After recent events, it just sort of popped into my head- climate change is politically correct in the old communist sense of the word. Climate change is something not real (in the way that it is used by leftists) that many people have to say is real in order to be able to get certain jobs.
Much like the media coverage recently, plus most of the Republicans are still repeating the same lies about recent events. People should know better. People do know better. The F.B.I., all the cops.
But the constant repetition reminds me of the constant lie, that 97% of scientists believe in climate change. They don't.
But it functions as well to draw in people useful to the regime. If people unquestioningly accept that, they'll accept a lot of other things. Of course, I was too smart to be smart- i.e. I didn't understand these social concepts trumped the truth. That lies and error were actually useful to people in power was foreign and non-intuitive to me. I believe people must be genuinely misinformed. I also didn't realize people don't or can't read papers.
But climate change almost won Al Gore the presidency. Not the lie itself, but the massive amount of money he was able to mobilize around the lie. The proposed market of green tech, climate credits, and the funding of research based on your acceptance of the lie raised his profile considerably.
The lie also functions to keep you out of certain classes, should you be so gauche as to be seeking the truth, rather than trying figure out what your masters want of you. I kept having this strong sense that surely academia is about knowledge, and remained passive and even hopeful despite obvious discrimination against me.
They don't even try on T.V. anymore. Multiple people, many too stupid to think, yelling at one another, repeating the same talking points, refusing to bother to do any basic research. They aren't journalists, they are the communists standing in the front of the room, demanding everybody say the same lie over and over.
Or make the same accusation over and over. The word 'Satan' means accuser. They reveal their allegiances.
Friday, August 18, 2017
The Way To Stop Violent Protests
The immediate way to stop violent protest is to arrest those who hold the view 'by any means necessary.'
We need to realize that this doesn't mean what we think it means. We assume these means are meant to achieve an end, but this not true.
They are criminally insane, attacking normal human beings who have no power.
Versus someone like Anders Breivik, who actually attacked people with power. He did not go after the immigrants that he did not like; because he knew they had no power. He did not attack his fellow Norwegian citizens- no, he identified young leadership within the political elite that was implementing the policies he didn't like and attacked them.
Criminal, but not insane. He may have actually changed Norway's political trajectory.
So, while Antifa is free, no one is safe, but if Breivik was free, Norway might be safer still, because the political elites might behave themselves a little better.
But we also want to make sure Antifa doesn't keep happening.
Stop sending the stupid to college: They can't do the work, and to whatever extent they notice it, and regardless of how much you dumb it down, it aggravates them. They become unhappy.
Remove communists from college and demolish spaces where radicalization might happen: I believe the Japanese used to have communal housing at (Tokyo?) University. The communists would radicalize the students in the housing. The Japanese government destroyed the housing and replaced it with single person units. Despite having an actual party in Japan, as well as some Antifa, the communists are still far weaker there than in many other countries.
Encourage Family Formation: Single people are more likely to get radicalized. People with children don't want violent confrontations that their child might wander into.
This means discouraging degenerate practices. Those in college need to be able to get married while in college to avoid some of this degeneracy, as well as to avoid radicalization. Smart people fall prey to communism too, and they can be more dangerous, so it is vital to fix family formation in this country.
Fix the Labor Market: People need jobs, especially stupid people. We are talking about universal income and robots everywhere, but we are not talking about what's healthy for people, nor are we talking about reducing the costs government imposes on employing people. We need to make it vastly easier to hire humans.
So, what am I describing? I am describing young people being able to go to work, get married, live in a community with like minded people where they can be happy about themselves.
We need to realize that this doesn't mean what we think it means. We assume these means are meant to achieve an end, but this not true.
They are criminally insane, attacking normal human beings who have no power.
Versus someone like Anders Breivik, who actually attacked people with power. He did not go after the immigrants that he did not like; because he knew they had no power. He did not attack his fellow Norwegian citizens- no, he identified young leadership within the political elite that was implementing the policies he didn't like and attacked them.
Criminal, but not insane. He may have actually changed Norway's political trajectory.
So, while Antifa is free, no one is safe, but if Breivik was free, Norway might be safer still, because the political elites might behave themselves a little better.
But we also want to make sure Antifa doesn't keep happening.
Stop sending the stupid to college: They can't do the work, and to whatever extent they notice it, and regardless of how much you dumb it down, it aggravates them. They become unhappy.
Remove communists from college and demolish spaces where radicalization might happen: I believe the Japanese used to have communal housing at (Tokyo?) University. The communists would radicalize the students in the housing. The Japanese government destroyed the housing and replaced it with single person units. Despite having an actual party in Japan, as well as some Antifa, the communists are still far weaker there than in many other countries.
