The Ironic Death of Sergeant La David Johnson

Image result for sgt ladavid johnson

 

By:  H. David Sauls

me pipe

How many of us will publicize this omission and irony?  How many of us will say, ‘enough with molesting the truth!’ Will the press report this hypocrisy? None of us, and certainly none of them; we are busily distracted by the adolescent, Trump-Corker bickering, the egotistical, Bill O’Reilly bully whining, and the press corps drooling and wringing its hands for more, more, more. They won’t report this because it is the truth. The complete truth. The irony that pulls the sheets off of their heads.

This omission is revealed on the day that CNN began its “Facts First” media campaign, featuring a commercial ad about telling the truth. How much irony can we find here?

The 30-second “Facts First” spot states simply that an apple is an apple, even if some people “might scream banana, banana, banana over and over and over again.”

Yet it has failed to report the following FACT…

The ironic story behind a piece of legislation and the death of a soldier.

House Resolution 3833 (see attachment).

Please note the representative who introduced this legislation. The very representative who wonders why Sergeant La David Johnson died in Niger…

Image result for frederica wilson

Is the one who sent him there.

From her own press release, regarding H.R. 3833, dated December 7, 2016:

“The measure directs the U.S. secretaries of State and Defense to jointly develop a five-year strategy to aid the Nigerian government; members of the Multinational Joint Task Force created to combat Boko Haram; and international partners who’ve offered their support to counter the regional threat posed by the insurgents.

[…] “Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to ISIS and continues to commit terrible acts of brutal violence against civilians in Nigeria as well as in Chad, Cameroon, and Niger,” said Senator Collins, who authored and originally introduced the bill. “Rep. Frederica Wilson was a willing and able partner in the effort to pass this bipartisan legislation, which requires a five-year strategy to pursue Boko Haram and will bolster U.S. efforts throughout the region. I urge the president to immediately sign this bill into law”, said Wilson.

[…] “Boko Haram captured my attention and the headlines when the terrorist group kidnapped 276 Nigerian schoolgirls from their dormitory rooms 968 days ago. For most of the world, the Chibok girls symbolize the horror that is Boko Haram, but the damage its members have wrought goes far deeper,” said Congresswoman Wilson.”

The Republicans are no less culpable in this irony. They cannot escape the grip of hypocrisy either. S.1632, sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is the Senate version of this legislation. Both bills passed.

The widow and children of Sergeant LaDavid Johnson have been deceived by their representative, Frederica Wilson. They have lost a husband and a father, and the woman responsible for sending him there has made fools of them, stolen their dignity, taken advantage of their grief, and used it to her own, selfish political advantage. Wilson does not even to appear to remember introducing this legislation. She obviously did not understand its implications when she signed it. This irony bears witness to a level of incompetence, unrepentant pride, and sick deception that cannot be adequately criticized, adequately articulated, nor completely measured.

You need not look any further than this story for evidence of the existence of managed news, manufactured news, and selective news.

I wonder of Frederica Wilson mentioned her role in this tragic affair to Sergeant Johnson’s widow…

I never solicit for shares or panhandle for likes. But in this case, a share or two might open some eyes. The American public is going to deceive itself into non-existence if we don’t resist the media and begin to be objective and completely informed.  We are going to keep defending these politicians (and yes, I lump Trump in the same heap with Frederica Wilson) to the point that selective truth becomes the norm, where abnormal reality extends itself so deep in the American psyche, that when normal reality asserts itself, we will be so fenced in by these little opinion corrals we’ve been herded into, there will be no escape, and we will be driven into the chute for slaughter.

 

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Anthropomorphic Delusion: The Artificial Order

Amelia 3
me pipe
By: H. David Sauls
 
The meaning of the word “progression” has been obfuscated to the extent that it has allowed the boundaries between the animal and the human to be obscured.  Following the course of the gender debate, the abortion debate, and any other identity crisis that has been created, there’s one more to add to the list.  Humans now equate their pets as children and family members to an extent that society can only be viewed as in a state of regression. I love my dogs, but not to the extent of equating them with myself or my family.  What seems harmless, loving our pets, has been taken captive and we with it, as hostages of the attack on traditional roles. 
The whole “fur babies” and pets as “starter children” trend and craze in which people assign their pets the same relevance as children have been accepted as innocent, and even cute and/or admirable.  You can see it anywhere.   Today, a grown man, retirement age, walked into the bank carrying a tea-cup Yorkshire Terrier, holding it like a child and whispering to it while waiting in line behind me. I doubt he even cared that the Yorkshire Terrier was bred in the19th century in Yorkshire, England, to catch rats in clothing mills.  “Stop it!” I thought.  “Remember your dignity, man!”
 
