Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Beware the Fascist Atheocracy of the Left (3.08.12)

In the words of Schuon, the devil is "the humanized personification -- humanized on contact with man -- of the subversive aspect of the centrifugal existential power; not the personification of this power in so far as its mission is positively to manifest Divine Possibility." In other words, the absolute, insofar as it deploys itself in time and space (which it does "inevitably"), radiates from a cosmic center to the periphery, somewhat like a series of concentric circles with God at the center. God's energies are like radii emanating from the center outward, while the different concentric circles are the various levels of being, or the cosmic hierarchy.

Therefore, although everything is ultimately God, not everything is equally God. The idea that everything is equally God leads to pantheism, which is an indiscriminate flatland philosophy no more sophisticated than bonehead atheism. It is logically equivalent to saying everything is not God. Or one might simply say "everything," and therefore "nothing" -- it doesn't matter, or mind, for that matter. In any event, nothing is that simple, let alone everything, let further alone the Divine Nothing-Everything at the center of it all.

Now ultimately, everything "is God" in some sense, but God is not the sum total of everything. Things vary in their proximity to God. Furthermore, there is movement toward God. We call this "evolution," but we should probably come up with a different term -- perhaps Adam & Evolution -- so as to not confuse it with mere natural selection, which reduces the transcosmic fact of evolution to a random and mechanical process.

But it goes without saying to anyone with common sense and uncommon vision that the greater cannot be derived from the lesser, and that there is presently no plausible theory whatsoever that can account for the miracle of the human subject, which represents a miniature "cosmic center" within the whirling microcosmos of man.

And like the cosmic center of which it is a mirror, the individual center has a natural tendency to radiate outward and lose itself in the playful phenomena of its own creation, or the form of its own sensibility, as Kant would have it. However, in its properly balanced way, this radiation leads to further centration, not dissipation. For example, when we love what is beautiful, we identify the soul's "within" by locating it in the without, which has effect of strengthening our central being. Conversely, if we love that which is ugly or "know" what is false, this has the effect of diminishing our center -- which, at the same time, necessarily pulls us further from God, the cosmic center.

The periphery must be -- i.e., there must be things that are more or less distant from God -- but this does not mean that they need be evil. Nevertheless, as Schuon implies, the divine radiation results in "cosmic interstices," so to speak, where evil enters the picture. This is where the soul cancers arise and take root. It is one of the inevitable even though unsanctioned possibilities of the Divine radiation, somewhat like an existential blood clot.

The cosmos is permeated with arteries that carry "oxidized" energies away from God and veins through which creation returns to its source. Only human beings may partake of this circulatory system in a conscious way, and become co-partners in the divine plan. It's an offer we can and do refuse, although no one in their right mind would do so. On the one hand, creation is already "perfect," being that it is a metaphysically necessary and unnarcissary objectification of God. Nevertheless, by virtue of not being God, it cannot be perfect, but can only "become" perfect through man's conscious participation.

Or let us say that perfection is only a possibility because it is woven into the very warp and woof of creation. If it weren't, we wouldn't even have the word. Nor would we have the words for truth and beauty if they were not coursing through the arteries of existence as divine possibilities. Truth is either "invented" or it is "discovered." If invented, then it is not true. If discovered, then it is of God -- or at least underwritten by God, the Absolute.

Now, today we find ourselves in a struggle of truly cosmic proportions between forces representing the human personification of the centrifugal existential power -- which is a very real, even if derivative and parasitic, power -- and those representing the center (or evolutionary return to the center). It's funny where one can pick up important ideas, but a couple of days ago I heard a promo for the new Dennis Miller radio program. In reference to the weather hysteria of Al Gore, Miller said words to the effect of, "hey, I'm not worried about the earth -- I'm worried about the world."

Exactly. The earth is simply an object deposited somewhere roughly in the middle of the arc of creation. The human world, on the other hand, is very near the top -- or at least the bottom of the top. If you imagine that the earth is a fragile and delicate thing but the world is not, then you are quite naive. In particular, the world of the West -- the wonderful world created by Judeo-Christian principles -- is without question the most rare and precious thing in all of creation, since it represents the apex of the possibility of the cosmic return to God. In a sense, it is even more precious than individuals -- who are intrinsically infinitely precious -- since it is the only guarantor that the individual may actually discover his unique idiom and become himself, thereby being an individual reflection of the cosmic center.

Let's be honest -- this is why it would suck to have to endure the horror of being born in most any other time or place. Given the choice, would you want to be born a Saudi? A "Palestinian?" A feudal serf? An Argentinian? A Cuban? Lost most anywhere in the continent of Africa? Why? What would be the point? In most times and places, there has been no way for you to do anything but remain frozen in your little cosmic rut with no options.

Now, the cosmic-political battle in which we are engaged is ultimately between forces who deny hierarchy and those who affirm it; and those who intoxicatedly ride the centrifugal waves to the periphery, vs. those who soberly partake of the centripetal return. Importantly, those who deny hierarchy do so -- either consciously or unconsciously -- with the intention of replacing the natural hierarchy with their own illegitimate one. This is where all the false absolutes of the left enter the picture and set up shop (remember those cosmic interstices alluded to above). Left alone they become cancers, which means that, as they grow in strength and intensity, they actually begin to take on a gravitational attraction of their own.

