave about the Native Americans that where sacrificed during the westward expansion, without any regard to their own California lifestyle. Support of modern day affirmative action and a hefty financial aid system for any victim of a historical injustice is second nature for a sophisto. Notwithstanding the fact that said historical injustice happened 300 years ago, no injustice is too old for a sophisto to get involved. So what about the Jews, killed in the tens of millions not too long ago? The sophisto mind works in mysterious ways. . .CityLightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15718727439091515467noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-2073773637431774672011-01-22T19:02:00.000-08:002011-01-22T20:26:13.660-08:00Noon as...High noon in DC...Another State of the Union Address, more words than straight talk, more magic moments than Mr. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Wooley</span> and yet it is tradition, an American tradition. The President stands alone with a speech, yet spoken, the meaning trapped within the print and the point is without compass.<br /><br />America has had its share of great orators, writers, humorists, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">philanthropists</span>, statesman formed from the soil of liberty and freedom, but not bound in it's definition of liberty. Politicians on the other hand, tend to empty the hand that feeds them. A world of mind and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">temperance</span>, that was once a representation of it's constitution and thus limited by such. All hail Hailstone! Do not ask what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Moronica</span> can do for you, but what you can do for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Moronica</span>! The State of the Union is the state of the political, morass and blow by.<br /><br />Our money is fuel for political gain; there are no words left that can explain the extent of such representative dementia. Stealing the dust from your sweat, the politicos have a short time to represent, what amounts to a stake in your capital, by enumerating their powers. Like it or not, it is reality and not an <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">extension</span> of the existential. Paperback or hardcover, the book is written as needed. Just change to language, steal it's meaning, flog the story and beat it down until it is no longer written, and it's pages are reduced to the pound.<br /><br />No longer a state of union, we have become what amounts to statements about union; and some where inside of the house, together we gather before the mall and remember, that divided we can fall. We shower with praise what we have done, remembering not to forget what is yet to come, sometimes I forget, to remember, that I like my eggs <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">sunny side</span> up; and always before the high that is noon.Ensign Pulverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356837263203980029noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-112766121417360862011-01-20T06:02:00.000-08:002011-01-20T06:04:00.765-08:00The holy trinity of sophistoism- Part oneThe holy trinity of sophistoism; anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and intellectual socialism is more alive than ever, like a majestically pyramid of Khufu it manifests its ignorance all over the world, from the lowliest French agent provocateur to the American intellectual elites. Tracing the history and significance of the holy trinity of sophistoism reveal a trident of moronic and hateful statements, large enough to bring envy to Zeus himself. This article will be the first in a series of three, that will trace the roots of and history of three of the dearest tenets of sophisto thought.<br /><br />Anti-Americanism can be defined as a, petty and somewhat neurotic, need to blame all the problems in the world on one single nation, namely the United States of America. Anti –Americanism, primarily, takes two forms when it is exercised by sophisos worldwide.<br /><br />The first form is America as a person/individual, this can either be paranoid hippies talking about “the man” or “the machine” standing in their way when they consume illegal drugs or conduct well-fare fraud. “The man” and “the machine” is, furthermore, regularly accused of holding people back and hindering various groups in their pursuit of happiness. Unwillingness to sacrifice oneself for “Uncle Sam” is another common personification of Anti-Americanism. The personification of Anti-Americanism is usually practiced by domestic sophistos who feel that their country is to blame for their own inability to make a living or that their own country stomps on their god given rights to be useless bums. A more sober person would obviously question weather it makes sense for a country to hold people back, afterall how can a country benefit from people being poor? One can, furthermore, ask oneself why prohibition against heavy drug use and a respect for the national defense-forces is a bad thing? Well. Sophistoism isn’t logical. Maybe it is just an inherent hate for the rule of law, capitalism and national pride?<br /><br />The second part of the sophisto Anti-Americanism is a constant hate of ANY American foreign policy, true sophisto weather he is domestic or international hates all actions taken by the United States on the international arena. A true sophisto is even bitter about the U.S. fighting and defeating the Nazis during WW2. The, so called, international Anti-Americanism is usually preceded by a civil war, occupation or natural disaster in a third-world country, followed by a lack of action or, sometimes, malign action by said national government. The sophisto backed United Nothings or the so-called “International Community” fail to provide any assistance, and is more times than not only capable of hashing out an ad-hoc resolution a couple of years later. At this point everybody calls out for the U.S. to step up and provide help. Now, the U.S. has two options; either does nothing and waits for the called “International Community” to act, which will lead to nothing at all, and the U.S. gets the blame for not doing anything. The second option is to act and save thousands, or in the case of WW2 millions of lives. Saving lives is not that important for sophistoes, who will accuse the U.S. of “cultural imperialism” and being an occupational force. After all, hating the U.S. is way more important than human lives, right?<br /><br />In short, sophisto Anti-Americanism can be explained as either a personalized hate for the nation of the United States of America or a blatant hate of any American foreign policy, good or bad. One can clearly see that, for the sophisto, Anti-Americanism is more important than tenets like freedom, rule of law and fighting the Nazis during WW2.<br /><br />Next post will trace the history of sophisto Anti-Semitism.CityLightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15718727439091515467noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-74836582779165877622010-10-05T15:20:00.000-07:002010-11-29T17:06:35.459-08:00LJB's WayPerhaps, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Sophistos</span> should lean in and browse the legacy of one of their own. Lyndon <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Baines</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Zoonomia</span>. What captivated Charles more than ever was how popular his writings became, Huxley and all that.