From the very beginning of human language, sacrifice is one of the oldest words. In stark reality the meaning of this word comes from the Hebrew “minchah.” Synonyms of sacrifice can include: contribution, offering, apportion, bestow, and share. As religious connotations affords, it is those in offices of religious authority which asks, and at times, require members of religious organizations to contribute and sacrifice ones worth into a common pool to better the general good of the parental organization, be it religious or secular. The religious usually fall into private spheres where the secular can also be private in its structure, but most understand these spheres as governmental institutions.
To sacrifice is not a matter of a human impulse. Instead what lies underneath this understanding, yet being unsaid, is the fact that sacrifice is directly related to rational calculation, and cunning manipulation. From the religious the aspects of sacrifice is more to an acute rendering of contribution, or a tithe, for the benefit of a god. From the secular sacrifice is more of a thought of delivering benefits to a king. The killing of human adults or children to false gods was mainly for the receiving of possible benefits from these gods, or to withhold harms; i.e., natural disasters.
In modern times these contributions and sacrifices are redefined into governmental issuances of taxes. The modern liberal progressive politician has the gall to be asking, as would a false god, thier constituents primarily, and secondary the citizenry, to sacrifice their hard earned wealth to appease the governmental gods. The truth of the matter is this rational calculation, the cunning manipulation, is the seeking to give governmental gods, and also to bribe the government gods, into delivering benefits, and withholding harms, is much the same rhetoric that spewed from ancient witch doctors that danced around bond fires and sacrificing adults and children.
Nothing changes, and everything changes. It's the very personal individual who sees through this rhetoric.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Pontius Pilot and Truth
When mentally wrestling with the notion truth, some individuals cannot understand the inability of others not understanding truth. Jesus was confronted with it in His time from the man of Pontius Pilot saying, "What is truth?" Modern thought looks upon history with both tendencies of righteousness. One individual may have the correct judgment, where another may have their own judgment, but from having the wrong attitude. So what, then, is truth?
With God having made humans, man and woman, the devil usurps this truth with something entirely different, subverting creation as God had made it. Truth simply is what God did, and said, through creation. As history evolved from creation to the time of Jesus, the Jewish authority in His time branded Jesus as being a false authority. Not believing Jesus as being the Son of God is false; the opposite of truth. Humans, through the time of history, perverted and diluted truth. The first humans new what truth was until the devil said "You CAN eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil," but as time moved on into the future with information being past along as history, false became truth, wrong became right, incorrect became correct.
The idea of truth has the same connotations when discussing the notion of truth in the cultures of America and Europe. Through history truth maintains being the same, but moves through human cultures and is diluted and changed into being false. Truth was in the cultures of the first humans, then time moved into the Roman empire era, then evolved into the 15th century. Truth has now moved into the cultures of main continent of Europe; France, Germany, and England. When history evolved to the 18th century and beyond, truth moved with evolved cultures and now is found in the American culture. Yet when Europeans are confronted with truth, they act in the same manner as the Jews acted in Jesus’ time. The same goes for Muslims as well as modern liberals. Although these entities, and similar ideologies, never had truth, even though they believe through violent efforts, they insisted they are the ones holding truth.
With God having made humans, man and woman, the devil usurps this truth with something entirely different, subverting creation as God had made it. Truth simply is what God did, and said, through creation. As history evolved from creation to the time of Jesus, the Jewish authority in His time branded Jesus as being a false authority. Not believing Jesus as being the Son of God is false; the opposite of truth. Humans, through the time of history, perverted and diluted truth. The first humans new what truth was until the devil said "You CAN eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil," but as time moved on into the future with information being past along as history, false became truth, wrong became right, incorrect became correct.