You might even say that they become an alternative cosmic center that sets itself against the real one. It arrests progress -- the cosmic return -- by pulling both the innocent and guilty into its dark principality. It's methods are moral relativism, multiculturalism, and "critical theory," or deconstruction; its defender and guarantor is the coercion of political correctness rather than the "lure" of Truth; and its goal is the reversal of the cosmic order, the instantiation of the Fall, the obliteration of the vertical, and the exaltation (and therefore bestialization) of man, thus sealing his spiritual fate and ending the possibility of divine co-creation and theosis, or God-realization.

It is appropriate that these cosmic tyrants are called "Democrats," for democracy is a system of information flow that can lead to the higher or to the lower. In fact, it will inevitably lead to the lower if we do not acknowledge at the outset that there is a higher toward which democracy must orient itself. In other words, in the absence of hierarchy, demo-cracy will become exactly what the word implies, which is to say, tyranny of the horizontalized masses, or demo-crazies.

This is why the ads for Air America can insist that they are the "real majority," a bizarre statement on its face unless one understands that this is the leftist substitute for truth. Or as Jim Morrison sang, The old get old / And the young get stronger / May take a week / And it may take longer / They got the guns / But we got the numbers / Gonna win, yeah / We're takin over / Come on!

Who's taking over? In point of fact, the crazies of the left are half correct, in that we are ultimately faced with the choice between democracy and theocracy. The American founders, in their infinite wisdom, chose theocracy, in the sense that the only legitimate purpose of democracy could be to preserve and protect the spiritual freedom of the theocentric individual. In short, they created a theocracy that would be mediated not from the top down -- which is never a real theocracy, but manarchy -- through thousands and now millions of godlings, or "divine centers." But a democracy mediated by mere animal-men will sooner or later lead to the Reign of the Beast.

In the specific sense we are using the word, theocracy is "the only guarantee of a realistic liberty" (Schuon). Otherwise, the centrifugal riptide in which secular man stands soon leads to the following ideas: that "truth amounts to the belief of the majority," and therefore, that the majority for all intents and purposes creates the truth, which is one of the explicit assumptions of the left -- i.e., "perception is reality." Under such bersercumstances, authority cannot appeal to truth, but "lives at the mercy of the electors," which in the end degrades them by patronizing them. Schuon adds that this doesn't mean democracy is impossible, but that "it is primarily a question of... an inwardly aristocratic and theocratic democracy" as envisioned by the Founders. In short, an exterior democracy of interior aristocrats, noble cats, & centrippin'al coons.

The adage vox populi vox Dei has no meaning except in a religious framework which confers a function of “medium” on the crowds; they then express themselves not by thought but by intuition and under the influence of Heaven..., so that the feeling of the majority coincides in any case with what may be called “the good".... --F. Schuon

78 Comments:

Anonymous georged said...

America is supposed to be a nation of kings and priests -- a peculiar people. But the left abhors this. They want us to be a nation of slaves and serfs.

3/28/2007 07:52:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Funny, was thinking along the same lines this'morn, Bob. About how we're supposed to have separation of church and state, but not God and state. Church meaning the fellowship of believers and its particular hierarchy; and God referring to a personal, internal relationship with God, which is as Jesus might say, "Having the light within you." Its not individualism; which is the exaltation of the individual to God which amounts instead to lowering our conception of God into the material or at very highest, the mind (reason.) Instead it is

'A nation of individuals, made by individuals, for individuals.

Under God, and for His Purpose, indivisible as He alone is.

Liberty being the guarantor; All men being created equal under God and endowed with inalienable rights:

the right -
to be heard,
to assemble,
to publish works,
to his own self-defense,
to have privacy,
to not be forced to relinquish his own property, and if so not without due recourse,
to Justice, which equality under God implies,
to be heard and have his case put before justice,
to have the right as much as any to shape the common laws of the land,
to have the Liberty to seek God in his own way, no matter how imperfect,
to have the right to assemble religiously,
to be judged by his merit, his needs, his capacity, or to live among those who would do none of the following,
to his own community, his own family, his own ideas, and his own property and livelihood,
to have the chance to serve his country,
and in his turn, each man's liberty is not license; it is limited by his duty towards others to not step afoul of their natural rights, for criminality is foremost an infringement on God-given liberty.
and we assert that the law exists to serve man and not the other way around, and so the law must in its turn however molded to the needs of our people, still respect man's natural rights.
and Law and man both serve God, as God himself once served us; for He alone is Good, True and Beautiful.'

3/28/2007 08:22:00 AM  
Blogger juliec said...

"...the law exists to serve man and not the other way around,..."

How many people, these days, understand the distinction?

3/28/2007 08:26:00 AM  
Anonymous dilys said...

As to

'moral relativism, multiculturalism, and "critical theory," or deconstruction; [and] the coercion of political correctness rather than the "lure" of Truth,'

David Warren writes on Jean Baudrillard as an 'anti-postmodern postmodernist' who exposed some of the mechanisms for cultivating alternatives to truth.

Seems to boil down to striking poses ("theory"), in preference to immediacy and accuracy.