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Darwin is to the secular, as Marx is to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">socialisims</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">unreason</span>. 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."<br /><br />Darwin carefully crafted his works based on a reductionist theory. Still, even though his scientific friends, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Sedgwick</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Henslow</span>, 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.<br /><br />Mind all of his work was not as unique as the materialists claim, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Das</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Kapital</span> 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 18<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">th</span> century <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">sophistos</span>, 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?<br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">idealistic</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">reductionism</span>. In a way, his way, LBJ had in a precautionary principled way, as in Darwin's day, good intentions.Ensign Pulverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356837263203980029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-42693971155445281252010-04-26T11:52:00.000-07:002010-06-17T21:40:09.570-07:00Second Hand ThinkingPerhaps 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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Reason Four...Maximizing Ideologies...Hailing Hegel, Marx, Malthus, Nietzsche, Darwin, Freud, Marcuse, John Dewey, Wilhelm Reich, The Cheka Intellectuals, Frankfurt school, Muenzenberg,<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...<br /><br />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...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Ensign Pulverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356837263203980029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-85201764065270606362010-04-11T15:27:00.000-07:002010-04-11T15:29:48.889-07:00The New Frontier- TechnosophistoesAlongside 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?<br /><br />The answer is NO! <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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! <br /><br />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.CityLightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15718727439091515467noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-51506016166445370302010-03-26T16:18:00.000-07:002010-03-26T21:35:42.382-07:00Amoral Politics and Obama's HobbesBefore 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Obama's</span> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">sophistos</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Hobbesian</span> Damocles, yet let it not in your <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">preparation</span> to disrupt the plans for your planned society. Hobbes had two egos, one <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">psychological</span> and the other ethical...we can agree that Obama has both in that he is self evident and self <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">fulfilling</span>....Ensign Pulverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356837263203980029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-48948340517708787552010-02-01T12:17:00.000-08:002010-03-26T21:40:10.204-07:00Natural Law and ScopesThe 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.Ensign Pulverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356837263203980029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-51684375940625598532010-01-31T15:57:00.000-08:002010-01-31T16:03:42.348-08:00Mao 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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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!CityLightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15718727439091515467noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-64405276825635304272009-12-28T18:28:00.000-08:002009-12-28T18:29:48.585-08:00Father Christmas<p>Father Christmas gimme your money, make me some and make it for free. Please be nice, every time you think of me and think of me twice. Father Christmas; take from them all, all from which they have made for me. Father Christmas, leave me alone, now go and find a new place to roam. Father Christmas, I think that this time, I’ll just blame someone else for my crime. Father Christmas, how can you be, when Pelosi is still in front of me? Father Christmas, what do I see right in front of me, how is it that you can be, if you are not gender free. Father Christmas, pass it on, give it to me and I still want it for free. Father Christmas, working hard is just not the life for me. Father Christmas; please send to me, a post modernist for under our tree, I want as far as I can see. Father Christmas, blind me not, as I want my very own Pol Pot. Father Christmas, please send me a star, make it red, as I want my very own Czar. Father Christmas, hide my thoughts, as it may not be the time to think for free. Father Christmas, where is all the glee, are my thoughts really there just for me. </p> <p>Father Christmas, watch out for progress, with all of its ghost’s clamoring while Lenin boasts. Father Christmas, where is Herr Hegel, when you need him the most, please, please send him he‘ll make a good host. Father Christmas, I want my very own manifesto, complete with Engels and Uncle Karl‘s crescendo. Father Christmas, see that I am safe, and please save me from all systemic risk. Father Christmas, hide the sugar plums, oh silly me, I actually thought that they were really FDA free. Father Christmas; hide me from Pigou, before he betrays us once and for all. Father Christmas, give to our Keynesians, any luxury for under their tree and please do say that they are from me. Father Christmas, how can it be, I want my Mao sitting right next to me. Father Christmas, please send a card to the aristocracy in DC, fill it with glee then pass it to me. Father Christmas; send me a tome, that won‘t confuse me like a Mia Angelo poem. Father Christmas; give me a German for under my tree, how about a Kant and Nietzsche for me. Father Christmas, please do remind me, that the collective is really never for free. Father Christmas, what else can you do, how about a Sophisto smarter than you. </p> <p>Father Christmas, is it true, that they really care for me as much as you? Father Christmas, when will they send me a check, so I can get out from under this wreck? Father Christmas, I am in a bind, falling further and lagging behind. Father Christmas, save me from gain, please stop me from working insane. Father Christmas; give me my very own world, one that only I can see it for free. Father Christmas, who needs an objective reality, when I can just subtract it from Nietzsche. Father Christmas, why do I bemoan, I do still have property of my own. Father Christmas, give it to all and please protect me from all that Gaul. Father Christmas, take my will, leave me no freedom that I can spill. Father Christmas, as you can see, the list is too long to be just for me. Father Christmas; please take from me, all that I earn individually, give collectively to all for free.