Evolution is the way that some evaluate everything, but is this the right srtategy for "human flourishing? That is really the question, when one assumes that the "natural" describes everything...as in "wholism" or historicism. The difficulty in thinking in "wholistic" terms, is the problem of "thinking", itself, because "wholism" isn't logical, because everything is interdependent. That becomes a problem for liberty of conscience, because strategy is imperative to "measure success". "Thinking" is only for those who are the elites, others are to "trust and obey" and "do their duty".
Wholism is Eastern thinking, as paradox is embraced, it is dialetical thinking, where a synthesis of opposites creates a supposedly "better" outcome. It is Marxist economics in "human form", or "humans" heralding "Marxist" economical theory or equality. It is the "use" of the "poor" for the sake of "eltie"s "outcomes" and plans...
There is a philosophical dilemma between an "elite" and a "equal" society. This isn't resolvable, if one really wants to affirm the individual, as the individual must determine his own course for his life. But, when some "elite" determines (or strategically plans) how goals are to be accomplished, "the people" aren't enjoined. Theirs is the "right" of serving the interests of "the common good", for universal purposes and human evolution, both personal and corporate.. Egalitarianism is an "ideal", but not practical, as "leadership" is needed if any "goal or outcome" is to be accomplished! Therefore, choose your leaders wisely, as you will suffer the consequences!
The problem is "who is to be the leader" and how do those leaders "see" or understand "elite" and "equal"? Do they believe in liberty of conscience, where individuals are allowed the right to choose, or do they believe in a pre-determining "force" or "wholistic agenda" driven by ignoring those they lead? That is of interest "to all people" who believe and affirm "equality and justice"....as group identity will not lead us in the right direction, as it doesn't leave room for dissent, free thought, or difference....the globe cannot give us any universal..And those that believe in "wholism" are just "selling a bill of good" to those they want to manipulate toward what they believe is "human progress", and human development......Terms need to be defined, if there is to be any "consensus" about meaning.....and meaning is everything in living in a free society!!
Showing posts with label Marxism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marxism. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
In Light of Facism.....
In light of my other posts on Facism, I started thinking about how groups define themselves. Distinction makes for significance, importance, value, or some other defining characteristic. This is especially necessary when there has been a humiliation of some kind. Many scholars think that Hitler's rise to power was because of the German humiliation in WWI. Individual's within the group choose to associate with a particular group because of its value to them. I think this is how Relgions have developed by their group identifications and answers to the "Big Questions". The answers to these questions are assimulated into their personal views, values and understanding. And it makes them find significance before "Someone" that is not grounded in reality, as theirs is a lack of political power. But, it is no less true of political ideologies, as in Hitler's Germany.
Facism is an authoritarian governance based on such identification, and those in power control the resources of those within their group. All religious cults define and act in such ways, too. Early Christianity assimulated mystery cultish thinking and understanding; "sanctifying" the pagan to produce a "new Christian culture" that was maintained by the Church's theological commitments to these belief systems.
Facism seeks to identify its superiority in some way, usually with the nation-state and to prevent the moral decay of the nation. Such is what we see on the "Right" in their defense of the Christian Nation. But, it is no less true of theocratic governments such as the Taliban.
On the other side, is the left, who supports a redistribution of wealth and Marxist revolutionary ideology. While the Facists holds a "capitalistic veneer", Marxism is repulsed by the "elite". They want a level playing field. Some political scientists believe that Facism is the last resort of corporations to hold on 'to the ship", when corporatism is sinking. The compromise of private corporate power and government power is deadly for individual liberty.
The death of individual liberty is the point in Facism, as Fascists seek to allign socialism with corportatism. The collective hides behind a capitalistic facade. But, it is no less true of religious zealotry, such as the Taliban that seeks to allign the religous with political power.
I think the "Culture Wars" are about what America is to look like in the future. Is it going to be the defense of corporatism alligned with government power? Religious zealatry alligned with political power? or Socialsim alligned with political power? Instead of looking back and protecting the foundations of our society, we seek "a better way", which ends up underming what America has always stood for; individual liberty in his pursuit of Life and Happiness!