The idea of truth has the same connotations when discussing the notion of truth in the cultures of America and Europe. Through history truth maintains being the same, but moves through human cultures and is diluted and changed into being false. Truth was in the cultures of the first humans, then time moved into the Roman empire era, then evolved into the 15th century. Truth has now moved into the cultures of main continent of Europe; France, Germany, and England. When history evolved to the 18th century and beyond, truth moved with evolved cultures and now is found in the American culture. Yet when Europeans are confronted with truth, they act in the same manner as the Jews acted in Jesus’ time. The same goes for Muslims as well as modern liberals. Although these entities, and similar ideologies, never had truth, even though they believe through violent efforts, they insisted they are the ones holding truth.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Kings, Queens, Emperors, and Democrats
Modern America is experiencing an escalating negative political environment. The words “king”, “queen”, and “emperor” causes the mind to conjure a picture of superiority and sovereignty. The title of this article communicates the connection and correlating of these words to the political party of the Democrats. Their collective rhetoric eludes to this idea. After reading the book by Kenneth R. Timmerman entitled "Shadow Warriors," he documents with factual liberal behavior the mindset they are superior with their intellect and sovereign in their insistence that it is their natural action to use government power to install their sense of social justice.
As the book documents, it seems their belief system is evidence of a commitment level far beyond nationalism and loyalty to America as a country in need of defense against an abstract enemy. On the surface it looks as though they are carefree concerning the safety of American citizens. Their quick, almost defensive, response to accusations of traitorous actions some make against their adversaries, the Republicans and the person of President Bush, is rationalized as patriotic. Their continued efforts to redefine patriotism to cover their abhorrent rhetoric is growing old and needs to stop. The democratic party, and the members themselves, have to come clean with their corrosive and destructive actions and activities and accept the fact that they are anti-American, anti-freedom, and anti-individualists.
As the book documents, it seems their belief system is evidence of a commitment level far beyond nationalism and loyalty to America as a country in need of defense against an abstract enemy. On the surface it looks as though they are carefree concerning the safety of American citizens. Their quick, almost defensive, response to accusations of traitorous actions some make against their adversaries, the Republicans and the person of President Bush, is rationalized as patriotic. Their continued efforts to redefine patriotism to cover their abhorrent rhetoric is growing old and needs to stop. The democratic party, and the members themselves, have to come clean with their corrosive and destructive actions and activities and accept the fact that they are anti-American, anti-freedom, and anti-individualists.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Humans and Dogs
One of my important desires is the correct treatment of dogs; the family pet. The dog is the closest thing to my heart. The maltreatment of these special animals can be very emotional to me. The next thing would be music, and one cannot mistreat music; sort of, but that's another story.
A correct behaving dog is a happy and contented animal. Being this way is also a loved animal.
I want those who are reading this move over to the Dog Whisperer site to help these many thrown away animals.
A correct behaving dog is a happy and contented animal. Being this way is also a loved animal.
I want those who are reading this move over to the Dog Whisperer site to help these many thrown away animals.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Why the Democratic Ideology has the Wrong Idea
When one who may be investigating the beliefs of both the Democrat and Republican parties can ascertain them by the words and actions of those who hold offices in the Senate and House of Representatives, or they can also visit either official web sites.
From my end of this installment was by going to this link which was helpful due to many different places it listed to actually determine what the Democratic “statement of faith” is, but then my investigation went down hill from there. Specifically by going to the Democrat party web site to find out what their beliefs are this investigation evolved into a difficult process to summarize in just a few sentences. If one can take, at face value, "What We are About" link on the official Democrat web site is less than informal. In other words if one can determine what is communicated by “feeling” then the Democratic party is yours.
For those that need logical rhetoric, reason, to determine beliefs then the following may help.
The Democratic Stand:
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.
The first sentence: The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American.
How can anyone be against this statement. The question is “how” does a political party take upon the enormous responsibility to protect the citizens of a nation; this nation, the American people. The rhetoric that comes from the collective Democratic mouth is establishing a “stronger” communication within the world community. The House of Representative Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to Syria to “talk” and got nowhere towards the stated agenda of the Democratic political party.
The second sentence: That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.
This does not communicate keeping America “safe” from international factions of terrorists intending on attacking this nation, but “safe” from the “other” political faction keeping Americans unsafe from domestic issues.