Humans are created in God’s image. Pets are not. What is significant about pets is that you reveal your character in how you treat lesser creatures in their proper context, as they are, not by elevating them to or above human existence and assigning them a popular context in which to exist. The natural nobility of many a lesser creature has been distorted by mankind as he recreates them in his own image rather than treating them as a necessary variable of Creation endowed with their inherent dignity, role, and purpose. In a normal state of mind, you understand that they are creatures of lesser intelligence, do not reason as humans do, and treat them with care and compassion. But that does not include equalizing them to any extent with the human form.  That is an abnormal state of mind.
 
I have four dogs. They want to be dogs, not children. They like being dogs. Not children. They know they are dogs. Not children. This all-inclusive practice of anthropomorphism has altered the social perception of the natural order to such an extent that average people have come to accept it as normal, and then become incensed when confronted with this delusional practice.
 
As a 911 operator, I could share with you any number of calls where shocked pet owners witnessed their beloved family-member dog attack or bite a child. In nearly every case, the dog was handed over to animal control and destroyed. In some cases, the owner dispatched the animal of their own accord. I don’t condone that practice, but it serves to provide the contrast between the animal mind and the human mind. A dog that for years had been the trusted family companion and ascribed a role as family member ultimately injured a child. In every case, I heard the words, “We’ve had that dog for years, he/she’s NEVER shown any signs of aggression, I don’t understand what could have….” An animal whose natural boundaries were blurred or erased had an instinctive moment, acted on it, and injured a juvenile. That’s unfair to the dog, and unfair to the child. Reality check noted.
 
In my early twenties, I worked as a live-in kennel manager for an upscale, Buckhead boarding, grooming, and training kennel. I worked at three animal hospitals. Most of our clientele were upper-class types, most owned AKC registered breeds or “specialty” breeds. I saw first-hand back in the early 90’s with doting pet owners where the trend was leading when clients routinely brought all manner of “home comforts” for their dogs, cats, birds, and all other sorts of domesticated pets.   Pets have become domestic slaves of the human imagination. People have become slaves to marketed, artificial, social constructs who’s entire intention is create mentally-reliant sub-economies.  They establish a mentality, must perpetuate it, and ingrain it in the social psyche.  Our willingness to run after the carrot on that stick is symptomatic of the state of the social-mental condition, and it needs the medication of reality.
 
At the kennel, marketing pet care towards humans was normal practice; we marketed our boarding facility in human terms, not in canine, feline, or avian terms.  Everything about pet marketing is really all about humans. Pet food companies are constantly marketing their brands in human terms. Even to the point of acquiring high-dollar, professional chefs to sponsor their brands. In an emotionally damaged and dependent society, they know that humans need a security blanket, and constantly need something to sympathize with. They understand the mental condition of their consumers and cater to it, extending boundaries and erasing boundaries that ultimately distorts the human by distorting the animal.
 
Call me a curmudgeon if you want. Say I’m a grumpy old man with a keyboard full of falderol, but the mass mental condition of a society is evident in these seemingly harmless notions of ascribing human characteristics and relevance to animals.
 
Pets seem to have become a convenient substitute for children. They are being dressed in Halloween costumes and taken to doggy trick-or-treat. I don’t get it, and I’d bet Fido and Spot don’t get it either.
 
Perhaps, this is another file in the empirical evidence of the slow method and practice of erasing traditional boundaries and the relevance of the Image God from the mind of man that I keep droning on about. I have no doubt that this blog will provoke much eye-rolling.
At the moment, Amelia, our Boxer-Lab mix is by my side as I write this. By my feet. Not on the sofa, not in the bed. She is a companion and a guard. As a social species, she understands she has a role but does not extend it beyond her understood, accepted, given, and instinctive context. As a human, I, in turn, understand her role and provide for it. But neither of us seem to misunderstand the intended, natural relevance of our roles and obligations in this symbiotic relationship. We recognize and welcome the boundaries between human and animal. I provide her with food, water, and shelter. She provides us with protection, and as a concession, I facilitate her domesticated role. In exchange, she is free to practice her instincts and fulfill her role as defender of the premises.
 
She’s happy with that. She has a well defined, consistent role and can instinctively make the comparison between the humans and her own kind. This is the way Amelia likes it. This is the way I like it.
 
But for Millennials, pets are becoming a replacement for children. As G. Shane Morris points out:
 
“But for many in my generation who are also approaching 30, children (and the ideal prerequisite for children, marriage), are still out of the question because they’re too expensive, too time-consuming, and might cramp their style. Those nurturing instincts don’t go anywhere, though. A disturbing number of young adults are directing them toward substitutes—not boots or stuffed toys, but dogs and cats… I’m convinced that psychology manuals 200 years from now will identify “replacement-baby syndrome” as a diagnosable epidemic in my generation. For an unbelievable number of millennials, pets’ original purpose—to be shaggy companions and useful partners in work and housekeeping—has been superseded by a role they were never intended to fill: replacement child. It’s hard work pretending animals are humans
Maybe not much, because they’re likely very busy. After all, being a “pet parent” is hard work. This strenuous delusion usually involves pretending animals are humans, as with a viral Pinterest post by a woman who huffs, “Don’t say I am not a Mom just because my kids have 4 legs and fur. They are my kids, and I am their mom.
 