Facism is an authoritarian governance based on such identification, and those in power control the resources of those within their group. All religious cults define and act in such ways, too. Early Christianity assimulated mystery cultish thinking and understanding; "sanctifying" the pagan to produce a "new Christian culture" that was maintained by the Church's theological commitments to these belief systems.
Facism seeks to identify its superiority in some way, usually with the nation-state and to prevent the moral decay of the nation. Such is what we see on the "Right" in their defense of the Christian Nation. But, it is no less true of theocratic governments such as the Taliban.
On the other side, is the left, who supports a redistribution of wealth and Marxist revolutionary ideology. While the Facists holds a "capitalistic veneer", Marxism is repulsed by the "elite". They want a level playing field. Some political scientists believe that Facism is the last resort of corporations to hold on 'to the ship", when corporatism is sinking. The compromise of private corporate power and government power is deadly for individual liberty.
The death of individual liberty is the point in Facism, as Fascists seek to allign socialism with corportatism. The collective hides behind a capitalistic facade. But, it is no less true of religious zealotry, such as the Taliban that seeks to allign the religous with political power.
I think the "Culture Wars" are about what America is to look like in the future. Is it going to be the defense of corporatism alligned with government power? Religious zealatry alligned with political power? or Socialsim alligned with political power? Instead of looking back and protecting the foundations of our society, we seek "a better way", which ends up underming what America has always stood for; individual liberty in his pursuit of Life and Happiness!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Because the Masses Must Be Manipulated....
The "masses must be led", as there are many ways to frame our understandings and commitments in the world. Those that do not know this, but 'bite' on one way of thinking, or are not critical about their own "bias", are prone to be manipulated. Many have opposed such manipulation by leadership or by informing those that are so naive'. Sometimes advantages are gained because of conventional wisdom and there is no ulterior motive as to power, but other times, there is a desire to have power over the masses, so power can be expanded.
Martin Luther stood against the Catholic Church because the Church was using the teaching and belief of indulgences to gain power over those that didn't have any other recourse, as they couldn't even "worship" with understanding, because they were so dependent on the Magisterium. Church teaching was a way for the Church to maintain social order, but in Luther's eyes scripture was useful for educational purposes. The Church believed that they had a justified right over the masses because "God", had ultimate right over the masses. But, "God" ended up being really, the Magisterium.
The Roman Church also resisted change when it came to scientific discoveries that undermined Aritotle's view of "First Cause" as "God". The view that the Church was the center of the universe (the right interpretor/authority), just as Man/Earth was the center of "God's purposes" was to continue to bias the masses. Science and religion became competitors for man's bias.
Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators led the "masses" down their primrose path because they held the reigns of power over information in the press. Propaganda was useful to propetiate the "right message" so that the Germans would think their purposes were above and higher than other purposes. Propaganda was accepted because there was no other way of thinking or judging about "the outsider". Information/education was only allowed within a certain 'context".And these believe that the State, or the Dictator is to determine man's bias.
Marxist ideology believes that the purposes of economic equality can only be furthered with religion's assent. Religion is the opiate of the people, and it is needed after the revolution that creates and benefits the leaders's vision of equality or morality, at the expense of everyone else. Such is the case with class warfare, as it always ends in bloodshed. Vacumns are filled by dictators that create safety out of the chaos/revolution. These people want to use conventional wisdom to their advantage by "useful language" games. Theirs is an "Economic" bias.
Abraham Lincoln created an environment where the States warred for their right of economic benefit. He filled the vacumn by enlarging the centralized State at the expense of the state's right to succeed. Centralization is a bias toward "Statism".
Individual heroes have always stood up, resisted, or lived without such manipulations. But, it takes courage to face one's own bias, and strength to continue to resist opposing forces that want to manipulate bias toward a "mass understanding" or use "mass understanding" to manipulate and control "outcomes".
Our Founding Fathers knew that divided and separated power was needed to protect against such centralized thinking and being in the world, as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton). It is collective power that is not challenged that corrupts. Such have been the Nelson Mandelas, the Albert Einsteins, the Martin Luthers, the Martin Luther King, Jr.s, the Anne Franks, the Ayn Rands, the Alexander Solzhenitsyns these have discovered, resisted, stood up for, and made a difference against "collective thinking".
