Libertarianism Leads to Fascism at Best, Feudalism in the End

The question was put to me in the form,
"So what does Mussolini have in common with the Libertarians?"

When what I actually asserted was that,
"Libertarianism, logically leads to fascism at best, ..."

To which came the reply:
"How does Libertarianism logically lead to expanded government interference?"

Followed by the first question above.

What is being passed off as a modern ([sic] neoclassical oxymoronic much! or neoliberal from corporatist conservatism? Sure! Clue, what was a liberal perspective in the days if John Locke is no where near liberal today) politico-socioeconomic stance by rightwing ideologues who are adept at using false nomenclature to conceal the intent and motives of their ideology is a plutocratic ploy to maintain their exploitive power through wealth. Proto Nazis, and proto Fascists like Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hope, Frederich August von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, et al., have since the earliest days of Carl Menger (c. 1880) served the plutocratic caste who longed for the days before democracy, before political equality, serfdom, slavery, the days of Courtier class, absolute power answering to none, and monarchies. Fascism is merely extremely retrogressive conservatism, complete with its castes, racism, aristocratic and plutocratic snobs, playing out in rhetorical, emotional, political, and financial manipulation of the masses to produce a stampede of frothing at the mouth stupidity, so the white male privilege is protected and rich boys get their way at the expense of their minions. Those miseducated hordes calling themselves libertarians, a Tea Party, fiscal conservatives, neoliberals, and a host of similarly fictive labels that are intentionally dishonest.

These so-called libertarians (I suggest we call them oxymorons) flip liberty from a freedom from coercion to the freedom to coerce. That freedom-from and freedom-to dynamic is a key aspect of many ideologies. This includes theisms especially, and all "isms" that are not anti-"isms," like atheism, which is anti-theism. I have also determined through years of thought experiment that ideologies, "isms," are an authoritarian tool of manipulation and that there are anti-ideologies* (the "ism" suffix is an unfortunate linguistic convention). These ideologies--all of which are authoritarian, manipulative, and baseless--also include all forms of capitalism, Republicanism with its nationalism, conservatism, racism, white male chauvinism, sexism, etc., and neoliberalism which is a misnomer for retrogressive economic classism. This inversion of liberty makes their libertarianism authoritarian, which is oxymoronic at best, or impossible as anything other than the mischaracterization of feudalistic subjugation of the exploitable.

Oxymoronic Libertarianism is sold as being all about rugged individualism, individual liberty, individual power but, like every imposed artificial structure, it breaks down because it is false and due to the imbalance it causes in a perpetually balancing system. At the level of social interaction, where cooperation meets control, where expertise meets exploitation, and where desperation meets competition, individuality is weak and their brand of liberty produces social outcasts ripe for forced servitude. Capitalism produces social structures where controlled experts are forced through exploitation to be competitive, then drained of the power (value) they produce. Authoritarian hierarchies are designed to exploit the weaknesses of individualism and reward loyalty to the institution and system. Because of two points, the first of which is supremacy of psychological manipulation, not only employees but also those influenced through the market, that is patrons, consumers, even competitors will be under the influence of said company's ideologies. Even if the individual holds her ground, her voice will be swamped. And secondly, the accumulation of wealth, the real power, will without a doubt be used to suppress the individual whose voice doesn't conform.

The Libertarian's liberties are suspended, not by an accountable government for the sake of social cohesion and cooperation, but by loyalty to a totalitarian capitalist enterprise for the sake of survival then power through profit, expediency, and monopoly. Or worse, forced conformity in an ideological manipulation station, like a church or a university. This herd mentality, in turn, exposes the fallacies of even the propped-up markets, blunts social progress and innovation, leaves as the only option inter-corporate warfare, intra-corporate power mongering, and eventually feudalism, warlords, and slavery. This state will be supplanted by an extremely ridged dictator or worse a theocracy. All of whom will use the psychological manipulation of fascism. So as a baseless ideology, oxymoronic libertarianism, better termed as antisocial individualism in its falsehood leads to totalitarianism. As an interactive system, this oxymoronic fiction of an individualistic social animal fails on the grounds that it becomes very animalistic which is extremely antisocial.

Although, this is quite damning to the fascio-capitalistic pseudo-libertarian and a direct answer to the question, it is even more fatal to Neoliberalism, and forget freedom or liberty in the context of capitalism.

I have witnessed fascists' assertions that Fascism is the control of industry by the government, it is not, and this diversionary ploy is typically evinced by newly indoctrinated Friedmaniacs in lunchtime circle-jerks, or social media threads of which intellectually honest people have grown tired. Contrary to what you may think, or may have been taught, fascism is simple to understand. If you consider who uses fascism, how it is used, what it is used for, when historically it emerges, who it is used against, and filter out the tangential, peripheral, and ancillary conditions it emerges as an anthology of extremist ideologies motivating the basest of psychological states in the lowliest of demographics to support extreme conservatism. Extreme in how retrogressive, how backward, and how, in consequence, immoral the goal of their conservatism would be. Fascism can be understood from the viewpoint of the public as a partnership, a complicit government with capitalists, to the detriment of the population at large, with the purpose of empowering the plutocrats who populate both government and capitalist institutions as well as the revolving door in between.

But Fascism is, actually, only a step on the way to the logical conclusion of neoliberalism (which I described above) from the democracy we have now. For as governments concede the power to protect the people and capitalists garner that power through the accumulation of numbers and the real power, financially based, government will become the complicit protector and puppet of the emergent corporatist system which is Feudalism and serfdom all over again.

If you are wondering how this could come about, just watch the News - it is happening right now. Even with a cursory understanding of Hitler's Germany, gathered through a perusal of authoritative history on the subject. It is easy to see the chilling similarities in Germany, during Hitler's rise through the religio-political socioeconomic system of Fascist apologetics, and the last forty years of events in the US. Hitler availed himself to a multi-tiered approach (because it was made readily available by Ludwig von Mises, et al., in economics, Martin Luther's writings in religion, the consequences of WWI for politics and social vilification), just as the rightwing in this country has been doing since the dawn of the antebellum South felt threatened before the Civil War. The rhetorical ploys of fascism, extremely retrogressive conservatism, need an enemy, or some emotional focal point. Hitler used the economic devastation of a global depression to finally tip the political balance in his favor after a decade of ideological suppression of those people, the outsiders, gypsies, gays, Jews, progressives, labor unions, any but the true German conservatives. He would expound for hours in vitriolic diatribes about the evil "atheistic communists" at the Homeland's gate, to instill fear and loathing in the ignorant masses. A group ripe for such manipulation through their Teutonic myths and Christian ideologies. It didn't matter that Hitler's unbelievable brutality was on par with that of Stalin's in a system that was neither true communism nor Marxism, and that they both were a dictatorship based on a cult of personality. Stalin learned basic properties of his style from years in seminary. This is truth of authoritarian red in twentieth century history, but I digress.