</p> <p>Father Christmas, please Von Bismarck me, give me my own cult of personality. Father Christmas, I am feeling down, can I speak to Woodrow Wilson if he is still in town. Father Christmas, bequeath to me, my very own progressive Hegelian tree. Father Christmas, send me anarchy and I promise to share it with Trotsky, you just wait and see. Father Christmas, do I need to rely on just me, why can’t I have it all for free? Father Christmas, send it all, just give it to me, one and all. Father Christmas; help me to forget, all that is history without any regret. Father Christmas; please do not lock me out, I need a window for Darwin to see out. Father Christmas, where is our exceptionalism, is it the time for a progressive reality. Father Christmas, please send from the mount, a man of intellectual purity and FDR’s clout. Father Christmas, take my self sufficiency and mix it sufficiently all the way out. Father Christmas, as you can see, the holiday is just too much for me. Father Christmas, so much to see, please give good tidings to Stalin for me…</p>RussoNoPhistohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14730895654792799182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-36450275213667948412009-12-28T18:27:00.001-08:002009-12-28T18:28:36.284-08:00Limited Risk<p>Common Genius, the American experiment in rational radicalism in the self interest by and for the rights of man with all its’ caveats. Not before or since has there been a unique and constitutionally bonded government; as originally proclaimed, that contains check and balances within the Federal government. Thomas Paine in Dissertations on first principles of government wrote, “It is all times necessary…until right ideas confirm themselves by habit, that we frequently refresh our patriotism by reference to first principles. It is by tracing things back to their original origins that we learn to understand them, and it is by keeping that line and that origin in view that we never forget them.”</p> <p>Value your freedom and its’ virtues; the American Revolution did not create a template for limited risk and fairness to all. What the sophistos behind the blackboard seem to dismiss is the common thread between opportunity and the citizen. By embracing the principles of the Scottish enlightenment the founders responded to the tyranny of the then current government proxy from Britain. Born from Smith’s Classical model of economics were four standards, thrift, hard work, enlightened self-interest and benevolence toward fellow citizens…you know, virtues. Secondly; government should limit its activities to administer justice, enforce private property rights, engage in certain public works and to defend the nation against aggression and not turn its aggression upon the citizens and to work the public over by institutionalizing risk.</p> <p>How about free trade, lower taxes, minimal bureaucracy and constitutional restraint. Adam Smith defended the ideas that natural liberty and a self regulating system of competitive free enterprise and limited government would eventual free the world of mercantilism and the heavy handed intervention by the state. Now you statists do realize your heroes of the state with the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Castro ad nauseam, reflects the vacuum of the sophistos’ reality. </p> <p>To take liberty with in its’ frame work of optimism and to reduce it to a principle of precautionary logic is systematically reducing risk to a method of control and limitation of the natural risk of capitalism. Limitations on risk compound the reason for liberty…devaluing constitutional establishment of the origins of the principle of liberty does not reform the limits of the value of risk. To create a governmental opiate by seducing its’ citizens into a vagabond of the statist derivative in regulating the individuals’ magnum opus, reclaims a path to tyranny and limitless relativism. Mans’ freedom to self-realize without interference from the post modernist leaves one inherently important risk, the rights of man are seldom won by relenting but by the consecration of the will to be free from limited risk of utopian failures.</p>RussoNoPhistohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14730895654792799182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-17334864438668889992009-12-28T18:26:00.000-08:002009-12-28T18:27:29.487-08:00Slaughter House Sophisto<p>When does Mao become an example of a political philosophy that one can rely on for inspiration and how does Mother Theresa’s sacrifice in championing the poor, become a political philosophy. The new trumpeter of young minds, his dictator at large Mr. Benito Obama’s own hand picked pickled piper of post modern ideological excess. None other than Anita Dunn…in the truest sense of a sophisto of the highest order, she proclaims that when she is in need of a philosophical pick me up, she reaches for Mr. Slaughter house sophisto himself, the one, the only chairman of the board! Mao Ze Dong, the Chinese `Che, the keeper of liberty, the propaganda polemist himself, the Socrates of sacrifice.</p> <p>Anita the Dunn made reference in her analogy to Mao’s persistence in removing Chiang Kai Shek, resident imperialist in thanks to the US government the ultimate working class crusher… Sarcasm for you sophistos of Maoist leanings. What did Mao have that he was needed to rescue the peasants? He had Mao as his main interest…now Crusher Shek was no daisy at all. Combining alliances, armies and a centralizing power grab from the resident warlords of the time, a daunting task at that. Even though Chiang Kia Shek had ties to Stalin, he used the alliance with the CCP or the Chinese Communist Party and the Soviets in order to move toward Chinese unification. This comradeship was more cherished by the CCP and the USSR more than General Shek himself. </p> <p>Perhaps Comrade Dunn was implying that Shek-akahn, Bukharin and the leaders of the CCP plotted with the imperialists, capitalists…not a political ideology…from allowing the peasant uprising in the name of Marxism and egalitarian principles. Taking control of the means of production by first destroying the machinery…sound familiar Obamamanians? Mmm…Mr. Mao or a freer democratic government of Taiwan? Let me think about that one…She implies that Mao the leader of the peasant uprising, a man of peace most always play Janus, was kept from having their emancipation moment. She also implies through some fine sophisto speak that Adolph Shek began a degeneration spiral from the top down…sounds familiar…thereby crushing the middle class that the chairman of the board relied on to push Shek’s armies north and finally to Formosa.</p> <p>March with Mao; give away the Obama game plan…use the peasants as the objective of your strategy. Promise a political fairness to the middle class, revoke the individual with the state, have your agrarian platform. Bemoan the soullessness of Capitalism, the carnage of the unknowing simpletons that litter their minds with emptiness only waiting for the minimalist to reduce common sense to Pavlovian propaganda. </p> <p>Far from the statist relying on faith, a moral code, sacrifice, squalor and selflessness, Mother Theresa asks of no one, expects of no one gave a hand of comfort devoid of control and self interest. Her life was an individual composition and a choice of her own free a will free from external factors as the sole source of life guidance. Her manner and deeds were her philosophy…this concept confuses the sophisto as there is nothing to destroy, free from the means of production, far from the self fulfilling creation of their intellectual evolution. This nun was as distant as Einstein’s theory of relativity is to the post modernist relavitivism of the concept of existence less the slaughter house that was the People’s Republic of Mao.