Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

The false dichotomy between faith and reason

All thought must have a foundation of beliefs in order to process information for reasoning. Being that we are constantly forced into making decisions, other than being bipolar, we have no option but to embrace a set of beliefs to predicate our decisions upon. Although there are many ideologies upon which to form a foundation of thought, they can be reduced into two basic categories, herein referred to as spiritual and material, or sometimes distinguished as faith and reason(religion and science). Keep in mind that these terms are not precise seeing that the materialist will show a spiritual side and does place faith in something, and the spiritual man is not without reason or necessarily in denial of science, although a part of his reason is based upon a trust that there are things in existence which cannot be seen or proven by man, but nonetheless, are a reality. Therefore, there is a false dichotomy between faith and “reason”, because everyone who believes anything, or holds any ideology or belief system, embraces both. But even so, when faith is misplaced, reason becomes corrupted.

Because of conflicts between spiritual and material(worldly) foundations of thought, there becomes a necessity to choose one over the other as the predominate basis in making choices; for you cannot establish a direction in life based upon uncertainty. As it is written: “You cannot serve God and mammon”. It is easy for one to say they are agnostic, but in practice when making certain choices, some decisions must be made by faith; and the rejection of a faith often is in itself an opposing faith, or a faith against a faith. For if we are to believe anything, we must base trust in what knowledge is. And we cannot always do that solely on what is proven or accepted as fact because of the many unknowns. For even with all we know, there are gaps in our knowledge created by unknowns. It is often necessary to fill these gaps, which we attempt to do by reasoning. This means that along with provable certainties, we also all choose to believe some things which are only accepted by faith. This is true whether we believe in God or not. For while one can claim only to believe in science, it is almost impossible, because at this point scientific knowledge is too incomplete by itself to completely support an ideology. And because it is incomplete, one who believes only in science is often forced to interpret what the science means, which gives birth to theories. This too becomes faith wherein one puts trust in his own reasoning. For we cannot make any sense of anything without first laying a foundation of what we accept as knowledge. And without this foundation, we are tossed to and fro being unstable and confused. Herein lies the Great Division between the spiritual man and the carnal man sometimes referred to imprecisely as, science versus religion, or reason versus faith. In reality, those terms create a false dichotomy; for faith is hardly without reason, nor is secular reasoning completely devoid of faith.

A secular belief system based solely upon scientific reasoning places more limitations on knowledge than does a system based upon faith in God, in part because the secularist will reject knowledge received by revelation or through testimony of a personal experience. While often this can be the correct thing to do, there are cases where revelations, experiences, and testimonies are indeed true. Even an event that takes place with no witnesses still happens. So likewise, the rejection of all things that cannot be proven also will include some truths. Nonetheless, by doing so, secularists put academia in the position of being the exclusive arbitrators in determining what qualifies for knowledge and biases arise wherein there is often an exclusion of the beliefs and knowledge held by others if it dose not conform to their ideology.

Because of the gaps in knowledge, to connect the pieces together, secularists are themselves forced to resort to faith to manufacture links, often at best based upon circumstantial evidence. They rely upon theories to arrive at explanations and conclusions. In doing so, however, their explanations often tend to create even more questions, which in turn demands an even greater faith and an expansion of theories. Thus, in many cases, the materialist ends up being no less believing, no less devoted, no less fanatical, nor any less evangelical, and far more wildly imaginative than his religious counterpart.

Nonetheless, when popular ideas and theories gain enough traction in intellectual circles, they often become accepted as a reality and are incorporated and “certified” as knowledge, even without sufficient supporting evidence. Thus, pure science is undermined and in many cases, the occupation embraces faith and becomes a profession with a ‘religious’ nature. Agenda driven ideologies become dogma and are embraced by the academics, creating numerous instances wherein things are treated as indisputable fact when at best they are unknown. But then too, many things which are indeed true are treated as falsehoods or dismissed. The end result is science ceases to be as scientific as it claims.

H.G. Wells, whom I have often cited, a man sold solely on science and reason, exhibits his faith in the following words,

“There was no Creation in the past, we begin to realize, but eternally there is creation; there was no Fall to account for the conflict of good and evil, but a stormy ascent. Life as we know it is a mere beginning….“ “……We have still barely emerged from among the animals in their struggle for existence. We live only in the early dawn of human self-consciousness and in the first awakening of the spirit of mastery.”