After gaining the trust of the masses with his simple black and white, either you're in or out, with us or against us exclusionary ideology that appealed to the baser instincts of the masses under the guise of a positively Christian (another ideology that appeals to baser emotions), he was free to mandate regulations that lead to Nazism through a political process structured through retrogressive conservatism or Fascism. Around the world, the would be Libertarians of the Austrian School, standing there with their mouth agape, wondering where it went wrong, were then tossed aside in a war torn pile of confusion. They thought they were free of the opinions and voting rights of the "outsiders," those Elitists, those that didn't follow their god, didn't live or work hard like they did, those that met challenges in different ways, those that were not supposed to be qualified to take their jobs. They thought they were free. The libertarians were glad to see business booming do to the public regulations and deregulation of the German Military Industrial Complex. They thought they were free to pursue happiness; they thought, then the BS started, the technocratic excuses, the rationalizations, the hardliners and purists. In a viral sort of way, this is another commonality today's oxymoronic libertarians share with Mussolini.

You see, libertarianism has a serious flaw, an irrational blindspot common to ideologies of this nature, and it's not readily visible to those who long for the freedom to be self-serving, selfish, or self-centered. It remains totally undetectable to those suffering from a Dunning-Kruger illusion. We are members of a social species, a society. And in a society, individual ambitions must collaborate within the constraints of a social contract. The Libertarian is left with only the semblance of freedom, the myth of liberty, a childish wish that can lead to so many heinous ideologues gaining power of which Hitler and Mussolini were only two. But more specifically to the conservative perspective known as fascism, neoliberalism has another flaw that is, at its root, far worse than selfishness, it is based on an adaptation of Herbert Spencer's Social elitism (sadly, this was inappropriately mischaracterized as Social Darwinism), a Lamarckian variant on selection and survival of the fittest, a jungle mentality that states; Those that can should, and those that can't, should be left behind. Forgetting, for obvious reasons, that we are all in this precariously balanced, interwoven network of nature, together. The social contract is with all entities of this system. This is what Ayn Rand never understood. And, this is why our Founding Fathers wrote a living, changeable, developing, and progressive governing document.

So, Mussolini's Fascism manipulated a popular longing for social, national, and cultural supremacy. The population, like these oxymoronic libertarians, did not understand that this leads to, and is fueled by, social elitism (Herbert Spencer's, survival of the fittest). The consequences of which, leaves powerful institutions (like churches and other corporations), not individuals, at the helm, while destabilizing governments, societies, and the environment. Then these manipulated masses find themselves at the whim of powerful cabals, oligarchs, and corporations.

Who's Rights of Conscience

I keep seeing this passage over and over again in Christian literature; "rights of conscience," as if it is in the Bill of Rights. In the original 'draft' of the First Amendment James Madison included a similar line,"No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." But this was not included by Congress originally and until acceptance of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) which was followed by Supreme Court case Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, (1925) that made most, but not all, of the provisions of the Bill of Right's restrictions applicable to the states under the doctrine of selective incorporation, states had some leeway with the Constitution.

Obviously, this "rights of conscience" is a canard, in Madison's original it is "equal rights of conscience" which would include those of us against religious encroachment into private lives. As in, I cannot in good conscience keep loving couples apart for the sake of a superstitious tradition. This by itself isn't the point though, it is that the rights of individuals are being impeded by those using their supposedly threatened "rights of conscience" as a battle cry. I am so sick of majority power feigning persecution while persecuting every minority in sight. The Nationalist Socialist Party used this same tactic more than 80 years ago, by proclaiming Catholics the persecuted minority and attacking the gays, gypsies, foreigners, and finally Jews, we all remember the Nazis. I know reductio ad Hitlerum, but I do see a correlation. 

But I don't think that romantic unions are something that religions need be a part. I happen to be a civil union proponent. But not for gays, per say, no I think marriage should be like and as common as baptism or bar mitzvahs. But I also happen feel that the population of the planet is at a breaking point. Not everyone is qualified to be a parent. I think children are the leaders of the future and our most precious possession.

I ask, "Would you convert for cash Antony Flew?"

The religious are clambering all over each other to hail Antony Flew, the alleged ex-atheist who supposedly "changed his stance on the existence of god" and then wrote a book about it. But wait, with all the new atheist authors out there, eg. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, et al. how could someone stand stand against that crowd? I thought. Then this idea came to me.

As I read the book that was supposedly Flew’s arguments, I was very interested to find the evidence that changed his mind, of course. His original position was powerful and I was desperately looking for this new evidence, and especially how he was going to rebut his own, earlier arguments. After all, I am convinced few people, who are presently thoughtful atheists, would be easily convinced that there is evidence for a supernatural entity. Atheists rely on evidence. 

But I was sorely disappointed. It was as if Flew, who, as it turned out, was only interviewed for the book, it seems he either forgot his earlier arguments against God,  pretended he didn’t have any, or this was some sort of shady hit and run interview where pointed questions are asked and scientific answers are manipulated to fool the pious and scientifically illiterate. For several hours I pondered over this issue. The book was very short and written by a pan handling Christian apologist with a less than stellar resume named Roy Abraham Varghese. But still, how could someone who was once so sharp and so logical just pretend his earlier arguments didn’t exist? How could he ignore what he had professed, or written earlier in his career? I mean, if he couldn’t really answer his earlier arguments against God, (in the book he omitted discussing most of them at all) how in the world did he change his mind? I have viewed this video of him seemingly incoherently answering an interviewers questions, as if his mental faculties are diminished due to age. What I thought I saw in that interview may have had more to do with my interpretation than with Flew's condition, but I think there is something to the notion that he may be loosing the edge, he is an octogenarian now. Then...

Flew, you sly old dog. I’m on to you. Although, I can understand why you would do it, for you, it makes perfect sense. Since, just bare with me a moment, you know there isn’t some imaginary sky fairy watching you, you really have nothing to worry about as far as retribution in an afterlife. You don’t have to worry if you, dare I say, lie! I can see what would motive someone to this contrivance. Your fame is dying down, the New Atheists are being hailed as the rationalists to reckon with, maybe... stealing your thunder? Damn that Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, etc. What else can an old man like you bring to the debate? Why would people want to read what you have left to say? If only you could get into that religious book market. But you would need to change your story, then you would have the whole religious community “worshipping” you - "the famous atheist who was smart enough to see the light." Cough! Then, once again, you will become an intellectual hero. Anyway, who cares, which side of a philosophical point is idolizing you, hailing your name, or at least making you famous? Christians, atheists; does it even matter to you? Of course not! If they buy the book, maybe speak your name, you’ll be happy.

So, how could you do this, without demolishing your hard earned reputation in philosophy? Change your story, of course, but how? A death bed conversion would only put your reputation in disrepute, not enough time for a book deal or those insistent interviews. But if you were to, say, convert now - but not a full Christian conversion, no - to a god of the gaps deistic meta physic, that holds to an a priori creator. This doesn't contradict all of your prior work, not all of it. So, that’s what you did, isn't it. But hey, now you’re back in the limelight. Now your name (and book) is back on the world stage. Sure, you had to jump the fence. Tell me, is it easier to play stupid or sophistic?

Undoubtedly you had to go against your own mind, but who cares, right? There’s no punishment waiting for you after you die. But there are those pesky New Atheists out there that have seen this world through similar eyes as yours. We both know this. But hey! Why not, I mean it's not like you are making a difficult life worse for the rest of us? Go ahead, change your tune, become famous again - rake in that cash. I’m sure the income and notoriety will cleanse that taste out of your mouth after your conversion. But what if your family is forced to live in a new age of bigotry, zealotry, or hate mongering that your new found world view heralds, your recent conversion bolstered. What if! Ah, what do you care? Denial, is a great thing. Isn't it?

