It doesn't make any difference what side you choose the honor of a hand shake doesn't exist between the people and our so-fucking-called representatives Fuck both parties who are dual serpents who both speak with forked tongues for the same master. It ain't about the common welfare of this nation. They have become a collective organism which doesn't have a conscience who are not servants to the Constitution or the Americas working class (The "broken" backbone of America) Our so=fucking-called representatives are bowing down to the evil gods who perpetuate their existence with money for which they do not have to beg for but is doled out for favor and for those some gods of ill will may have their folly so "we" may become wage slaves to the same.
And furthermore "Ye and others false pride to the names "Republican - Democrat" for such stupid shit phrases like "Ye either stand for something or ye all fall for anything" hast led ye naive blind loyal asses off the proverbial cliff into oblivion. Neither party are working for the interest of American sovereignty as it relates to preservation and or sovereignty, independence and self sufficiency for America as thine "Great Experiment" has fallen prey to the devil they are working for a global elitist "class" whose agenda to level the playing fields and make the globe their utopia and have all who are not born of blue blood their servants and or "false-consciousness" (zombie) ye and me be their slaves thus "It would be a hell of a lot easier if I we dictator" remains true. So now that ye know that, "what ye don't know won't hurt you" is true and now that ye know what ye didn't and ye have now become enlightened that ye have been taking a royal up fucking of thine arse via thine incestuous government who art the royal kings who rule in their world of utopia, thine mind shall be in ever lasting hell till ye get the fuck off thine arse and do something about thine pitiful state. "Have a nice day" and don't let the doors of hell thine has just past through hit thine in the fiery ass on thine way out. Who the fuck was Buneto Mussolini and Karl Marx? http://www.answers.com/topic/false-consciousness Peace, Doc On Feb 13, 1:21 pm, Morpheal <[email protected]> wrote: > Morpheal’s Social Commentary: February 13th, 2009 - Beyond Darwin, and > A New Paradigm Protecting Freedom of Speech > > CHARLES DARWIN 200 YEARS LATER AND BEYOND: > > Charles Darwin's exceptional courage in giving formal systematic > expression to ideas that had been religiously and politically > suppressed, was a major step forward in scientific freedom, and a > major victory for the primacy of reason in comprehending the universe > and our own place within it. We owe a vast number of unrelated and > related developments to the formulation of Darwin's paradigm, which > brought understanding of life out of a dark ages that had largely > prevailed for more than two millennia. His courage also demonstrates > the extreme irrationality, anti scientific, conservative nature of > society, in terms of the rabid resistance that has occurred in > response to his systematic formulation, based on common sense > observation of life. In some circles he remains opposed and his > insight denied its true validity. That in itself warns us about the > obstacles to social, cultural and scientific evolution, indicating how > progress in true understanding can be so readily obstructed, delayed > for lengthy periods of time, thwarted in its formulation as principle > of knowledge, and irrationally and illogically opposed subsequent to > becoming a paradigm. Strangely enough the science of economics suffers > even more severely from a similar disease. > > We remain reluctant, fearful, of taking the next step, which > completely overcomes the discontinuity that is falsely being claimed > between inorganic and organic, non living and living things. We remain > unwilling to see a natural progress from properties of inorganic > matter, fundamental to the universe, to the very first indications of > what we are willing to concede as being life. Similarly we are even > more reluctant to accept that the ability to experience and learn is a > phenomenon that begins at the very beginning of the universe, at the > most fundamental quantum level of experience, where quanta of matter > already begin to interact in terms of what is already a rudimentary > intelligence. > > Charles Darwin was essentially only able to go a part of the way to > the ultimate destination that his formulation of the paradigm of > evolution points towards. > > Similar to resistance to Darwin’s ideas, today’s society, inclusive of > many of its scientists, is very commonly frightened of the idea that > the very first living thing had to be capable of experiencing and > learning so that intelligence could evolve in living things, as it has > proven itself to have evolved. The first cell had a “brain”. The > further logical necessity that the nucleus of a cell must be capable > of collecting data from experience and in some way passing it on, > along with the other instructions for building a replica of the > organism, continues to be opposed. Mutation of that blueprint could > never have been enough, in itself, to account for the development of > intelligence. Society still has problems with these concepts, and > still cling to a more mechanistic model, which does not stand up under > careful scrutiny. The conveyance of acquired intelligence, even in the > simplest forms of the most basic experiential data, must have a > quantum location within the blueprint, other than a purely genetic > code for replication. So we can be assured that much more is passed on > from generation to generation, with greater variability, than we > originally assumed, based on purely genetic observations. Portions of > society are more likely to accept irrational beliefs, such as > reincarnation, religious