Millennials, it turns out, are twice as likely as baby boomers to buy clothing for their pets, an industry which, along with other forms of “pet-pampering,” amounted to $11 billion last year, and markets such essential items as pet strollers and pet slings.” [1]
 
If you need to be convinced that we have gone where mankind has never gone before, I present you with the newest trend for feline fanciers; the rubber cat grooming tongue, also known in marketed terms as “Lick-Em Cat Scratcher”, and “Licki-Brush Silicone Grooming Tongue Cat Brush”:
 
Image result for rubber tongue for cats
And it doesn’t stop with this.  There is a well-known animal clinic in Metro-Atlanta known as “Pets Are People, Too”.  No, they are not, nor do they want to be.  Zoologists and anthropologists must cringe at this idea.  It’s really laughable.  But that’s what people want to believe.  And somehow, we have come to a point where what we want to believe is more relevant what we, in reality, in a normal state of mind, must believe.  The human imagination has been amplified to the extent that dogs and cats are not dogs and cats simply because we want them to be something above what they are.  We have ascribed them human-social attributes.  May I present Mr. and “Mrs.” Joseph Guiso:
Image result for man marries his dog
If we are not careful, if we continue to be dominated by artificial, social constructs and the la-la land of our out-of-control, collective imagination, the next rung on the ladder of insanity leads to legislating a legal status for animals in a human context.  We’ve already redefined humanity itself in legal terms. The natural order be damned. Whatever we think or feel that conveniences our view or existence is all important, and reality tends to get in the way.
We have replaced reality with imagination.  We have established the Artificial Order.
 
[1] G. Shane Morris, May 9, 2017 FDRLST Media
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Age of Normalized Abnormality: The Deconstruction of Civilization

 

Image result for cultural marxism

 

H. David Sauls 2014

By: H. David Sauls

“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.”

-Saint Anthony the Great

A female Episcopal priest “reconciling” her religious beliefs in order to support abortion rights. A lesbian Methodist minister calling Christ a bigot. The Boy Scouts of America capitulating to the Feminist Arm of Cultural Marxism and extending its membership to girls. All within the span of two weeks.

Mass, socio-psychopathic illness, or deliberate delusion? It is only honest and fair that I acknowledge that I battle with my own personal, moral compromises and demons (and I ask your forgiveness and prayers), but it is the external, blatant, public, and marketed delusions such as those articulated above and below that I wish to attack. These social engineers and their artificial realities admit no wrong and proceed to “reconcile” conditions that, by the laws of moral physics, cannot be reconciled. Their intention is to make them socially acceptable, and slowly introduce them into society as gentle and acceptable modernist reforms.

(Aside: At the very least, in admitting to my own private demons and “compromises”, my hypocrisy is contained to myself, and has no intention of presenting itself as a social condition that is acceptable, unlike the intentions of these overt presentments and deliberate distortions; where I strive to correct my inconsistencies, they strive to both justify and assert theirs as acceptable or unavoidable.)

In the age of the Internet, Facebook, and since the inception of the twenty-four-hour news cycle, society has opened the door to the expression of subjective ideas regarding social structure, gender, and boundaries, and used itself as a bench test, a laboratory, and a launching ground for artificial forms of existence that are contrary to nature. And notice of this contrariness reveals that it opposes as much the atheist as it does the Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. All of these cultural forms acknowledge a natural order and accede to it in their theologies. The current trends in social constructs are weakening the basic tenets that all of these share in common, which centers around, when the theology is removed, an order that occurs, is testable, provable, and is undisputed. Yet they distort it to frame an argument.

These same trend-setters in social modification, who declare that there are regions of human existence of which are not aware and should discover, or that we can “create”, scream bloody murder that mankind is affecting the natural order; something they resist acknowledging in their social ideology, yet use when they make the climate change or global warming argument. The first inconsistency to notice is their endorsement of extra-gender existence while at the same time blaming man for disturbing the environment and blaming man-made elements and emissions for the change in that order. Even they acknowledge the existence of a natural order.

But, wouldn’t their artificially created ideas pose a smiliar threat to the social environment?

These modernist compromises, heresies, and reforms are to society what those who impose them claim greenhouse gasses are to the environment.