Probably also applies to law ("critical studies" theory) and jurisprudence as well. There are safeguards of standing, relevance, and adversarial anti-conspiratorial testing built into Anglo-American law and founding documents, scheduled to go poof with the schemes to introduce Principles of International Law. Our legal system, though people love to bitch about lawyers, is at least 51% geared to practicality, resolution, and truth, rather than the exercise of raw power. A generous ratio, as contrasted to the alternatives.

3/28/2007 08:41:00 AM  
Anonymous dennis miller said...

Hey, call me, 1-866-509-RANT (7268) from 10 am to 2 pm Pacific Time. I need somwe smart people on the show.

3/28/2007 08:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Philomathean said...

In the recently published collection of essays Why I Turned Right, Heather MacDonald has a great piece on the Yale deconstructionist Paul de Man. It's incredible that the gibberish peddled by de Man could be taken seriously by anyone, let alone America's intellectual elite. Like they say, a fish rots from the head down.

3/28/2007 09:00:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

I'm going to try to skype that number...

3/28/2007 09:06:00 AM  
Anonymous greybeard said...

Bob today poses the question:

"Given the choice, would you want to be born a Saudi? A "Palestinian?" A feudal serf? An Argentinian? A Cuban? Lost most anywhere in the continent of Africa? Why? What would be the point?"

Superficially, of cours, one would not want to be born into a restrictive culture. However, if the doctrine of reincarnation is true, then the question has a different answer.

Some say the soul chooses its place and time of birth with specific goals in mind.

A soul might choose to be born into Africa, for example, to experience that culture and its limitations and peculiar "flavors"--sort of the way you would visit an African restaurant to try the food and soak in the ethnic decor.

For the Palestinian incarnation, the same. Maybe to experience being a suicide bomber, for instance. That would be an odd and "collectible" experience, so to speak, if only in the negative sense.

So, the "point," to answer Bob, would be to collect experiences as soul lessons.

The old soul accretes thousand (millions?) of these and becomes ever more complete. Plus, the record of all lives in uploaded into God's permanant library, the Akashic Records.

Bob seems to urge a rush back to the center, but I ask rhetorically is that really what God wants? Perhaps a slower, meandering, more colorful return to the center is what He has in mind.

3/28/2007 09:07:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Greybeard,

So the purpose of life is to keep banging our collective heads against the wall? The political lessons have already been learned and have been handed to us on a silver platter.
Some people are capable of learning from their mistakes.

3/28/2007 09:30:00 AM  
Anonymous debass said...

Most of the founding fathers were against democracy. That is why this is a republic with a democratic form of government. Democracy is mob rule. The tyranny of the majority. The left wants to move toward democracy which will lead to socialism which always goes to totalitarianism.
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Believing in the Creator is not a religion. Passing a law that everyone must be Catholic or Jewish, etc. is unconstitutional.
It also doesn't say that a state can't do it unless it's against their state constitution.
Thanks for letting me take my pet peeve for a walk.

3/28/2007 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

My only pet peeve with that notion is the lack of distinction between 'church' (organized established, religion) and God, (religion of any kind as it pertains to the individual.)

It is prohibited that the government shall be 'one' with a particular 'church' (establish a state religion) but it is not and never has been prohibited for the state to work with religious organizations, nor can it be imagined that working for the government makes one have to be utterly non-religious even if only in the public sense. Our predecessors were not, and nor should we be.

3/28/2007 09:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a gravitational attraction"

Odd. The same idea popped into my head while I was out walking yesterday. There are themes, ideas, stories that posses a sort of gravity, that draw you to them, that won't let you forget,or ignore them. They hit you below the belt of consciousness.
Like Genesis.
Like the Gospels.
Like the take on Genesis and the Gospels, and Life, the Universe, and Everything that I find from Bob and those who post here. (Well, most of those anyway)
A long time ago I posted this notion in a squabble with some troll or other- six thousand and some odd years ago, God made a covenant with a stiff-necked and unruly people, and chose them out to carry his word into the world. That Word was the seed that eventually grew into Western Civilization, the Judaeo-Christian world you so aptly described today. We are the inheritors of that covenent. We must also be its defenders.

JWM

3/28/2007 09:42:00 AM  
Anonymous dennis miller said...

River, did you think I was sending you to a live porn business? Oh ye of little faith.

3/28/2007 09:57:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Haha, live porn! No, I know what that looks like already, not afraid of that...

Just, kind of, work... hah! Whatta bizness.

3/28/2007 10:04:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

man, the internet radio wants Windoze Media 11... which requires a restart of my work lappy. Work lappy not happy about it...

But whatcha gonna do.

3/28/2007 10:08:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Debass
“There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution”

Yes! Thank you! This is an all too common misrepresenting of a very accessible fact. People have heard it so many times they take it as fact. Thanks for bringing it up. I was about to..
RR

3/28/2007 10:15:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Dr Bob said,
“The periphery must be -- i.e., there must be things that are more or less distant from God -- but this does not mean that they need be evil.”

I might add, Evil in so much as in the direction you are facing. Why face toward evil? – just turn around and walk toward good – I mean God.