Martin Luther stood against the Catholic Church because the Church was using the teaching and belief of indulgences to gain power over those that didn't have any other recourse, as they couldn't even "worship" with understanding, because they were so dependent on the Magisterium. Church teaching was a way for the Church to maintain social order, but in Luther's eyes scripture was useful for educational purposes. The Church believed that they had a justified right over the masses because "God", had ultimate right over the masses. But, "God" ended up being really, the Magisterium.
The Roman Church also resisted change when it came to scientific discoveries that undermined Aritotle's view of "First Cause" as "God". The view that the Church was the center of the universe (the right interpretor/authority), just as Man/Earth was the center of "God's purposes" was to continue to bias the masses. Science and religion became competitors for man's bias.
Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators led the "masses" down their primrose path because they held the reigns of power over information in the press. Propaganda was useful to propetiate the "right message" so that the Germans would think their purposes were above and higher than other purposes. Propaganda was accepted because there was no other way of thinking or judging about "the outsider". Information/education was only allowed within a certain 'context".And these believe that the State, or the Dictator is to determine man's bias.
Marxist ideology believes that the purposes of economic equality can only be furthered with religion's assent. Religion is the opiate of the people, and it is needed after the revolution that creates and benefits the leaders's vision of equality or morality, at the expense of everyone else. Such is the case with class warfare, as it always ends in bloodshed. Vacumns are filled by dictators that create safety out of the chaos/revolution. These people want to use conventional wisdom to their advantage by "useful language" games. Theirs is an "Economic" bias.
Abraham Lincoln created an environment where the States warred for their right of economic benefit. He filled the vacumn by enlarging the centralized State at the expense of the state's right to succeed. Centralization is a bias toward "Statism".
Individual heroes have always stood up, resisted, or lived without such manipulations. But, it takes courage to face one's own bias, and strength to continue to resist opposing forces that want to manipulate bias toward a "mass understanding" or use "mass understanding" to manipulate and control "outcomes".
Our Founding Fathers knew that divided and separated power was needed to protect against such centralized thinking and being in the world, as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton). It is collective power that is not challenged that corrupts. Such have been the Nelson Mandelas, the Albert Einsteins, the Martin Luthers, the Martin Luther King, Jr.s, the Anne Franks, the Ayn Rands, the Alexander Solzhenitsyns these have discovered, resisted, stood up for, and made a difference against "collective thinking".
Monday, September 13, 2010
The Political Is the Real
Tonight Glenn Beck discussed "restoring" America. But, unlike some of his past programs, I disagreed as to how this is to come about. His was a vision of spiritual renewal, and commitment from citizens to re-align themselves.
While I do agree no one should try to control another in a free society, the only one they really have control over is themself, I do not agree that spiritualizing "self-governance", is imperative. Why would I say this?
Augustine was the one who transformed the Christian vision to the "other world". His "vision" was the world of the transcendent God, who prepared the "City of God". And this "world" was to give hope to those who'd been disappointed when Rome was destroyed. Hopefully, this will not be the case for America. And today, man himself is the point of question, as evolution has trumped special creation. The focus today is on "man", not God.
Many have tried to implement Marxist "class envy and warfare" into our public discourse, which has done nothing other than divide our nation over envious feelings about material gain. The purpose, I imagine is the "redistribution of wealth" so poverty is addressed. The issue of poverty is not what America has been about. America has understood herself as a land of opportunity and prosperity. A land where people could find their own "way of life". America's "hope" has been political freedom. But, now, our political freedom has brought about division not just over how money should be "handled" (by the individual or the government), but also how we should treat our enemies.
Those that have an idealistic view of man affirm "love", as the Christian/humanist mandate. Love is not the practical terminology or actual requirement of political action. Love is a personal term, while other terms such as duty, or responsibility fit more appropriately in the political realm.
The question that divides again is over what is our responsibility or duty as American citizens? Is our responsibility for the whole world, or is it for our nation? And then, is our responsibility over those in poverty, addictions, criminal behavior, or what? All of us cannot be concerned and focused on the same issues if our country and how the world's needs are to be met. This is why how one understands and commits is dependent on what one values most and why.
