Visitors
Advocacy for autocratic-despotism is corollary to repudiation of objective reality
Objective reality is a principle which holds that existence is ordered independently of the subjective human consciousness; objective reality presupposes a more fundamental rational ordering a.k.a. god, very much as the Judeo-Christian God is philosophically understood; it is the principle upon which Western culture – formerly known as Christendom – ascended. Once one has accepted that reality is a contingency of subjective thought – as the University (from whence culture descends) has, one is left in a position where all arguments – in their logical extension/extreme - are reducible to the caprice of flux. What follows – necessarily – is the creed of the ideologue, viz: might makes-Right which - incidentally - is the ground of the social-political Left, whose inveterate advocacy is – consciously, or otherwise - autocratic-despotism, wherein the empower are enabled to determine whoshould/must die and who may live and under what conditions they may live… Anyone understanding the implications which must follow from denying objective reality will recognize the Democrat Party and the social-political Left as emblematic of such denials... Such is the reason why Democrat Party A.G.'s and the Biden 'Justice' Department only enforce the laws that advance the Democrat/Leftist agendas, and in contradiction of the rule-of-law, there is a different standard of 'justice' for those aligned with the social-political Right (Make them pay!) and those of the social-political Left (Understand their anti-social conduct advance the Democrat Party interest; Reward them, in whatever manner one may!)...
Thomas J. Donegan
guildma@msn.com
Email
Print Article
Favorites
Report Abuse
User Comments
 |
Hello, FedUp! Humans - possessed of free-will - cannot be coerced into accepting Jesus Christ; it then is left to the believer - like Saint Paul, and others - to make the case for Jesus Christ, which usually begins with challenging the conscious, and inveterate beliefs, of the individual. Once an individual comes to understand his/her views are indefensible upon the ground from which they are argued, one is presented with an opportunity to fill the vacuum created in their soul... Cordially, tjd |
Remember all that "loving one-another" you were promoting when your Republican/Neocon heroes were killing arab babies? Yeah, me neither. |
|
Hi, Scott! 1.) What is it that you mean by "love" regarding "loving one-another"? 2.) The business of living, and the living of principles - necessarily - require choosing; choice always involves unintended consequences e.g., an individual that decides to stand by and watch another being assaulted, raped and then murdered - because they want to keep their hands clean - could be said to have given tacit approval to the assault, rape and murder. Now if one chooses to believe they are not in any way responsible, one doesn't understand that the very concept of objective reality necessitates an attendant objective morality! Thus, it is not possible for one to "stand on the side-lines" and casting "stones" or aspersions, without inculpating oneself in the evil that is perpetratred! One has a moral responsibility to act to mitigate what evil one can, but one must understand that one acts without omniscience, thus one may - in acting - inadvertently precipitate a greater evil... Life, for rational beings - is morally messy; this is why one should act - incessantly - to know the conditions (i.e., the moral imperatives and their ordering, since morality is hierarchical...) under which one must choose... 3.) Is it - in your opinion - "just" to hold people, or a people, responsible for what happens/occurs if it is not their intent? 4.) In the realm of human choice, what principle/s do you believe allow one to pass through existence without precipitating some unintended "evil" as they act to advance the "good"? 5.) What is "good" in your estimation? 6.) What is "evil" in your judgment? 7.) What would be your proposed remedy to people "Not fit to "unfitness" and promoting their "biases and dishonest" views? 8.) A dishonest view would imply the individual proposing such a view thinks the view to be dishonest/insincere, how is it that you ascertain the ordering of the individual's - in question - disposition of soul? 9.) Is "disgust" an objective reaction - predicated upon what? Or is it a subjective reaction predicated upon one's sensibilities? 10.) THere are many more questions that could be posited here - but we do not expect to actually get reasoned replies to these ones; thus we end here! Take care, Scott! Cordially, tjd |
 |
"Ministry Of Renonciliation " How's your (1) theology (2) ...your Bible belief? See IICor 5, and elsewhere: Fact is, we born-agains are to earnestly/graciously/lovingly pray for the lost to be saved (and to be ready to encourage and/or disciple them!)... that is, a major part of the "Ministry Of Renonciliation" is for born-agains to pray for GOD to do the "coerice" parts. |
Hi TJ, I'll be happy to tell you exactly what I mean by "love" as soon as FedUp explains what he means by it. He's the one constantly struggling with it. I won't have the same problem. |
@FedUp |
|
Your are wrong.