If you have the wrong map (facing the wrong way), I don’t care how hard you try you won’t get to where you should be going. Standing still would be better than to keep walking in that direction. Not much better…
Well, you see where I’m going with this.
If you’re facing toward evil – in that general direction – doesn’t matter how evil, it’s the wrong direction. Doesn’t matter how distant you are from the evil, as Bob says in a sense, that’s just a matter of distance…and there’s no denying that you’re still on the axis that goes from zero evil to big Evil. Turn around and get on the zero good to God axis and start walking.
Or rather start running.
RR

3/28/2007 10:22:00 AM  
Blogger juliec said...

Greybeard,
I think you focus too much on the idea of reincarnation. I don't know whether we truly reincarnate or not, and the truth is virtually nobody living, if they are being honest, can say as a certainty that we do.

Frankly, I think it is irrelevant.

Whatever may happen in a future or past life is not given to us to know. The only life of which we can be certain is the one we are living right now. This is the only one in which we can act, and because of that it is our duty to make the best of it that we can.

Positing for a moment that reincarnation is true and does happen, why do you think we are not allowed to retain those past lives? After all, wouldn't we be able to make a better go of this one if we had a thousand years of mistakes to have learned from?

It seems to me that putting your hopes in reincarnation makes life more like a video game - you'll die in this one, maybe make some major errors, but no big deal, right? You get a do-over, as many as you want.
This type of mindset leads inevitably to the fatalistic mindset of many Eastern cultures. It devalues life, and ultimately I think leads away from O.

Look at it this way - how much do you procrastinate?
How much more would you procrastinate if you knew that you literally had all the time in the world?

3/28/2007 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

And slack is so much more precious, Julie, in this respect.

3/28/2007 10:47:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Dennis: What's the topic? I can't seem to (looks to be) get live radio from all the way over here.

3/28/2007 10:48:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

JulieC - Excellent take on reincarnation, IMO. If we absolutely knew it were true, it would change everything - and not for the better. I've never heard / read a good reason for the notion. it devalues the here and now and what we do with it - which is of the highest value.

wv: qhlfnbba (who's callin' me bubba?)

3/28/2007 10:54:00 AM  
Anonymous dennis miller said...

dennismillerradio.com

3/28/2007 11:03:00 AM  
Anonymous joan of argghh! said...

The apostle Paul said, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."

I think he's talking about Good and Evil, but talking about it in the most grown-up terms: you belong to the One, so consider your path and let the Center pull you along. "He leadeth me in paths of righteousness..."

Paul's not speaking of libertine freedoms, he speaking of mature, sober consideration of one's true nature, and how one should therefore see their actions. Good and evil are then defined according to the One Good, not by capricious do's and don'ts.

So many still stumble on the idea of "sin" without giving day-to-day thought to their ultimate direction and path. To continually mis-remember the path is to ultimately find oneself almost too far beyond the pull of the Center. That's a Bad Place To Be.

3/28/2007 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger juliec said...

River, you may have to hit the forward button on the Dennis Miller live player; when I first went to the page it didn't play automatically. I clicked it once and got The Factor, but clicking it again brought it up to today's Dennis Miller.

3/28/2007 11:10:00 AM  
Anonymous cosanostradamus said...

"Now, the cosmic-political battle in which we are engaged is ultimately between forces who deny hierarchy and those who affirm it; and those who intoxicatedly ride the centrifugal waves to the periphery, vs. those who soberly partake of the centripetal return."

The results in picture form: Blake, The Last Judgment".

JWM - What you said, exactly. Nice to see you - any luck on non-anon postings yet?

3/28/2007 11:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

I was talking to Blakey the other day, and frankly, he and I are both a little surprised when anyone understands what we're talking about.

3/28/2007 11:28:00 AM  
Blogger Smoov said...

The Founders were deeply influenced by John Locke, who was among the clearest Enlightenment thinkers. In Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration" of 1689 he is far ahead of his time in advocating tolerance of a wide range of religions and creeds.

With one exception.

Everyone should be tolerated in society except the atheist:

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.

3/28/2007 11:41:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Julie - Can't find that player. The only one I can seem to get to is the KRLA one which is only playing Prager right now...

3/28/2007 11:41:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Nomo said,
“JulieC - Excellent take on reincarnation, IMO.”

I second that...excellent, JulieC.
RR

3/28/2007 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger juliec said...

River - try this link.

3/28/2007 11:48:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Dennis…

Is that really you?
...or Joan again pulling another fast one...

RR

3/28/2007 11:50:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Hmm... ok. I found the right site. It takes a lot of search terms to get it...

3/28/2007 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Aquila said...

Smoov,

Interestingly enough, being an atheist will also get one barred from membership in that most Classical Liberal of institutions, Freemasonry. The only real "religious" requirement in The Brotherhood is belief in a Supreme Being, whether it be the Trinity, JHVH, Allah, Brahma, or the Deist God.

3/28/2007 11:56:00 AM  
Blogger Smoov said...

Aquila,

Imagine life in modern-day America if atheism was publicly given the same degree of respect as we give racism (i.e., none). So very much corruption would be avoided.

In Canada--where I spend 1/2 my time--it is far, far worse. Canada is what you would get if the Democratic Party formed a country. A godless, barran culture which must import life from elsewhere under the rotten rubric of multiculturism (lot's of stretch limos in Toronto, though, and they all love Algore).

3/28/2007 12:23:00 PM  
Blogger MizzE said...