Encourage Family Formation: Single people are more likely to get radicalized. People with children don't want violent confrontations that their child might wander into.
This means discouraging degenerate practices. Those in college need to be able to get married while in college to avoid some of this degeneracy, as well as to avoid radicalization. Smart people fall prey to communism too, and they can be more dangerous, so it is vital to fix family formation in this country.
Fix the Labor Market: People need jobs, especially stupid people. We are talking about universal income and robots everywhere, but we are not talking about what's healthy for people, nor are we talking about reducing the costs government imposes on employing people. We need to make it vastly easier to hire humans.
So, what am I describing? I am describing young people being able to go to work, get married, live in a community with like minded people where they can be happy about themselves.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Speech Is Not Violence
If you are sane, you know speech is not violence. But this is the problem; they just call anyone not them violent:
A day of speeches from Unite the Right would have made clear whether or not they were Nazi. And Americans generally don't like Nazis, so they'd have their feel good moment and slink off into irrelevancy if they were.
I got this from No Agenda. Adam remembers that we used to let the Nazis hold rallies too.
If you are white, this is very likely going to be you at some point, even if you are a leftist. They eat their own, you know.
You can read about that one at Dennis Dale's blog.
So, when you hear there are 'violent Nazis' think, white people who want to say something.
I do hope Jeff Sessions is still spry enough to tell whats going on. There's plenty of footage showing the truth.
A day of speeches from Unite the Right would have made clear whether or not they were Nazi. And Americans generally don't like Nazis, so they'd have their feel good moment and slink off into irrelevancy if they were.
I got this from No Agenda. Adam remembers that we used to let the Nazis hold rallies too.
If you are white, this is very likely going to be you at some point, even if you are a leftist. They eat their own, you know.
You can read about that one at Dennis Dale's blog.
So, when you hear there are 'violent Nazis' think, white people who want to say something.
I do hope Jeff Sessions is still spry enough to tell whats going on. There's plenty of footage showing the truth.
Monday, August 14, 2017
More Thoughts On Christian Shamanism
The first concept that came to me is that Ron's characterization of a shaman as a man trying to get a god to do what he doesn't want to do is wrong. Rain is a norm on this planet, so whatever the particulars of the shaman's belief, in general one must assume that when a shaman dances the rain dance, he perceives the drought as not normal and is using the dance to encourage a return to normalcy.
So, technically, the shaman has a better claim on trying to help a god, nature, or whatever do what he, she, or it wants to do. He doesn't need a book to explain that God wants it to rain- it does rain often enough for one to simply assume God wants it to rain.
So, again, we can't just point to our feelings and say to ourselves we can't possibly be shamanistic, and this idea that the shaman is trying to trick a god into making it rain is simply a version of this sort of thinking. We should be able to see clearly that the shaman who thinks he needs to do the rain dance in order to get it to rain and the Christian who thinks he must try to heal people in public in order for healing to take place are both operating with similar thinking patterns.
The second concept is that one's good intentions when doing certain activities does not keep the harm of those behaviors at bay. The 70s were rife with such things. Let us consider being healthy- perhaps not as awesome as healing people in the name of Jesus, but generally considered to be a good idea. But in the 70s they came up with the idea that eating high carb, low fat was healthy. They also told everybody that running was healthy.
If you remember, I suggested that these Charismatic practices don't have good fruits, but they do tend to be somewhat addictive. Similarly, for a certain segment of the population, the carbohydrates and the running provided a huge double shot of addictive reinforcement. Endorphins from running and then plenty of carbs providing their own addictive rewards. As the evidence piled up that these practices were not so good, many people simply continued to do it. And with excessive running, they could stay slim despite excessive carbs... until the knee gets blown out, or they have a heart attack, or whatever.
So, the practice starts out because the person wants to be healthy. It turns out that it isn't healthy, but it also turns out some people like it so much they keep doing it long after they start seeing health adverse effects.
And I think this is why a Christian Shamanist would still be trying to effect this 70s style stuff. Yes, sure, you start out seeking God. But at some point you are trying to do these things in public because that's your practice- you've felt better on the other side of it, it's lit you up, made you feel good to accept a challenge and do it.
But did any of it work? I'm pretty sure, when the Charismatics of the seventies die, barring unforeseen events, there will be fewer Christians on Earth than there were in the seventies. Fewer conversions, fewer children; less family formation and thus fewer Christian children from those who were born.
I can't think of a metric that is particularly good, though I would not just blame the Charismatics since most of Western Christianity deserves some blame. Hell, now we've got a Pope inviting Islam right into Europe. Deeply pathetic, and like many of these people- childish.