And...what you practice is idiocy! |
|
Hi again, Scott! Scott: Nothing I've said suggests holding anyone accountable for anything except their own words and positions. Good intentions leading to bad results happens to us all, but that's different than not owning their own words or correcting mistakes. tjd: This: “…, but that’s different than not owning their words or correcting mistakes.” suggests, Scott, that I’ve not “owned my words” which – specifically – words are those to which you refer? And if it is “mistakes” which I’ve made, and not “corrected” which are those which you reference?
tjd: Care nothing about “good intentions!” And, this is particularly so since/because most people’s understanding of “good” is – on some level – self-affirming, rather than the fulfillment of a teleological intention (such intentions are implicitly written into nature by God…) predicated upon formal causation i.e., essence in potency (an intended completion) is actualized/realized (i.e., final causation) … We Occidentals refer to this as natural-law, while Orientals refer to this as the “Tao” … Any action/choice of action/s that promotes such actualization/realization, tend to be good; of course, the manner in which such things are realized must – too – accord with the moral law. Contradictions! To which do you refer? Note that, logical contradictions may be ascertained before the fact i.e., they are analytically identifiable, but in regards to chosen actions which result in consequences other than those sought – in the action chosen – are not contradictions, but unintended consequences! One may fault such individuals/actors for being devil-may-care, and/or for lacking omniscience, but to claim that the individual has acted/chosen contrary to their principles would be unjust… tjd: Actually, post the 2020 election, one wonders how anyone could see Government legitimacy, but – until Government agents, on a large scale, begin rounding people up for incarceration/extermination – it is my view that we should attempt to awaken as many as possible, in hopes that an “great-awakening” should occur and the wicked be deposed and legitimacy restored.
tjd: Because an individual is powerless to prevent the State from acting, does not mean the individual has given – even – tacit approval of the State’s actions! The last foreign policy that I supported – before that of POTUS Trump’s - was that of Ronald Reagan; can’t say I’ve fully supported anyone’s domestic policy, but – had Buchanan been elected – I’d likely have “philosophically” celebrated his policies (foreign and domestic), but - likely not - their whole-hearted messy application… I’m a registered Federalist, because I despise the Republican Party, especially since Buchanan’s 1992 POTUS run, and I view the Democrat Party as Satan’s Party! Scott: We're not like the America hating left. We love America, we just hate the evil regimes that rule over us and destroy everything. Cordially, tjd
|
Scott: Nothing I've said suggests holding anyone accountable for anything except their own words and positions. Good intentions leading to bad results happens to us all, but that's different than not owning their own words or correcting mistakes. tjd: This: “…, but that’s different than not owning their words or correcting mistakes.” suggests, Scott, that I’ve not “owned my words” which – specifically – words are those to which you refer? And if it is “mistakes” which I’ve made, and not “corrected” which are those which you reference? Scott: “All of this you said amounts to apologist bullshit. You've convinced yourself that no matter the results, it's OK because "good intentions"... while ignoring mammoth contradictions.” tjd: Care nothing about “good intentions!” And, this is particularly so since/because most people’s understanding of “good” is – on some level – self-affirming, rather than the fulfillment of a teleological intention (such intentions are implicitly written into nature by God…) predicated upon formal causation i.e., essence in potency (an intended completion) is actualized/realized (i.e., final causation) … We Occidentals refer to this as natural-law, while Orientals refer to this as the “Tao” … Any action/choice of action/s that promotes such actualization/realization, tend to be good; of course, the manner in which such things are realized must – too – accord with the moral law. Contradictions! To which do you refer? Note that, logical contradictions may be ascertained before the fact i.e., they are analytically identifiable, but in regards to chosen actions which result in consequences other than those sought – in the action chosen – are not contradictions, but unintended consequences! One may fault such individuals/actors for being devil-may-care, and/or for lacking omniscience, but to claim that the individual has acted/chosen contrary to their principles would be unjust… Scott: I could never give you answers to these questions that would suffice because you and I disagree on the legitimacy of the state. I don't think it could get much worse, and you just think if so and so did this or that, and the press did this