</p>RussoNoPhistohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14730895654792799182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-44274715279314827942009-12-28T18:24:00.000-08:002009-12-28T18:26:21.255-08:00Up Against the Wall<p>Up against the wall mother fu.ker! It was the call for the radicals inside the halls of education, thus setting the tone for the modern radical; relying on reveille and radicalism to replace liberty with a counter-measure of diversion. The template for change was born, a new age of education and social response. A new beatnik, a world citizen, a cosmic Marxist…a civil rights liberator and an artful diversionary; a diversionary culture clash and its rage fueled by self loathing and dialectic muses from the 19th century Ecotopian Darwinians of the soft sciences. From Ricardo’s Equivalence to Bentham’s, (ad- verecundiam,) Fallacy of Artful Diversion; in order to divert and rely on an incomplete argument, to convey, that every mode of the opposition is completely hopeless…</p> <p>Take Marx for instance, and the fallacy of confusion; begging the question, in order to speak of conduct, behavior, intention or motive of your argument without a neutral under liner for this or that man. An insightful sophisto would extract this dictum from that spectrum of its meaning, in order to reply eureka! I must have been blind to my existential essence of myself, as so pre-elevated, even in my slumber to not have known that it is. My man (eulogistic) to reverie, (dyslogistic) your man I have contempt.</p> <p>Self interest; the sophistos know no other, than the utilitarian fallacy that every political measure is proposed to deliver the greatest benefit to the greatest number in mass. Self regarding interest is paramount far and above that of social interest. Here in lies the fallacy of the Marxist, the collective interest is the self interest of the few whom select the interest at the expense of the collective. There are a few examples in small circles of self interest as in war, combat to be precise, that one may sacrifice their self interest for the collective, but on a grand scale, not a chance. </p> <p>Self interest is the catalyst for survival, liberty is the platform for freedom and natural rights are essential for the individual. The fallacy of creative understanding and its effects on morality and ethics; the more abstract the concept the higher probability that it is a fallacy. Gun control saves lives, fallacy, to regulate self preservation in order to preserve a theory based on an abstract concept, that an armed citizen is a dangerous problem, is a governmental fallacy without statistical merit, it is a political fallacy. </p> <p>In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Cruickshank, in 1876, in an attempt to politicize a case stemming from a violation of the 1870 Force Act. In here lies the political fallacy. Today’s regulatory antagonists use this as a diversion of the historical events of the 1873 Colfax Parish, Louisiana uprising of the freedmen, a reference specifically of black freedmen. By injecting race or the bias of, into the argument, in that the freedmen that were armed and exercising their first amendment right, were unlawfully gun downed in a hail of gunfire by white separatists exercising their second amendment rights, thus to lawfully end the perceived insurrection. It was argued that the use of force by the defendants, in that it was a lawful exercise of their constitutional rights to use the second amendment in order to lawfully put down an insurrection was justified. The court ruled on several issues; that the first amendment was not intended to limit the states powers of regulating their own citizens and that the second amendment has no other use other than to limit the powers of the federal government. </p> <p>Yet, this is another example of exercising an ideology based on a statist platform, in the attempt to dismiss certain aspects of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, as nothing more than an obstacle to a progressive and ever an expanding of the Platonic epistemological theories to government.</p> <p>Dialectical regulation at the expense of our contracts is another political fallacy, by expanding the commerce clause, in order to promote regulatory fascism and set the bench mark for today’s Congress, and to revisit the New Deal’s punitive statist judicial parlors of the National Recovery Act of 1933. Hugh S. Johnson was a prominent author of the NRA; for you sophistos, it is not the National Rifle Association. Johnson a former general; he used the model of Italian fascism to draw on as a popular progressive. The right police statist for the job; an example is the Schechter Poultry case in NY, that led to the conviction of 8 for conspiring to sell an unfit chicken and two uninspected ones. Finally, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the act was unconstitutional and exceeded Congress’s enforcement of the Commerce Clause and in turn it granted too much executive power.</p> <p>Radical wistfulness, with its artful diversions, in so anointing students in the science of intellect; socializing change and replacing common sense with the collective individual fallacy. Trading empirical evidence for the mad hatters of the classrooms, the champions of Mao, the defenders of Marx, clanging for Che’ and the to the sophisto drinkers of socially responsible free trade coffee. When is enough good enough, when liberty and freedom are secondary to revolution; as the relative realists take notes on supplemental adjuncts to the Constitution?</p> <p>Up against the wall can be heard in today’s executive office; in it’s dealings with the banks that received TARP funds and the auto industry’s acceptance of government loans. The rational of such a promotion of political self interests for the benefit in the social interest, is nothing short of collectivism re-appropriated. Following the Hegelian world of mankind’s evolution to perfection and Marx’s of controlling the means of production, by first dismantling and destroying its machinery. It is a journey plagued with empirical evidence that points to the contrary. As Herbert Spencer so eloquently stated in his essay; From Freedom and Bondage, “for as fast as the regime of contract is discarded, the regime of status is of necessity adopted. As fast as voluntary cooperation is abandoned, compulsory cooperation must be substituted. Some kind of organization of labor must have; and if is not that which arises by agreement under free cooperation, it must be that which is imposed by authority.”</p>RussoNoPhistohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14730895654792799182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-2069752858420168452009-12-28T18:23:00.000-08:002009-12-28T18:24:27.140-08:00Tea Party<p>The aroma of Hegel’s huckleberry, President Obama extends the tea leaf of his Alma Mata, King George III. In an effort to sail into the future on the existential express, the White House merchant of change is summoning the ghost of Jacob Marley’s merchantilian England. Once again, the torch bearer of Saul Alinsky, the south side shuffle changes the notes on an old tune. In crisis act accordingly, put existence before essence, absolute relativity before Don Quixote’s horse. </p> <p>Do you put the water before the tea or the tea before the water? William James stated, “The truth of a statement lies in its practical consequences.” Epistemological pragmatism, perhaps, maybe, but when does choosing ones truth based on what it will accomplish in practice, relate to empiricism. What are you talking about, as some might say, what does this all mean, in a pragmatic existential way? It is assumed that Keynesian economic patterns, empirically speaking, are looked at as a solution for the neoclassic pragmatic verification system, that all solutions are the same for any and all economic uncertainties.