Tuesday, June 16, 2015

The Morality of Truth & The Truth of Morality

Behavior is choice.  Only severe mental illness discredits this maxim.  Even life threatening circumstances do not remove the choice option. Some will argue a person in a coerced, life-threatening, circumstance lose their choice option. They do not. Throughout history, noble, valiant, and virtuous people intentionally chose death; to not betray their beliefs and morality. The option to exercise personal integrity, based upon a philosophical truth, remains - perpetually. Circumstances may imperil life and limb; but circumstance does not, cannot remove the choice variable.  Circumstances are historically used for excuse making and to intentionally alter the perceptions of others.

The circumstances of birth right define many aspects of life and the reality perceived or conveyed.  Race and sex are obvious, unchangeable, birth right aspects. However, some people persist in attempting to present an illusion of themselves.  They purposely adopt synthetic changes thinking this allows them to behave in ways antithetical to social mores and their sexual birth right.  The pretense of altered sexuality is dishonest and disingenuous. If a person acts to alter their morphology, and ingest hormones to suppress their body's natural metabolism; do not alter their sex. The practice merely presents an artifice. Similarly, a paralyzed man likely wants to walk, but the physical reality prevents it. No one may change their sex or their race. 

An artificial appearance is all a person may attempt. Creating a synthetic appearance is costly, fraught with risks, and symptomatic.  The late performer, Mike Jackson, sought to alter his physical appearance; and his race - due to a mental illness that moved him to despise his body and race.  What else explains the disfigurement he pursued?  Lightening his skin color came after several operations to remove, or lessen any black physical features. These changes destroyed his body and led to a premature death.  The psychological illness that drives someone to physically alter their body, believing they may  access some alternative reality, is considerable and popular!  

Mental illness sits at the heart of all these choices.  Irrespective of beliefs regarding mental disorders, or the ulterior objectives nefariously used to convey credibility and support of the delusion entertained - the components defining physical reality cannot be permanently rearranged.  Artifice is the extent of (reality) options available.  

The political calculus of Progressives during the 1960s removed support from a large number of voters. Progressives, needing more votes, chose to profit from confused and mentally ill citizens. They ignored the mental illness, set out to advocate the "choice" was legitimate, and, to infer the manifestations of the mental illness were irreconcilable... a "naturally" occurring condition... a birth right.  Progressives initiated an indoctrination program to force the public to confront, then embrace, the illness/disease and codify it using Progressive terminology and evaluation. Politically Correct conventions were then compiled to punish discouraging words, beliefs, and people.

What may be ascertained from this situation and the behaviors chosen by Progressives? The obvious conclusion infers Progressive political objectives preclude compassion and a traditional, rational therapy to treatment the mental illness. When Progressives ignore the mental condition and encourage the afflicted person to pursue actions that manifestly aggravate their abnormal condition, they expand the reality realm the afflicted must navigate to rationalize their observations and desires. Progressives proactively conspired to exacerbate an irresolvable mental conflict. The condition inherently inflicts confusion; further harming the mentally ill.

Some psychologists and philosophers argue reality is a fungible, or a capriciously chosen state.  They are disturbed minds who belong to a cadre of pseudo intellectuals with objectives to destroy the traditional, nominal reality conveyed by human senses.  Progressives seek to erect a modified (and unalterable) conceptional, conditional, reality to legitimize their chosen appetites, dependencies, and political objectives.  Personal gains in reputation and income, augment and align the political objectives in a comprehensive design.  The number and volume of personal choices, compounded and contrived to convey legitimacy, cannot mandate nor presume a subjective (secular) egalitarian reality. Choice derived from personal assessment - Ex. happiness; expresses an overt "State of Mind".  The State of Mind is a chosen, objective realm too.  State of Mind may exist irrespective, and in defiance, of physical facts, external pressures, and evidence. Lunatics, and mentally unstable opinions that desire absolute, unassailable control over society with unilateral dominion treat this subject differently. Progressive Democrats are the latter. They are compelled by abnormal appetites that separate them from traditional Americans that revere an absolute moral standard and self control.


The Progressive political calculus is a product of Marxist ideology. The core of the ideology preys upon the dispossessed personality. The dispossessed obsess over inequalities - presumed or real. Many people are lured to support Marxism due to their exaggerated assessed self worth, materialistic desires, and depreciated status within society. The product of their efforts fails to satisfy their desires. These conditions breeds greed and envy in this personality.  Anger and frustrations augment their emotional dissatisfaction. Marxism appeals to this faction's frustrations. 