“In her new book “Pro-Choice and Christian: Reconciling Faith, Politics, and Justice,” [Episcopal Priest Kira] Schlesinger criticizes churches that “shame” and stigmatize women who abort their unborn babies. She said church congregations should have more open conversations about abortion, and support women who have them.”[1]

Image result for Episcopal Priest Kira] Schlesinger

Episcopal Priest Kira Schlesinger

In order to understand how these ideologies are inserted as “honest” into the public conversation, how they quietly and slowly assert themselves as an acceptable concession, one must examine the grammar and syntax executed in their diction. Suggesting that “congregations should have a more open conversation” is the subtle language of brainwashing, of softening a message, of panhandling for sympathies. Gentle words that on the surface, bear no threat to the reader. “Okay, I’ll listen…” is the first temptation, and slowly, over time, if repeated enough, coalesces into moral compromise.

By choosing her words carefully and “considerately”, she lulls the reader into the polite seat of audience “participation”. She is inclusive, seemingly accommodating as she concedes something as the lesser of two evils, giving tolerance of her view a subconscious foothold, tempting the reader into both arguing with and considering her point of view, creating confusion. It appears as a safe and docile conversation. She has already presented us with a victim for whom to have sympathy, but it is noted that the circumstances that created the victim are wholly omitted. We are then challenged to “support” the victim, skipping any mitigating circumstances whatsoever. By the time the word “support” is used, the reader has been led to the next point, and overlooked the primary, moral features of unwanted pregnancies: the responsibility of the mother to the child, and the rights of the unborn child. In two swift and subtle strokes, the importance of the institution of motherhood has been made irrelevant, and the child relegated to exist as a non-participant. (Others will argue that the primary feature is the mother alone, and that the child is irrelevant.) Two things are accomplished here: the institutions of marriage and family are weakened, and responsibility discarded as a mere inconvenience, granting license to free-ranging amorality as a public feature.

Ironically, they would argue that the child is a non-participant, because in the evolutionary natural order, at this stage of development, an embryo is non-sentient, and therefore it bears no rights in and of itself. Yet they must acknowledge the existence of a natural order to make that argument. An order they in the next breath, ignore by asserting the existence of social constructs, declaring that gender is determined socially, not biologically according to a natural order. This is designed to deny that natural order determines the gender in order to suit their gender argument, in which, they must use an entirely opposite mode of argument to prove itself: gender as a matter of environmental influences or even opinion. They will cite numerous, scientifically-psychologically complex articles and studies to prove that gender is socially constructed. Others, trying to be orthodox in their tactics, cite complex biological “evidence” that supports the existence of a chemical abnormality that causes gender dysphoria. These assertions attempt to support the same idea, yet lack unanimity of any sort, except that natural order, appears to exist only where it conveniently serves a particular view.

Jump to a lesbian, Methodist Bishop, Dr. Karen Oliveto:

“As one person put it: ‘Jesus wasn’t a know-it-all, he was also learning God’s will like any human being and finally he changed his mind…if Jesus didn’t have to know it all innately, but rather could grow into new and deeper understanding through an openness to God’s people [even those he formerly discounted], maybe if Jesus could change his mind then maybe so can we!…

“If Jesus can change, if he can give up his bigotries and prejudices, if he can realize that he had made his life too small, and if, in this realization, he grew closer to others and closer to God, than so can we.”[3]

Image may contain: 4 people, people smiling, people standing

Dr. Karen Oliveto

Apparently, in the Methodist seminaries, they have discarded the Trinitarian Formula altogether. The grammar and syntax here are designed to quietly deny Christ as Logos, to strip Him of His Divinity, and relegate Him to a blasphemous level of existence as anything but the Son of the Living God. “He was just like you and me, trying to make sense of things.” Pardon, no. This blatant heresy, but accomplishes the same objective as our friend, Tennessee Episcopal Priest Kira Schlesinger does in her abortion apology.

While one can understand the overwhelming odds BSA leadership (Randall L. Stephenson, President) faces in the next battle, against artificial ideologies overwhelming its very premise, when the odds are this clear in battle, the captain of the ship knows to set the scuttling charges in order to keep his ship out of enemy hands. That enemy is Cultural Marxism. It is present in all three cases and has infected the American psyche even more nefariously than Nazism and fascism did in the German psyche under the Third Reich.

Related image

“The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.”

Max Horkheimer, Marxist Theoretician

Cultural Marxists devised a formula to assert their philosophy covertly; by invading the institutions from within. They termed it “The long march through the institutions (Alfred Willi Rudolf “Rudi” Dutschke, student activist, Germany, 1960’s, describing his strategy for establishing the conditions for revolution: subverting society by infiltrating institutions such as the professions [and churches, schools, organizations, etc.]. The phrase “long march” is a reference to the prolonged struggle of the Chinese communists, which included a physical Long March of their army across China.).[1]