To offer Democrats the benefit of the doubt, there is a plethora of believers of the Democrat agenda that form the party’s membership, but the benefit of the doubt stops there. The many different facets of believers fixate, or migrate, to the Democrat Party because it tends to loosely represent their type of government. These collective beliefs culminates into a single “belief statement,” and that is it is people in governmental offices intend to use government power to shape our society in the Democrat ideological eyes. In other words it is those that find themselves in all levels of governmental offices use government power in accordance to their own personal beliefs; what ever they are.
The idea that there are superior people that is endowed with abilities is at the heart of the reason why our founding fathers started a representative type of government. The government in which they were mortally against at the time was the King of England harboring the power of that government pressing upon the colonists as if they were subservient to the King; personally. In other words however the King sees himself as the people are subservient to the whims and wishes of the King.
In this same ideology, the Democrats, without saying explicitly, are insistent that the whole of American people are to be subservient to the Democratic agenda so that all Americans can be equal in the safe and secure idea of America. According to the Democrats then, the collective of Americans as Democrats define it, the American collective is at a higher level of importance than the importance of the individual American. The freedom of the individual from government oppression is chaos to the Democrats.
From my end of this installment was by going to this link which was helpful due to many different places it listed to actually determine what the Democratic “statement of faith” is, but then my investigation went down hill from there. Specifically by going to the Democrat party web site to find out what their beliefs are this investigation evolved into a difficult process to summarize in just a few sentences. If one can take, at face value, "What We are About" link on the official Democrat web site is less than informal. In other words if one can determine what is communicated by “feeling” then the Democratic party is yours.
For those that need logical rhetoric, reason, to determine beliefs then the following may help.
The Democratic Stand:
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.
The first sentence: The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American.
How can anyone be against this statement. The question is “how” does a political party take upon the enormous responsibility to protect the citizens of a nation; this nation, the American people. The rhetoric that comes from the collective Democratic mouth is establishing a “stronger” communication within the world community. The House of Representative Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to Syria to “talk” and got nowhere towards the stated agenda of the Democratic political party.
The second sentence: That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.
This does not communicate keeping America “safe” from international factions of terrorists intending on attacking this nation, but “safe” from the “other” political faction keeping Americans unsafe from domestic issues.
To offer Democrats the benefit of the doubt, there is a plethora of believers of the Democrat agenda that form the party’s membership, but the benefit of the doubt stops there. The many different facets of believers fixate, or migrate, to the Democrat Party because it tends to loosely represent their type of government. These collective beliefs culminates into a single “belief statement,” and that is it is people in governmental offices intend to use government power to shape our society in the Democrat ideological eyes. In other words it is those that find themselves in all levels of governmental offices use government power in accordance to their own personal beliefs; what ever they are.
The idea that there are superior people that is endowed with abilities is at the heart of the reason why our founding fathers started a representative type of government. The government in which they were mortally against at the time was the King of England harboring the power of that government pressing upon the colonists as if they were subservient to the King; personally. In other words however the King sees himself as the people are subservient to the whims and wishes of the King.
In this same ideology, the Democrats, without saying explicitly, are insistent that the whole of American people are to be subservient to the Democratic agenda so that all Americans can be equal in the safe and secure idea of America. According to the Democrats then, the collective of Americans as Democrats define it, the American collective is at a higher level of importance than the importance of the individual American. The freedom of the individual from government oppression is chaos to the Democrats.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Individuals with a Different Mentality
I have spent some time downloading close to a terabyte of mp3 music, new age, from the Usenet portion of the Internet. I watch what others post, obviously, and interpret the “general rules for posting,” uploading, for when I plan on “sharing” my collection. I have found, during this time, that there are artists and titles I have in my collection that were not posted, and feel confident that I will not post duplicates.
Since I am sensitive to the political side of people and their relationships accordingly, I still find myself stumble, face first, into being irritated by some, who either think or feel, they are human-kind’s savior to perfection. Mind you, I couldn’t care less if they preach all they want into how the others are terrible and need fixing. I draw the line at when they actually use any kind of power to accomplish their goal.
This brings me to the title of this installment. There are two kinds of people, those that view others as goofs and need to be perfected, and those that don’t care if they are not perfect and what to be left alone. I am in the second group of people. I’ll go even further to state that I will go out of my way to let others be the same. I cannot fathom the desire of the other kind to actually busy them selves into planning governmental policies to carry out their goal to perfect society into their sense of divine social behavior.
They may not know it, but some actually do, that they actually sit in God’s chair and order human behavior according to how they understand how the others ought to be. They will deny it, but they view themselves as being perfect, it is the other kind that needs fixing. You may even say to yourself, at this point, I am being like them wanting to fix them. Not entirely true, although I do understand where that thought comes from. What is different is that all I want is to be left alone in my imperfection. What I want fixing is the apparatus, the kind of government our found fathers built, which they have contaminated, to infect me, and the like, with their brand of perfection.
When discussing this subject with those of the other kind they get offended to the suggestion that those alike and I want to be left alone. I have been told that I must think I am better than they are because their rhetoric in response communicates that “we” are in this together, and that this is a democracy not islands. Of course they haven’t the foggiest idea that this country isn’t a democracy, but instead a republic. Hence, there are arenas, or areas, of this free society that are off limits, and they are numerated in the Constitution.
Since I am sensitive to the political side of people and their relationships accordingly, I still find myself stumble, face first, into being irritated by some, who either think or feel, they are human-kind’s savior to perfection. Mind you, I couldn’t care less if they preach all they want into how the others are terrible and need fixing. I draw the line at when they actually use any kind of power to accomplish their goal.
This brings me to the title of this installment. There are two kinds of people, those that view others as goofs and need to be perfected, and those that don’t care if they are not perfect and what to be left alone. I am in the second group of people. I’ll go even further to state that I will go out of my way to let others be the same. I cannot fathom the desire of the other kind to actually busy them selves into planning governmental policies to carry out their goal to perfect society into their sense of divine social behavior.
They may not know it, but some actually do, that they actually sit in God’s chair and order human behavior according to how they understand how the others ought to be. They will deny it, but they view themselves as being perfect, it is the other kind that needs fixing. You may even say to yourself, at this point, I am being like them wanting to fix them. Not entirely true, although I do understand where that thought comes from. What is different is that all I want is to be left alone in my imperfection. What I want fixing is the apparatus, the kind of government our found fathers built, which they have contaminated, to infect me, and the like, with their brand of perfection.
When discussing this subject with those of the other kind they get offended to the suggestion that those alike and I want to be left alone. I have been told that I must think I am better than they are because their rhetoric in response communicates that “we” are in this together, and that this is a democracy not islands. Of course they haven’t the foggiest idea that this country isn’t a democracy, but instead a republic. Hence, there are arenas, or areas, of this free society that are off limits, and they are numerated in the Constitution.
Christianity, Cain, and Government
From the beginning of human history some individuals are born with the predisposition to discount others in their humanity. How the characteristics of this attitude are recognized is by the perpetrator’s dismissal of the importance of individualism. The name of the attitude is grounded mostly in pride, but other facets of this attitude are also found in arrogance.
Those individuals who discount other’s humanity do so without knowing this fact. It is natural for them to treat others as insignificant. When confronted with their attitude some are humbled and transcend their behavior with repentance. These are real Christians that follow the guide of Jesus’ philosophy, which they see in themselves what others see. Those who do not repent of this character flaw are the epitome.
Christianity is not only a religion, but also mostly a philosophy of living life as God would live it. Because Jesus’ life was, and is, the reflection of God, the Bible is the very word that was spoken throughout the spectrum of human history.
Cain was the first prototype of a human being. Adam and Eve were created from dust of the ground, but Cain was created from birth of the first human beings. Cain was also the first human being to act upon the attitude of dismissing other’s humanity. Able became the casualty of Cain’s attitude of dismissal. Cain saw in himself as being more important than Able. Cain found in Able approval where disapproval was festering in Cain.
Christianity should be teaching through philosophy the guidance of Jesus’ life that all humans are equal in each individual’s humanity. When so called Christians discount the individual, he then is committing the same act that Cain foisted upon Able. Christianity that is found in the halls of modern churches is not teaching this destructible facet of human behavior because the real Christianity is not easily found.
There are those who have in abundance this type of attitude who hold government office. Furthering a focus of governmental office holders is found declaring themselves as Christian and outright discounting some of their constituents. Reverend Jackson is a name that comes to mind that exemplifies this type of attitude. These individuals are recommitting Cain’s act. Instead of substantiating the humanity in all individuals, they only entertain the constituents who substantiate them. The American government was not originally designed in this way, it is quite the other way around.
Therefore, ideas have consequences, and the idea that those who seem to have disrupting opinions and ideas are really treating everyone’s humanity in equality. It is those who discount ideas that are seemingly disruptive who are murderers of humanity.
Those individuals who discount other’s humanity do so without knowing this fact. It is natural for them to treat others as insignificant. When confronted with their attitude some are humbled and transcend their behavior with repentance. These are real Christians that follow the guide of Jesus’ philosophy, which they see in themselves what others see. Those who do not repent of this character flaw are the epitome.
Christianity is not only a religion, but also mostly a philosophy of living life as God would live it. Because Jesus’ life was, and is, the reflection of God, the Bible is the very word that was spoken throughout the spectrum of human history.
Cain was the first prototype of a human being. Adam and Eve were created from dust of the ground, but Cain was created from birth of the first human beings. Cain was also the first human being to act upon the attitude of dismissing other’s humanity. Able became the casualty of Cain’s attitude of dismissal. Cain saw in himself as being more important than Able. Cain found in Able approval where disapproval was festering in Cain.
Christianity should be teaching through philosophy the guidance of Jesus’ life that all humans are equal in each individual’s humanity. When so called Christians discount the individual, he then is committing the same act that Cain foisted upon Able. Christianity that is found in the halls of modern churches is not teaching this destructible facet of human behavior because the real Christianity is not easily found.
There are those who have in abundance this type of attitude who hold government office. Furthering a focus of governmental office holders is found declaring themselves as Christian and outright discounting some of their constituents. Reverend Jackson is a name that comes to mind that exemplifies this type of attitude. These individuals are recommitting Cain’s act. Instead of substantiating the humanity in all individuals, they only entertain the constituents who substantiate them. The American government was not originally designed in this way, it is quite the other way around.
Therefore, ideas have consequences, and the idea that those who seem to have disrupting opinions and ideas are really treating everyone’s humanity in equality. It is those who discount ideas that are seemingly disruptive who are murderers of humanity.
Friday, September 23, 2005
The World of Music, its Listeners, and in Between
From the first album I purchased, the Beatles White album, I have been listening to music ever since, and I believe I have an ear for good music; for me. To quantify “good” I don’t mean that all music is good for listening. Good music for listening moves the soul, something about good music that reaches inward and moves the soul to reflect. As far back as I can remember I was drawn to music just because of its effect of my emotion. I tried to learn to play musical instruments, guitar and piano, but never could develop a satisfactory ability.
Even though I started listening to rock ‘n roll I have been yearning and searching for different genre of music for the pleasure of listening. Not to replace rock ‘n roll, but to expand my musical listening horizons. From the Beatles, late 1968-9, I followed rock ‘n roll to a new genre of rock called New Wave when it began in the late 1970s then migrated into the early 1980s. For those who don’t know what new wave bands were it presented itself as an evolving, or morphing, of rock ‘n roll. I then discovered new age in the 1990s.
The first album I found was “The Waiting” by Peter Buffett. He recorded his music on the disk label Narada. Narada produced compilation albums that were really never heard decades before. If the idea of compilation albums were utilized when I first started listening to music there would have been single tracks from the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Neil Young, and Spirit all on one album.