And as for your new audience, it's great isn't it, they’re willing to believe anything and I mean anything. To them, you will be almost as famous as JC himself, maybe more famous to those clinging to what is left, of a belief in the belief. You should have no problem becoming their poster child, no problem at all. Right, Antony? All you have to do is forget what you professed earlier, which I can attest you have done so well as to have many of your would be ideological compatriots thinking in terms of Alzheimer's, or another dementia, touché. Even in your book, apparently, since you failed to reconcile your own arguments, just as many Christian apologists fail to do.

I understand. The money, the fame, they can drive some to do...  things. And since we both know there’s no evidence supporting a supernatural realm, or anything relating to the supernatural that has ever been verified in the history of mankind, it's safe to logically predict there isn't much of a chance we will find a deistic realm. Let alone, a supernatural realm for some mystic to be keeping score of our lives, so, why the hell not?
Enjoy your money and fame Flew. The turmoil you have left in this revolution is not insurmountable, the turbulence you stir in your wake will only hone my skills of insurrection, so go ahead Flew, forget what you have learned. In the end, I’ll have my dignity. But who knows, I might convert to deism myself, if that is what it takes to stop the bigotry. But seriously, I doubt it. I like fighting toe to toe, way too much Mr. Flew.

And so I did. Finding the work of Richard Carrier, philosopher, historian of science, and writer. I found links to the real story and all the evidence showing that Roy Varghese was more of a conman than I originally thought. Anthony Flew didn't change his position at all. He did what every honest philosopher would do. He left room for intellectual honesty in the lightfootedness of his stance. His mistake was in assuming the forthrightness of his interviewer. Sorry old man, I should have better. You were always quick to accommodate. 

On the Question of Morality

In almost any discussion regarding a rational view of morality, and secular humanism in particular. The old canard concerning morality without god(s) will more than likely come up, usually as a conversation stopper. Which explains why it, upon closer examination, appears to be ill contrived in a historical context, especially with the positive affirmation of evolutionary origins of our behavior, including morality from great minds like George Williams, Robert Trivers, and John Maynard Smith, not to omit so many others. But, like the stagnant bronze age morality of the Bible, the arguments for divine morality haven't changed for at least 2500 years as exemplified by the Socratic question, also known as Euthyphro's Dilemma:

"Is what you're doing pious, [moral] because it is loved by the gods, or do the gods love what you're doing because what you're doing is pious [moral]?"

Now I bring this up to highlight some inescapable points regarding morality. The most crucial of those points is clarified when we dispense with those myths and the unfortunate habits of thought mushrooming from those fictions. Religions, especially the monotheisms of the Abrahamic variety, are the original source of this hypostatization, this reification, this objectification, of a concept so morality could be usurped and repurposed through the dictates of tyrants as some thing absolute, when this concept is anything but absolute.

Before I go further, I need to clarify some terminology that has, for far too long, been purposefully opaque. First, superior moral choices eliminate suffering. Superior morality is an ethical activity that eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering while enhancing health, happiness, and fulfillment. When I use the term objective I mean only perceivable evidence that can be experienced by any cogent, sentient entity undistorted by feelings, emotions, or bias. Subjective is the interpretive aspect of that observation, perception, and cognition dynamic. Relative, therefore, is not an aspect of superior morality or superior moral choice. Relativism can only apply to cultural conditioning, regional traditions, or state regulations and related dictates, but not morality. Right and wrong are relative and far too ambiguous to be used in discussions of moral or ethical considerations. To avoid confusion with a growing array of misuses, I will use correct and incorrect where possible. When I use absolute it will be to denote the authoritarian abstraction for perfectly right, which is irrational nonsense because right is relative and perfect is impossible. For this reason absolute morality is a fiction, but many ideologues and fundamentalists argue otherwise. 

Morality is not a property of the universe (nature) like, say, the freezing/boiling points of water, E=mC², or the properties of physical entities subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics. This view strikes me as silly, of course, but there are ideologues who try to argue for this ontologically. This is to say that morality is not, has never been, and can never be some thing passed down or imposed. Morality is not absolute, it cannot come from authoritarian commands, i.e., what is the best way to eliminate suffering in one situation may have horrendous consequences in another; therefore, authoritarian commandments are immoral. Morality is neither the accepted convention of the majority, nor something that can be conserved through religio-political socioeconomic traditions. The attainment of supremely moral outcomes is not possible solely through concepts learned through the experience of our antecedents though this does get us closer, especially when considering the surviving memes of an evolving society.

Moral choices are subjectively relative, (subject to an understanding of a given situation, relative to the circumstances). But this is not to say morality is either subjective or relative. The elimination of suffering is neither a matter of opinion nor a convention of culture. This is why humanity, as we gain understanding, alter conventional morality for the better: i.e. slavery, stoning (in more evolved societies), females as property, etc., all eliminated from the list of acts considered pious, moral, or loved by the god(s).

Unlike the choice of which side of the road we drive on in the US as opposed to, say, Britain, an example of civil law enacted to instill a convention throughout a population that is neither correct, nor incorrect, merely expedient as an accepted practice, morality is not the practiced conventions of a society because moral choices cannot be imposed through authority or authoritarian structures. It does not matter that it is accepted by the majority as good and right for all, even when this may be the case for very good reasons, and it often is. Superior moral choices are derived from critically assessing objectively observed evidence of a situation, the particulars, the participants, the past actions that are relevant, and comparing these perceptions to substantiated facts in one's available background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering, or prevents the most suffering for all concerned. Despite the claims of religious moralists, this is what typically happens. No deities required. This is the driver of moral progress in tandem with intellectual advances producing social progress and societal evolution, and it is the bane of retrogressive conservative plutocrats who do everything they can to hold onto their exploitive power in the face of a progressively elusive target.

That many sentient beings collaborate for their mutual benefit, means we see many progressive actors evolving for the betterment of all in free societies, but conservative actors stagnate into degradation in dictatorial societies like tyrannies or theocracies where a dictator or an oligarchy chooses (decides) what is "right" or "wrong." This is also all  the evidence anyone would need to verify that these United States are not in any way a Christian Nation, because absolute authority is antithetical to democracy. It is for similar reasons that rules, regulations, and laws are a product of the majority's experiences as a practiced convention, while morality flourishes, progresses, grows intellectually, pragmatically, and in freedom's vein as opposed to the dictates of an oppressor, dictator, oligarchy, or patriarchal god(s). In other words, this country is based on actual morality, not the dictated precepts of a stagnant, logically inept tradition.

So, to the question, can one be moral (good) without god(s)? The answer is an emphatic yes! The glaring question now becomes: can one be moral with god(s)? I think I have given ample reason to reject that assertion, also emphatically.

Alas, I understand, totally disagree with, but understand the fears of people who espouse concerns about moral chaos without some central authority. They want us to believe all is permissible without their patriarchal sky-tyrant. It's the basis of their patriarchal control system. They forget that the reason our Founding Fathers and this country's Constitution is the crowning achievement of the Age of Enlightenment is because, "We the People" are our Government "We" have replaced the central authority and "We" decide "right" and "wrong," as it progresses with our ever advancing morality.