Is our responsibility for our nation, or for our families? or both? It has often been said that the nation is only as strong as its families. And this is true, I believe. Other matters that concern our nation are matters that will always divide our nation, even, "Christian" citizens. Is the political or real world policies not more important, than the transcendent? I believe so. Nothing impacts the child more than their family of origin, and this arena has also become politicized. It is no longer the parent who must raise their child, but the State. ( And yet, I know that there are those parents who will not do right by the child, in regards to giving the child the best opportunity to succeed. Should the State intervene? And how?)
I am weary of faith, culture, and politics, as I think it has been a useful tool in the hands of the empowered at the disadvantage/discrimination of the "Christian". Values have been defined for the "Christian" by others, so that these will fit their mold, opinion or value. So, being "human" is a more important value for/to me, than "being a Christian", as being 'human" recognizes that I have common needs, desires, and opinions, as any other person. Being a Christian, only means that there are others that define your life by their own standards and demand obedience to what they find is "ultimate".
I find the "ultimate" in our American culture, where individual liberty is valued and protected.
While I do agree no one should try to control another in a free society, the only one they really have control over is themself, I do not agree that spiritualizing "self-governance", is imperative. Why would I say this?
Augustine was the one who transformed the Christian vision to the "other world". His "vision" was the world of the transcendent God, who prepared the "City of God". And this "world" was to give hope to those who'd been disappointed when Rome was destroyed. Hopefully, this will not be the case for America. And today, man himself is the point of question, as evolution has trumped special creation. The focus today is on "man", not God.
Many have tried to implement Marxist "class envy and warfare" into our public discourse, which has done nothing other than divide our nation over envious feelings about material gain. The purpose, I imagine is the "redistribution of wealth" so poverty is addressed. The issue of poverty is not what America has been about. America has understood herself as a land of opportunity and prosperity. A land where people could find their own "way of life". America's "hope" has been political freedom. But, now, our political freedom has brought about division not just over how money should be "handled" (by the individual or the government), but also how we should treat our enemies.
Those that have an idealistic view of man affirm "love", as the Christian/humanist mandate. Love is not the practical terminology or actual requirement of political action. Love is a personal term, while other terms such as duty, or responsibility fit more appropriately in the political realm.
The question that divides again is over what is our responsibility or duty as American citizens? Is our responsibility for the whole world, or is it for our nation? And then, is our responsibility over those in poverty, addictions, criminal behavior, or what? All of us cannot be concerned and focused on the same issues if our country and how the world's needs are to be met. This is why how one understands and commits is dependent on what one values most and why.
Is our responsibility for our nation, or for our families? or both? It has often been said that the nation is only as strong as its families. And this is true, I believe. Other matters that concern our nation are matters that will always divide our nation, even, "Christian" citizens. Is the political or real world policies not more important, than the transcendent? I believe so. Nothing impacts the child more than their family of origin, and this arena has also become politicized. It is no longer the parent who must raise their child, but the State. ( And yet, I know that there are those parents who will not do right by the child, in regards to giving the child the best opportunity to succeed. Should the State intervene? And how?)
I am weary of faith, culture, and politics, as I think it has been a useful tool in the hands of the empowered at the disadvantage/discrimination of the "Christian". Values have been defined for the "Christian" by others, so that these will fit their mold, opinion or value. So, being "human" is a more important value for/to me, than "being a Christian", as being 'human" recognizes that I have common needs, desires, and opinions, as any other person. Being a Christian, only means that there are others that define your life by their own standards and demand obedience to what they find is "ultimate".
I find the "ultimate" in our American culture, where individual liberty is valued and protected.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Healthcare
Obama has taken to the road again today to take his healthcare plan to the nation. While it is admirable to inform the American people, he seems evasive in some of the details of his "program". Why is he being evasive, when he seems to be so passionately commited to this proposal? Why are we being "pushed", and Congress, as well to pass this huge "project" without haveing all the information? Anyone would think this is unwise.
Healthcare is a major source of our nation's competitive and "leading edge" in the world. Why? Because we can give the best healthcare because of the competition of doctor's and scientist's salaries. We believe that if someone works longer to go to school, works harder at his job, deserves more "reward" in monetary gain. This is what has 'fed" those who have gone into medicine. That is not to say there are many, even most, that go into medicine to serve their fellow man. But, with the costs of medical school, not just financially, but socially, and emotionally, one would find it hard to justify the government "fixing salaries" for the "common good".