What my argument here is trying to accomplish is, at least here in America, the exposure to music of all kinds does not have the avenue for individuals like myself to explore. I base this argument on the fact that I can go to any music store and find only a tiny fraction of the music I have discovered through the Internet, and the tracks were free of charge. Albeit I had to pay for the subscription to the Internet via cable company, but nevertheless it is striking that the wide variety of music is not channeled to potential customers correctly here in America.
The reason for what is happening in the American music industry in the past and today is that individuals who are in charge of controlling the music proliferation my analysis came down to the argument that they are reaping profits at the expense of variety. Instead of buying a compilation album at a cheaper price for experimenting in the music genres, customers are forced, through tight controls of proliferation, to buy full albums for more money, in return getting less in value.
The music industry of America is the culprit for the black market CD piracy. The reason for any black market to be in existence is because of the demand. When those who want another avenue for music to proliferate, and the music industry does not follow this demand, there will be those that migrate to the black market to get it. It is sad to say I have satisfied my music collection only by searching the Usenet News Groups, which I have found to be larger than the music industry. They are loosing out of profits by ignoring the demand.
Even though I started listening to rock ‘n roll I have been yearning and searching for different genre of music for the pleasure of listening. Not to replace rock ‘n roll, but to expand my musical listening horizons. From the Beatles, late 1968-9, I followed rock ‘n roll to a new genre of rock called New Wave when it began in the late 1970s then migrated into the early 1980s. For those who don’t know what new wave bands were it presented itself as an evolving, or morphing, of rock ‘n roll. I then discovered new age in the 1990s.
The first album I found was “The Waiting” by Peter Buffett. He recorded his music on the disk label Narada. Narada produced compilation albums that were really never heard decades before. If the idea of compilation albums were utilized when I first started listening to music there would have been single tracks from the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Neil Young, and Spirit all on one album.
What my argument here is trying to accomplish is, at least here in America, the exposure to music of all kinds does not have the avenue for individuals like myself to explore. I base this argument on the fact that I can go to any music store and find only a tiny fraction of the music I have discovered through the Internet, and the tracks were free of charge. Albeit I had to pay for the subscription to the Internet via cable company, but nevertheless it is striking that the wide variety of music is not channeled to potential customers correctly here in America.
The reason for what is happening in the American music industry in the past and today is that individuals who are in charge of controlling the music proliferation my analysis came down to the argument that they are reaping profits at the expense of variety. Instead of buying a compilation album at a cheaper price for experimenting in the music genres, customers are forced, through tight controls of proliferation, to buy full albums for more money, in return getting less in value.
The music industry of America is the culprit for the black market CD piracy. The reason for any black market to be in existence is because of the demand. When those who want another avenue for music to proliferate, and the music industry does not follow this demand, there will be those that migrate to the black market to get it. It is sad to say I have satisfied my music collection only by searching the Usenet News Groups, which I have found to be larger than the music industry. They are loosing out of profits by ignoring the demand.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Why Liberals are Murderers in Their Philosophy
As in chess, and other games, but it is not limited to the play of games, there is always a winner and a loser in the battle of how these games are played. In the Liberal thought camp everything, including opinions, is considered equal. At least this is what liberal’s desire and that is for the world to evolve to a level where there are no losers, and of course no winners. Everything’s equal so that there are no conflicts. A conflict, for liberals, is evil.
In games a natural consequence is conflict. One side holds secure a win through a belief system. The other side, offensively or defensively, responds equally. When rules of the game are respected and strictly followed, a side will be victorious. For the liberal anticipation is nonexistent. When rules of the game are known and applied equally another aspect to game playing is anticipation.
Conflict and anticipation are natural occurrences when opposing parties are engaged in game playing. Both sides anticipate what levels of skill are to be employed to secure a victorious outcome. Another facet that occurs in the play of games is obviously consequences. When conflict is applied to the play of games, and anticipation is utilized, judgments are decided upon. Consequences, positive and negative, are the natural result of conflict.
