Attack Against Christendom

Your answer is highly unsatisfactory .. again in full denial of reality via deflection .. yammering on about "compromise" something completely unrelated to whether or not there is big money influence in Washington.

Clearly it wasn't "Sarcasm" using the nonsense term "Deep State" was an effort at deflection and denial of reality . away from the fact that you know full well of the big money influence in Washington .. but want to somehow put this into some conspiracy theory bin.

The reason it wasn't sarcasm .. is that you double down on "I have no clue what I am talking about and use nonsense terms to hide the fact" The first post containing the nonsense term part .. this post containing the " I have no clue what I am talking about " Part saying "I couldn't care a less" .

Obviously -- if you don't care about big money influence in Washington .. you clearly don't now much about it .. your brain responding "I don't care" every time you encounter information suggesting that there may well be such influence ..

Then ..after this big effort in deflection and denial .. you revert to making false accusations .. misrepresenting what was said.

So did you wish to know who Trump's backers are .. or do you not really not care .. or was that sarcasm as well . desperate to deflect from reality .. Just yapping for the sake of yapping..

 

Sure, one has to dig in further in order to judge individual cases. Humans are complicated like that

Our biggest problem is that we have to understand how the brain works using as a tool the same kind of brain we're studying. Not an easy task.

 

Do you, or do you not agree that compromise is the living soul of democracy?

I still don't know who Trump's backers are.

 

Could be - but who cares if "compromise" is the soul of D or not - The conversation is about Big money in politics - and you unable to answer simple question pretending to be oblivious to the influence of big money in washington - for what reason I do not know - compromise having no bearing on the perversion. "if folks could just get along -- the world would be a better place" .. is purile nonsense if that is what you are aiming for.

Told you who Trumps backers are - indirectly - .. "Big Money" same backers as everyone else on both sides of the fence. Do some resist .. refuse to "compromise" .. yes but very few willing to shoot the golden egg laying goose .. run against herd of stampeding bulls .. and we have seen what happens to those who do .. a harsh trampling.

So this "compromise" is nary the soul of democracy .. but the soul of its corruption .. folks compromising principles .. cause that gold is sweet in our Pay to Play system .. If you Play along .. you get paid .. and everyone knows it.

Donald was compromised long ago .. is indebted and endowed to the Consortia - the biggest of the influencers .. cause they have the biggest money .. hence the appiontment of Wilbur Ross to commerce secretary and so forth .. quid pro quo..

 

Please don't try to second-guess me. Stick with what I write, I try to present my ideas as clearly as possible.

Compromise at a political level doesn't mean "getting along". It's compulsory, not voluntary. It's what happens when politicians with different agendas from all over the political spectrum are forced to work together - some will remain on the fringes, but the majority understand they have to give something up in order to obtain something else.

Me thinks that "Big Money" is too vague a term. You make it sound like it doesn't matter at all if one is being backed by "Soros Big Money" or "Koch Brothers Big Money". Doesn't it, really?

So...Trump backers?

There's nothing more dangerous in politics than principles.

Short and long term interests of the country are what matter in a democracy, not principles. Keeping "Big Money" flowing is in the best long term interest of a country - any country- as principled Chinese communists learned the hard way. You want to live in a country where principles trump money? Make your own on Mars, because you won't find any on Earth.

Yes, "Big Money" pay to keep "Big Money" coming, and that benefits the whole of society in the long run. How would the US of A look without "Big Money"? No more huge investments and leading role in technology and science, less opportunities for talented individuals to find their place in American society, less interest for culture and entertainment as economic issues take front seat. Bring down "Big Money", and you are left with what, exactly?

Donald is an idiot on its own merit, nothing to do with the Consortia, "Big Money", or any other external factor.

 

Compromise has nothing to do with Big Money influence .. other than those who feed on the eggs of the golden goose are compromised.

You proceed to make a few wild claims -- "Principles dangerous to politics" "What" ? While that may be can be true in some not in others . what does this have to do with whether or not big money influence 1) exists and/or 2) is desirable.

Then you just outright state "Big money in politics is desirable in the long term" .. desirable how .. sure -as you say .. need to keep the money flowing .. but you have not mentioned any of the undesirable things .. nor weighted them to see which is desirable "long term".