Beware of bridge builders in league with the elites of a shaky democracy.

Is Israel seeking to replicate their Islamic neighbors?

3/28/2007 12:29:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

"...those who soberly partake of the centripetal return."

Bob - I love this. Made me think of something else you might consider adding to your header:

"gravitasational actnowledgement"

Cosa - The Blake is truly awesome -like much of Dore's work (e.g. White Rose).

3/28/2007 12:47:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Check this out...

www.indoctrinate-u.com

wv: pdewdewv (ahh, been waitin' for this one)

3/28/2007 12:53:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

by the way, I think that was really Dennis (as that is the real number and time for his show) or one of his ops. Listening to the show, and its pretty good. I have to disagree with Tom Friedman on this one, but I think he's too caught up in the liberal echo chamber, and has to retro-actively patch up all of the faulty spots his hyper-liberal buddies make. So, I don't necessarily blame him offhand, but I think he's giving too much credit to this global warming nonsense. Damnit, Tom, you know better than that, I'd hope.

3/28/2007 01:24:00 PM  
Anonymous dilys said...

Greybeard gets the Sunday-School quote of the day award

I ask rhetorically is that really what God wants?

The Orthodox' Bridegroom liturgies for Holy Week don’t, to say the least, encourage the casual approach.

Behold the Bridegroom comes in the middle of the night.
Blessed is the servant He shall find awake.
But he who is found negligent shall be judged unworthy.
Be careful, my soul, and fall not into a deep sleep...


Though to be fair, in the story the premium is on alertness, not speed. Makes sense to me, we're all in an overdetermined rush, then get distracted. Even without reincarnation.

And for JMW and cosanostradamus,  more Leonard Cohen
“There’s hell to pay/
When the fiddler stops."
Closing Time, the best pop song ever about Judgment Day.

Incidentally, did Dennis Miller just ask me to call him sometime? (the number’s right). Sorry, my custom is, he’s gotta call me first. I didn’t run a school for The Rules for nothin'...

3/28/2007 01:33:00 PM  
Anonymous walt said...

Bob wrote, "If we love that which is ugly or 'know' what is false, this has the effect of diminishing our center -- which, at the same time, necessarily pulls us further from God."

While I suspect he was speaking broadly, I think this statement is also true of so much in our daily living i.e. in the little details.

Once again, we are encouraged to "choose wisely."

3/28/2007 01:42:00 PM  
Anonymous dennis miller said...

Ricky,

It's me pulling a slow one.

Dilys,

You didn't give me a number, so call and give me a contact, I won't tell. ;)

3/28/2007 02:07:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Riv said:
“I have to disagree with Tom Friedman..”

Same here, Riv. I listened to it for about 15 minutes and my BS detector kept going off. I’ve heard good things about Mr Friedman so I’ll cut some slack on this subject.
He was making a point about the efficient trains GE is building compared to the somewhat cheaper, but more costly to run Chinese trains…but I can’t believe he (the economist) thought the Govt environmetal standards/control forcing GE to do it was proof that the control was good or should take the credit for it. It’s capitalism that’s responsible for the success of the GE trains and efficiency…
GE should have been smart enough to realize that developing a more efficient train to run would be a bigger seller...without the Govt forcing them to do for some other unrelated reason.

But I love Dennis Miller...
Thought I should add that.
RR

3/28/2007 02:48:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Dennis,
I’d like you to prove it’s you.
Be creative. Something only you and I would know.
RR

3/28/2007 02:53:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

RE Friedman’s interview on global warming and his claim that 98% of the scientists are on board that it’s happening and man made, I might have to say there’s a good chance that the 98% are wrong.

He should check out these wonderful articles and speeches given by Michael Crichton.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

Here’s one of my favs:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html


One other point about what he said, I distinctly remember him saying the word ‘feel’. Something to the effect of ‘Listen Dennis, I really feel that…’.

‘Feel’ has to be my BS detector’s favorite word. Spots a person feeling instead of when they should be thinking every time. Usually spots a manipulating lefty trying to pass themselves off as a righty.

I’m not giving up on the guy; I just think he’s wrong on this one subject.
RR

3/28/2007 03:13:00 PM  
Anonymous cosanostradamus said...

OK, somebody's got to stop all these great links - Miller, Indoctrinate-u, Crichton, etc. I can't get any work done today!

3/28/2007 04:06:00 PM  
Anonymous debass said...

Consensus is not science. It doesn't matter how many people agree if the facts don't support the hypothesis. From what I have read, an increase in CO2 may be caused by the earth warming from increased solar activity and not the cause of global warming. Most of the warming occurred before 1940 and the surface temp. of the earth, according to satellite data, has not increased since 1998. Also, how do you explain the increase in temp. of the other planets without considering the effects of the sun?
Poor Algore is doing what he can though. It looks like he hasn't exhaled for quite some time.
btw-the word "democracy" does not appear in the Declaration of Independece, the Constitution or the Pledge of Allegiance.

3/28/2007 04:26:00 PM  
Blogger juliec said...

Debass,
the other thing that gets me about the whole global warming/ climate change debate is the question of why exactly it's a problem. The climate is not now nor has it ever been static, whether in the short term or the long term. Personally, I'll take a warming trend over an impending ice age, but either way the more rational approach would be to determine how best to prepare for the inevitable changes.