Now, like any progressive, enlightened thinker, I have my detractors.  Between Twitter and religious bloggers so eager to spend all day debating the existence of god(s), to call what came next argumentum ad nauseam would be an insult to those little Latin chunks, which had more substance. But, when nature calls: 

[Edited for legibility and clarity so I could avoid many [sic] tags] 

"I've been debating Beachbum on Saturday on the existence of God. We talked about scholars and he made some accusations against William Lane Craig who he said he could refute. Craig has a three-point reasoning the existence of God.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists."

Both premises are false, obviously. Irrespective of the existence of objective moral values, the biblical God does not exist. Objective moral values do not exist. Morals are concepts and do not exist as some thing passed down. What we value is subjective. And William Lane Craig isn't even a talented sophist.

"Beachbum rejects the existence of objective moral values. He retweeted a tweet from last Thursday in which he tried to argue that a god is not needed to have morality.[1] I have represented his tweet below and will respond point-by-point. My comments will be in yellow font. In our interaction we focused on whether or not morals such as marriage was really universal and objective.[2] He admits that it is rare for a society to reject marriage but he offered two such cultures: !Kung San in Africa and The Na of China."

[1] I successfully argued like above, that morality results from empathetic interaction and cannot possibly come from structures of authority and backed that up with the Socratic Dialogue, Euthyphro's Dilemma.

[2] Marriage is a regulated cultural convention used as a building block for civilization, which is a system of enforced conformity to facilitate nationalistic and plutocratic exploitation. 

(Regarding the !Kung San and the Na of China, I offered a description of their marital tradition pertaining to their marital practices as evidence that my interlocutor's claims refuted his argument, but this has nothing at all to do with morality.)

Some of the responses are little more than attacks that are embarrassing, so it would be best for me to rebuild some arguments just to canvass a realm of objections for our enlightenment. These will be snippets plucked from an attempt to insult.

"Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue."

Obviously. In point of fact, this was the contrast I was attempting to make. The difference between morals, regulations, conventions, and traditions. 

"There is no way road regulations can be equated with adultery or stealing."

Because road regulations are neither correct, nor incorrect, merely a safety convention, but adultery threatens the family unit. And the family unit is the first level of control through forced conformity in the structure of civilization, nationalism, race, and community. So, obviously, there is nothing perfectly right, i.e., absolute about adultery because marriage is a cultural convention with variations like polygamy.

Now stealing is even less absolute with even more cultural conventions. Spoils of war is one such convention. The Hawaiian people had no concept of theft resembling the European view. The hyperbole escalates in this next comment. 

"If Beachbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay. Remember when it was against the law to live as a homosexual?" 

No, we need to remember how to make superior moral choices. Superior moral choices are derived from critically assessing objectively observed evidence and comparing it to substantiated facts in one's background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates suffering, or the most suffering for all concerned. Pedophilia causes so much suffering, on so many levels, for so long that it is inconsistent with elimination, mitigation, or alleviation of suffering. 

Law is not morality. Laws are regulatory conventions that have nothing to do with morality. Therefore, that homosexuality is biblically condemned as an abomination punishable by death, that it was once treated as a mental disorder, and now has been scientifically demonstrated to be as natural and beneficial to our species as heterosexuality and more and more sane people now ignore those primitive texts actually demonstrates my point as well as any other point of contention. 

"Just because a majority of people say something is right, doesn't make it right. Hitler and many others have done all kinds of things that we find reprehensible. But why? What right do we have to say that we are right and they are wrong?"

Exactly, but this is not morality. It represents cultural conventions and an appeal to the gallery fallacy. It could be called tyranny of the majority in some cases. But this is a situation where the word right is confused with moral. Right by convention has nothing to do with morality. Right by tyrannical dictate, or government, has nothing to do with morality. So, what authority gives us the ability to judge the moral superiority of some act or omitted act? Not the god-fraud. For one thing, its reprehensible dogmas tell us not to judge. Is it laws? Of course not, laws, regulations, and conventions are based on power and have nothing to do with morality.

So, what is it? It is science, knowledge, and the scientific method. We critically assess, objectively observe the evidence, and compare it to substantiated facts in our background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering, or the most suffering for all concerned. It is this understanding of the power in assessing on sight, event specific, objective evidence that gives each of us the moral authority.

"We all agree that it is wrong for me to come up to you, kill you, but why? Is it wrong because it is wrong or because we agree that it's wrong?"

The evidence of inflicted suffering, but not for the murder victim. The dead suffer nothing. But the family and other survivors who need or may one day need the victim or her knowledge. There may be many more who suffer due to your murder. But what if you kill someone causing a great deal of suffering? The odds are with you that you are acting morally. What if the victim has caused only a little suffering or is about to kill someone else. Wound if possible, based on the evidence. But you will not get this from an anthology of myths that treat you like an ignoramus that cannot assess the situations yourself, only to brag relentlessly about some of the most immoral and amoral acts ever committed, had they been true.  

"Explain why "your good" is just as important as mine. As a Christian I have a simple answer: God says your good is just as important as mine because he created both of us in his image." 

First, good is relative. What is good for you may not be good for me. And, considering that you are a Christian, I seriously doubt it. But I am not concerned with your relativism, or your appeal to authority. What does concern me is that your derangement has you believing that your immorality in ignorance is just as valid as my moral acts and judgments based on education and evidence. This is a serious problem for humanity and a major reason why these backward superstitions should be pitched in the dustbin of bad ideas.

And one more thing, your "God" never said anything. You have a completely unsubstantiated belief based on Bronze Age desert goat herder myths written by authors of fantasies describing several different deities of which none can possibly exist. Lying is immoral. 

"Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is." 

For the sake of brevity, I will assume you mean moral. But still, an objective moral standard anchors our ethics to an immoral past. Your anthology of theology anchors our moral choices to an age of barbarism. The standards of Locke, Kant, and Hume anchor our morality to an era of monarchy, castes, comparable ignorance, and slavery. So, an objective moral standard is nonsensical relativism. 

Morality has nothing to do with right and wrong. This is an establishment bait and switch perpetrated by the religio-political socioeconomic system of control to maintain the status quo.

If you want something by which to measure your moral choices, something that will guide you through every moral morass, there is only one that will keep you on the moral high ground. 

Superior moral choices are derived from critically assessing objectively observed evidence of a situation, the particulars, the participants, the past actions that are relevant, and comparing these perceptions to substantiated facts in one's available background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering, or prevents the most suffering for all concerned.

This alone will keep you on the cutting edge moral superiority. The more experience you have access to, the more education, the more thinkers and perceiving participants, the better your moral choices will be. You will not get any of this from the god-fraud. 

 

The Buffoon from Banana Land, Strikes Again

This is my attempt to curtail the misinformation, spewed forth by the purveyors of minimalist thinking and stupefying superstition, masquerading as something resembling coherent discourse.


From Amazon.com
I left the following comment in an attempt of my own;

As a literary connoisseur of sorts, I am thoroughly nauseated by the way in which this contrivance has been regurgitated upon the reading public. I am likewise disgusted with any unabashed parasite, and company, that would sully such a beautiful work as the "Origin of Species" with what can only be described as an atrocious attempt, resulting in an indigestible goulash of ill-conceived thoughts. Only, for the likes of Ray Comfort, this is by no means the worst. For, not only does this poster child for inanity attach a fifty page diatribe of the typical creationist misconceptions, delusions, and outright lies masquerading as a foreword to Charles Darwin's unassailable work, these repugnant cretins (Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and their publishers) also removed many important sections from the original work in an attempt to hide the very evidence contradicting their claims.