I claim - and does history - that too much ability of "Big money" to influence politicians .. is real bad for the little people .. just ask the serfs under Feudalism .. cause that is what you end up with.

Regardless .. this navel gazing is superfluous to the question of whether or not this Big money influence exists .. which previously you had yet to acknowledge .. but now seem to .. so that can be assumed.

So Trumps backers is Trump Beholden to .. You say "Big Money" is too vague .. and I agree .. but I gave you a name did I not .. "Wilbur Ross" Trumps appointed commerce Secretary "Quid Pro Quo" -- how did he get there ? "Big Money Influence" thats how.

Now go figure out the rest .. of the Story .. or at least part of it .. Wilbur's handlers are not the only influencers .. albeit "The Consortia" is a big one. which is .. another name for you "Consortia" hmmm sounds almost conspiritorial doesn't it -- but I am quite serious .. no joke ... not "fake news" .. and not a secret by any stretch .. which doesn't fit the "Secret Society" criteria

Soros you brought up .. interesting name .. one of Trumps backers.. had Xmas dinner with him one year .. but a small fry .. as are the KOCH brothers. .. the Gates and the Bezos of the world 100 Billion gets you into the "Richest Man" category ... but these are small fry. .. influencers for sure .. but nothing like the Consortia .. a whole different few orders of magnitude.

So names .. there is no one person .. and in fact the strings are not pulled directly .. there is like an automatic program that is in place that works its magic .. which I call "the Beast" . but that is another convo.

I can guess I suppose .. as I have done in giving you the name of Wilbur "Quid pro Quo" = some big spankyness going there .. spanky wanky - hanky panky.

but before the guessing game starts .. one thing should be kept in mind. "Someone (or group) is running things" -- and if they were not Running it .. some other group would be .. the Universe hates a vaccum .. and you can double that effect if it is a Power vaccuum. That void never lasts for long. So .. if not "these guys" .. it will be "Those guys" .. and its always "A Conspiracy" -- by definition .. Point being ... crying out "Conspiracy theory" in an effort to claim there is no conspiracy . is both moronic and false .. because of course it is a conspiracy .. what do folks think this word means ?

When I say "Big Money" ... I mean really Big money .. 25% of the total world wealth .. in 3 bank US banks. and they don't tell us who's money that is .. cept I suppose the portion that is invested .. rather than under custody and administration ... but this is a relatively small fraction of the total.

So .. Sparky .. who owns this money ? aka "More money than God" --- Its not one person .. that much we can say.. OK .so who ? What we can also say is that it is a relatively small group .. and this is old money .. earned the old fashoined way .. "Inherited"

 

The exceptional influence of the wealthy is not the starting point. It is an issue that all forms of government have to deal with. It's part of the issue of how we support the compromise that is required.

I think we have to start with the equality and compromise that we are founded on. That is a basis for judging whether the issues of exceptional influence have reached an unacceptable level and it provides for methods of addressing that exceptional influence.

The problem we face in America is that the Republican party sees our ideals of democracy as a problem warranting insurgency, that it's legitimate for those in power to make it harder for those they hate to participate as citizens, etc.

If we actually believed in our foundational principles, we would have the tools for controlling the undue influence you identify. The concerns of exceptional influence are appealing to a large percent of the population. If democracy and equality matterred, unacceptable levels of influence could be addressed.

It's no surprise that the president of the US and high Republican officials were in favor of an armed assault on democracy.

It's no surprise that the Republican party works to make it harder for those they hate to have access to democracy.

These are the methods used by those in favor of unacceptable levels of influence.

 

Some good points but also some no to good. Blue just got nailed for Gerry-Mandering in NY -- not just a Red Phenom but this .. nor the capitol riot has anything to do with the Big money issue.

"If we actually believed" - but we don't -- hard pressed to find a citizen who has the faintest clue what the founding principles are .. what our Constitutional Republic is about .. 12 years of school and we manage not to teach the basics. This engineered ignorance is a big part of the problem .. as without a populace educated in "the basics" .. there is no such thing as functional democratic process.