What nobody considers is that stopping climate change is about as plausible (and wise) as reversing the rotation of the earth (like in Superman). Assuming for a moment that it could even be done, the actual effects would not be a reversal of time to some preferable point, but instead would be utterly catastrophic.

3/28/2007 05:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Jacob Churosh said...

Petey: You resemble that quote about Quantum Physics. Those who are not shocked when they first hear it explained cannot possibly have understood it... whereas, those who DO understand are zapped with a big old lightning bolt of (?!).

Aquila: Why am I not surprised that it was in FRANCE that disputes first arose about whether it was wrong to exclude atheists from Masonry? Although they did have a point - from what I can discern, atheism is as rigid a belief system as one could ask for. (In the meantime, I wonder if it's significant that I was felt drawn to the Masons even before I felt drawn back to the Church...)

3/28/2007 05:18:00 PM  
Anonymous debass said...

juliec,

Then there is the law of unintended consequences. The mindset of these people that think they can change the climate on the earth simply amazes me.

3/28/2007 05:18:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

I listened to the Dennis Miller show today also. He's pretty good with the irreverant humor, had a few good laughs. I also like how he compared the two Newsweak magazines, one, recently reporting on global warming and one from the 70's reporting on the impending global cooling and how they were opposite mirror images.
The 70's cure was to melt the polar icecaps(well?), todays cure is carbon taxes and spreading reflective confetti strips in outerspace to block the sun's rays........morons!

3/28/2007 05:29:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

>>"Now, the cosmic-political battle in which we are engaged is ultimately between forces who deny hierarchy and those who affirm it; and those who intoxicatedly ride the centrifugal waves to the periphery, vs. those who soberly partake of the centripetal return."<<

Excellent description Bob.
Our free choice consists of which master to serve in each present moment.

3/28/2007 05:50:00 PM  
Blogger juliec said...

As to unintended consequences, the disturbing thing about all of this to me is that many of the changes (Kyoto, anyone?) that they propose to force on us for the purpose of stopping climate change will not only, in all likelihood, be relatively ineffective, there's a good chance that serious harm may result.

For instance, a couple years ago everyone was excited about fuel cell cars, whose only emissions would be water. Now I'm no PhD., but let's pretend for a minute that everyone was driving a fuel cell car, which creates water by combining hydrogen and oxygen. What's the biggest greenhouse gas by volume? Water. So if we all started adding water vapor to the atmosphere, in the same amounts we are currently adding carbon compounds, doesn't it stand to reason the increased water vapor will have an effect? I never heard anyone from the science community bring up that little detail.

3/28/2007 05:51:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Julie said:
“The climate is not now nor has it ever been static”

Yes. To think we can or should make it static is ridiculous. I think even the environiacs would agree that at best we could only slow things down. Which, as you say, would be catastrophic.

You also say:
“…rational approach would be to determine how best to prepare for the inevitable changes”

I think this change will be so slow that we will inevitably adapt with it without even breaking a sweat.

The more efficient trains GE developed reflect an important message. Take the environics thinking to its logical (make that illogical) conclusion - they think people should have a smaller and smaller ‘footprint’, I suppose, until we have no longer any footprint at all. As if we have no right to be here. I can’t accept that that is what God thinks. Rather I think he wants us to be efficient, in a sense – to not be wasteful. Just don’t use more than you need.

3/28/2007 06:05:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Debass said:
“btw-the word "democracy" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Pledge of Allegiance”.

I haven’t read these in a few days. Are you sure it hasn’t been penciled-in while we were busy working?
…remember those crafty pigs in Animal Farm.

3/28/2007 06:16:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

greybeard said "Some say the soul chooses its place and time of birth with specific goals in mind."

Some do say that. Some say it's all a matter of fate, so don't bother to do anything that's not easy, do fight the system.

Actually what I think they say is "If Ala(peanutbutter-sandwichs)h wills it, it will be." What that got them was back to a state camel driving nomadic savagery, unable to rise above it without being parasites on the West.

Not a lot to recommend it, at least not in my eyes.

3/28/2007 07:25:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

joan of argghh! said... it all very well.

3/28/2007 07:28:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Speaking of the Fascist Atheocracy of the Left, I know Ricky C & Juliec have, but if you haven't seen USS Bens post today, take a gander - comments too.

It's a goodun.

3/28/2007 07:31:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Smoov quoted Locke "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist."

So true, and what the Founders knew to be true, including the one Founder every athiest attempts to recast, Jefferson. The thought of centuries was well packed into Jefferson's brain, but few had more influence on his thought than John Locke.

What they knew, which is too far above our modern flat earthers, is that without a strong grasp of and commitment to the Vertical, there can be no honor, no commitment, no realization, grasp of, or adherence to Goodness, Truth and Beauty. And without that, no civility nor "the blessings of liberty" (for an example, see the recent doings in Portland that Ben posted on).

3/28/2007 07:43:00 PM  
Blogger juliec said...

Actually Van, I hadn't been there yet today. Thanks for the heads up!

3/28/2007 08:58:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

doh! Meant Mizze... too much rhyming.

wv:xakwryh - exactly my point

3/28/2007 09:15:00 PM  
Anonymous bluebeard's wife said...

I don't know whether we truly reincarnate or not, and the truth is virtually nobody living, if they are being honest, can say as a certainty that we do

It almost sounds like words I ... A(heard) B(believed) C(was force-fed) D(understood without gnoing why) about (God) (Faith) (Belief) (Ego, if you're a young soul {jung sold})! And it was just last lifetime...or was it two lifetimes ago...
I lose track, they all seem to run together, if you're working with a direct drive turntable rather than the belt-driven model.

Thank you juliec, nomo, rr, for spilling the garbage pail for this coon. It's a smorgasbord, and the juicy tidbits are heeereeeee!!!

3/28/2007 09:21:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

JulieC - Very cool pic you have there today...but where's the lamb?

I've got the best wv today:

gaaagm (fitting, what a hairball!)

3/28/2007 09:28:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Whoa! Bluebeard's wife channeling princessspirit! Beware the ides of March! Beware!

3/28/2007 09:31:00 PM  
Anonymous bluebeard's wife said...

Beware! Nomo's ego channelling nomo's past lives...

...Uh...is anybody home?

...Check...is the mic on?

...hello...?

....hell...?

3/28/2007 09:40:00 PM  
Anonymous princesspirit said...

Huh?

3/28/2007 09:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Dennis Miller said...

Nomo:

Feck it till you mech it.

3/28/2007 09:49:00 PM  
Anonymous nomo miller said...

That was not Dennis Miller.

3/28/2007 09:51:00 PM  
Anonymous greybeard said...

Well, I agree with what raccoons have said about the doctrine of reincarnation:

1. It is unknowable for the living.

2. It is deleterious to the gravity (seriousness) given to this life to believe in reincarnation.

3. Reincarnation is immaterial. A cup of the river Lethe is given to each soul, making the point moot. Each life might as well be a solitary go for all we remember.

Still: my prophet (who I will not name) maintains that a return to God is an assured matter for all men collectively and each soul individually.

Victory is assured, and I believe this.

Therefore, the only question left for old Greybeard is: what shall be the rate of his personal return? Shall he by yoga speed back to the Source? Or shall he remain blinded and deluded in the manifestation for longer (by turning away from the yoga) and so meander back to the Source? How to know which is desired?

Of course, one must ask the Source directly in prayer.

Now Bob is interested in the rate of the group return to God--you can tell because he preaches against or for blocs of peoples--and he wants the fastest possible rate. So I ask Bob: have you consulted the Source directly on this explicit question?

"Lord, do you desire our speedy return back to you? Do you want me to act on this desire?"

If yes, preach away. Disregard old Greybeard. You are on the right track.

3/28/2007 10:10:00 PM  
Anonymous cosanostradamus said...

"It is deleterious to the gravity," said Borat, refusing a second helping of reincarcake, again.

Q: "What shall be the rate of his personal return?"

A: Anything under 5.5% should be rotated out of one's cosmic portfolio at the end of each quarter.

Rhetorical Q: If reincarnation is unknowable, deleterious (I have to keep saying that word, it's so cool), immaterial, and moot, why waste time spinning your wheels?

A: Could you repeat the question? Could you repeat the question? Could you repeat the question?

3/28/2007 11:04:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Nice rationalization Greybeard. Still a little licentiousness left to explore?

you said:
"Now Bob is interested in the rate of the group return to God--you can tell because he preaches against or for blocs of peoples--and he wants the fastest possible rate."

I think Bob and others may just want to cut down on the suffering imposed in the world by leftists. He is not preaching for or against blocs of peoples but for or against certain IDEOLOGIES.

He also has stated countless times that spiritual advancement can't be rushed but that it can be assisted by a willing participant. And that certain political/cultural environments are more condusive to that advancement.

So feel free to "intoxicatedly ride the centrifugal waves to the periphery". This life, next life, ten thousand lives from now, what's to worry?
Though it is possible to enjoy existence and still "soberly partake of the centripetal return", the enjoyment partakes of a certain wholesome innocence which some people see as mundane.

What does your conscience tell you?

3/28/2007 11:06:00 PM  
Blogger Big Possum said...

It is appropriate that these cosmic tyrants are called "Democrats," for democracy is a system of information flow that can lead to the higher or to the lower. In fact, it will inevitably lead to the lower if we do not acknowledge at the outset that there is a higher toward which democracy must orient itself. In other words, in the absence of hierarchy, demo-cracy will become exactly what the word implies, which is to say, tyranny of the horizontalized masses, or demo-crazies.

AND

Who's taking over? In point of fact, the crazies of the left are half correct, in that we are ultimately faced with the choice between democracy and theocracy. The American founders, in their infinite wisdom, chose theocracy, in the sense that the only legitimate purpose of democracy could be to preserve and protect the spiritual freedom of the theocentric individual. In short, they created a theocracy that would be mediated not from the top down -- which is never a real theocracy, but manarchy -- through thousands and now millions of godlings, or "divine centers." But a democracy mediated by mere animal-men will sooner or later lead to the Reign of the Beast.



Everything you say is true.....all pointing to the phenomenom of the "tyranny of the majority". Interestingly, the dangers you warn about are the same as second-tier (consciousness) Muslim scholars have warned and written about for years, and explain a lot about their hesitations about democracy. The problem they face is that most muslims are not of a consciousness to grasp the concept of rule from a divine center expressed through millions of "godlings".....as you say. To the contrary, the collective consciousness of that world cannot interpret the absolute truth of theocracy as any thing other than odedience to the Quran. So, when they hear their enlightened scholars express hesitancy re democracy, and insist on theocracy as the only way, they process it to say that the world must bow to Allah only, an interpretation coming from the same level as those who think everything would be right with the world if the U.S. Constitution was simply replicated throughout. "God realization" is a foreign concept to both groups, and so why one group is correct in insisting upon democracy and the other is correct in insiting upon theocracy, the consciousness at which the arguments are taking place sees these as mutually exclusive. Ergo, first-tier clash of civilizations who can actually come into alignment re their main sticking points if only a critical mass on both sides would wake the f up.

"Embedded" in many muslims' protests of democracy is an aversion to the reign of the same beast you and Petey have just called out.

3/29/2007 03:32:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Bob said:
"Truth is either "invented" or it is "discovered." If invented, then it is not true. If discovered, then it is of God -- or at least underwritten by God, the Absolute."

Primo post Bob!

3/29/2007 03:57:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Bob said:
"Otherwise, the centrifugal riptide in which secular man stands soon leads to the following ideas: that "truth amounts to the belief of the majority," and therefore, that the majority for all intents and purposes creates the truth, which is one of the explicit assumptions of the left -- i.e., "perception is reality."

Especially when the majority bases it's "truth" on the deceptive reporting of the lame stream
me-dios.

3/29/2007 04:09:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

GrInteBeard said ..."Now Bob is interested in the rate of the group return to God--you can tell because he preaches against or for blocs of peoples--"

You expose yourself in so many ways. Don't you feel a draft?

3/29/2007 05:39:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Big Possum noted "In other words, in the absence of hierarchy, demo-cracy will become exactly what the word implies, which is to say, tyranny of the horizontalized masses, or demo-crazies.", and said "Everything you say is true.....all pointing to the phenomenom of the "tyranny of the majority". "

In essentials I think it's less a tyranny of the majority, than a result of the Flattened. Taking root in the beginning of the 20th century, the progressives finally succeeded in their biggest inroad, the destruction of our Republican Government. They did so after decades of chatter about "democratic" values (Values the Founders, who had read history, knew to amount to Vice), they succeeded in passing the 17th amendment to have the senate elected by the people, rather than by elected legislators.

This succeeded in reducing the states to silly little podunk assemblies of little or no worth to national politics. It removed them from the hierarchy and tossed them upon the side table - flat as a board. It also took the chief elevating peg of our hierarchical form of Republican Government - the Senate was the Founders gem, a deliberative body, elected by the state legislators, those who being selected from the people as being the most able to govern, selected and elected the best that THEY could see to be the rational mind, the governor on the machine of government, keeping it to a steady and thoughtful pace. It was to be free of the constant politicking of campaigning for election, and free of being directly answerable to the passions of the people.

The Senate nowadays, with all its high-level responsibilities for reasoned action in regards to judges, etc, is nothing but congressmen with longer terms, subject to the pandering and appeasing necessary to those who must please the public perceptions all the time.

What we are left with is a slightly stalled democracy. But still that piece of paper, the constitution persists in thwarting the flattener’s ultimate goal of mob rule, or more to their purposes, demagogic rule.

Argh! I'm late... gotta run.

3/29/2007 06:06:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Possum; the only reason I can see for not replicating the U.S. constitution is the soil in which it must grow. But to Esoterize the Exoteric:

"Embedded" in many muslims' protests of democracy is an aversion to the reign of the same beast you and Petey have just called out.

Is incorrect, in my view. Whether or not their aversion is quote-un-quote embedded in their protest, by which is meant it is embedded in the mind of the scholar whose unfortunately chosen words sparked that protest and NOT in the collectivist adherents, it matters most that they are propagating something that is completely counter to it.

If you dig deep enough you may find it "embedded" in all things; for if God & Eternity are written in our hearts. But don't take a deeper knowledge to a priori assume a deeper knowledge in another who speaks the words which to you have deeper meaning. It doesn't make them insincere in their belief, but it also does not make them spiritually aware, either.

There are Christians who can quote the Bible all day sincerely, and still not get half of what they are saying. (But such is true in some regards for all of us.)

3/29/2007 06:15:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

PS - Muslim Scholars are wont to make 'Pious Exaggerations' - something Schoun has to discuss when he discusses Islam - which is a very unfortunate tendency if not just today, in general, because the Muslim masses seem to have a collective, radical reaction to these things.

Which makes great sense of the phrase: "Those who know, do not say, and those who say, do not know."

In such an environment, this phrase is not just a clue for seekers, but a piece of vital advice for any intellect.

3/29/2007 06:27:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Interesting points Van.
I too have been very concerned about the low quality and lack of depth shown by members of the Senate. It seems people will elect Senators who display the appropriate number of "currently popular trend factors", particularly in blue states. Wise individuals who are able to discern the unintended consquences of their decisions and govern accordingly are definitely not in the current trend.

3/29/2007 08:36:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home