It would behoove everyone to learn and understand what Cultural Marxism is. No doubt most have never heard of it. And it exists in the extremes, median, and mean of all political parties, and now, religions and atheist views. It is by design, intended to deconstruct democracies, traditions, and institutions slowly, using a slow-drip method of injecting socialist, nihilist beliefs into a society by creating false sympathies and victims (one method). These false sympathies and victims allow for the slow expansion of natural boundaries contrary to the natural social order established (by God if you are a believer, by Nature if you are an atheist) and extending boundaries favorable to Critical Theory; a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it (source uncited).
By creating “victims”, they are able to dramatize a non-existent problem into existence (using mass and social media), cast the “victims” as persecuted (or excluded) persons, attach or detach responsibility to or from the institution they mean to deconstruct, and proceed to erect a socialist framework in its place. This has been their aim since the European interwar period (1918–39). Critical of capitalism and Marxism–Leninism as philosophically inflexible systems, the School’s critical theory research indicated alternative paths to realizing the social development of a nation.[4]

“Alternative” paths include the outcome of the attached article. It is entirely probable that they have achieved this objective, and that those who carried it out have never even heard of Cultural Marxism.

That is the key to their success; the anonymous conquest of a society using the very members of that society itself to conquer itself.

[1] Episcopal Priest Kira Schlesinger; Pro-Choice and Christian: Reconciling Faith, Politics, and Justice. Westminster and John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky. 2017

[2] Pulpit and Pen. Published September 30, 2017, ·Updated September 30, 2017 [Dr. Karen Oliveto quote]

[3] Dalton, Russell (1987), “Generational Change in Elite Political Beliefs: The Growth of Ideological Polarization”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 49 (4): 976–997, doi:10.2307/2130780

[4] Held, David (1980). Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. University of California Press, p. 14.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Liberal Philosophy of Political Androgyny: Hillary’s Dream

hillary-logo

Road Sign To Hell

 

H. David Sauls 2014

By: H. David Sauls, Georgia Military College

Make sure your kids and grandkids get this because it defines the possibilities in their future: How to identify red flags in a politician’s language:

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere,” Clinton [Hillary Rodham] told Banco Itau, a Brazilian bank, on May 16, 2013.

Anytime a politician of any ilk uses words like “hemispheric”, “common market”, “sustainable”, and general, plural pronouns like “every person” in the context of the word “hemisphere”, characterized by idealistic assertions like, “my dream”, especially while speaking in the context of “open borders” (the loudest, screeching tires in the room) to a foreign bank, they are speaking the language of global socialism, and progressivism. These are horrible prospects for any sovereign state to embrace or submit to. Politicians who speak this language and go about trying to implement this political philosophy are absolutely your worst, worst, worst enemies.

In order to establish a “global, one-world government”, “open borders”, the object of this language, this philosophy has to coalesce little by little; it cannot be done overnight (if at all; I simply do not believe there will be enough competent bureaucrats capable of managing a one-world government), they will begin with experimental “unions” (i.e., the European Union), move to small geographic regions where two or three countries form some sort of prototype joint government in which economies, laws, and militaries share territorial sovereignty with one another. This is the world Hillary Clinton envisions, and it is a model for abject and total social failure that will lead to wars, rampant crime and disorder, and absolute social chaos.
But in her idealistic, dreamy-eyed, liberal world, she actually believes, along with all upper-echelon liberal socialists, that it is the ideal model for planet earth. No political subdivisions, no acknowledgment of history and cultures, complete political and social homogenization, populated by culturally androgynous tunicates in an amorphic world. They mean to tear down every boundary that civilizes mankind (marriage, family, international borders and sovereignty, religion, etc.) in the ludicrous belief that these institutions somehow inhibit rather than enhance and ensure civilized society. This objective has already seen success to some extent, and language like this above is ultimately where it all leads. It’s complicated, complex, and hard to untangle. Most people aren’t compelled to figure it out, and that’s exactly what politicians like Hillary Rodham Clinton are counting on in order to succeed.

Which only emphasizes the irony in Hillary’s campaign emblem, the ‘H’ crossed with the arrow. It is truly pointing the way to Hell.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hypocrisy and Convenient Moral Invectives

three-monkeys

 

H. David Sauls 2014

By: H. David Sauls, Georgia Military College

 

We’ve arrived at a new level of hypocrisy. The art of the moral invective has been perfected, and we’re running with the devil in all directions.

The same people who were condemning Bill Clinton for his sins are now defending Donald Trump’s words (and probable actions). Why? Because they’ve hitched their wagon to someone they didn’t even know they morally opposed. Now, they are doubling down and parsing everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth in order to justify their choice, fearful of being scrutinized for being such willing fools.

This situation is the perfect compass for determining for America’s moral location. For myself personally, I have opposed Donald J. Trump from the very beginning. His comments about Megan Kelly of Fox News were enough for me to conclude he is a trash-mouth, absent any self-control, holding himself above and beyond the reach of every moral standard that his very supporters say they hold themselves to and teach their children. Yet, they continue to support him. They continue to defend him. They continue to blindly pardon his actions, when not so long ago, they were railing against the same kind of behavior, yet are now so easily wielding moral invectives when their hypocrisy is pointed out.