This is a statement of faith and a religious expression of secular-humanism wherein mankind is essentially evolving to the status of being “God”. To further illustrate this religious aspect of secular humanism embraced by materialists we can continue with Wells’s writing where he says,

“Man’s soul is no longer his own. It is, he discovers, part of a greater being which lived before he was born and will survive him. The idea of a survival of the definite individual with all the accidents and idiosyncrasies of his temporal nature upon him dissolves to nothing in this new view of immortality…..……The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.”

Thus accordingly, the secular mindset holds that creation is and of itself; there is nothing more. Man’s sole purpose is not as an individual but in being a “part of a greater being”(the collective). It is to give himself to the “being” for the advancement of mankind (the being) to higher levels. As individuals alone we have little to no value, but as a apart of the collective, we are as single cells in the immortal body of humanity. Our sole purpose of existing is to help advance the immortal body of civilization through the stages of evolution. Cells die, but they are replaced by new and the body lives. Collectively, we are the supreme being. There is no God above us. It is this vein of thinking that puts mankind above all and invites justification for man to act as God, to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, who should live and who should die. The lives of individuals become dispensable if deemed a liability to the advancement or benefit of the body of humanity. This rejection of faith in God creates a faith, albeit, an atheistic one with all the aspects of a religion.

Wells was an understudy of Thomas Huxley (“Darwin’s bulldog“) and his writing exemplifies the strain of thought that was widespread in academia in the early 1900s. Wells was not an originator of this thought but was indoctrinated into this line of thinking in the universities and rejected faith in God.

It was this worldview which gave birth to the eugenics movement to facilitate evolution in the process whereby the “superior” elements supersede the weaker. The ideology spread worldwide and particularly throughout institutions of “higher” learning. The introduction of this into Germany was inspirational in the Nazis’ determination that the Aryans were the most advanced race, and thus, not only had the right, but an obligation to the future of humanity to supersede the inferior elements which were destroying the world and slowing the evolutionary process. Only those deemed the most perfect had value, the lives of all others were disposable and worthy of life only as long and in as much as they were useful in the advancement of the Übermensch.

By this time, the Soviet Union also had already promoting the unrealistic concept of perfection in a material world, but more emphasis was placed on the march toward social perfection rather than genetic superiority. The result, however, was no better under Communism than it was under Nazism; but even though the Communists were responsible for many more deaths than the Nazis, communism has not not attained to the same degree of stigma. As a result, today even in western societies, Marxist ideologies are woven into progressive socialist agendas and Darwinism is foundational in governmental education.

The words of Vladimir Lenin, “We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth,” may be well and widely accepted throughout universities everywhere.

Well over a hundred million lives have fallen victim to materialists ideologies which are essentially based on the concept that man is the supreme being and that the supreme men are “God.” How this repeats itself in the future is yet to be seen, but it will be seen if man continues down that road.

Arbitrary Morality

According to secular humanism, not only have the species been evolving, but law is “living and breathing” and also evolving. For law, having no source other than from those persons who create it, is relative, arbitrary, and at this point incomplete. Thus, whatever seems the most expedient or beneficial at the moment is deemed acceptable. The problem however, is that what benefits some may be totally devastating for others.

From this conflict of interests comes the concept of the “common good” wherein the benefits for society as a whole are weighed against the rights, freedoms, or even the lives of those whose suffering would seem small in comparison to the benefits reaped by society. In all actuality, however, the benefit of the elite ruling class carries more weight than the “common good” of society, and it is arrogantly viewed by them as being the same.

In the elitists mind, if a few years of holocaust purges out the “corrupt” and “inferior” elements of humanity and brings a thousand year reign of a superior and more perfect civilization, then so be it, it was merely a part of the process. Besides, how much future suffering will be avoided by eliminating the “sub-humans” and their posterity who were spared being born? The overall gain is a plus. This type of rational is the direct result of reason absent a faith in God. It is the place reason always ends when it travels alone.