or that, that its existence would be validated in your view. I think we've got much further to go than that. tjd: Actually, post the 2020 election, one wonders how anyone could see Government legitimacy, but – until Government agents, on a large scale, begin rounding people up for incarceration/extermination – it is my view that we should attempt to awaken as many as possible, in hopes that an “great-awakening” should occur and the wicked be deposed and legitimacy restored. Scott: lol you can put me in the "questioned Gov legitimacy long before 2020" camp... Scott: See, I'm not an anarchist like Malice, but I agree with him that you cannot justify what is done by the state in the name of freedom, liberty, justice, democracy or whatever else nonsense they pretend to care about. Justifying it by saying "what's the alternative" doesn't in any way excuse what's been done. tjd: Because an individual is powerless to prevent the State from acting, does not mean the individual has given – even – tacit approval of the State’s actions! The last foreign policy that I supported – before that of POTUS Trump’s - was that of Ronald Reagan; can’t say I’ve fully supported anyone’s domestic policy, but – had Buchanan been elected – I’d likely have “philosophically” celebrated his policies (foreign and domestic), but - likely not - their whole-hearted messy application… I’m a registered Federalist, because I despise the Republican Party, especially since Buchanan’s 1992 POTUS run, and I view the Democrat Party as Satan’s Party! |
@FedUp |
|
Bye (made ya look! |
) |
Hello again, Scott! Scott: I didn't say you. However, I am saying that you will ignore those who do not stand by their own words and actions. You'll continue to support them regardless. With your belief in the state, this is unavoidable because the power lies with the corrupt. I'm sure if I were really to get into this with you, that I could find many examples for why you should not trust (or have expectations) from certain persons/groups due to their horrid track records, yet your support persists. It's evident every time you speak of the social political right or left. tjd: Generally, Scott, I will/do not stand by people that do not stand by their words and actions; if I do not write about particular betrayals it is either I’m not aware of such things, or because – it is my view – that most people do-not-stand because they are not grounded in principles, rather they are sentimental and are susceptible/prone to “wilting” under duress. That objective moral principles – to my knowledge – never enter public discussions, abets the advance toward despotism, and yet – if an individual with a platform e.g., Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Josh, Hawley, Jim Jordan, et al – were to utilize their time, in public hearings – to indicate what moral obligations, as a matter of justice, attend the respective offices, and duties of e.g., Fauci, the Speaker of the House Pelosi, POTUS, when each of them utilize their power to subvert the truth, and subvert the rule-of-law. I suspect – if anyone of the individuals understood the relation of morality to the law, and were able to articulate the relation, they would do more than score political points in such hearings; they would be able to identify– by inference – for the viewing public (the uniformed Americans that often vote for the greater of 2 evils because of packaging…), the undeniable despotic motives of such people Pelosi, Biden, and so many others… I do not “trust” any public, or professional, figure; I expect – nearly everyone – irrespective of what they might claim publicly, to seek first their interests, as they understand those interests. This again results in choosing the lesser of 2 evils; one may be betrayed, but he/she who promises – less – Government involvement, will likely do less harm! Scott: A contradiction like being pro life and backing illegal wars simultaneously. I bet you were one of these people who were using Christian "just war" theory to justify endless wars of aggression post 9/11. I'd bet you were in lock step with someone like Charles Krauthammer. tjd: Never a Krauthammer fan! Had a bit of sympathy for the guy, thought he was reasonably intelligent, but viewed his weltanschauung to be representative of the University which is – by principle – opposed to the U.S. Constitution, the natural-law, and natural rights; Krauthammer is almost as insufferable as his buddy George Will. Both well educated, both believing themselves to supporters of the rule-of-law, both ostensible admirers and supporters of Ronald Reagan, but both sentimental individuals… Am not a Christian “just” war individual. Was opposed to the US involvement in Middle-East, although I was in the Navy – in the beginning of things, and later in the Guard – thought the 1st Gulf War was packaged and marketed for the American public, and – although I saw/see a distinction in the 2nd – I was not an advocate for that war either… tjd: I too have questioned legitimacy of elections prior to 2020 (2000 was my wake-up), but things were never so blatantly obvious, before 2020.
tjd: Agreed! tjd: But ignorance, and/or being misinformed is why they are powerless; if We The People, were properly informed the wicked and their wicked agendas would be terminated before they got very far. Sloth has much to do with the State of the US, because – most Americans – heretofore – have only concerned their selves with enjoying life; those that are awakening – in large part – are doing so because their lives are ceasing to be enjoyable; many – likely – are coming to believe – and rightfully so - that the Government is their enemy! tjd: Do not agree Trump to be a war criminal, but you may make an argument to the contrary, and we’ll see how it bears up… Reagan’s policies reflect Jean Kirkpatrick’s view that a “strongman-dictator” was preferable to a communist regime, and the drug War is –likely – more appropriately George H. W. Bush’s responsibility via Mena, Arkansas…. tjd: I do not disagree with you about this, but I hope otherwise! If enough Americans are really angry – by November, given things will likely be markedly worse in every imaginable way – perhaps voters, in January of 2023 will organize and demand newly elected Republican lawmakers go after (prosecute – to the fullest extent of the law) all those in – and out – of Government; as they demand the 2020 election to be audited; again prosecuting those found guilty of fraudulent actions… Friend of mine is convinced – I say he is hopeful – that the Military, POTUS Trump, Durham, and others are working on redressing the Government corruption, and that many an individual is “playing-a-role” as they gather evidence; the same friend believes – based upon Q drops – that Trump, Putin and Xi are working together – clandestinely - to put an end to the globalist – such as Klaus Schwab, Gates, Soros et al. My response to him is: “I hope you are right, but I do not think such is the case!” tjd: The reason I’d like Trump as Speaker – even if it is only a few weeks, before he is re-settled to the Oval Office – is because he won’t give a rats-ass about mean words, or obstructionism. He’ll publicly relentlessly pummel those that drag their feet, enlisting the American people in public hortatory. And if the Republican House win – should be large enough, and conservative enough – there will be very few Democrats around to resist. If the 2020 election – post audit – should be overturned vis-à-vis Trump’s 2018 Executive Order – the Press – those left standing post audit and Executive action (The Government of the US would own all fraud participating Media outlets and social Media platforms, but would then need to sell those entities) would likely support exposing the ubiquitous corruption – in both Parties – in the Press, in NGO’s, and in sundry Government agencies… I realize this is wishful thinking, but Americans are unhappy now, and they will not be any happier come November! Cordially, tjd |
|
“Scott: A contradiction like being pro life and backing illegal wars simultaneously.”
tjd: An oversight – on my part – was not addressing this point; although I have never cast a vote for any war, I have voted for individuals that precipitated in a war, engaged in a war or sustained a war. My vote was not cast for, or against, the candidate’s advocacies regarding war; both Parties advocate war; rather my vote was cast in opposition to the Party candidates – and political Party - I thought/think is more dictatorial/tyrannical. Republicans – generally – abide Constitutional limits vis-à-vis personal Liberties and regarding unalienable Right. Moreover, voting for a pro-abortion candidate – where the murder of babies is certain and is overtly sought, as a good; the other candidate is pro-life, but may involve the U.S. in foreign wars which may lead to the deaths of innocents, but possibility is not a certainty. So the choice of the less despotic, pro-Life candidate is not voting for the possibility of murdering innocents in foreign wars, it is voting for a greater abundance of Life and Liberty. Cordially, tjd |
tjd: Do not agree Trump to be a war criminal, but you may make an argument to the contrary, and we’ll see how it bears up… Reagan’s policies reflect Jean Kirkpatrick’s view that a “strongman-dictator” was preferable to a communist regime, and the drug War is –likely – more appropriately George H. W. Bush’s responsibility via Mena, Arkansas…. |
One thing is for certain. The way you suggest ignoring "objective reality" results in what we see from the left today while ignoring what the right ignored for decades with regard to killing children in illegal wars is DISGUSTING. |
tjd: Friend of mine is convinced – I say he is hopeful – that the Military, POTUS Trump, Durham, and others are working on redressing the Government corruption, and that many an individual is “playing-a-role” as they gather evidence; the same friend believes – based upon Q drops – that Trump, Putin and Xi are working together – clandestinely - to put an end to the globalist – such as Klaus Schwab, Gates, Soros et al. My response to him is: “I hope you are right, but I do not think such is the case!” |
Hey TJ, I agree that such is not the case. Avoid the "Q drops". These are people who are so statist, that in their grand myth of the state they believe a secret cavalry exists to save us from the state lol.
No. Dems need their spirits to be born-again; the ONLY solution.
One of the most important aspects of humans loving one-another is God's command to Born-Again Christians: the commanded "Ministry Of Renonciliation"