beliefs, and the paranormal, rather than a > rational, logical, answer to the pecular anomalies that do occur. > Anomalies being those facts of human experience that are not readily > or fully explainable, if at all, within current prevailing, accepted > ideas. > > Eventually we come to the concept that the material universe itself is > an experiencing and collecting of information from experience, and > that living organisms, despite their increasing complexity as they > evolve, are extensions of that universe that is itself a manifestation > of what we can begin to glimpse as the brain-mind of God. God being > understood as, in terms of our own comprehension, an infinite, > omnipresent, and omniscient supreme intelligence. There is no > necessary contradiction between freedom and chance in evolution, and > determinism. > > TRUE TEST FOR THE LIMITS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH: > > Peculiarly the debate about the limits of freedom of speech continues, > and most of the arguments around that subject are irrational, > supportive of irrational and illogical ideas, not the primacy of > reason. That in itself imperils, and opposes, freedom of speech. That > irony of the irrational attempting to overthrow freedom of speech, to > assert itself above and against it, is the fundamental problem that > leads to various forms of oppression that then frequently violates the > freedom of speech of those who seek the primacy of reason. The proper > and only true answer to that problem of totalitarianism, and various > forms of irrationality based extremisms, is the clear and universally > applicable formulation of a principle defining the proper limits of > freedom of speech. The constant argument that this cannot be done, is > a further reversion to irrationality endangering the very same freedom > it claims to attempt to protect. > > The truest test to determine the proper limits of freedom of speech is > whether the stated opinion is reasonably supported by any logical and > thus legitimate interpretation of whatever the known facts happen to > be. This includes the fact that those facts do change, relative to > cultural situatedness, as knowledge changes. It is not as much a test > of absolute truth, but rather it is a test of reasonableness within > the context of time and situation. A statement that can be shown to be > reasonably or logically untrue violates the limits of freedom of > speech. This still leaves a place for conjecture, and possibility, for > theorizing and supposing, but reasserts the role of reasonable > responsibility for those assertions. > > Where an opinion is found to be utterly baseless as to verifiable > facts it should never be stated as being a true statement. Where there > is a lack of sufficient basis in verifiable facts, sufficient such > that any person of average intelligence and education can discern the > possible truth or untruth of a statement, it would be wrongful to > promote that statement as being potentially true. That is unless we > can show that there are additional new provable facts that extend our > true knowledge. > > To truly preserve freedom of speech we must put aside all of our > irrational, purely belief based, suppositions and assumptions about > what is within and what is outside of the limits of freedom of speech. > (In philosophical terms we must become more “phenomenological”) > Instead the question must rely solely upon the faculty of reason, > stripped of what is irrational, unprovable, and known to be untrue. > This is a skill that needs to be taught from the earliest stages of > education, and promoted throughout all of education, if we are to > succeed. > > We know that the intelligence, experience and education of persons is > highly variable, and so is the rationality and truth of their sources > of information, so we must allow for errors of judgement and > statements contrary to best knowledge and best application of rational > reasoning. Nevetheless, even in the instance of a provably mistaken > statement, the reasonableness of what were taken as being the facts > for making that statement, must be taken into account if we are to > discern whether a statement is within the proper bounds for allowable > freedom of speech or not. The burden of supporting a questionable > statement with the facts that supported its being made, would rest > with the maker of the statement. And we must realize that education > must teach openness and the necessity for offering correction, in > terms of the presentation of true facts and logical argument, to those > who are provably in error. The reluctance to accept or to offer such > corrective must be erradicated from society, as one of its most > destructive illnesses. > > When we realize these truths about freedom of speech we realize that > many things are commonly and routinely being said, claiming freedom of > speech, that have absolutely no rational basis in verifiable facts, or > that have extremely little basis and where contrary statements have > far more support from verifiable facts. Those irrationalisms, as we > might call them, assert their truth value simply by their claim of > being “freedom of speech”. We must realize that they are in fact the > contrary and only destructive to true freedom of speech. Similarly we > find that many statements are repressed, or suppressed, that have a > great deal of support from verifiable facts, and that are very > reasonable, potentially being completely true, because the limits of > freedom of speech are being constrained by irrationality, not in terms > of logical reasoning. That too must be overcome, > in terms of the evolution of attitudes, and the betterment of common > thinking, in terms of the teaching of logical, rational, reasoning, > via betterment of education. > > Robert Morpheal --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