The third concept is that this must stem from bureaucratic, rather than noble rule. The noble would be most concerned about a particular case; the bureaucrat is most likely to draw globalist conclusions, and try to apply the same processes or rules to everything. The noble would remember God is God and has His own agency, whereas a bureaucrat is likely to write an if/then statement based on a story of healing in Acts, and then expect God to actually abide by that if/then statement despite four decades of evidence to the contrary.
So, technically, the shaman has a better claim on trying to help a god, nature, or whatever do what he, she, or it wants to do. He doesn't need a book to explain that God wants it to rain- it does rain often enough for one to simply assume God wants it to rain.
So, again, we can't just point to our feelings and say to ourselves we can't possibly be shamanistic, and this idea that the shaman is trying to trick a god into making it rain is simply a version of this sort of thinking. We should be able to see clearly that the shaman who thinks he needs to do the rain dance in order to get it to rain and the Christian who thinks he must try to heal people in public in order for healing to take place are both operating with similar thinking patterns.
The second concept is that one's good intentions when doing certain activities does not keep the harm of those behaviors at bay. The 70s were rife with such things. Let us consider being healthy- perhaps not as awesome as healing people in the name of Jesus, but generally considered to be a good idea. But in the 70s they came up with the idea that eating high carb, low fat was healthy. They also told everybody that running was healthy.
If you remember, I suggested that these Charismatic practices don't have good fruits, but they do tend to be somewhat addictive. Similarly, for a certain segment of the population, the carbohydrates and the running provided a huge double shot of addictive reinforcement. Endorphins from running and then plenty of carbs providing their own addictive rewards. As the evidence piled up that these practices were not so good, many people simply continued to do it. And with excessive running, they could stay slim despite excessive carbs... until the knee gets blown out, or they have a heart attack, or whatever.
So, the practice starts out because the person wants to be healthy. It turns out that it isn't healthy, but it also turns out some people like it so much they keep doing it long after they start seeing health adverse effects.
And I think this is why a Christian Shamanist would still be trying to effect this 70s style stuff. Yes, sure, you start out seeking God. But at some point you are trying to do these things in public because that's your practice- you've felt better on the other side of it, it's lit you up, made you feel good to accept a challenge and do it.
But did any of it work? I'm pretty sure, when the Charismatics of the seventies die, barring unforeseen events, there will be fewer Christians on Earth than there were in the seventies. Fewer conversions, fewer children; less family formation and thus fewer Christian children from those who were born.
I can't think of a metric that is particularly good, though I would not just blame the Charismatics since most of Western Christianity deserves some blame. Hell, now we've got a Pope inviting Islam right into Europe. Deeply pathetic, and like many of these people- childish.
The third concept is that this must stem from bureaucratic, rather than noble rule. The noble would be most concerned about a particular case; the bureaucrat is most likely to draw globalist conclusions, and try to apply the same processes or rules to everything. The noble would remember God is God and has His own agency, whereas a bureaucrat is likely to write an if/then statement based on a story of healing in Acts, and then expect God to actually abide by that if/then statement despite four decades of evidence to the contrary.
Black Clad Maggots
The Republic is dead. America has been dead for a long while, but when I was growing up the corpse was still fresh.
America is now so rotten, it attracts black clad maggots.
And the alt-right only has to show up and point. Sure, sometimes they have to endure abuse too.
But they don't actually have to be smart.
When I was a kid, the Nazis would go play in the park. Sometimes the KKK would want to walk down Main Street. And we'd let them. We made fun of them.
And that was how it worked- an echo of real America, were you could protest if you wanted, and it generally made us not want to.
But now we know that America is gone.
Yet more proof of bad faith displayed before the people.
Normal people start to notice this. The discontent grows.
Does it really matter what I think, or is it just the color of my skin? Bernie Sanders looks white like me, and he got shut down by Black Lives Matter- and certainly there were many, many whites who showed up to hear him. And, of course, the alt-right is white.
We are seeing it's anti-white. We are seeing our old arguments being replaced by incoherent garbage. We are seeing government employees refusing to do their jobs.
Versus what we remember.
America is now so rotten, it attracts black clad maggots.
And the alt-right only has to show up and point. Sure, sometimes they have to endure abuse too.
But they don't actually have to be smart.
When I was a kid, the Nazis would go play in the park. Sometimes the KKK would want to walk down Main Street. And we'd let them. We made fun of them.
And that was how it worked- an echo of real America, were you could protest if you wanted, and it generally made us not want to.
But now we know that America is gone.
Yet more proof of bad faith displayed before the people.
Normal people start to notice this. The discontent grows.