Ray Comfort attempts, in his typical egregious fashion, to disparage Darwin by portraying him and his theory as racist in nature. When in fact, any light perusal of any of Darwin's letters, his, "Voyage of the Beagle" or even an unbiased reading of 'Origins' would give ample evidence of the opposite, he was in fact an overly kind and unassuming "Victorian Gentleman" and loving father. Please, Google Darwin's interaction with the natives of Tierra Del Fuego for an example of his humanitarian character.

It would seem to me that if you want to read "The Origin of Species" search for ISBN-10: 0451529065 with an Introduction by Julian Huxley. If you are a creationist, why would reading interest you? All you need to do is ask a man that believes in talking snakes about science.

I do not see this as anything other than the "Dumbing Down" of America. An actual premeditated crime against the very foundation of this country and her Founding Fathers, Fascism in the making. For a more thorough understanding of where I think this may be going, please read "Kingdom Coming" - The Rise of Christian Nationalism, by Michelle Goldberg.
This country was founded on the very principles of the Enlightenment by men who where known in their time as Giants of those very principles. That means, in my opinion, that like Capitalism, religion is a caveat to our Democracy. That is, we are a Democracy that has a capitalistic economic support structure, not a Capitalist country. Concurrently, we are a Democracy that allows people to believe what they wish, but not to inflict others with this or that flavor of superstition, not to proselytize others into the same or to dominate public policy with the mythologies of bronze age desert goat herders.

But, this is about science; and the teaching of the principles of honest, logical inquiry, the value of evidence based conclusions, and why an unsubstantiated assertion has absolutely no value in intelligent discourse. Intelligent Design is Creationist crap in a different diaper! Creationism, and its public relations misnomer IntelligentDesign, are the deranged delusion of illiterate, uneducated, fearfully superstitious fan boys of bronze age desert goat herders that had no idea where lightening came from or that the inner workings of the human body was identical to that of most mammals. Another point about the book of Genesis that most people seem to forget, and I pledge to never drop, is that literally millions of people have died horrible, public (slow, in front of their own families) torture and death for disavowing that specifically Genesis and generally the Bible was the literal word of god, and as such, should have been deftly accurate about our true genesis. Unfortunately, like the very myths that god(s) generally, Genesis specifically and superstition regularly are created from, its only value is in the telling of the true mental state of our ancestors until the time of Darwin's beautiful thesis was revealed to the Royal Society.

The Letters of Charles Darwin or if you would consider yourself a friend of Charles'. Here is a comment I wrote in February to an online paper in Jacksonville, Florida about one Senator Wise (man! if there were ever a more egregious misnomer!?) who introduced legislation supporting the teaching of Creationist drivel in science classes, because "If you're going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking." at: Jacksonville News
In this comment; I am replying to the article in general, but the previous comments as well, so this covers my view of everything from the Wedge Document to "It's just a theory", exclaimed by the ill-informed:
To which I replied;

Please, evolution is a fact. Creationism is nothing more than a scam brought to us by the same people that came up with the "trinity", virgin birth, talking snakes, and a many millennia old myth from a surviving tribe of bronze age desert goat herders.

By the scientific method, the fact that I am a male reaches its highest acclaim at the point of accepted theory. This, of course, needs to be supported by the facts found in a study of my mammalian anatomy, but must be left open to falsification because of the principles of the scientific process, and the rejection of binary thinking. Anyone can take up the study of my anatomy and test the theory that I am a male, and (let me make a quick check) yep! the theory still stands - but the point is - it will always remain a theory supported by facts and testable by any... by my Fianceé. Trust me, you don't want to cross that line.

I would like to add that every bible thumping theologian, self proclaimmed zoological expert, and anatomically ill-informed Sunday school teacher has taken a crack at evolutionary concepts since well before Charles Darwin was even born. Remember, the breeding of wolves into domestic dog breeds has been going on for many, many millennia (some findings suggest ten thousand years). The theory has stood the test. The theory of evolution by natural selection has taken a hammering from every theologically bent psuedo-scientist for 150 years, yet Sen. Wise(? whatever) wants to teach it along side a marketing concept that cannot make it through a serious debate without great embarrassment, again please!

Oh! And don't get me started on Liberty University... it's a joke! Falwell and their pool boy, just wait. If the Taliban were a christian sect, madrassa ... barf; anyway it is easy to see where I am going. Charles Darwin discovered the "by natural selection" thereby showing that evolution was actually taking place in the wild. Also, that creationist canard of "evolution equals chance", ah! Bull! Better Theo-bull!!! But they know better than anybody that they are full of it. Ask any Catholic choir boy.

Think gradual steps, evolution by natural selection is a gradual build up of tested genetic information which makes EVERY living thing a transitional form. You are a transitional form, your father is a transitional form between you and your grandfather, it's that simple. Darwin can be forgiven for not seeing the forest for the trees. He was a very humble man with a Victorian mindset, which is why it took him 20 years to submit his findings.

Some of you need to consider from where you get your information, I would no more ask a preacher about science or knowledge, than Donald Trump about business acumen, or a car salesman, or preacher, about honesty in the work place. Creationism cannot stand up to scientific rigor, so they inflame public ignorance to push book sales and seek inclusion in school curriculum to garner the respectability of an educational institution. These people are con-men and frauds. This can be compared to some guy using make believe on his neighbors children, to get said children to take drugs, or join a cult, or a Nazi youth camp. Or, if this was a familiar TV plot, try our guy taking the kids because he doesn't have the backbone to take on dad, so he uses kidnapping to coerce dad. It was Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, who admitted that control of a child's thinking until he was seven made the child his forever. This is kidnapping by indoctrination. If creationist have a problem with science education, let them have a debate with science educators, Bill Nye would eat Ken Ham's lunch. Should Creationism or ID be taught in schools? No! It should not even be mentioned aloud in polite conversation, or in mixed company. It is an insult to education, intelligence, and critical thinking -- period.

Senator Wise should be ousted, impeached, or at least handed his hat. Besides, education is about the kids and their future. Without a decent education, especially in science, the future of our youth will short, miserable, and forgotten.

Our forefathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, installed the Wall of Separation -- the First Amendment -- because he knew what religion could do to democratic institutions and great empires. If one has any doubt, read the letters from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams. The Puritans of Mayflower fame did not found this country, they had neither the backbone nor the brains -- but they could burn innocent women for being witches. They, in fact, came here to sustain their religious intolerance because England wouldn't put up with them and Holland enlightened too many of their congregation. The Cavinist, the Baptists and the rest have a similar story. The dumbing down of America via intervention from the religiose in education can only do to the US what the religious right did to the Republican party. Turn them into Nazis.

With this, I will in summary state that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron otherwise known as the Banana Bunch are a small peace of a bigger picture that has been around since the first "medicine man" and they know what they are and so did our Founding Fathers.

A Historical Similarity

I have picked up on similarities between the Republican mentality with regard to this political environment and religion in the darkest of ages: pre-Renaissance. I think the similarity is striking and disturbing, in that the motivation, perpetrators, and victims are very similar. The least educated among us are being used to further the agendas of their exploiters, the plutocrats. Like John Stuart Mill said, "Religion is Politics"-- more to the point, each one's ideology ensures the survival of the other's agenda. The lies, absurdities, and appeals to the emotions of people who already feel desperate, powerless, and alienated are how both religion and politics use emotional abuse to manipulate their constituents. The sophistic casuistry of the rhetoric coming from personalities these constituencies wish to trust, want to trust -- actually need to trust to protect their prejudiced worldviews is a form of weaponized cultural conservatism and hate-mongering. But the Republicans of Rome, who prioritized the rule of the republic, as apposed to Greek Democrats who prioritized the will of the people, met their demise through the deluded devotion of Christians, which the Roman Fascists deserved. So, where is the alchemy?

Two human atrocities spanned the last half of the eighteenth and first two thirds of the nineteenth century. The first and worst was capitalism, mischaracterized as an industrial revolution to divert attention away from the horrendous conditions and exploitation of the labor force. This diversion also limited conversations exposing the complicity of plutocrats in government, manufacturing, mercantilism, colonialism, imperialism, and their military's exuberance in ensuring this exploitation and devastation. From this plutocratic profiteering oozed corporatism and criminal construct known as limited liability, so we now have the unbridled exploitation from laissez-faire capitalism and the government sanctioned, militarily enforced indemnity of the exploiters. We can't even fight back without going through the cops and the military. This is why we call it wage-slavery. The second atrocity (yeah, I'm not done yet), was born of the fear of democracy and its expansion into Europe. Conservatives, today, claim that conservatism was a reaction to the French Revolution, or the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, but the evidence,  both then and in retrospect, renders these claims absurd. Conservatism is the ideological maintenance of authoritarian power structures, the status quo of the plutocracy, and the retrogressively manipulative institutions that empower these authoritarian structures through hierarchies. Conservatism conserves the wealth and status of plutocrats.

The oldest of these institutions is religion, particularly monotheistic religions that were and are very useful in instilling loyalty, segregating ideologies, and harnessing the herd mentality into a political power source. Judean hillbillies used the "Moses" contrivances for militarized imperialistic ambitions through the hyperbole of an absolute authority sanctioning their nationalistic agenda. Christianity flipped the script so that nationalistic Judean rebels would surrender like the failed messiah concocted by Roman plutocrats in the New Testament and self-subjugate before an occupying imperialist force, and Islam flipped the script back so as to assert itself against imperialist ambitions from both the East and West.

Capitalism and extreme (extreme in the sense of retrogressive ambition, how primitive their authoritarianism is, and how militantly their propaganda, populism, and brown shirt activism pursues their agenda) conservatism have diverted republicanism from pure nationalism, which is problematic in any context, and redirected their ideological interests to corporatist capitalism and the conservation of extreme biases like racism and its associated xenophobia. Add to this their religio-political socioeconomic chauvinisms--in all its jingoistic, nationalistic, misogynistic, and toxically masculine forms. In short, its called fascism; yeah, fascism to motivate the masses to maximize the profit of their financiers. 

In the current political arena, the total lack of "common sense" (if I may assume we can all agree upon that to which I am referring, though it's not that common), cannot be so dissimilar from the conversations of Constantine's plutocrats, when he was attempting to sell the conversion myth, assuming there's any truth to it at all, or, as is more likely, when Eusebius of Caesarea realized the political advantage of rebuilding Roman unity with the myths of the occupied territories. Isn't the bread of the conspiracy theorist, conformation bias, and a total disregard for the obvious? The infinite ignorance of the racist asshats in this country will spill into the streets with hate, torches, and semi-automatic weapons in reaction to Barack Obama. Haters are going to hate, and the morons in this country are far too stupid to elect someone as excellent as Bernie Sanders.  

There are some who would argue,

"The lies, absurdities, appeals to the emotions of people who already feel alienated ..." Well, I'm sure as hell glad the Democrats would NEVER resort to such things!!

To which I will reply, I agree. Today's Democratic party has been pulled so far to the right by money in politics that the capitalists usually get their way, but the Democrats still try to pull back to the left, or merely act like it. The difference is one party's lies are so blatant that Republicans are known as the Confederate liars party. Racists, try to be cognizant of how many priests have gone to jail for child molestation.  

My aim was not to disparage one party over another, but to highlight the common DNA shared by religious and political motivations. The difference in the parties, in this case, is that Republicans with their Southern Strategy and their racist rightwing misogynistic religionists are connected at the hip and most religious groups are anti-democratic authoritarians as well as anti social justice, anti-choice, and anti-labor, etc. This is not to say Democrats do not try to pull the religious right more to the left, they do, of course. But there will always be fundamentalists authoritarian sheep and wolves using the ideologies for their agendas. Like MLK said, moderates are the worst. The historical evidence is overwhelming. The words right and left, and Republican and Democrat should be changed to conservative and progressive, respectively. All else is a heat shield, a distinction without a difference. The Republicans have become Christian nationalist fascists and should be ostracized as such.

An extreme example is the Nazi party of early 20th century Germany, as well as evidence of the current political misdirection fostered by the tea baggers, their financiers, and supported by repugnant, Republican rhetoric. The main reason, in this country, to hide Hitler's connection with Christians like the Catholic Church, Nazism as a rightwing political system, and Fascism as a rightwing social system lies in its similarity to the current Republican party with its ties to Confederate ideology, the religious right, and corporatism. A pseudo-theocracy with capitalists instead of masturbaters in funny hats. The Nazi party got its start by appealing to the emotional disparity of the poor, uneducated, illiterate, extremely religious German-born labor class by first singling out gays, then illegal immigrants (gypsies), and those all too conspicuous others. Sound familiar? In fact, many Republican Dynasties, most notably the Bushs, supported the Third Reich economically -- the actual meaning of "Daddy War Bucks" lest we forget.

Don't let anyone fool you, the symbiotic relationship between Conservatism and religion is more reciprocal than cooperative. Most people should ask themselves, "What is it, that Conservatives are trying to conserve?" The guesses are very enlightening: a tradition of family values that support patriarchal hierarchy, i.e., white male privilege and capitalism? Yes! The status quo, their power and its source, of course. 

Of course, tradition sounds good until one realizes it will be at the expense of progressive ideas such as civil, human, and equal rights for all beings. Again, who could possibly be against 'family values' -- but who gets to determine those values, or what constitutes a family? Think dog whistle that only a rat would respond to. Allow me to jump to the idea that Republicans are concerned with the economy, bullshit, they only about  the market and capitalism, because the contra position to patriarchy and race are much to obvious - but the person who feels that the Republican talking points about taxes have any validity at all, has no knowledge of US economic history at all. When the stock brokers smile the wage-slaves suffer. What's good for the top 1% is bad for everyone else. Capitalism is exploitation. 

National Debt by President is a graph that clearly shows Republican disregard for the working class by their own arguments. 

All of this is a rebuttal to what I see as the Republican Party's pandering to a religious cult that suppresses the populace with immoral, antiquated superstitions, racism, manipulated emotions, values, and prejudices into wage-slavery and self-subjugation, with the Democrats attempting to pull the moderate just a little more left.