Faith or Reason

Reason absent faith has proven itself a force of destruction. By the same token, faith absent reason is no less destructive than reason without faith. Man cannot live without faith; he is intellectually paralyzed without it. On the other hand, by faith alone without reason, man is also lost. Only when knowledge is perfect can reason be perfect; and a faith that is not misplaced possesses the same virtue as knowledge; for indeed, it is knowledge.

As many have been destroyed by the reasoning of the Godless, a great many have also been destroyed by faith in a “God”. What the two have in common, however, is materialism. For the as the Godless have based their ideology upon the physical world, those religions responsible for the murder of countless individuals did the same by establishing their faith in the physical realm. For although they professed to be spiritual, in practice their deeds were physical, aimed at fulfilling worldly ambitions. This is as true of the Church of Rome it is of Islam today.

Although the evangelical Christian may preach about hell, the Islamic fanatic believes it his duty to expedite your arrival as soon and as horrifically as possible. The faith of the former is in the spiritual; he awaits a kingdom, and judgment is carried out by God alone in his time. On the other hand, the latter acts in the place of God, to execute judgment and establish a physical kingdom of “God” on earth. The pursuit of an earthy kingdom was the ambition also of Roman Catholicism, of both the Nazis and Communists, and it is also the vision of “progressive” elitists today.

Thus, religions that base their actions on the establishment of a kingdom in the physical realm have more in common with communists, fascists, and other secular collectivists who seek to do the same, than they do with those who base their faith on an everlasting omnipotent Creator, who has endowed men with a free will and inalienable rights!

Reason alone did not bring freedom, it did not create rights, nor did it bring justice; it has always done the opposite. For reason never travels alone; it is always accompanied by ideology. And reason is to be a servant of faith, a helper to bring invisible principles into the knowledge of a physical world as a constant foundation. For, if we are to avoid catastrophe, we must balance faith with reason, reason with faith, but the redeeming virtue of reason comes from faith.

RAS – 2007

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

What is Christianity? Where did it originate? Is there a difference between Christianity, The Church, and the true “Body of Christ”?

The first believers in Yeshua, today more commonly known as Jesus, were called “Followers of the Way”; and they were Jews living in Judea. In other nations, variations of the Babylonian religion of the sun god had for centuries become established as the foundation of belief. It was upon the foundation of Babylonian religion that virtually all nations and people would build their beliefs and systems. In different cultures and among different peoples and nations, this ancient religion would evolve, mutating into various versions, adding, subtracting, and interjecting different ideas, often substituting different names for the same deities, idols, and gods. In Rome up until the time Christianity became the official state religion, “Sol Invictus Mithras” — “The Unconquered Sun Mithra” was worshiped. This religion disappears around the 4th Century A.D. Is this time frame coincidental? Or, did the practice of idolatry even disappear? Contrary to common belief, Rome did not convert to Christianity. It would be more correct to say it was Christianity that was converted into being Roman. By incorporation of the Gospel with existing beliefs and practices, Roman idolatry was given a face lift, maybe more like a face transplant. Thousands of Christians whose Christianity was at odds with Rome’s version were put to death by Constantine. Was that very Christian? This would become the rule for hundreds of years to follow.

It was a brilliant plan by Satan to incorporate the truth of Yeshua into his lie. It would become the lie whereby Christianity would become characterized for hundreds of years, even until today. But Satan made one fatal mistake. By incorporating some truth into his idolatrous Babylonian religion, he provided for its demise. Indeed, for there is something within the truth that is so powerful, it fights to restore itself to the fullness of truth. Even in the midst of lies, truth cries aloud to be heard and to come out. There are those who hear truth’s voice for it tugs at their hearts and they cannot escape its pull. Truth draws these people continually unto the fullness thereof. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, truth is restored. This is how we have come to arrive where we are today. And the restoration of Truth is not finished. The Truth was spread around the whole world within a lie and has been fighting its way out of that lie ever since — often at the price of the lives of those who dared declare it. No, the restorationists were not perfect, but they were moved by the Spirit, and those who would follow after would bring truth, each one, little by little, closer to home. As it was foretold by the prophet Joel:

Tell ye your children of it,
And let your children tell their children,
And their children another generation.

That which the palmer-worm hath left hath the locust eaten; And that which the locust hath left hath the canker-worm eaten; And that which the canker-worm hath left hath the caterpillar eaten.

Awake, ye drunkards, and weep,
And wail, all ye drinkers of wine,
Because of the sweet wine,
For it is cut off from your mouth.

But in chapter 2, Joel proclaims the restoration of the truth.

“And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, The canker-worm, and the caterpillar, and the palmer-worm. . .”

The Bible is a Jewish book, both parts. It must be restored and understood in its Jewish context if it is to be understood by anyone. There are over 40,000 different Christian denominations and sects. What has not been corrupted or devoured, all or in part, by 40,000 armies of palmer-worms, locust, canker-worms, and caterpillars? Doctrines left in tact by one have been perverted by another. Yet, even within those institutions there have been those who came to know Him through faith in Him, in spite of many false doctrines — to whom He says, “Come out from among them my people. . . “

Read Full Post »

The dominion belongs to reality, however, for the time being, reality seems to be largely absent. There is a manipulation of information on such an immense scale today that most people now live in a pseudo-reality. As more and more people adopt a false reality, the perception of it as truth becomes greater, and others are also persuaded to accept a false reality as reality.

Finally, when a delusion gains enough momentum, those who do not subscribe to it are intimidated, ridiculed, and given derogatory labels by the true believers of pseudo-reality, so that by their sheer numbers the true-believers cause even many clear thinkers to begin questioning themselves.

At that point becomes possible that for a finite period of time, pseudo-reality can work with the same power and affect as reality itself by the control of perceptions. If enough people are convinced that markets are going up they invest in the markets and they do indeed go up, even if there is no physical foundation for it. However, this manipulation of reality will not be sustainable.

For although a pseudo-reality can bring forth a seemingly positive effect, that effect is doomed, having no foundation in reality. More often than not, however, a pseudo-reality is likely to have a negative result, bringing a destructive end to what otherwise could have been a positive outcome.

“I believe it and therefore it is,”
This seems to be the philosophy of the elitist media, those who regard them, and also many of those in high places of power today. They believe that if they can control perceptions by the manipulation of information, that they can in turn control the world and create or manipulate reality. This is a folly of catastrophic proportions that has put the world on a collision course with the truth. When reality inevitably collides with false perceptions the end result shall be the devastation of that which is not. Reality always comes back to claim its domain.

Read Full Post »

‘Victims? Don’t be melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever?’ – Orson Wells as Harry Lime speaking to Joseph Cotton’s character in Carol Reed’s Classic Thriller “The Third Man” (1949).

The conversation takes place high atop a Ferris wheel in post WWII Vienna when Harry Lime is confronted by an old friend who has sought him out only to uncover Lime’s evil scheme to sell tainted penicillin on the black market. Lime points out the people moving about down below – ‘You see those little dots down there? – And if one of those dots were to stop moving, what would you care, really?’

It is metaphoric, being atop the Farris wheel represents the elitist mindset of those who see themselves as far above the masses of common people – those below are but little dots; they all stop moving at some point in time, but even so, there will always still be plenty more. They are so numerous, so dispensable and indistinguishable that their lives are insignificant, when one passes there is already another to take their place. Crimes against them are impersonal, for these little “dots” (people) looked down upon from far above are inconsequential in the whole scheme of things.

Such is the mind-set of the elitists both presently and down through history. The prize and the agenda is greater than the lives of the individuals involved – For it is often that rulers and governments sacrifice their people if they perceive gain, they are but fodder in their eyes – but how it is even more often that they sacrifice other nation’s people as both an end and a means to achieve their goals.

Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Nazi Germany, Russia, Communist China – where does the list start – where does it stop? – The New World Order, global courts, international law, a multi-lateral multi-cultural global society after the order of the Roman fasces.

A most riveting historical account of this elitist mind-set is chronicled in a recent article by Gil White entitled THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH
SELF-DEFENSE: Part 4 – The responsibility of the mainstream (Labor Zionist) Israeli leaders during the Shoah (‘Holocaust’)

In their time these were the elitists atop the Ferris wheel, so without conscience, being unaffected by the mass murder taking place in Europe – Even more so considering that steps were averted without regard which would have prevented future mass exterminations.

This mind-set works today, it is the collectivist mindset of elitists who pragmatically calculate possible outcomes, giving greater weight to desired circumstances than any value placed on an individual life, or two, or three, or four, or a hundred, a thousand…..or possibly twenty million – How many are too many? – In The Book, One.

In the elitist mind practicality takes precedence over conscience for the agenda is superior to the very lives of those who are recruited to serve it.

Although George Orwell’s book Animal Farm was written as a satirical analogy of Soviet Communism, it also bears out a repetition which takes place commonly in societies that come to power and plays itself out repeatedly, if only in different scenarios.

The historical record is that reactions of unbridled human nature to specific circumstances form consistent patterns. These repetitive cycles which take place in human society are well expressed in Animal Farm metaphorically. This is why they who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it, for the innate nature of mankind is subject to temptations of absolute power.

As in the past, this cycle is taking place today wherever corruption in government is overthrowing the remaining bastions of self rule, the only difference is in the details, and often when there is a clash of powers it is not good verses evil but evil challenging another evil, for it all comes down to a struggle for power between elitists. The powers work but the people regard them not until it is too obvious and too late.

World events in times past were the result of aspirations for power. Often human lives were weighed against desired outcomes and the sacrifice was made, sometimes setting in motion a counter force willing to make an equal or greater sacrifice to stop it. Moreover, it will happen again.

The moral bankruptcy of powerful elitists is that they view the end goal above all, higher than any morality or immorality of actions or events which need occur to bring it about.

As it was then, so it is now, the elitist world powers are currently weighing our lives and our world against a perceived world they imagine to create, and we are without much weight in their minds.

Read Full Post »

There are basically four groups of thought regarding the advent of a New World Order. We will call them, the skeptics, the anti-globalist left, the anti-globalist right, and the internationalist.

The first group are the skeptics who believe that the New World Order exists chiefly as an imaginative idea embraced by paranoid conspiracy theorists, or else it is an unrealistic ambition that is not attainable anytime soon due to the many obstacles and complex divisions of the world’s cultures.

The remaining three groups do believe that the world is converging into a global society, however, they differ on their perspectives of it. The first of these three groups are the anti-globalizationist on the left who believe that there is a conspiracy consisting mostly of powerful right-wing elitist who are bigoted, racist, and predominately white. These greedy white elitists who are obsessed with gaining more wealth and power reside for the greater part in the United States and fall into the fascist category having embraced a vision akin to Hitler‘s. Furthermore, they are seen as preying upon the ignorance and bigotry of conservatives and fundamentalist Christians in order to build a power base wherewith they can take control of society and further their imperialistic global agenda through U.S. power.

The next group of believers is a counter group to the former. Many adherents are conservative and religious. They also believe that there is a movement towards a one world controlled society which they attribute to secular progressive socialism. For the religious people in this group, a part of the foundation for their belief is derived from scriptures which depict a totalitarian global society in the last days united against God and his people. This world government determines to force all the inhabitants of world to submit to international law and sets its face against Christianity and Israel.

Others are convinced of a movement towards a socialist one world society simply by current tends, the weakening of nation-states in favor of international consensus, social and economic globalization, relaxation of borders, and the growing reliance on the United Nations along with recent movement towards an authoritative global judicial system.

Interestingly enough, groups on the left and right opposing the New World Order see each other as behind the move towards it, even as they both cite many of the same sources and point to the same evidence and events to substantiate their belief that a movement exists. They even go as far as acknowledging many of the same proponents who are pushing for a new world order, but they relegate them to each other’s side. There also exists a fringe in both groups that ascribe to the belief that there is a sublime Zionist plot involving Jewish internationalist which are the master-minds of behind this global conspiracy – This in light of the fact that the preponderance of individuals who advocate a world federation of nations are not Jewish, some are anti-Semitic, and most are anti-Israel.

In the last group are the cosmopolitans, internationalist who believe in the emergence of a global society, embrace the vision of it and facilitate its establishment. Many of those who fit into the anti-globalization left category fit into this group also, for their hostility to globalization is not an objection to a one world government, but to the shape and consistency of such a government. Generally speaking, leftist who oppose globalization do support international law but hate global capitalism. The answer to globalization in their view is world socialism fashioned upon Marxist philosophies. Thus leftist will support internationalism if it meets their specifications.

Who is right?

Is there truly a conspiracy for a one world order? If so, is who is behind it, and is it viable?

It is my belief that there does exist a movement towards internationalization. It is not a conspiracy in the traditional sense per se but rather a course of natural developments brought on in large part by BIG BUSINESS and global financial institutions who hold international interests.

For while the idea of a new world order may conjure up images of Hitlarian individual with political power who takes over the world by military force, what actually has happened is national interests are merging into common international interests.

Because the assets and financial interests of Giant corporations and banks are spread around the globe they have an agenda to protect and as much as possible continue to grow them. What we are seeing then is the globalization of economics and shared resources creating the necessity for control and harmony that can only be achieved by a universal governing system. And a universal governing system demands a degree of conformity among those who are governed.

Politicians in order to obtain power require the backing of these financial giants if they are to be viable candidates. They must be willing to service the financial institutions and international agenda in exchange for support. Therefore, not only have corporations merged with other corporations, but corporations have merged with politicians who will do their bidding in exchange for power. For this reason many of the higher up politicians share the same globalist agenda as international corporations, for through their collective power they imagine to practice social engineering on a global scale.

I often cite HG Wells who perceived this development taking place and said that world socialism was inevitable due to modernization of communications and transportation, which would dissolve national borders.

It’s the economy stupid!!!!!! Big business benefits by an international consumer base, societies have more goods at lower prices, but there is a trade off in that it changes the world we live into a global society which will lead to monopolies not only in commerce but in politics.

A globalsociety would not necessarily be bad if it was a just a free society that regarded individual rights, but because there will exist a monopoly of power it will over time become tyrannical. In his inaugural lecture at Cambridge University, Professor Lord Acton declared, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The corruption of United Nations should be an indication of how the consolidation of power at the international level will work. If it is as bad as it is with limited powers, what would such a body do with unlimited power?

There is no room in this New World Order for Israel as a Jewish Nation or for American unilateralism or American patriotism or for free independent states.

Government consolidation of power works just like in economics where powerful corporations consolidate and merge to increase power, eliminate the competition and create a monopoly. The only difference is that instead of it being for money it is for power – although money and power are close relatives which overlap.

Why would it work differently? Why, when it happens, do people shrug it off as just “conspiracy theory”? The term “conspiracy” is used purposely with a connotation implying paranoia or delusion in order to discredit the notion.

Whether in business or politics, consolidation of power is a natural evolution of the stronger devouring the weaker, due in part to man’s flawed nature which introduces greed and unrestrained desire into the equation – Why would it take place in business but not in politics?

Today because of the power of high technologies and communications consolidation and control can take place on a larger scale and micro-management is possible to a greater degree than any time in history. Humanity today is in a place where it can realize not only the greatest benefits but the greatest oppression in history all depending on how the consolidation of power is used.

The historical trend is that gradually over time when the consolidation of power becomes great enough, those with that power use it to overcome the competition either by assimilation or elimination. Why then should it seem unreasonable that so many like minded people and organizations could eventually gain control and weed out opposition, not only in economics but in the higher levels of government? Without some separation of powers and nations corruption is destined to become universal and that is the threat we all face.

Read Full Post »

Do powerful elitists control finance, media, and to a great extent politics – and do they have an agenda for an authoritarian global society? Furthermore, do they conspire together, manipulate information and shape policies to achieve this?

Government consolidation of power works just like economics where powerful corporations merge to become more powerful and eliminate the competition to create a monopoly. The difference is that instead of it being for money it is for power – although money and power are close relatives.

Why would it work differently? Why, when it happens, do people shrug it off as just “conspiracy theory”?

It is a natural evolution of the stronger devouring the weaker, due in part to man’s flawed nature which introduces greed and unrestrained desire into the equation – Why would it take place in business but not in politics?
Today because of the power of high technologies and communications consolidation and control can take place on a larger scale and micro-management is possible to a greater degree than any time in history.

Gradually over time when the consolidation of powers become great enough, those with power use it to overcome the competition either by assimilation or elimination. Why then should it seem surprising that so many like minded people and organizations could eventually gain control and weed out opposition, not only in economics but in the higher levels of government?

For while it is true that in free societies you can vote, when the consolidation of power reaches the levels it has presently, all of the viable candidates are ones supported to some extent by those in the upper echelons, being that they possess the resources necessary to make a run for office. Thus, with few exceptions, you choose your candidate, but only from a pre-chosen field.

The process that leads to a monopoly of power has taken place in media, government, and finance, separately and together as a group, and so they work together to increase and maintain their power. Again, it is merely the natural course of power, it has been and will be as long as the world exists. I don’t know if “conspiracy” is the best term for it, especially since it is a term used purposely with a connotation implying paranoia or delusion to discredit.

However, I am so convinced that this is taking place in the world that any ridicule I would suffer for espousing it would have minimal or no effect. I have studied and followed it too long for it to be otherwise.

It seems so elementary, but for some reason people see what they wish to see and disregard the rest.

Read Full Post »

Gay rights activist argue that homosexuality is normal because it is natural; they declare it an orientation which some people are born with. On the other hand however, many of their opponents will argue that homosexuality is an immoral behavior arrived at by choice and not at all as an inherited genetic characterization. Thus, the proponents of these two opposing views attempt to strengthen their positions for or against the behavior by making the determination of whether this type of behavior is a natural orientation acquired at birth or not.

The assumption is that if one is born homosexual then it is natural, and being natural it should not be criticized, condemned, or considered anything but normal for certain individuals. On this basis proponents for normalization of homosexuality often argue that some individuals are born gay and equate that with being born of a minority race or having other inherited attributes which are not chosen by the individual at conception.

The idea is that homosexuality is natural orientation determined before birth and therefore it is normal – And why should anyone suffer for the way they were created?

The counter argument to this is that homosexuality, is unlike race or a physical characteristic for it is not a genetic attribute but a chosen behavior.

There has even been genetic research into this in an attempt to determine whether or not behaviors are geneticly influenced and to what extent physical chemistry effects behavioral tendencies, for genetics generally deals with the physical chemistry of individuals rather than emotions or behavior.

Physically speaking, it may be observed that some men do appear more masculine while other men may have more of an effeminate look. These appearances however, are not necessarily indicative of sexual orientation, for it should be noted that homosexuality is indeed a behavior practiced by various types of individuals – And it may also be observed that some men with softer features are heterosexual and possess no desire to be anything otherwise.

But regardless of whether some individuals are born with certain natural tendencies or if they are developed afterwards over time, does a predisposition to act upon a natural impulse in either case come without a choice to take action or to refuse that inclination?

The ability we humans have as individuals is to weigh actions and control behavior regardless of what our natural impulses may compel us to do. Otherwise, if we were not free moral agents we would have no laws governing behavior but act only upon instinct as do animals in the wild which have no laws or enforcers of law.

Thus, being that we have the ability to manage and control urges and tendencies, it is moot whether they originate at birth or are acquired – although behaviors are likely a combination of inherited natural tendencies strengthened by accepted influential development later on.

If such is the case, we are all born with various tendencies but we make conscientious choices as we develop our personal character which either augment or diminish those natural impulses.

What this would mean is that regardless of the tendencies we are born with, we have the ability to chose our behavior. Some behaviors would be more natural for some people to acquire or supress than for others who possess different natural dispositions; it may be more difficult for some people to be patient or control anger while for others it would come more naturally.

Regardless, because behaviors are controlled the true issue is over what behaviors produce positive effects and which ones produce negative ones, for not all natural tendencies are constructive. Furthermore, tendencies are not justified alone on the basis of their being natural. Prisons are full of people who followed their nature there.

Each of us have tendencies to which we are predisposed by nature, however, unlike animals we can determine how, when, or if these impulses are obeyed or not, for we are managers of our nature. Some natural impulses may have positive effects and while others, depending upon circumstances, may be amoral, constructive, or destructive, depending upon how they are managed in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, some tendencies are only destructive by nature and regardless of how prone we are to them they need to be suppressed and controlled.

I would not suggest that all adverse tendencies be punished by law other than those which physically assault or harm another, usually without the others consent (i.e.: murder, theft, etc.)

However, to normalize some tendencies merely by virtue of them coming naturally will do no more than create a modern civilization of the most elite and sophisticated savages the world has ever seen.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »