We're a generation intellectually nourished by MTV. We're really a bunch of lost idiots with no morals or ethics aside from these two defining ideals:
1. Racism is wrong (and if nobody has told you yet, you are probably racist)
2. Everything else is okay
Of course racism is wrong. However, MTV culture has managed to pound into our Cheeto nourished brains that the two ideas go hand in hand and if you don't agree with idea number two, then you also must not agree with idea number one. I'm really annoyed from hearing idiots claim intellectual superiority by claiming to have the inside scoop on the rest of the population being racist. I'm tired of corrupt people using the racism shield to manipulate a dumbed down public from what is really taking place in society. I think Barak Obama is a socialist. I am an American. Someone taking America down the path of the USSR is abhorrent to me. Does that mean I'm racist because coincidentally the person facilitating the communist revolution in America is also black? The answer according to our generations moral compass of course is of course yes. I am also not ok with everything else going on in the world. I must be a white racist, case closed. I also think the people of Israel are occupying someone else's country. Kind of like the early Americans decided that they would take the Indians land. I don't think it's a fair thing. However, the people of Israel are also Jewish. Everyone knows that if you speak out against someone Jewish then you are a closet skinhead. I guess I'm a skinhead. I don't know why I can't just grow some morals and relax. I should just declare that white people are bad and Barak can go on destroying America as long as nobody in America is racist. Our Country is toast. We're swimming in a sea of idiots. The elite will in fact win and they are winning because they are smarter than us. I'm really disappointed in the people of America.
The Evolution of Evil Men
Power, money, and sex corrupt. Corruption is when men are willing to break rules or laws to obtain these things. The most talented of corrupt men achieve corruption in the highest of places. If within a body such as a corporation or government it is known that opportunity for such things exist. Corrupt men seeking for such things will begin to compete with one another for position. And as they say, may the best man win, or in this case the most effectively evil and ruthless man win. When lawless men compete with other lawless men, it is the most cunning and ruthless that will win. Because of this an environment is created where corruption is able to evolve into the most diabolical evils. Hitler would seem like a real anomoly otherwise. I don't think there are many Hitlers out there. However the nature of our government and power causes the few potential items out there to compete with one another and evolve and grow until the most evil man comes out on top and you get a Hitler. That is why society must be careful whom they allow to hold positions of power. That is why it is necessary to have educated citizens and that is why it is necessary for the government to be subject to every form of scrutiny. Otherwise you create an atmosphere like a cancer where finally the most evil, intelligent, ruthless man emerges wearing the gauntlet of power and all that you hold dear as a society will be destroyed. It can happen anywhere and will.
My Chiropractor Warned Me About This...
My chiropractor grumbled to me while he was working on my shoulder, "people don't change". He was talking about his obnoxious father in law. He said you just can't change people, people don't change. I was really offended. I was really bothered by what he said. It really went against everything that I believed about life...when I was twenty.
A few years later and you know, I am really disappointed with people. Deep down I am really disappointed with the quality of people that I've met and found in the world. When I was young I believed in people. I loved people. I thought there were people in the world worth knowing, worth becoming friends with. But I got to know some of them. I became friends with a lot of them. I've known a lot of people. It's funny the way that it's turned out to be. It's really odd that what's expected has become so uniform. I don't know why it is, but the whole world sometimes seems to be made up of morally, mentally useless people. People who don't think, don't care. People you couldn't have an interesting or meaningful conversation with if the fate of the universe depended on it.
I really don't bother with people much anymore because I know how it will turn out. I can't stand having friends anymore because I know how it will turn out. People really are people. You can't change them. They don't change. I don't expect much from them. I know how they will behave. I know what they'll do.
If the world needed a big change, and it does, it's not going to get it. I guarantee it. We're not going to change. I'd bet my life on it. I wish we would, but we won't. That's just the way it is.
A few years later and you know, I am really disappointed with people. Deep down I am really disappointed with the quality of people that I've met and found in the world. When I was young I believed in people. I loved people. I thought there were people in the world worth knowing, worth becoming friends with. But I got to know some of them. I became friends with a lot of them. I've known a lot of people. It's funny the way that it's turned out to be. It's really odd that what's expected has become so uniform. I don't know why it is, but the whole world sometimes seems to be made up of morally, mentally useless people. People who don't think, don't care. People you couldn't have an interesting or meaningful conversation with if the fate of the universe depended on it.
I really don't bother with people much anymore because I know how it will turn out. I can't stand having friends anymore because I know how it will turn out. People really are people. You can't change them. They don't change. I don't expect much from them. I know how they will behave. I know what they'll do.
If the world needed a big change, and it does, it's not going to get it. I guarantee it. We're not going to change. I'd bet my life on it. I wish we would, but we won't. That's just the way it is.
In the next 100 years there will be a government of the world. If you disagree, you aren't paying attention. All governments of countries know this is in reach and know this is coming. You cannot change what is coming. A tsunami of change is before us and you cannot stop it from coming. My purpose is to prepare for when that wave hits the shore. A tsunami breaking upon a shore causes drastic change to the landscape, but lives need not be lost if the people are warned and prepared. We cannot change what is coming, but we can prepare for it. There will be one world government in the near future. What we need to do right now is determine what type of government that will be. I've lived in the United States for 30 years. It's a nice place to live. Most people outside of the United States would love to live here. We need to make the rest of the world just like the United States. We need to annex Mexico. Mexico would be a nice place to live if it had the laws and infrastructure of the United States, and so would the rest of the world. One government will rule this world in the coming century. Of all the governments that have existed thoughout history, of all the governments that exist today, which one would you want to be ruled by? It's a simple question.
The United States of the World. The American Planet. Let's make the most of the Future.
The United States of the World. The American Planet. Let's make the most of the Future.
Can money save the world?
Perhaps the economy is the most complex manifestation/invention of man's intelligence to date. Money is really more than just money. It's a harness for the human race. If money is used properly it's provides the reigns that steer the drive of humanity. It makes a super computer of Man's minds, billions of minds. Money is a tool. It may be used for evil, but it also may be used for great good. Money is subservient to good and evil. It will do whatever it's master commands. There are intelligent people who figured this out a long long time ago and if you want to know who they are follow the money. If you want to know what they command...look at the state of the world. We should be more careful about who we allow to control the money.
Would evolution lead to Godhood?
I think the short answer to this is yes, it likely would. If you think about evolution in light of Man's present circumstances long enough you realize something. Eventually evolution would lead an intelligent being to become a continually existing being, one who discovers how to fix themselves well enough to prevent death from ever arriving. Is that technologically possible based upon the knowledge we have at the present? It is definitely conceivable. A being with a never ending existence could certainly become very intelligent, perhaps somehow even omniscient it seems given enough time and technology. Makes sense that it happened someplace somewhere already when you consider the size of the cosmos and the space for things to have developed. I guess evolution indicates that there would be a God?
Nature Vs. Nurture, It Doesn't Matter
A big question these days is whether or not it's discrimination to allow someone to do something they have an inborn desire to do. Some people think the question about homosexuality is about whether or not it's inherited or learned (meaning chosen). It doesn't matter. Some people think that people discriminate against gays because they don't allow them to do what their inborn desires ask them to do.
We all have inborn desires and tendencies that we are not allowed to act on.
Let me ask this question, is a pedophile born that way? Or is that a learned behavior?
Does the answer make any difference in what a pedophile is given the right to do?
If pedophilia is inborn should it be allowed?
No, because a child is not a consenting adult.
What if a child consents? What if a child's parent consents?
These might seem like stupid ugly questions, but it brings us to the heart of the matter.
Should pedophilia be allowed if a child consents to it?
No because as mentioned before a child is not a consenting ADULT.
Should pedophilia be allowed if a child's parent consents to it?
No, parents shouldn't be able to impose that on their children.
Should pedophilia be allowed if both the child and the parent consent to it?
Is your answer yes? It should be based on the gay communities logic.
Unless there really are such things as morals, and what you do sexually does matter.
The gay community would have us think it doesn't matter. And if that's true you would have to allow a pedophile to have sexual relations with a child if both the child and the child's parents consent.
If that makes you cringe, then that means one of two things.
Your a hateful bigot who discriminates.
Or it's evidence that sexual morality does matter.
We've become debased and desensitized.
Perhaps in another twenty years you won't cringe at such an idea as a pedophile being able to legally have sexual relations with a child because you will be even more debased and desensitized.
The gay community would have you think you're not becoming debased you're becoming accepting.
There's a difference between being tolerant and becoming debased. A lot of people these days think you're old fashioned and superstitious if you think that.
We all have inborn desires and tendencies that we are not allowed to act on.
Let me ask this question, is a pedophile born that way? Or is that a learned behavior?
Does the answer make any difference in what a pedophile is given the right to do?
If pedophilia is inborn should it be allowed?
No, because a child is not a consenting adult.
What if a child consents? What if a child's parent consents?
These might seem like stupid ugly questions, but it brings us to the heart of the matter.
Should pedophilia be allowed if a child consents to it?
No because as mentioned before a child is not a consenting ADULT.
Should pedophilia be allowed if a child's parent consents to it?
No, parents shouldn't be able to impose that on their children.
Should pedophilia be allowed if both the child and the parent consent to it?
Is your answer yes? It should be based on the gay communities logic.
Unless there really are such things as morals, and what you do sexually does matter.
The gay community would have us think it doesn't matter. And if that's true you would have to allow a pedophile to have sexual relations with a child if both the child and the child's parents consent.
If that makes you cringe, then that means one of two things.
Your a hateful bigot who discriminates.
Or it's evidence that sexual morality does matter.
We've become debased and desensitized.
Perhaps in another twenty years you won't cringe at such an idea as a pedophile being able to legally have sexual relations with a child because you will be even more debased and desensitized.
The gay community would have you think you're not becoming debased you're becoming accepting.
There's a difference between being tolerant and becoming debased. A lot of people these days think you're old fashioned and superstitious if you think that.
Separation Between Church and State
The separation between church and state has become a bit skewed. It means that the state and church will not become one. It means that the church cannot dictate or interfere with your religion (beliefs). Nor can a church become the civil governing authority.
Some spin it to mean that if you have beliefs you're not allowed to vote in a manner congruent with them.
Some spin it to mean separation of church and the United States. Church has no place in our Country.
If anyone reads writings of the founders of the Constitution they will see how misguided this is. Our nations founders were pious men and felt that our form of government would only be appropriate for a religious people who could govern themselves aided by their religion making it thus appropriate to have minimal intervention by the state. Our form of government would never suffice by an irresponsible or irreligious people.
Thankfully, since we no longer subscribe to religion, our children have been taught ethics by MTV, otherwise our country would probably be falling apart at the seems right now.
Some spin it to mean that if you have beliefs you're not allowed to vote in a manner congruent with them.
Some spin it to mean separation of church and the United States. Church has no place in our Country.
If anyone reads writings of the founders of the Constitution they will see how misguided this is. Our nations founders were pious men and felt that our form of government would only be appropriate for a religious people who could govern themselves aided by their religion making it thus appropriate to have minimal intervention by the state. Our form of government would never suffice by an irresponsible or irreligious people.
Thankfully, since we no longer subscribe to religion, our children have been taught ethics by MTV, otherwise our country would probably be falling apart at the seems right now.
Even Atheists Are Religious
Because n0 man knows all things, many things are left to belief and speculation. Belief and speculation are the heart of religion. Everyone is religious. Everyone claims what they speculate is the true nature of reality. Whether your belief is that God is real or God is not, they are both beliefs.
20,000 Troops, We are the enemy
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323
"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
I guess we should of put it into the constitution while we still could.
Don't be confused these troops are to keep you and me in line. The label terrorist can will be applied to anyone and everyone if needs be.
Competition in the Family
Where does competition in the family come from? Anyone who has a family knows what I am referring to. We always are struggling for recognition among one another. How come? I'm interested in comments.
What's the difference between a communist and a Socialist?
Please enlighten me. The most obnoxious thing in the world is when people want to let you know there's a difference. So, I'm going to do a little research project here and explain the differences.
Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, evolving into a classless, stateless society of "pure communism".
So if you read this carefully, they are different means to the same end, different shades of the same color.
"Communism seeks centralization of power by revolution and socialism seeks centralization of power by evolution." That's a great way to explain it.
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]
Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, evolving into a classless, stateless society of "pure communism".
So if you read this carefully, they are different means to the same end, different shades of the same color.
"Communism seeks centralization of power by revolution and socialism seeks centralization of power by evolution." That's a great way to explain it.
Judging Your Leaders
I read this this morning in The Prince. Not to be confused with The Little Prince.
"To be a great liar and dissimulator is of primary importance because many men are simpleminded and allow themselves to be easily deceived. Alexander VI did nothing but deceive everyone during his whole life, and yet he succeeded in everything, for he was well acquainted with this aspect of life. Therefore it is not necessary to have all the good qualities mentioned above, but it is highly necessary that the prince appear to have them: for instance to seem to be pitiful, faithful, human, religious, at the same time being ready and knowing how to change to the contrary when it is convenient to do so. "
"In order to maintain his state, a prince is often obliged to act against faith, charity, humanity, and religion, but when he is seen and heard he should appear infused with all these good qualities since men in general judge more by they they see than by what they feel. Everyone sees what the prince seems to be, few know what he really is, and those few do not dare to oppose the opinion of the majority. "
"To be a great liar and dissimulator is of primary importance because many men are simpleminded and allow themselves to be easily deceived. Alexander VI did nothing but deceive everyone during his whole life, and yet he succeeded in everything, for he was well acquainted with this aspect of life. Therefore it is not necessary to have all the good qualities mentioned above, but it is highly necessary that the prince appear to have them: for instance to seem to be pitiful, faithful, human, religious, at the same time being ready and knowing how to change to the contrary when it is convenient to do so. "
"In order to maintain his state, a prince is often obliged to act against faith, charity, humanity, and religion, but when he is seen and heard he should appear infused with all these good qualities since men in general judge more by they they see than by what they feel. Everyone sees what the prince seems to be, few know what he really is, and those few do not dare to oppose the opinion of the majority. "
Barak Is a Communist
Barak Obama is a communist. He believes in central planning. He subscribes to the philosophies of Karl Marx. I think we've forgotten how big of a deal that is. It looks like the Cold War has finally been won.
Thomas S. Monson is a Prophet.
I quote "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.) That's President Wilford Woodruff in the Doctrine and Covenants. Here's the link. If the Church is true Thomas S. Monson is the Prophet. There's no "the Church is true, but maybe the Prophet is not, or he's corrupted". The Church is true or it's not. That's it. So any conspiracy or idea that says Thomas Monson is not the Prophet could only be true if your position is that the Church isn't true at all to begin with.
P.S. The church is true. You can ask God.
P.S. The church is true. You can ask God.
Prop 8
This is a great article. This is a gay woman who used to be Mormon protesting Mormon family values and at the same time talking about how great her Mormon family is. She sounds a little conflicted. I'm not sure if she realizes how contradictory that is.
"I can't believe that a religious group that preaches truth and love is asking their members to campaign and donate to take away my civil rights," said Jill Shearer, 40, of Oakland. Shearer grew up in San Ramon and was raised Mormon. When she came out as a lesbian, she said her family still kept her close.
"I can't believe that a religious group that preaches truth and love is asking their members to campaign and donate to take away my civil rights," said Jill Shearer, 40, of Oakland. Shearer grew up in San Ramon and was raised Mormon. When she came out as a lesbian, she said her family still kept her close.
"My family decided that they loved me and I was worth more than any religious dogma," said Shearer, who was at the temple a month ago for her father's funeral. "I have an awesome family."
Here's the link.
Awesome Mormon families are a direct result of their religious dogma.
I come from a Mormon family and we were the most tolerant accepting people on the block. Prop 8 doesn't have as much to do with us not allowing Gays to have their lifestyle. It has more to do with protecting our lifestyle. Marriage has been marriage for centuries, millenia. Let's leave it what it is. The scary thing about this is that once we start redefining family, the very existence of the family is in jeopardy. Before we know it we'll all be children of the state. No parents, no children, no husbands no wives. We're just lucky children of the state.
Mormons know a little bit about the definition of marriage. What's fair and what's not. My great great grandfather was a polygamist like many mormons at the time. He had two wives and children by both. Might sound radical. But if you think gay is normal and dare to call another lifestyle (polygamy) weird, you're a hypocrite. The United States Government put him in prison for six months and annulled one of his marriages. We understand very well what it means to not have marriage tolerated. We are not about intolerance. We are about preserving the right to worship and raise our children as we see fit. Which will probably be infringed upon if Prop 8 does not pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)