The application of anticipation (judgments), and the respect of rules, will always produce consequences. This is the part of the rule of life that the liberals choose to ignore (most are oblivious to it), they do not want the anticipation of consequences to be in existence. The desire for positive outcomes during game conflict is as natural as the sun rising in the east. Making decisions is the process of anticipating positive consequences to game conflict. This confuses liberals and therefore is considered evil.
An example of a liberal thought process is as follows: if an individual wants the latest technological advanced vehicle sacrifices future purchases due to the present desire. If that individual then anticipates that future purchases are more important than the latest technological vehicle is judging upon the consequences of the conflict, new vehicle or future purchases. To the liberal the conflict is evil therefore is discounted. To the liberal purchase the vehicle now then deal with the future purchases later. When time evolves to the present and purchases are needed, but cannot due to the past purchase of the vehicle then something else other than the past judgment is the cause of the present conflict.
The analysis of the liberal thought is that consequences confuse their desire for the world to be equal in all things. A consequence, to the liberal, is tied directly to conflict, which is evil. So, to the liberal anticipation, or judgment, is not to be employed because it is against (evil) their outlook on the world. Judging and equality are two opposites of the philosophical spectrum to the liberal.
This is why the liberals are wrong and this type of philosophy needs to be eradicated. This philosophical outlook on the world kills people. As in my other installment, liberalism murders humans. Reality of this world is that everything is a play of games. With no anticipation of consequences to the application of strategy to the rules of the game, surely there are only losers and no winners. Liberalism must be shown its “evilness” and be sure to steer away from it.
Liberalism is trying to think emotionally, which is an oxymoron. Emotion is not thinking, and when an opposing side of a game is feeling it will surely lose the game of life.
In games a natural consequence is conflict. One side holds secure a win through a belief system. The other side, offensively or defensively, responds equally. When rules of the game are respected and strictly followed, a side will be victorious. For the liberal anticipation is nonexistent. When rules of the game are known and applied equally another aspect to game playing is anticipation.
Conflict and anticipation are natural occurrences when opposing parties are engaged in game playing. Both sides anticipate what levels of skill are to be employed to secure a victorious outcome. Another facet that occurs in the play of games is obviously consequences. When conflict is applied to the play of games, and anticipation is utilized, judgments are decided upon. Consequences, positive and negative, are the natural result of conflict.
The application of anticipation (judgments), and the respect of rules, will always produce consequences. This is the part of the rule of life that the liberals choose to ignore (most are oblivious to it), they do not want the anticipation of consequences to be in existence. The desire for positive outcomes during game conflict is as natural as the sun rising in the east. Making decisions is the process of anticipating positive consequences to game conflict. This confuses liberals and therefore is considered evil.
An example of a liberal thought process is as follows: if an individual wants the latest technological advanced vehicle sacrifices future purchases due to the present desire. If that individual then anticipates that future purchases are more important than the latest technological vehicle is judging upon the consequences of the conflict, new vehicle or future purchases. To the liberal the conflict is evil therefore is discounted. To the liberal purchase the vehicle now then deal with the future purchases later. When time evolves to the present and purchases are needed, but cannot due to the past purchase of the vehicle then something else other than the past judgment is the cause of the present conflict.
The analysis of the liberal thought is that consequences confuse their desire for the world to be equal in all things. A consequence, to the liberal, is tied directly to conflict, which is evil. So, to the liberal anticipation, or judgment, is not to be employed because it is against (evil) their outlook on the world. Judging and equality are two opposites of the philosophical spectrum to the liberal.
This is why the liberals are wrong and this type of philosophy needs to be eradicated. This philosophical outlook on the world kills people. As in my other installment, liberalism murders humans. Reality of this world is that everything is a play of games. With no anticipation of consequences to the application of strategy to the rules of the game, surely there are only losers and no winners. Liberalism must be shown its “evilness” and be sure to steer away from it.
Liberalism is trying to think emotionally, which is an oxymoron. Emotion is not thinking, and when an opposing side of a game is feeling it will surely lose the game of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