Does it really matter what I think, or is it just the color of my skin? Bernie Sanders looks white like me, and he got shut down by Black Lives Matter- and certainly there were many, many whites who showed up to hear him. And, of course, the alt-right is white.
We are seeing it's anti-white. We are seeing our old arguments being replaced by incoherent garbage. We are seeing government employees refusing to do their jobs.
Versus what we remember.
Friday, August 11, 2017
"Christian" Shamanism
A very Charismatic interpretation of Act 3:12 led me to post this comment yesterday:
I would like to see more thought given to this idea of Christian Shamanism. Ron thinks shamanism is someone trying to get a god to do something he doesn't want to do, whereas, surely God wants to do these healings, but it's just that we humans somehow can't get it to work. I think if it hasn't really worked since the inception the Charismatic movement, well, at the very least start looking at other parts of the bible. Maybe this 'public' isn't the same public- it would seem to me they would be more like the former Christians we should have nothing more to do with rather than the 1st century Jews.
So, obviously, I don't think the charge of Shamanism has been properly addressed. I am just starting to dwell on the implications. Obviously, I think your intentions are not enough- i.e., just because you don't feel or didn't intend to be a shamanist, it doesn't mean you aren't. Secondly, as might be implied from my comment, an action of the Holy Spirit might be deeply different from what happened in first acts- not because of change on God's part- but change here on Earth. We are in a different age, surrounded by different people.
I tend to think God, if He's not just given up on us, wants us to have a place to live as Christians. This would put us in an uncomfortable competition with many governments. It has been, instead, preferable to play the noble loser, and lose- even turning evangelism into a blood sport, in which you waste good people and assets on questionable goals and people.
This is much different from what did work. Monasteries civilized Europe. Unfortunately, few know about them or understand their function. Suffice it to say, in order to avoid having this post become a leviathan, early in Christianity, the impulse for transcendence was harnessed to work for the living, which is something one should expect from people seeking to serve the God of the living.
It is worth contemplation. Is your practice shamanistic?
One of the things I noticed was that Charismatics would place heavy emphasis on the importance of public 'Christian' actions. So younger people, most of whom found talking to strangers a rather pulse-pounding event, would experience a high level of internal emotions while attempting to do these public actions. If we judge by the fruit, it seems difficult to attribute these actions to God.
Meanwhile the intense emotional experience the 'Christians' have by doing this behavior becomes its own goal. I would prefer it if these people were not labeling their thrill seeking as Christian and would go rock-climbing, parachuting, etc...
Additionally, we often find various people- especially young women, feeling 'called' to do this thrill seeking stuff, rather than the more mundane homemaking sort of stuff that would actually keep a community together.
If you look at this from God's point of veiw- He does not distribute passports. He did, however, want to make sure Peter was known as His- for Peter was also known as a follower of Jesus. Messiahs were, and to some extent still are, a bit of a hobby for Jews. There's always someone wandering around who could be 'the one.' And then that one dies and his followers tend to drop off after a while. But this event with Peter did not fit a very well known model- and this was why it was surprising.
But if we look at what you have just written- how is that different from some sort of shamanism? If you get the circumstances just right, then God will act? How is that different from dancing the dance just right, so then it will rain?
I would like to see more thought given to this idea of Christian Shamanism. Ron thinks shamanism is someone trying to get a god to do something he doesn't want to do, whereas, surely God wants to do these healings, but it's just that we humans somehow can't get it to work. I think if it hasn't really worked since the inception the Charismatic movement, well, at the very least start looking at other parts of the bible. Maybe this 'public' isn't the same public- it would seem to me they would be more like the former Christians we should have nothing more to do with rather than the 1st century Jews.
So, obviously, I don't think the charge of Shamanism has been properly addressed. I am just starting to dwell on the implications. Obviously, I think your intentions are not enough- i.e., just because you don't feel or didn't intend to be a shamanist, it doesn't mean you aren't. Secondly, as might be implied from my comment, an action of the Holy Spirit might be deeply different from what happened in first acts- not because of change on God's part- but change here on Earth. We are in a different age, surrounded by different people.
I tend to think God, if He's not just given up on us, wants us to have a place to live as Christians. This would put us in an uncomfortable competition with many governments. It has been, instead, preferable to play the noble loser, and lose- even turning evangelism into a blood sport, in which you waste good people and assets on questionable goals and people.
This is much different from what did work. Monasteries civilized Europe. Unfortunately, few know about them or understand their function. Suffice it to say, in order to avoid having this post become a leviathan, early in Christianity, the impulse for transcendence was harnessed to work for the living, which is something one should expect from people seeking to serve the God of the living.
It is worth contemplation. Is your practice shamanistic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)