There are laws on the books to address the Oligopoly Problem - rarely enforced .. and only in some areas - punishment a slap on wrist. Drug price fixing would be one example.

This started with someone claiming Trump was not "Under the influence" - which is not true. You don't make it through the first stages of the process without being vetted .. and a you progress .. more vetting .. cause you need backers. You can win without Fox on your side .. You can win without CNN on your side .. but you can't go far without either on your side .. and both are controlled by the same interest.

 

It seems like you went back to describing the problem.

The powers that be chose education to no longer include civics.

They have turned campaign finance against middle class America, who face limits, while there are no limits on the wealthy.

It's considered acceptable today to attack the voting equality of people the in-crowd hates.

Etc.

Our founders were right about democracy. But, they didn't say it came automatically. They said we have to fight for it.

The very LAST think the wealthy influencers in and around government are interested in is democracy. The only way we can get back to democracy is if we start insisting on it.

 

Can you believe it? This is the trash that passes for "Christianity" in America.

Tennessee sheriff's deputy Daniel Wilkey, was indicted in 2019 on 44 charges including rape, assault, and to face civil rights lawsuit for baptizing Marie Riley against her will.​

The victim Ms. Riley said, ""It had nothing to do with God [or]... with saving [her or]... with [anyone] being a good person. It had something to do with power and control."

The Tennessee deputy, Daniel Wilkey, was indicted in 2019 on 44 charges including rape, assault, and official oppression after he pulled over Riley and during the course of the traffic stop found her to be in possession of marijuana and placed her under arrest. While searching her as she was in handcuffs, Riley says he inappropriately touched her crotch. He then told Riley to pull up her shirt and shake out her shirt and bra, but he did not find any additional contraband.

"Wilkey and Riley next discussed religion. They spoke for another thirty minutes, and McRae left sometime during this conversation. Riley testified that Wilkey asked her whether she had been baptized. She responded with concern that she may not be ready. But, according to Riley’s testimony, Wilkey told her 'God [was] talking to him' and assured her that, if she got baptized, he would only write her a citation and she would be free to go about her business," the judge's ruling explains. "According to Riley, Wilkey also indicated that he would speak at court on her behalf if she agreed. Riley decided to go along with this plan because she '[did not] want to go to jail.' "

And that is how you make American Christian: threaten any non-Christian with rape and jail and then there will be CHRISTIANS BY THE MILLIONS... AND ALL OF THE SAME QUALITY!

 

Here is an excellent video on Wittgenstein's philosophy and it has some great quotes. This video was part of the "Sea of Faith" series.

Wittgenstein on Religion
​

 

No it doesn't. Were that true, he'd not be indicted on 44 charges and facing life in prison. If it's true, he's a maniac. But that's him alone.

 

You just committed the "No True Scotsman Fallacy." Shame on you!

The “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy parable (like in the New Testament) goes like this--but there are many versions. The police arrest a Scotsman for vandalism. The local newspaper announced “A Scotsman” was arrested for vandalism! The town Scotsmen however become very upset and said, “No Scotsman would do such a thing!” What Scotsman would vandalize property? He obviously was not a “Scotsman!”

What is causing the disagreement of fact? The police were making a factual statement, “The arrested man was of Irish heritage.” This is a “factual” statement. In logic it’s called a “synthetic proposition.” All factual statements are synthetic statements: X is (or has the attributes of ) A, B, C, and D qualities like color, shape, and so on. Factual statements can be either true, or false.

However, the Scottish citizens were making a different kind of statement than the police blotter. They were saying, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing because an Scotsman would never vandalize a building.” They were creating a “definition,” or in logical terms, stipulating an “analytical definition” of a Scotsman. Analytic statements are true by definition. To deny, for example, the analytical statement “Circles are around,” is to deny a definition, and this is always false--unless you change the definition. You’re not going to get a Scotsman to do that without an argument! If a Scotsman defines a “Scotsman” as someone that would never vandalize a building, and another is claiming a historical fact--you got an unsolvable disagreement. Would you call the numerous historical Catholic Inquisitions "Christian?" Many persons debate a position and are unaware that they are switching from pre-constructed definitions to empirical statements of fact in their arguments and back again depending on what is convenient. In this case, the facts are inconvenient.