It is supposed that when the elderly or "end of life" issues face the doctor, then there will be "support" to face the "reality of death". While support is definately needed to face the "end of life", will the doctor be faced with the stark reality of what is of "costs benefit". Won't this end up being the case? Life will be valued for its economy!
And yet, those who uphold the 'common good" say that "all people of the world" deserve quality of life, because "Evil American Imperialism" has preyed upon those less fortunate countries, because of corporate greed!
While America is not immune to "abuse of power", is it going to "fix" things worldwide to make all of humanity a commodity of "nature"? This is the result of globalism with evolutionary theory attached.
I don't know about you, but I fear for our future, while those in powerful positions "play" out the theories of Marx and Darwin, et al. Surely, there is a better way. But I just don't know what that is.
Healthcare is a major source of our nation's competitive and "leading edge" in the world. Why? Because we can give the best healthcare because of the competition of doctor's and scientist's salaries. We believe that if someone works longer to go to school, works harder at his job, deserves more "reward" in monetary gain. This is what has 'fed" those who have gone into medicine. That is not to say there are many, even most, that go into medicine to serve their fellow man. But, with the costs of medical school, not just financially, but socially, and emotionally, one would find it hard to justify the government "fixing salaries" for the "common good".
It is supposed that when the elderly or "end of life" issues face the doctor, then there will be "support" to face the "reality of death". While support is definately needed to face the "end of life", will the doctor be faced with the stark reality of what is of "costs benefit". Won't this end up being the case? Life will be valued for its economy!
And yet, those who uphold the 'common good" say that "all people of the world" deserve quality of life, because "Evil American Imperialism" has preyed upon those less fortunate countries, because of corporate greed!
While America is not immune to "abuse of power", is it going to "fix" things worldwide to make all of humanity a commodity of "nature"? This is the result of globalism with evolutionary theory attached.
I don't know about you, but I fear for our future, while those in powerful positions "play" out the theories of Marx and Darwin, et al. Surely, there is a better way. But I just don't know what that is.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics
Government is the first and most important aspect to address in our world today, not poverty. Government is about individuality and responsible behavior. Governments which inhibit the individual's life is limiting life and one of the primary values of our country is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some think that poverty should be alleviated by population control. So, whichever way one views "world problems" there are no easy solutions, nor is one problem easily solvable.
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics is what I should have entitled my last post on Ethics, Morality and Universalism. Please see my last post.
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics is what I should have entitled my last post on Ethics, Morality and Universalism. Please see my last post.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Next in Politics: A Back-Handed Marxism
Isn't it interesting that some in the media are trying to undermine the Republican nominee for VP.? Most of the media is known for its liberal bias, and, yet, they are condemning Palin for being a working mother....How will she have the time? Shouldn't she be "at home" with the kids? ETC.
Where are the "liberalized" women in the Democratic party that supports her "choice"? Or is the media holding her to a "standardized standard" of conservatism? Since she is a conservative, the reasoning goes, then certain behavior is expected. And I thought this was the land of the free and the home of the brave. The country is becoming more and more the land of the "politicized" and the home of the cowardly, as critical thinking is no more taught in our schools, nor allowed in our culture. Everything has to be "politically correct". This is pablum for the American people.
It is reported that the next attack on Palin will be to paint her a "trailor trash". Some are calling for a paternity test on her Down's Syndrome child. I thought that liberals were for class equality. I call foul. What about you?
Where are the "liberalized" women in the Democratic party that supports her "choice"? Or is the media holding her to a "standardized standard" of conservatism? Since she is a conservative, the reasoning goes, then certain behavior is expected. And I thought this was the land of the free and the home of the brave. The country is becoming more and more the land of the "politicized" and the home of the cowardly, as critical thinking is no more taught in our schools, nor allowed in our culture. Everything has to be "politically correct". This is pablum for the American people.
It is reported that the next attack on Palin will be to paint her a "trailor trash". Some are calling for a paternity test on her Down's Syndrome child. I thought that liberals were for class equality. I call foul. What about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