It is astounding to me when once a candidate or nominee is embraced and endorsed by the electorate, how quickly the same criticisms once asserted, by his or her supporters against an opponent in any context disappears when the chosen candidate or nominee violates the threads and tenets of same-said criticism.

The electorate has been taught how to both consciously AND subconsciously parse stories and facts and dispute evidence merely on the basis of inductive conclusions and clever retorts. One candidate running for office can violate a moral standard and be excused, when in an opposing context, another candidate can violate a moral standard and be condemned. THIS is where we are being divided into groups, folks, this is where morality and standards for our elected officials, and by proxy, our own personal standards are being diluted into compromises. We are being morally subdivided little by little on the basis of our willingness to submit to our pride ahead of any moral or categorical, or even maybe hypothetical imperatives we claim to support that would normally dictate we uphold a higher standard in ALL cases.

This is defined as situational ethics; the doctrine of flexibility in the application of moral laws according to circumstances. It’s the act of justifying a moral violation in one case where the context is sympathetic to a particular view, whereas, in a context in which it is antithetical, it is perfectly acceptable to condemn and criticize it. It ALWAYS leads to a hypocritical view.

We will have accepted a lower moral standard no matter who gets elected. The angle of decline in American society becomes steeper when people of otherwise high moral standards begin to compromise for fear of admitting they were wrong.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pixelated Opinions

H. David Sauls 2014

By: H. David Sauls, Georgia Military College

debate

When we enter into the exercise of  any Constitutional freedom, we enter into a realm characterized by subjectivity and emotion.  Whether it be our vote or our freedom of speech, each is exercised to a great extent on the basis of a subjective interpretation of events and what we perceive to be facts.  One would prefer that an ideal electorate vote and speak objectively.  But we live in an age where fact and fiction are often eclipsed by one another, perpetrated by a giant entertainment machine that has so obscured the lines between entertainment and journalism, the objective conclusion has become an extinct species of mental function.

Nominees parse stories, such as the tone and context of a “locker room” conversation characterized by language that would have provoked our mothers to fetch a bar of soap and wash our mouth’s out.  Or the context and relevance of emails deleted, long gone and unrecoverable, left to the vague ambiguities of the time and place, the legal definitions ‘secret’ and ‘confidential’, ignorance presented as innocent and accidental, and supposed precedents set by office-holders past.

We are led down a primrose path of obscurity, by a press corps that long ago abandoned objectivity and it’s role to inform the public sans bias, having instead embraced an entertainment driven ideal, all-the-while quietly asserting their own political agenda and narrative; the keepers of the “facts”, crafting them into a context suitable to their own interests and agendas, abandoning the electorate on the doorstep of involuntary ignorance, leaving them with subjectified [a word of my own invention] opinions rather than objective, credible conclusions.  They lead us to form opinions that are the result of narratives contrived in conversations around conference tables in the hallowed halls of Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and any big-city newspaper you can name, where editors and producers fabricate the dialogue for us.  They then proceed to serve as debate proctors under the auspices of the Commission on Presidential Debates, as though this grants them some immunity from their subjectivity and bias.  They proceed into these debates with vigor, jaguars in the trees, ready to pounce, interrupting nominees when the conversation diverges from their objective, attempting to steer the narrative in a direction that comports with the agenda they wish to assert, sinking their teeth into the throat of any answer that does not suit their intent.  They deliberately bait the American people into talking about unimportant aspects of a candidate or nominee, go rutting around in the past without recalling their own past, and then present it as though it has a higher relevance to the average voter than what the average voter is dealing with day in and day out as a result of years of Washington abuse.  Having so distracted the electorate, for the electorate is the bound and gagged hostage of everyone involved, they then go about as if they have erased their own culpability and escaped their own blatant hypocrisy.  Well, a man bound and gagged can neither utter his captor’s name nor point a finger at him.

Trump has risen because he possesses two elements the media cannot resist: a big mouth and entertainment value.  Clinton has risen because she represents the media’s actual political agenda and philosophy. Neither of them is good for America, but both of them are great for the press.  The media succeeds in either direction; all they have to do is keep the emotions high, the narrative moving, the discord and bickering among the electorate alive, and the facts expanding.  That should be the first clue that these are people we don’t need as head of our government.  But casting the two against each other has propelled the media to a new euphoric power-high.  Not only are they able to control their audience and their audience’s opinion, it doesn’t matter which one of these narcissists their audience supports; they both guarantee continued viewership, all on the basis of false pretense, fabricated stories, and biased reporting, craftily dodging real facts and actual data and eye-witness, first-hand accounts that would otherwise bury both Clinton and Trump deep in the ash-heap of American history.

Neither of these people possesses the virtues an objective electorate would vote for, but they have all the stuff an electorate held emotionally captive in the grips of subjectivity will either hate with vitriol, or love with blind enthusiasm no matter what they do or say.