 

Nope. You said that the LEO's conduct is "trash that passes as Christianity in America." And that's not true. It is an individuals behavior which was halted for the crime that it was. Clearly it didn't pass as Christianity to Americans or to the law. Otherwise his religious liberty would have cushioned and defended his conduct. It didn't. So no, it is not what passes as Christianity in America.

 

Circulus in Probando Fallacy.

 

I believe the circular fallacy is yours. Sin is not a condemnation of God, but of the one who sins. If it is a reflection, it is sourced to Gods adversary, not to God.

 

Is that an empirical synthetic proposition or a string of tautologies? Are you woke?

 

I don't understand the first question. To the second, if you are referring to God, yes I have been awakened by his spirit to a remembrance of God, and know that he lives. And you?

 

I thought wokeness was a bad thing for certain American Christian sects. But I am happy to find a woke Christian!

And me? There is a meaning problem for sure. One has to be careful of religion however because of it history (German Churches of the 1930s) and cultism. I was raised in a fundamentalist church starting at about ten years old and saw it taken over by a right-wing Christian cult. I also attended a fundamentalist bible college before going to a secular universities. Epicurcus once wrote, “Not he who rejects the gods of the crowd is impious, but he who embraces the crowd’s opinion of the gods.” (From Epicurcus’s letter (341–270 BC) to Menokeus on the tenth book of Diogenses Laertitus).

Last night I watched a great science fiction feminist revenge movie titled Death Game (1976) which is an film about modern disenchantment in American society, and its utter lack of meaning and purpose except to exploit one's fellow human being. Capitalism damages everyone who then in turn destroy and self-destructive. The two women actresses really made the movie work: Sondra Locke and Colleen Camp. I mean they totally lose it! They slash their a path of destruction thru L.A. while hysterically laughing all the way to the end which sums up life in fascist Neo-liberal America. It is a brilliant satirical film on capitalism and the cult of irrationalism.

In America, one highest goal is to be a master of slaves. "An economic system should be constructed so as to conform to human nature...each person seeks mastery over a world of slaves."--von Mises Libertarian James McGill Buchanan Jr. wrote in his 1975 book, "The Limits of Liberty." It is this ideology that American Christian fundamentalism embraced. Again the Christian Theologian Tillich who witnessed the Nazis of the 1930s take over the Catholic and Protestant churches claims that all institutions, including the church, are inherently demonic.

Tillich defines the demonic as autonomous self-sustaining dynamic creative evil:

“The depth of the demonic is just this, that the meaningful and meaningless elements in it are inseparably combined. Thereupon rests its inevitability, its surpassing power, in the face of which all moralizing is doomed to impotence. The sinfulness to which the service of Mammon also belongs, is indeed the general presupposition of every demonry. But real demonry—if this word is to have any special content-occurs only in connection with a positive, sustaining, creative-destructive power (“The Interpretation of History: Demonries of the Present,” p. 57)(pdf.)."

When religion, including Christianity, becomes totalitarian, just like secular society can become totalitarian, they become demonic:

"An outstanding symbol of holy demonry is Moloch, who for the sake of saving Polis [city] devours their first-born—the original of all political demonry. The symbol most impressive for our time, comprehending the final depth of holy demonry, is the "Grand Inquisitor," as Dostoievsky visualized and placed him opposite Christ: the religion which makes itself absolute and therefore must destroy the saint in whose name it is established—the demonic will to power of the sacred institution (Ibid., p. 39)."

Like the Christian Nationalist Socialist Party (Nazis) who took over the German churches in the 1930s, the American Christian Nationalists have embraced the idolatry of American Nationalism—the god of market capitalism—Moloch. This is the great demonry of the present:

“Those possessed of demons in the New Testament know more about Jesus than those who are normal, but they know it as a condemnation of themselves in their condition of cleft-consciousness. The Ancient Church called the Roman Imperial Government demonic, because it made itself equal to God, and yet prayed for the Emperor and gave thanks for civic peace, which he assured. In a similar way religious Socialism attempted to show that Capitalism and Nationalism were demonic powers, insofar as they were at the same time sustaining and destructive, attributing divinity to their highest values. The development of European Nationalism and its religious interpretation of itself has fully confirmed this diagnosis of mine (Ibid., p. 30; bold text added).”

For more on the Christian Theologian Paul Tillich see his book “The Socialist Decision”(1933)(pdf.) of which the Nazis seized and burned all known copies. Just before Tillich left for the United States to flee Nazi Germany, the Nazis offered him a teaching Chair of Philosophy at the prestigious University of Berlin if Tillich would only renounce his book. Tillich laughed in their face.

"Death Game" film 1974-1977 (video)
​

 

No me; I believe in Santa Claus, though I confess my behavior hasn’t warranted a visit in a long while; I am thinking that might have stemmed from when I started wanting to wear girl’s skirts while they were still in them.

 

Wow, I must be slow. I saw the version of Death Game, starring Keenau Reeves. And thought it was a scary movie which when it ends, life is normal again. But if you are right, and the whole world is in some form of apostasy, then God is real and near. It would then behoove us to get right and cease taking his mercy for granted.

 

That film is titled "Knock Knock" with Reeves is a remake of the 1977 film Death Game which I didn't know until now.

Thank you for your response. I will check it out!

I wrote a theological review of Fellini's famous film "The Sweet Life," about "The Second, Second Coming."
An Existentialist Interpretation of the Last Scene of Fellini’s Film, “La Dolce Vita,” (“The Sweet Life”)(1960)

And another on demonology in Shakespears' play, "Macbeth."
The Demonology of the Shakespearean play, Macbeth.

 

Send us a picture.

 

Picture of what? Me as an adolescent wakin up to girl and starting to chase skirts?

 

“A Christianity that abandons its prophetic foundation by allying itself with political romanticism has lost its own identity...In fact, the Old Testament writings are a continuous testimony to the struggle of prophetic Judaism against pagan, national Judaism. For this reason, and solely for this reason, the Old Testament is a book for humanity--because in it the particular, the bondage to space and blood and nationalism, are seen as things to be fought against.”
-- Paul Tillich, The Socialist Decision (1933), p. 22.​

Christian Theologian Paul Tillich authored the book, “The Socialist Decision”(1933)(pdf.) which the Nazis seized and burned all known copies. Just before Tillich left for the United States to flee Nazi Germany, the Nazis offered him a teaching Chair of Philosophy at the prestigious University of Berlin if Tillich would only renounce his book. Tillich laughed in their face.

I now understand why the Nazis burned Tillich’s book about how and why he decided to become a religious Christian socialist. Tillich remained true to his beliefs even while in danger. Nazi security agents had already interviewed an elderly woman Tillich knew in Dresden who he told privately that Herman Goring was a drug addict. In disbelief she innocently asked her hairdresser if the rumor was true: the hairdresser was a loyal Nazi and reported to the police.

In this philosophical apology Tillich gives his reasons for embracing socialist principles and how they are compatible with religious socialism, and incompatible with other political movements in Europe. Tillich presents a historical dialectical analysis of two primary political movements that are derived from the mythic Cult of Origin. There are two cults of origins: first is the vegetative soil form of the myth of origin for its life-sustaining power. The second derivate cult of origin is the animal form of origin, or “the origin of blood that develops out of the vegetative form.” The animal form of origin focuses on the struggle for survival, breeding, a noble race, divine origin, brute strength, and conformity to the group.

Out of these two mythic cults of origin political romanticism emerge in certain epochs in an attempt to rescue the broken myth of origin from modernism. Political romanticism views the Enlightenment as the enemy: “It is thereby compelled to fight under presuppositions that it denies and with methods that it attacks in its opponents. It is forced to use the ethical categories of prophetism and to portray itself as a higher ethos (for example, as a higher justice), even though the myth of origin as such excludes ethics. And it is forced to use rational analysis as a means of establishing itself (for example, historical, sociological, and psychological investigations), and thus to appeal to the very thing it distrusts in principle as alien to the origin. In this way the theories of political romanticism arise; despite the frequently brilliant way in which they are developed, they cannot escape the contradiction of having to establish the irrational by rational means (SD, p. 26)."

This explains why the theories of political romanticism are unable to hold up under a sustained rational critical dialogue of their political philosophy: they reject rationality, but must use it as a weapon.

Political romanticism must attack secular Enlightenment to bring in a second Middle Ages: “And there will be a new Middle Ages only if Western society has to atone for its Enlightenment with the end of its own possibility of life. Only in the case of certain extreme ideas does political romanticism venture to draw this conclusion and affirm the coming of a Western form of the fellaheen society.*[df, surfdom] If, however, it shrinks from this, it lands in the contradiction between the necessity of using rational forms and at the same time fighting against them. It cannot escape this contradiction, and for this very reason it is romanticism (SD, p. 26)."

Political romanticism can be a complex combination of two schools: the form of political conservatism, and the revolutionary form. The conservative form of political romanticism “is based on the attempt to defend the spiritual and social residues of the bond of origin against the autonomous system, and whenever possible to restore past forms. It appears in groups that have not yet been completely integrated into bourgeois society: primarily landowners, peasants, nobles, priests, artisans (Ibid., p. 26)."

On the other hand, there is the revolutionary from of political romanticism: “The revolutionary form tries to gain a basis for new ties to the origin by a devastating attack on the rational system. It is carried out by those groups that have entered into the inner structure of the rational system, without having lost continuity with the groups of origin from which they are descended. But now they feel threatened by complete absorption into the system, on the one hand, and by the mechanization and loss of status which this system effects, on the other hand. Here we find primarily office employees, certain groups of bureaucrats, and those intellectuals who have no chance of being incorporated into the rational system; but there are also some farmers and artisans who are being hit specially hard by the crisis, to the point of hopelessness (Ibid., p. 26)."

“Revolutionary romanticism wants to let something new originate; conservative romanticism seeks to rediscover what is original (SD, p. 29)."​

This political schema is still relevant for interpreting the political forces at work today in America and in some overseas countries: “These two groups can become partners in common action, but at the same time they have inner tensions, tensions that become sharper as it becomes clearer that the revolutionary groups want to get rid not only of the drawbacks of the rational system but also of the advantages it has given to the conservative groups (Ibid., p. 2."

Their agenda looks like the headlines reporting on the American cultural wars—culture war is the point! Tillich recounts what the revolutionary and conservative romanticists wants to destroy; for them only the nation is sacred. The political platform or political romanticism is familiar: ”Their attack is directed against universal humanistic education, against the leveling of moral standards and philosophies of life as a result of the uniform framework of social interchange; against the intellectual autonomy of the individual and the lack of inwardly authoritative criteria; against the openness of the professions to everyone and the lack of established social rankings; against the equalizing tendencies of the metropolis, in which many realms of life interpenetrate one another, and whose influences, through technical means such as radio and cinema, draw even the rural areas into this single unit. Finally, and chiefly, it is directed against the political autonomy of the individual, detached from all special traditions. Positively, the myth of tradition concentrates on the national tradition. It finds its climax in the demand to maintain this tradition, to strengthen it through the creation of a national historical legend, and to free it from international traditions. Political romanticism demands such a myth of tradition and sets about creating it (Ibid., p. 33; italics added)."

Tillich describes how in some historical circumstances the conservative and revolutionary forms of political romanticism join forces with the conservative oligarchs hiding behind allied revolutionary political parties: “Therefore it can give birth to a political party only through a forced pseudomorphosis (apparent form). The conservative form of political romanticism can do this without danger, despite the inner contradiction, so long as the political dominance of the conservative groups makes the party a facade behind which quite other authoritative and aristocratic powers are operative (Ibid., p. 42).”

But the revolutionary romantics have a different political strategy in mind: “Revolutionary romanticism does not have this option. Consequently it must destroy the form of the party from within and, while maintaining the fiction of a party, put in its place something completely different: a revolutionary fighting group that sees itself as an elite over against the people and through utter dedication forces its political will upon the people. Internally, it relies on authority and a rank-ordering of elites, all the way up to the Leader [Fuhrer], in whose glorification the surrender of autonomy finds its strongest enthusiastic expression. Naturally, such a party can have no other goal than through its victory to make all parties disappear (Ibid., p. 42)." And this is what we are seeing now with the Republican Party being destroyed within by an origin cult of blood.