But as far as the lies go, I will refer anyone to a reputable fact checker for the score card on that game. And, to my knowledge, there lies a grand gulf between statistical favoritism and "Death Panels" if that is the gist of your disagreement.

More on these similarities later.  Thanks.

McCarthy-ism: Is it back?

I wrote a comment in response to another commentor's misunderstanding of our system of government. That misunderstanding inspired this entry to my blog. This entry also works for the likes of the Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, Keyes, Agar and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R) MN. This is the time for a few Edward R. Murrows, I hope to one day see news networks re-attain that level of excellence by kicking the corporatists to the curb.

It has been my experience that far too few have any understanding of the political spectrum, of the concepts that differentiate democracy and autocracy, that differentiate authoritarianism from libertarianism, traditionalism from liberalism, conservatism from progressivism, understanding of the primitive psychologies that energize fascism and nationalism, racism and chauvinism, paternalism, patriarchy, and misogyny and they have no idea that we are developing naturally, morally, and intellectually toward the mutual beneficence through our natural progression to socialism and anarchism. They have no clue what these words mean, or that we would be progressing much faster toward a much better world if they were not ideologically deranged to be intellectually regressive. The vast majority of people comprehend very little of the economic apologetics used to obfuscate the fallacies of state and private capitalism, the authoritarian characteristics of Bolshevism, communism, and capitalism. These same people feel or believe they have a good grasp of political and social sciences, when nothing could be further from the truth. These people should do the rest of us a favor and sit quietly long enough to learn, but they are the most belligerent and vociferous of agitators.

The Republicans devolved into a party of fascists (a rightwing chauvinistic nationalist movement) when corporatists and laissez-faire capitalists teamed up with Christian nationalists using fictive narratives about Bolshevism and Russia's state capitalism to push McCarthyism, an anti-freethought, anti-labor, anti-liberal bigotry. They evolved into full Nazis with the attraction of racist Dixiecrats and rightwing religionists of the Southern Baptist Convention through the Southern Strategy. This country has endured a population of Nazis since its founding. But the unification labor and a ever empowered middle class frightened a plutocracy who were losing the ability to control the middle class by instigating fights between white and black peons, which meant the plutocracy was overpowered politically.

As a side note, the NSDAP (Nazism) was: a) Nationalistic, which is antithetical to Socialism, and b) born of a Fox News style fear mongering, extremely retrogressive conservatism, which leads to scapegoating diverse social groups, through the bigotry of exclusionary organizations (i.e. religious, cultural, or national). This is, in fact, the actual danger in the U.S. at present. And, as it usually does, coming from the back side of a charlatan's hand, will turn this country into an Orwellian reality show with Nazi parades before the plebes recognize the expression of their bigotries. Ask any German if they seen it coming or recognized Nazism when they experienced it.

As for Socialism, systems like education, highways, Medicaid and Medicare are perfectly in line with a Democratic Republic; remember, even the first fascists, the Romans from whom our system is modeled, built roads. It is what a community does, the very reason for any social contract is to pool our resources for the greater good. Consequently, the greedy among us have, and always will, complain at the top of their lungs, even though, they reap the greatest benefit. They are greed driven and want everything for nothing. Where would our business and industry be without the educational or highway systems of this country? Our social systems are what make this country as good as it is. Anarchism and socialism or libertarian socialism as contrasted with statism or state or private capitalism as best as it can be explained are polar opposites socially, politically, and in their ideological reverence for propertarianism, private property ownership. So it is obvious that it would take sizable upheaval, through a grassroots popular movement, of our political and economic system to bring that much change, no one man or party could impose such a structure. Not only that, but the rich and powerful plutocrats would be the last to want that type of system. Socialism will come from a workers rebellion for economic equality, the last thing the current power mongers would want.

As for the Czar scare the Beckerheads are pushing at present, Czars come from an Imperial Russia, not a Communist Russia, and Russia was never Socialist. Greedy men who are used to making millions, even billions, of dollars are adept at getting their way by paying professionals to stir the emotions of people that already feel left out. Don't let them use your emotions against you; think for yourself. If you don't use your brain, someone will use it against you. To "get our country back," this was originally a xenophobic trope by racist nationalists fearing every immigrant to make the journey, would actually be to take it back from big financial institutions, and global conglomerates, not some individual who constitutes only one estate of three that make up this country's government. And, to weaken those global institutions we need to stop empowering them, which is what the public option will do. This is, in no uncertain terms, why the insurance industry is pushing so hard for President Obama's "Waterloo". And why Beck, Rush, Savage, et al., are being fed the scripts to parrot by the Kochs and the Don't Think Tanks, which they are, in turn, spewing across the air waves at us. Money! One more point I would like to make. If a societal cataclysm is to overcome this country in the form of an ideological overthrow or political coup, it will come wrapped in our flag and carrying the Bible. It will come from a conservative, right-winger, or narcissist preferring photo-ops to substance, and spouting patriotic slogans and xenophobic sound bites or racial slurs over social media.

Worlds Outside

The world outside of Hawaii is gone far beyond crazy. Republicans, since the success of the Southern Strategy, have weaponized religious rants by the ill-read and poorly educated, all who "reject Bush" while holding on to extreme neoliberal doctrine (like there would be any difference) while popularizing a corporatist agenda proffered by propaganda mills mischaracterized as think tanks. (They rightfully qualify as Don't Think Tanks because exist to prevent any thinking by their patrons.) Republicans claiming that the Democrats are somehow "socialist" (a baseless fascist trope, if ever there was one); after all, it was the Republicans that forced, through deregulation, the public bailout of the world's banking systems. This is socialism for the wealthest and capitalist exploitation for the rest of us.

The Clinton administration presided over the most prosperous years, for the oligarchs and global plutocrats, in the last four decades, but the godbots are programmed to refer back to the Reagan era for solace. Nothing like keeping it in the party of "family values" propaganda (how many of these rightwing religionists have served prison sentences, been outed, and worse for their "family values"? It's like calling Donald Trump a good businessman). And let us not forget the oxymoronic neoclassical Friedmanic fascists. They don't want us to know that Clinton was one of them, and that the only reason he won the election was that he, like Carter, siphoned Southern voters away from the Republican Confederacy and their racist strategy.  Those pushing the Southern Strategy need someone for their stampede of stupid to hate and target.

I cannot fathom the rhetoric I hear on the News channels or read on other Blogs. Although, this is understandable when I listen to McCain on his "stump" spewing the same rant as though it has not been discredited by every agency dedicated to the topic of which he speaks. This has cleared up a suspicion of mine that the fiction based and faith motivated among us are in fact immune to education because they are impervious to reason and facts, so they will vote ideologies and bigotries like racism, and because nationalism, patriarchy, i.e. white male privilege including misogyny of both the physical and derivation types, appeal to their basest of primitive drives, they feel like the racists are telling it like it is.

Note: deprivation is a form of violence, and the cheapest way to make someone feel deprived is to give them nothing, call it something, worship it like it's everything, then tell them everyone, someone, your enemy, is trying to take it away. Religion is by far the premier example of this: Christian persecution complex. Monotheistic religions have no rival in this category. The antebellum tradition of the pampered Southern Belle built upon the fictive pedestal of chasity, purity, and piety, but really racism and exploitation, penal institutions and poverty comes in an embarrassingly distant second, but it does keep the old gals fighting against their own interests, working for self-determination, or achieving anything close to ethical validity in this century.