</p> <p>Remember Irving Fisher, the Greenspan of the 1920s, he likened market forces as the changing velocity in monetary policy could indeed be a factor in producing artificial highs and lows in the markets. He wrote of these possibilities in his work entitled, “The purchasing power of money,” in 1911. Enjoying his ride to prosperity, he boldly predicted in 1929, that the stock market had reached a permanent perch upon the shoulders of Zeus, so to speak. Instead, the market tumbled from Olympus, taking what is known today, as a deflationary spiral. Fisher did compose a theory on debt-deflation in 1933 and wrote an article about it in Econometrica, essentially adding to the then debate on the empirical need for the gold standard for currency. </p> <p>Fisher, led the way for Keynes to insert some of his ideas into Keynes’s format for government intervention in to the markets of the 1930s, in doing so; this laid the foundation for today’s monetary economic practices. Let us for a moment, return to how epistemology is homogenized into the political policies of the economic reigns of capitalism. Kant stated in his critique on reason, that reason has two components, the analytic and synthetic. Making statements based on reason in of its existence, is analytic and basing reason with a sensory objectiveness of the world around us, would be synthetic in nature. </p> <p>In complete compliance with the ideas of the thinker; that timed his walks to the rhythm of his neighbor’s clocks. It would seem to believe, that the economic risk takers have based their plan on a theory, that more control of monetary policy, is above the law. Natural law, collectively the experts in cause and effect, will indeed cause an effect by trying to implement a plan in Kant’s words, a priori or an analytical statement, a plan is a plan a perfect plan based on the plan. Instead of a posteriori or synthetic statement, that in the course of eighty years, history has observed that confusing the natural risks inherent in the markets, and instilling government policies that reduce the natural arc of the laffer curve, tend to stifle the flow of capital into longer Keynesian curves.</p> <p>Politicizing economics in order to benefit the middle class and thereby tending to the basic monetary needs of the masses, more overly the American public is a recipe for Hegel’s huckleberry. So soothing in its allure, draped in fairness and sprinkled with utopian aftertastes. Disguised as optimism and hope, it fills the empty glass of change, packaged as progress, it is chained to Marley’s woes and Marx’s ramblings of a new proletariat on the shining hills of collective individualism.</p> <p>Progress; there is no stinking progress in such a collective consensus, it is more like Plato’s Republic, where such discussion of what to do with the masses whom are ignorant and wanting, is not a concern of the elitist thinker of soft science. Inequality is the voice of the town crier, renouncing individual responsibility and self reliance for the dream of “designer babies” a generation or two away from compliance and order. </p> <p>It is now tea time, a time for a sip along the Left Bank, so relax and float down stream ever changing and dialectical. Change instead of initiative, lay down your liberty for peace, and give up your individualism for the clanging of conformity, trade morality for relevance, cast away common sense for Alice’s wonderland and drink the wine of a Teutonic Twit, cloaked in progress and hope for all. Long live the king, the saint of deliverance, the piranha of Platonic platitudes. Here lies George III, as it is time for tea, just George and me.</p>RussoNoPhistohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14730895654792799182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-13482656188888614762009-12-28T18:22:00.000-08:002009-12-28T18:23:23.100-08:00Reformation<p>The Sophistos are celebrating their victory lap while simultaneously claiming that the king is dead. As Shopistos are saturated with the desire to see reform in action from their Cromwelleon leader, Lord Protector of America, while his hemlock cascades with in the promises of change. Obama I revised the notion that the Constitution does provide the constitutionality of a National Covenant of tax payers religiously giving to the community chest. Congress has devalued capitalism's inherent risks of financial lending principles and investing capital without sophisticated equations, instead it created a mandate of quantitive economic slating of the market to push the risks of an artificial financial intelligence.</p> <p>Central financial scrabble, ergo, scrutinizing the inherent risk with the infusion of tax dollars that beguiles the public’s trust as congress steals away its accountability to the people. Lead by Obama I and his pretensions to absolutism, the public is being duped by an ideology of crisis, collectivism and fear. Relying on soft serve pragmatism, Obama I and his parliament reinstate the theoretical maxims of the German enlightenment. </p> <p>Nietzsche meets Obama, estranged from natural law as a man who has reached his critical point in his duality. The Lord Protector’s scientific moral creationism enlightenment movement, now with the urge to dominate and master, thorough and transcending the sanctum of moral transcendence by creating morals. America’s community activist has embraced Darwinian principles and adds to the death of religious underpinnings in his quest to move metaphysical morality to the stage of his constructive works and to discover the will to power. </p> <p>His style of character and will to manage the future by reorganizing duplicity in dignity with Nietzsche’s Superman in order to experience immense and protracted meaning in the meaningless world of the common man. Our Lord Protector shall proclaim throughout the land that excess leads to ignorance and want. The reformer promises to master the difficulty of existence, and give meaning to our lives and restore hope and transparency of the Superman and the American way.</p> <p>Constructing hope from fear, the Lord Protector shall define the ideal man's leader of leaders as he projects the future of a new morality in conceptual government assistance. Pay your penance while Obama I becomes the ideal man, with his sublimation of ideas as he overcomes his self coronation. When the ideal man achieves his self overcoming then he shall bask in a wave of creative energy, in order to propel the ideal man into his justification of reality, his reality, his cult of personality, his reformation…</p>RussoNoPhistohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14730895654792799182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-20729414152394279122009-12-28T18:11:00.000-08:002009-12-28T18:22:03.128-08:00Faurisson v. France- The Case Against Free Speech<p>Our future president, and world leader, has been supremely outspoken about is fondness of Europe (France), World Government (EU and the UN) and Political Correctness (Anti Free-Speech). This is a case study about the implications of political correctness and world government on free speech. This article will show that there is no international support for freedom of speech, one we start taking it away from out nation it is gone forever. The case concerns a man who is fined for expressing his opinion. The case is tested at multiple instances and is decided as fair and prudent. This is not an article supporting revisionism, this is an article that shows what the future can look like for ordinary Americans one week from now. It is free to anyone to speculate about what will be illegal to criticize after the election. . . . Hamas? Weathermen Underground? Ayres? The Government? In a free society, the society punishes moronic statements, not the Governmetn or The UN. This is a warning about what can happen when Jurists and the Government gets to decide what we can say, this is what will happen when Judge Kennedy and King Hussein decides what is moral and correct. Not that there is no secret police or death squads in this analysis just a simple cash penalty on personal opinion. . . . Free $peech i$ not free. . . Sources are included for anyone who cares about freedom.