Outcomes are the argument employed to gain support. When Marxists assert society or government, collectively collude to dispossess them; regardless of the efforts the dispossessed employed, dissatisfaction and frustrations mount.  These yield an inequality of outcomes the Marxist desires.  The Marxist sees an opportunity in the ignorance of the dispossessed. They gain an advantage when they act to absolve the dispossessed from personal responsibility and the unequal outcomes in their lives.  Inequality is fact of life. No two people can act to produce identical outcomes.  Suffering allegedly occurs when innate human traits and preferences, choice and behaviors, expose unequal abilities, efforts and outcomes. The Marxist absolution argument conveys a assessment that ignores, or discredits, the variances in human effort, ability, and determination.  The Marxist purposely aggravates people suffering from a delusion, or conviction, they are permanently, unfairly, dispossessed and oppressed. To promulgate their ideology, Marxists defined their dishonest objectives in an appeal specifically fashioned to capture the allegiance of the dispossessed: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

The phrase infers an equality of outcomes where compassion appropriately apprises and allots.  In reality, Communism, Socialism, and alternative names for the ideology, are draped over a consistent political outcome - 

Despotic Totalitarianism always produces lavish benefits for a select few, from the labors of many. 

Social conditions, historically, erode and degrade. When the Marxist promises fail to appear, a frantic and frustrated populations demand the promises fulfilled.  To quell revolt, the Marxist employs the traditional tools to control the population and assure their complicity.  The intellectuals are eliminated through murder or relocated to internment re-education work camps.  The promises of Marxism are impossible, even when the society shares religion, race, heritage, and blood.  The innate human differences and traits assure no other (unequal) outcome. 


The Progressives lost support from the majority population when Democrats sided with agnostics and atheists.  Democrats had to replace the votes lost. They saw opportunity in the newly minted civil rights laws - after opposing them!  Progressives adopted blacks specifically to acquire their votes. To punish white Christians for disserting them, Democrats wrote laws to disenfranchise white voters. Democrats unified their playbook. Affirmative action laws were modified to include sex and chosen sexual behaviors.  


Therein lies the current problem and conflict.  Once Democrats tried to codify homosexual choice with a natural phenomena, they crossed the "Rational Rubicon".  To provide homosexuals the same rights as women and minorities, Democrats had to square a choice, sexual preference, with a birth right.  Esau Laughed.  Esau traded away his birth right.  Democrats soon changed the word preference to orientation - trying to infer homosexual conduct was a birth problem.  They did the same thing with global warming - climate change - once the warming stopped.  Democrats persistently try to change reality to make it fit their peculiar perspectives.  Yes, that too is a choice.  As each new peculiarity of "legitimate" unavoidable, homosexual conduct arose, and other choices became politically viable, Democrats sought to codify the new group and behavioral irregularities.  

These behavioral choices are revered by Progressives. Progressives Causes... are held with same emotional conviction and vigilance as religious preferences.  These causes/choices assumed the same credibility in Democrat parlance as birth right variances. The Causes are considered proof of the Progressive adherent's forthrightness and political zeal.  

Democrats should have seen the potential contradictions and absurdity of their claims, but their desire, and needs to obtain permanent political control, moved them to try to redefine reality.  Rather than recognize the glaring contradictions and realize redefining reality for a small minority of voters was too risky, Democrats chose what they believed was the easier path. They allowed homosexuals to define the scope of legitimate, chosen, homosexual behavior to suit their wants. Democrats indulged the choices and sought to protect and legitimize the chosen behaviors.  Therein lay the Democrat's misguided political demise.  

Choice is not a birth right.  Fact may be replaced, but fact cannot be gratuitously disregarded, or substantially changed. When a choice is afforded a ridiculous leeway, it will claim what is permitted.  Idiotic pretense wrapped in folly, eventually, becomes exposed for what it is - a choice, pretense, and folly! The Democrats have painted themselves into the proverbial corner from which there is no credible or legitimate escape. Progressives enabled lunacy.  


Morality is the natural curb to human urges.  Democrats long ago cast morality aside as irrelevant and intellectually antiquated. They alleged truth is enhanced in a moral vacuum.  They further asserted an absence of morality created a more honest, and legitimate, scope of human behaviors.

The Morality of truth is not the problem.  The Truth of Morality is the problem for Progressives.  When choice becomes the operative and sole demarcation for legitimacy, mankind is uncontrolled, left with no standard of reason to stabilize their choices, behaviors, or to validate the choices.  In all honesty, the majority of Democrat elites will not condone their appetites and dependencies restricted by an unsubstantiated, objective and rational standard - a Godly standard. Their refusal to exhibit self control means they must endure the chosen behaviors and absence of self control in others, their affiliates and adherents - regardless of the fiscal costs or degradations to law and order those choices enable.  

"Everyone is Equal in Every Way" is the Democrat Big Lie. Were everyone the same, as Democrats vehemently avow, there are no reasons for subsidizing or empowering one group of equals over another.  No one would seek unmerited advantage as that impugns the integrity of their accomplishments.  The White woman from Spokane who deceived others claiming she was black, is not different from a person claiming they are a sex other than the one constituted at their birth.  The Democrat zeal to capture votes has reached ludicrous, irrational proportions and will inevitably lead to their losing the respect of more (reasonable) voters.  Democrats, in not adamantly rejecting transexuals, homosexuals, and a white person claiming to be black, discredit their entire narrative on discrimination and the physical differences they assert creates the discrimination.  If the choice of prejudice is an invalid choice, what rationalizes and codifies the choice that rejects reality?  

If Democrats get their way, and convince everyone choice defines reality - all their programs will become delegitimized by everyone choosing to be something different than WHAT they are.  


WHAT they are is a matter of birth.  WHO they are is whatever they choose.  Importantly, WHO a person wants to be has no legal standing or differentiation.  Taken to the logical conclusion, white males will gain access to minority and sexual set-asides - legitimately - so long as they claim they are black and female.  Once Democrats sanction this preposterous claim, that genie cannot be put back into the bottle.  Groups with valid physical differences, will lose exclusive access to affirmative action and other racial/sexual advantages. 

This proposition will end their affinity for Democrat politicians. This collusion may inadvertently end the phony and illegitimate bribing for votes Democrats used to amass their political power - solely - for the past fifty years.  Ending affirmative action is the only solution to heal the nation.  Having it come to pass via choice, is appropriate.


Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Legal Obedience and the Rules of Morality

God's Commandments are the basis for Western European law and the nominal behavioral rules of those societies.  People who blatantly disobey the rules, but follow the options available for demonstrating their opposition to the rule/law continue in God's graces.  Those who do not follow the law or protest options break the laws of man, and God.  The recent riots and looting in Ferguson and Baltimore are neither, although they lean towards open disobedience.  These events are purposeful in their lawlessness and desire to evade compliance with the laws.  The theft and destruction of property also appears acts of intimidation. As such, these events dare government and society to stop them. Make no mistake, society will stop them.  The current government leadership in those cities have effectively capitulated to the demands of criminals.  The release of those arrested in Baltimore because they could not provide a hearing in time, reveals a lack of desire and curious sympathy with the criminals.  The sympathy is clearly rooted in race.  

Police are government employees.  Most are no different than every other government employee.  My back ground includes working for local governments. I know the workers well.  They are typically, uninspired, and walk a fine line to do as little as possible.  That is the unfortunate nature of government offices where obedience to race laws and quotas replaced meritorious performance a short time after incompetents were hired in lieu of the most qualified and ambitious.  Police differ in their training.  They must graduate the academy.  They are taught a different standard.  They confront many who people who do not want to be arrested for their crimes.  That leaves few options available to make an arrest when the perpetrator resists. What was recently proposed in Baltimore was to not arrest the perps.  

Criminals take notice.  When they learned the police would not stop them, old feuds were settled with violence.  Incidents leading to anger were immediately ended with violence. Violence currently rules the streets of Baltimore.  The police will not intercede.  They were told to not intercede. Their fellow officers face criminal charges for doing their job properly.  The man who died - allegedly at police hands - was a multiple felon.  Some idiot reporter even went so far as to blame lead paint for his misbehaviors.  That reporter is clearly ignorant of the dangers in lead paint, and even more ignorant in the motivations of criminals. 

Criminals are opportunists.  They take advantage of the weaknesses in the justice and security systems placed.  There is an old adage - "A liberal is a former mugging victim."  The vast majority of liberal wet themselves at the thought of physical confrontation.  They convince themselves they can talk their way out of any circumstance, and that reason directs every circumstance - if properly confronted. These are the same people that refuse to reside in the communities they find underprivileged and needed help.  None will locate there. Why is telling.  These people really believe mouthing words will preserve them when violence enters their community.  Caring, is the end of their effort and investment.  They will someday receive the return on their investments.  These people are secularists, agnostics, atheists and they do not want laws interfering with their pursuits of appetite.  That is another "bond" they share with their ideological pals.  Feeding immediate appetites and demanding others pay for their indulgence is the liberal formula for fairness.  Justice is found when more taxes enable their doing what they want, when they want, how they want, and with whom they want, at no personal expense.  Christ often spoke about personal responsibility.  The Big Ten addresses people coveting stuff and acts of violence.  Liberals trying to drag Christianity into the discussion to rob the purses of tax payers must be denied and confronted.  

I fear the Lord's anger is kindled against this nation.  He is no longer helping protect the people living here.  Spiritual coherence is gone and few even want or seek it.