I am, on the other hand, guardedly optimistic about the future of America because of the youth view of reality as evidenced by the youth support for Barack Obama and a growing percentage of the under forty category leaving religion in the dumpster. We can only hope this wave continues. I also found some good news on youtube that, well, lifted my spirits, public discourse about the invalidity of using the book as a basis for moral ramifications in governmental applications, by Barack Obama. I thought it was quite good.

By the way, on a more personal note, most of my family is in Indiana and Oregon both of which have a history of being very conservative (remind me to tell you the story of how I ran away from home at four years old, think KKK, Christian nationalists, hypocritical evangelicals and anti-choice activists, those paramilitary survivalists that look like they ate the whole donut shop, the ever present antisocial tax cheats, capitalist anti-environmentalists, and almost every rightwing astroturf group who can find a Winnebago), but according to the polls that I can find even Indiana is on the fence. Could this be due to me IMing my opinion to the "clan" every chance I get, or ...

Can the privileged plutocrats be out of believable lies? Perhaps there are fewer stupid people in this country. Could the internet be having a positive effect? 

I have spent many quiet moments in contemplation questioning why people believe what they believe and why they don't accept facts, and science. I highly recommend a book by Robert Wright, The Moral Animal: Why we are the way we are (1994). I might also recommend Consciousness Explained, by Daniel C. Dennett (1991). While both of these books can be useful to explain why one would believe in superstitions, even the superstitions of bronze age desert goat herders, they are mostly concerned with the evolutionary mechanisms (Wright), of why and how one perceives our world (Dennett). These institutionalized systems of superstitions and religious doctrines which are actually fabricated from many stone and bronze age fears and were repurposed for the support of bronze and iron age tribal leaders, by those tribal leaders, are a form of psychological manipulation and emotional abuse.  Manipulation and abuse through these fears and myths are actually the answer to the question. That this answer, too, is the source of plutocratic power and at the heart of submission to tyrannical personality cults of the religio-political socioeconomic persuasion throughout the history of human society tells us what is changing and what must be chastised as unethical. The good news is that our evolved psychology also plays a central roll in our disappointment in people who succumb to fear too readily. This humility is usually felt by the fearful when manipulative lies are exposed.

But anyway, my readers should know that Republican Confederates find the need to use the same "propagate the fear" tactics used by tyrants, religionists, warmongers, racists, and nationalists for millennia then capitalists for the last couple of centuries. I guess you are who you hang out with, or emulate.  The ridiculous claims of Republicans about Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama, have only shown me that I was absolutely correct in categorizing them as a domestic enemy. 

Beachbum

This is how the horses and ranch hands saw me. At the time of this photo, I was a ranch manager for an outfit of working draft horses on the Big Island of Hawaii. Horses are something I know well. I grew up around them before my military career. Being an animal lover, I am fully aware of the responsibility we have with all life on this planet in regards to suffering, especially in a domestic context. I am not, nor will I ever be the someone to use another life without mutual beneficence, without mutual benefit and  fundamental compassion that results in better living conditions for each party in the domestic environment, the relationship is no more than abuse. I have 12  Draft horses (2000 lbs babies) that want me to pick'em up and cuddle, or hug (you haven't lived until you've been swarmed by 24k lbs. of horse wanting your undivided attention). When they're not pulling carriages (perhaps 15 hours a month), I exercise them by play tag in the jungle. The rules are a little different. I'm always it, and they all want to catch me. It looks much worse than it is. They are very gentle animals, but clumsy in the Hawaiian bush. I've scared more than a few tourists traveling around the ranch by busting out of the jungle in a full-on stampede with a dozen wild-eyed giants chasing me. You would have to see it to believe it. And to be clear, the hollering allows them all to find me in the thick brush--most of the time (24000 lbs. of hug at a gallop).

I am an Atheist

I am a complex intellect who has rendered very complex topics and philosophies down to their simplest form since I was very young. I value logical consistency, facts, evidence, and the network of substantiated facts that combine to convey knowledge and support a universal truth that we will likely never know much of. I am a science minded thinker-philosopher and writer built from a cowboy-Indian warrior poet. My life's goal was, and still is, to experience everything. I don't waste time on brain candy (it puts a cavity between your ears), but I read voraciously, teach because it helps me learn more, and I hate the suffering in the world. Some might say I have a hero complex.

If one still questions my position I will refer him to how George H. Smith defines atheism in his book "Atheism: The Case Against God":which I think is as acceptably well-researched and succinct as any I've seen to the date of this writing.

"....The prefix "a" means "without" so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism" or without a belief in a god or number of gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of a theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or the supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as 'the belief that there is no God of any kind' or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism—they are somewhat misleading with the respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form is not a belief, it's the absence of a belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, does not believe in the existence of a god."

The reason I am an atheist, is simple on the surface, I was born that way. The reason I am an atheist activist is just as simple, without the wool pulled over my eyes, I can see superstition, religion, and the way these anthologies of ideologies are used to exploit all sentient life and the world it poisons. Theism is a worldview born of ignorance that feasts on the fear it produces.

Most Freethinkers have a stance on the philosophical position of atheism that rejects the common believers depiction of what a humanist, secularist, freethinker, et al., is on the basis of its religious framing. Discounting the evil atheists eat babies claims as deluded propaganda, we are still left the false framing portraying atheists especially, but also secularists, humanists, and freethinkers to various degrees, as the ones denying reality; or, more subtly, religionists claim we deny evidence, evidence they neither understand  nor produce, for an imagined deity they claim created this universe and everything in it. 

The quickest way to falsify their god-fraud is to ask them to explain where this entity was when there was nowhere to be. Or ask what this deity made the universe from when there was nothing. But, the best way is to ask how that-which-does-not-exist can create itself, from nothing, in nothing, while being nowhere. Of course, their inability to answer, let alone support their answers to these questions with evidence, shows their imagined entity is merely the latest in a long list of mythical deities. Yes, I just used logic to show creater gods cannot possibly exist, and I will do the same for all god concepts, ghost like entities, spirits, devils, demons, supernatural this, that, and the other thing. I will also show that supernaturalism is, like all ideologies, a baseless fiction. I do this because these baseless fictions turn otherwise decent people into a mindless stampede of stupidity, a threat, a source of power for the exploiter caste. Hero complex.

But, far worse, is the reality created by this pious political club prevents these people,  cum livestock, from rescuing themselves or their offspring from a life of servitude, from being fleeced, fucked, and fed upon by the scum that rises to the top in this religio-political socioeconomic system of ideological manipulation and technocratic and bureaucratic limitation conserved (think conservatism) by the plutocrats. And they preserve (again conservatism) this misbegotten, thoroughly discredited, superstitious worldview a la explanation extraordinaire (think sophistry), on the basis of a lack of evidence and arguments from ignorance (you can't prove a negative, that gods don't exist). Oh, but I can. In reality, there is evidence in insurmountable quantities that supports many converging theories from our origins to the purpose of life in its totality, without positing a supernatural explanation or inexplicable supernatural properties. Only, this is far too subtle for brains saturated in pious pus. I have developed proofs, Euclidean style proofs, logical arguments, that prove gods cannot exist. It wasn't even difficult.