The press is to blame for our predicament.  The nominees are to blame for our cynicism.  They are both to blame for everything that’s wrong with American elections, period.  They report  and say whatever is convenient and conducive to their political view and objectives.  They have tampered with the truth to do it, poisoned the electorate to do it, and doomed democracy to failure because of it.  Our proclivity towards social media, being eternally entertained, and saturating ourselves with twenty-four-seven news cycles characterized by what seems sympathetic to our own views, packaged in high-def graphics and dramatic musical scores, relentless in their regurgitation of the same stories over and over and over again punctuated by these entertainment value gimmicks, has taught us how to be a good hostage. Our reliance on Facebook, Twitter, and whatever else, including blogs that never get read, is the little box we’ve been placed in, never to emerge into reality, ever existing in tiny pixels of data that get forgotten as quickly as they are read.

Meanwhile, nominees get elected, and the press gets to gloat or endlessly criticize.  And believe it, the press doesn’t care whether it’s gloating or endlessly criticizing, they both produce the same result for them.

Let’s hope and pray that our freedoms don’t get pixelized and digitized into irrelevance like our opinions have.  If we let that happen, then we were never intelligent enough to have them in the first place.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Death of National Sovereignty

National Sovereignty Abstract

H. David Sauls 2014

By: H. David Sauls, Georgia Military College

 

 

If you have any doubt as to the veracity of claims that the European native is becoming an endangered species, that their national sovereignties are being relegated to irrelevancy, read the history of the Native American as a case study on what is taking place in Europe today.  Political power and native peoples are under threat, and no one will recognize what is happening in Europe quicker than an American Indian…

But the crisis in Europe extends beyond the slow and gradual cultural genocide taking place there.  Sovereign governments seem to be surrendering their political power in an almost suicidal accommodation of ideologies that were spawned nearly a century ago, woven into the fabric of every political form of government known to and practiced by man, and now subverting and supplanting morally objective political philosophies with morally subjective ideologies that destroy from within.

As the United Kingdom debates the issue of leaving the European Union, there seems to be a concerted effort aimed at defeating the concept of national sovereignty as a natural right of organized states. The E.U. is, for now, a weak government, but in order to ensure its existence, logic follows that the consolidation of the military forces of member states be an objective on their political agenda. The consolidation of independent economic power is already under way.  Liberal, socialist sentiments are threatening unique European cultural features with their addiction to tolerance and multiculturalism, and the populist mascot of their cause, the “victim”, is paraded about as the martyr of Western policies.  Europe, with its open borders under the Schengen Treaty, the ridiculous arguments of the European Commission on a wide range of policies from defense to welfare, is being decimated of its own culture and national identities, piecemeal.  If the liberal, socialist motif becomes the global model, sovereign and native identities will be absorbed into hermaphroditic political associations, subject to one another, with no nationalities, no self-determination, nor cultural identity.  That result is the long-term effect of current policies born of nations interacting globally, allowing private, economic enterprise to become nationalized under trade agreements, and then for the nationalities involved to begin to merge their independent authorities into mutual political authorities, requiring consensus between the two, and at the expense of the national sovereignty of each.  This is an example of neo-Marxist Frankfurt School, liberal, socialist, strategic hypocrisy.  It is the purest form and practice of Critical Theory that was calculated by academic socialists beginning in 1923, and now taking advantage of globalization in an attempt to assert itself.  How this can be revealed is to examine their present pet causes; racial relations, income disparity claims, refugees, etc., which they deftly use to fabricate a victim class, create artificial concern and sympathy for them, and then covertly proceed to the ultimate destination of socialist bred phony tolerance and multiculturalism, which is quite the opposite of the interests they claim to advocate.  The philosophy of tolerance is a propaganda tool used in neo-Marxism and socialism in order to generate a false sense of injustice, crafted to lure by emotional appeal, liberal-minded supporters, easily subject to suggestion, ever addicted to imagery, drama, and any cause celebre.

Critical Theory

neo-Marxism

Refugee advocates

Refugee advocates, Leichardt, Australia. (photo from The Daily Telegraph)

Frankfurt-minded academics and their obsequious, sycophant-liberal marionettes scream discrimination at the reaction to Islamic refugees being rejected by native European peoples, refugees who are wreaking criminal havoc in the streets of Europe but cast as victims.  The objective of these liberal academics and politicians appears to seek to homogenize the whole of society; a subconscious genocide where in less than a century, native European peoples will be diluted to the point of irrelevancy. The sycophants scream and shout for diversity and tolerance among peoples, yet fail to realize the ramifications of forced political alliances and cultural accommodations. They scream and shout for diversity, yet if their logic is pursued, whether in the form of political unions or the absorption of one demographic by another, diversity itself will be eradicated. Ironically, the end result of multiculturalism is inevitably uniculturalism.  When this practice takes on political form in the authority that represents a nation’s sovereign independence, it has extended itself into a sacred realm and threatens the very foundations upon which nations were built.