</p> <p>The central character in the case is a man named Robert Faurisson, who is a well known revisionist.</p> <p>The case deals with Faurissons complaint against the French government pertaining to its legal system, mainly the legality of the Gaysott Act. </p> <p>The Gaysott Act was taken into practice 13 July 1990, and seeks to minimize violence or other harmful acts against people based on “ethnic group, nationality, race or religion”.# The applicable part of the Gaysott act for this case is the prohibition of “publication of ideas contesting the existence of the crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germany during World War II defined in the appendix to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945.”# </p> <p>The case takes its start in an article in the magazine Choc du Mois which was published in September 1990. In the magazine, Faurisson displays his believes regarding the holocaust.<br />"... No one will have me admit that two plus two make five, that the earth is flat, or that the Nuremberg Tribunal was infallible. I have excellent reasons not to believe in this policy of extermination of Jews or in the magic gas chamber ..."<br />"I would wish to see that 100 per cent of all French citizens realize that the myth of the gas chambers is a dishonest fabrication ('est une gredinerie'), endorsed by the victorious powers of Nuremberg in 1945-46 and officialized on 14 July 1990 by the current French Government, with the approval of the 'court historians'".#</p> <p>These quotes caused much anger among the readers and a number of survivors of World War 2 pressed charges against Faurisson and the author of the article.</p> <p>The French Tribunal de Grande Instance of Cusse decided that Faurison and the author where guilty of "contestation de crimes contre l'humanité“according to the Gaysott Act. The two defendants were sentenced to pay a fine of 326 832 Franc.#</p> <p>The two defendants later appealed the sentence to appellate court in Paris which resulted in an increased fine. The court held that the sentence is applicable to present European Union (EU) law, namely articles 6 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHRFF).# One should point out that EU law is supranational, as decided by the van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration case.# This fact should be contrasted with the fact that decisions in the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) are not binding.#</p> <p>The case was brought to the UNHRC in which Faurisson refused to appear for hearings because of financial difficulties. Faurisson has, however, made the claim that his right to freedom of speech has been violated by the Gaysott Act.#</p> <p>Faurissons claim regarding his right to freedom of speech is backed by numerous international documents and conventions, also a number of moral-philosophical claims can be made in support of Faurissons argument. </p> <p>Article 18 and 19 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees an individuals´ right to freedom of thought, conscience opinion and expression.# Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) makes references to the same rights in articles 18 and 19.#<br />One can clearly see that there is a strong defense for freedom of speech in international law, and that this right shows a clear sign of universalisation as argued by Eide.# When studying the core documents regarding human rights, one can easily see that freedom of speech is a part of most of these documents. One can draw the conclusion that framers of international law has believed that freedom of speech is an essential human right.</p> <p>Further readings show that freedom of speech has always been seen as one of the core rights in a liberal democratic society.# Proponents of liberal rights such as John Stuart Mill argue that freedom of speech is important not only for individual freedom, but also for societal and intellectual development.# Furthermore, experts of human rights argue that limits to freedom of speech and freedom of the press is a common political tool used by dictators and tyrants.# One can therefore see that there are strong risks associated with limitations on freedom of speech, and that freedom of speech fills many important functions in a society. </p> <p>Mills argues that the only limitation on freedom of speech should be made when a speech causes direct harm to an individual or group of individuals.# One can clearly see that Faurisson does not propose any physical attacks on people in his statements. The statements are therefore not strong enough to be rendered illegal; the Gaysott Act is in this case inconsistent with a Millsean analysis of free speech. </p> <p>Finally, it is commonly understood that it is the responsibility of the national government to uphold human rights.# One may make the argument that France´s limitations on freedom of speech might be unlawful and that they might fail to follow their obligations to uphold human rights. </p> <p>However a close examination of the case supporting the Gaysott Act has to be made to make a sound judgment on the fairness of the Gaysott Act.</p> <p>Limitations on freedom of speech are often frowned upon by the international community, but there are several instances in which certain restrictions can be applied on a individuals´ freedom of speech. One can actually see that there are more clauses limiting freedom of speech than there are clauses supporting it.</p> <p>France argues that article 5(1), of the ICCPR gives them the right to suspend some of Faurissons rights for the purpose of protection of the rights of others.# France further argues that article 17 of the ECHRFF gives them similar rights as set out in the ICCPR.# </p> <p>Further references are made to “article 26 and in particular article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; under article 4 of this Convention.” #One could make the claim, in this case, that the ICERD includes articles which supports free speech, most notably article 5.# It would however feel counterproductive considering that the main point of the convention is to avoid racist sentiments.#<br />Paragraph 2 of article 29 of the UDHR states that one’s freedoms can only be limited by national law and “due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others”.# One can thereof see that the early framers of humanitarian law laid out the framework for limitations of free speech and expression when it threatened public order or impeded on peoples freedoms. The relatively lose wording of these articles gives states plenty of leeway when it comes to implement restrictions of freedom of speech.#</p> <p>Another key document for the analysis of freedom of speech and its relationship with the Gayssot Act is the ICCPR. The ICCPR, in article 19(3) (b), points out that freedom of speech can be infringed upon if it threatens “public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals”.# Here, one can yet again see the reference to morals in a legal argument. A natural way to analyze references to immeasurable objects such as morals would be to consult philosophy.</p> <p>The moral argument shows an extension from what was earlier argued by Mill and his harm principle. While the harm principle only limits speech that cause direct harm to individuals, legal scholars’ such as Joel Finberg argue this is not enough. Feinberg argues that an offence principle needs to be applied in some cases of public speech or expression. The judgment in this case should “have a basis in the supposed offensiveness of the behavior rather than the harm that is caused”.# Feinberg points out that intent and avoidability becomes key issues when following the offence principle. A statement should be criminalized if it is made simply to provoke the people hearing it, but Freedom of expression cannot be infringed upon if the message can easily be avoided. </p> <p>The central argument regarding the Gaysott Act is in this case if the message was offensive because Holocaust denial is no doubt harmful. One can also make the argument that the strong words of Faurisson were made with the intent of provoking some readers. </p> <p>If one follows the thinking of Feinberg, and judge upon intent, a whole new path of legal arguments follows. Many articles of the core conventions allow for a liberal usage of the clauses limiting freedom of speech. Starting with the ICCPR and article 17(1) which states that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation“. One can clearly see that Faurissons comments can be seen as an intended attack on the honor and reputation of many holocaust survivors. Paragraph 2 of the above article states that “Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. “ One can now see that the Gaysott article is applicable with lawful interferences on freedom of speech if one applies the offence principle. </p> <p>A serious warning against moral judgments should however be made. A problem with judgment based upon intent or morals is that a message will only be judged by a person who is offended by it. It is very hard judge intent or morals on an objective basis.# </p> <p>One might, therefore, end up in a situation where all sorts of questioning of norms become a legal labyrinth in which someone is always offended. Jack Donelly supports this argument and further points out that freedom of speech includes no moral duties not to spread lies or deceit.# This is according to Donelly prohibited by other laws that are there to protect individuals from the consequences of free speech.# Donelly argues a strong point for modest limitation on freedom of speech since much of the byproducts of freedom of speech such as violence and in this case genocide is already outlawed.#</p> <p>It is, although, safe to point out that a defense of moral judgments of human rights is easy to find. Well known scholars such as Jurgen Habermas describes human rights as “Janus faced” and points out that human rights have both a moral and a legal aspect. This shows that one has to leave room for some moral arguments.# This argument furthers the states right to make judgments based on morality.</p> <p>Another interesting note regarding moral judgments is that Freeman points out that the UN strived to avoid philosophical arguments in humanitarian law in all cases but the cases referring to the atrocities committed by the Nazis.# </p> <p>Another plausible argument for the correctness of the Gaysott Act is that it is compatible with the goal of the UDHR, which was to prevent a repetition of the atrocities committed by the Nazis during the World War 2. A literal interpretation of this statement shows that the Gaysott Act and the UDHR have the same goal, which ads credibility to the Gaysot Act.#</p> <p>There are many arguments supporting the limitations of freedom of speech, as argued in the Gayssott Act, which are further supported by the decision of the UNHRC. Also, Eide points out that all forms of hate speech must be limited by the national government.#</p> <p>The committee made clear that “Any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must cumulatively meet the following conditions: it must be provided by law, it must address one of the aims set out in paragraph 3 (a) and (b) of article 19, and must be necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose.”# The committee found that the action taken by France fulfilled the above demands and was both lawful and necessary. It should, however, be mentioned that several judges contested the decision and pointed out that the Gaysott Act was not clear enough and could be too “loosely interpreted”. # </p> <p>The final decision by the committee is a seemingly ideal introduction to the concluding arguments regarding the Gaysott Act and its infringement on freedom of speech. There are an overwhelming number of documents regarding the legal and moral importance of freedom of speech. Many of the core-conventions regarding human rights include clauses regarding the importance of freedom of speech. Furthermore, many thinkers and founders of liberal theory such as Mill consider freedom of speech a prerequisite for a liberal democracy. </p> <p>However, a closer look at most international documents concerning freedom of speech shows that states have included examples of rightful discrimination of freedom of speech.# The legal climate in these documents gives states´ adequate rights to impede on freedom of speech to save public order or morals. One can see that it is hard to measure these words in a substantive manner, which gives states even more room to manipulate freedom of speech laws to fit their needs. The Gaysott Act represents such a manipulation. The Gaysott Act has been publicly criticized and the hearings in front of the UNHRC proved a valuable test for this act. Both independent research in this paper and the UNHRC came to the same conclusion that the Gaysott Act is within the framework of freedom of speech.</p> <p>Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and practice (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 2003).<br />Eide, Asbjörn (nd) Making Human Rights Universal: Achievements and Prospects.<br />Freeman, Michael, Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002).<br />Hedlund Thulin, Kristina, Lika i värde och rättigheter: om mänskliga rättigheter (Stockholm: Norstedts juridik 2004).<br />O'Rourke K. C., John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Expression: The Genesis of a Theory (London: Routledge, 2001).<br />Thomas, Mark, "When It Comes to Freedom of Speech We Are Prepared to Defend Only Those Threatened Ideas That We Agree With," New Statesman, December 19, 2005.<br /><a href="http://w3.hidemyass.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5hbWJhZnJhbmNlLXVrLm9yZy9GcmVlZG9tLW9mLXNwZWVjaC1pbi10aGUtRnJlbmNoLmh0bWw%3D" title="http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Freedom-of-speech-in-the-French.html">http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Freedom-of-speech-in-the-French.html</a>.<br /><a href="http://w3.hidemyass.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5odW1hbnJpZ2h0cy5pcy90aGUtaHVtYW4tcmlnaHRz" title="http://www.humanrights.is/the-human-rights">http://www.humanrights.is/the-human-rights</a> rpoject/humanrightscasesandmaterials/cases/internationalcases/humanrightscommittee/nr/267<br /><a href="http://w3.hidemyass.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2V1ci1sZXguZXVyb3BhLmV1L0xleFVyaVNlcnYvTGV4VXJpU2Vydi5kbz91cmk9Q0VMRVg6NjE5NjJKMDAyNjpFTjpIVE1M" title="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61962J0026:EN:HTML">http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61962J0026:E...</a><br /><a href="http://w3.hidemyass.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy51bmhjaHIuY2gvdWRoci9sYW5nL2VuZy5odG0%3D" title="http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm">http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm</a><br /><a href="http://w3.hidemyass.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dzIub2hjaHIub3JnL2VuZ2xpc2gvbGF3L2NjcHIuaHRt" title="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm">http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</a><br /><a href="http://w3.hidemyass.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dzIub2hjaHIub3JnL2VuZ2xpc2gvbGF3L2NlcmQuaHRt" title="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm">http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm</a><br /><a href="http://w3.hidemyass.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dzIub2hjaHIub3JnL2VuZ2xpc2gvbGF3L2NjcHIuaHRt" title="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm">http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</a><br /><a href="http://w3.hidemyass.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3BsYXRvLnN0YW5mb3JkLmVkdS9lbnRyaWVzL2ZyZWVkb20tc3BlZWNoLw%3D%3D" title="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/</a><br /><a href="http://w3.hidemyass.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXAudXRtLmVkdS9sL2xhdy1waGlsLmh0bSNTU0gyYS5paWk%3D##SSH2a.iii" title="http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/law-phil.htm#SSH2a.iii">http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/law-phil.htm#SSH2a.iii</a></p>RussoNoPhistohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14730895654792799182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-48043376753766758192009-12-28T18:10:00.000-08:002009-12-28T18:11:25.423-08:00Reason<p>Reason is a term used freely in conversation, along with rational, rationalization and now almost a cliché, do the right thing. What is the right thing and how do we rationalize that reason and use it to make our point. What is this right thing, to some it is an abstract concept embraced by the idealist, a collective rightness, self rightness and its angry cousin, self righteousness. </p> <p>Backed by popular thought and demand, do the right thing is thrown about on a myriad of topics. Pay your fair share of taxes, be patriotic and do the right thing as stated by Senator Biden, he himself almost a progressive collectivist. This concept is not new to our country and with its roots in the Woodrow Wilson ideology of what is right for America, his Platonic Republic framed as a progressive national movement in America to parallel Europe’s 19th century nationalist wars in concept. A collective lockstep of ideological framework, and with the assistance of organizations such as, the War Industries Board, run by Bernard Baruch, a social financial engineer and controlling figure of economic mobilization with legal powers and he made many of those decisions free from recommendations, sounds like Federal progression into free market industry. Interesting, considering that he ran an investment firm and refused to be a part of any other financial firm on Wall street and in turn he was considered a lone wolf on Wall street, and in turn he acted like an individual and capitalist. Wilson during World War I was the central figure in this wars planning phase in operating within the framework of the war industry and often Mussolini like in ruling with an iron fist. His plan was to run the war industries completely and within the oversight of the WIB and with Baruch, now a progressive Hegelian at the helm. </p> <p>Sound familiar, the current financial fiasco, no thanks to Congress as the new fairness revolutionaries of the secular causation and effective dialectical materialists, have landed the financial markets on their proverbial heads, and shaking the free market system to its foundation. This economic “fairness doctrine” that spawned from the 1977 Community Revitalization Act has done nothing as intended, but shore up the hot rails of greed and idealistic opportunity, that is devoid of any pragmatic historical references that benefit the markets basic instincts to fluctuate within reason. New Deal tactics and reformation should not fly in the face of reason; good rationalized reason that is full of practical reason, such as less Federal Government and more Adam Smith with a touch of market regulation, as we can agree that laissez faire is not everywhere, nor is it likely to return under current economic philosophy. Unless Ricardoian thought on his “Law of Rent” and in turn giving to Marx’s theory on exploitation of labor, is pronounced dead and gone with his ideological corpse given to academia to render. </p> <p>Leave the markets for the free, secure and ethical, let the rugged individualism of this country move obstacles and prolong the long standing principles of the classical model of Smith’s magnum opus. We need more individual responsibility, not more economic pseudo Keynesian propaganda, but more referrals to history that works in conjunction with ethics and morals. As George Washington stated, “we have abundant reason to rejoice, that in this land, the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship god according to the dictates of his own heart.” The translation, ethics and morals have a basis in reason and truth; our nation based its truths in natural law, natural rights given to all men, based on the rational, that reason based truths are the truths that should be self evident and not self destructing.</p> <p>The world does not need trickle down ideology, but limited influence from the 19th century German enlightenment, the vehicle for the French secular movement, spawned by Robespierre and his reformation propagandists, thus trading monarchy for tyranny. It is that simple, as the historical references are long and painful. Now, take a deep collective breath you free radical thinkers of your self proclaimed age of enlightenment, and rejoice that you are still free, constitutionally free, individually free, to do the right thing.</p>RussoNoPhistohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14730895654792799182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8765126095508230021.post-52379943381271599122009-12-27T18:31:00.000-08:002009-12-28T18:32:38.538-08:00The Sophisto Idea...Sophisto Survivor is in essence a child of radical parents of the 1960s, regardless of the location in the world. In my case it began in 1966 in the San Francisco bay area, with a family history of Italian fascism and Marxist ideology, I found myself in a dichotomy caught between Das Capital and reality. At six, I had a new uncle, Karl Marx, along with the usual suspects. Engles, DeLeon, Ricardo and a supporting cast to be named later, considered by many in the movement as the best minds in the Marxist household. I have seen first hand the Sophisto movement with its unproven ideas and rhetoric, dismissing the intelligence of the common citizen as a nuisance and all the while convincing themselves as champions of the working man. From Synanon to the SLA manifesto, lays the pulse of Dr. Marx PhD. This site provides a forum for all recovering children of sophistos; the time is now for ending the alienation from your thoughts and to once again redefine your identity and not someone else’s ideas. Free as you feel to tell your stories, social commentary, turning points and share what you may, but most importantly, have some fun and hold on for the big trip…RussoNoPhistohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14730895654792799182noreply@blogger.com