Taking military power from one state and transferring it to an organization of states in parliamentary form is a reflection of the cultural objectives held by these political schools of thought. They must by default, attack national sovereignty as well as individual sovereignty in order to achieve their primary objective: to destroy all institutions (military, educational, religious,etc.) from within. Most of us in the United States sympathize with Britain’s plight, as we may one day face a North American Union with the same ramifications.

 

 

World Unions

world union map 2

Existing and proposed global political and economic unions

This discussion should be taking place now, here in the United States, as trade agreements are considered and refugee asylum numbers mount.  As the trend, ever slow, gradual, and patient, grows towards larger global political subdivisions, absorbing state power along the way, we watch it happening domestically as the Tenth Amendment is repeatedly usurped by politicians and judges from all three branches of government.  While state governors continue to fail their constituencies and allow more federal incursion into the realm of state authority, a slow conditioning is taking place, and an electorate more tolerant of and dependent upon centralized federal powers is emerging.  This conditioning will inevitably lead to a generation easily swayed towards internationalism in its most destructive form.  Rooted in socialism and liberalism, internationalism is a major step towards erasing national boundaries, races, cultures, and traditions.

While some philosophers, such as John Ralston Saul (Canadian), insist that globalization is already beginning to fracture as citizens reassert their own national interests, newly proposed trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union gain momentum, contradict his conclusions.  These trade agreements are old habits in concordance with the original aims of U.S. interests abroad after World War II in promoting economic integration with global capitalist objectives, at a time when the United States constituted only 6.3% of the global population, but held 50% of global wealth (figures from 1948; see George Kennan, Policy Planning Staff, U.S. State Department).  But they have been modified to reflect a more liberal, socialist motif.  Their ultimate conclusion is socialism veneered with capitalism, and the surrender of national economic and military sovereignty is necessary in order for such objectives to succeed.  The case of the United Kingdom is a contemporary example of the resultant debate in the face of dying national sovereignties.

european-army-fight-rusisa

European Union emblem being affixed to a German soldier’s uniform

As the U.K. awaits a referendum on Brexit, the controversy of British military forces finding themselves under E.U. command if Britain remains in the European Union has erupted.  British military actions would be subject to a consensus vote of E.U. member states.  This relegates not only the British Parliament to a mere gesture in foreign affairs and policy but places the monarchy itself at a level of irrelevancy exceeding its present state of declining influence.  The inevitability of remaining in the E.U. for Britain has been professionally articulated by a former officer commanding, British Forces, Afghanistan:

“An E.U. army is inevitable. As the E.U. has declared, it is moving to ever closer union, it intendeds to become a fully fledged superstate… That’s the plan.We would essentially be giving up our right to sovereign self-defence. Control of the E.U. army would not rest with us but in a collective E.U. decision.” (The Telegraph)
 
Colonel Richard Kemp, British Royal Army, Ret., CBE
 While this writer resists conspiracy theorists who assert that a so-called “one world government” could become a reality- after all, our present governments, from the local level to the federal level, seem unable to accomplish anything of a constructive use or measurable means- these unions are a different breed altogether.  They may not achieve an “international department of transportation,” or an “international department of parks and recreation”, but given the proposals emerging from E.U. member states, a form of international cooperatives appear to be struggling to coalesce into a reality that has far-reaching implications.  Already, the United States is party to U.N. programs that reach into private communities, from water rights to gun ownership, the internationalization of sovereign peoples is being tested in the social laboratory that is the United Nations.  The E.U. is the ultimate testing ground for how receptive native peoples will be to programs and alliances that subject them to the consent of foreign powers and interests.  The reality of cooperation and tolerance is a generalized society, no longer characterized by unique nations and cultures, free and independent, able to exercise self-determination in their own interests.  The world is becoming viewed as one place rather than many places.  Technological advances are leading to political decline.  Economic growth is being facilitated at the expense of sovereignty, and in the end, as we allow the theology of apathy to settle onto the couch of complicity, dozing into a slumber of negligence, we will awaken to a world where freedom, independence, and the unique qualities of world cultures are dead.  The eradication of borders and national sovereignty ensures the dilution of freedom, the eradication of culture and art, tradition and heritage, and ultimately, the individual.  A certain Mr. Orwell wrote a quaint little story once.  It might do well to revisit it, for when these variables are examined as a whole, they tell the same story, only this time, they may be closer to becoming a reality.  Socialistic tendencies may no longer lead to literal totalitarian figures, but to institutional totalitarianism.  Even academic socialists are capable of observing the obvious end to the means.  For when a democratic socialist such as George Orwell can criticize and predict an existing as well as a dystopian philosophy as a dangerous proposition, we move from an allegorical fairy tale, into the haunted realm of a literal nightmare.

 animal farm libro_640

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment