From its very inception, the Leninist/Marxist ideology of the Soviet Union made it a central priority to dispel and subjugate religious and spiritual expression. The state was “god.” No other god could be allowed to flourish, for if the people were given license and freedom of belief in something beyond themselves and beyond the establishment, they would retain a sense of rebellion. The collectivist philosophy requires the utter destruction of all competitors; otherwise, it can never truly prevail.
Atheism became the cult of choice among the communists, for in an atheist world there is nothing beyond the veil. There is no greater goal and no inherent self. There is no true individualism, only self interest (not the same thing), the trappings of environmental circumstances, and the constant substantiation of the greater good. By extension, there is no inborn moral compass or conscience, only the social fashions and mores of the moment. In such a world, tyrants reign supreme because atheism allows relativism to flourish; and any crime, no matter how heinous, can be rationalized. Beyond this, if you know and study the real history of the rise of communism, you know through great researchers like Antony Sutton that the very fabric of the system would never have existed without the monetary and military aid of international financiers (i.e. the NWO).
The atheist position uses the same arguments I have just made as a reason to remove religion and spirituality from our cultural influences. And in some respects, atheists are right. Religion is a tool that can be exploited to manipulate the masses. Any system of belief that is faith-based can be misinterpreted and abused in order to lure unwitting dupes and mindless followers into the fray of an engineered disaster. Atheists commonly argue that it is the encumbering nature of faith that causes mankind to destroy itself in the name of zealotry and self-righteous ignorance.
The difference, however, is that religious zealots are still required by the confines of their dogma to at least appear as though they follow a moral code. Therefore, they can be exposed as violators of this code and weakened over time. The atheist/collectivist system, though, thrives on the concept that there is no such thing as a moral code and that one is vindicated and heroic if he takes extreme action to prove that traditional morality is a vice, rather than a virtue. Atheists in positions of power often make no attempt to affirm their actions; rather, they demand that society abandon all conscience and sense of natural law. They do not ask for forgiveness; they order you to apologize for your moral compass. Are some atheists good and honorable people? Surely. The point, however, remains; atheism is the new flavor of the era, the increasingly predominant gravitational center of modern culture, the philosophical soil in which the NWO has chosen to grow its globalist experiment.
What atheists don’t seem to grasp is that atheism is itself based on an act of faith: faith in the idea that there is nothing beyond our perceptions of existence. They have no more factual knowledge of what lay at the center of life than any of the religious acolytes they so fondly attack, yet their own hypocrisy is apparently lost on them.
I would not pretend to deny that religion has the ability to create a volatile atmosphere edging toward genocidal tendency, but so does any belief system that assumes it is the paramount of knowledge denying all others. The intellectual intolerance of the socialist atheism of the 20th century spawned a death machine that claimed the lives of millions of people. So, clearly, atheists should be more concerned with the violent tendencies of their own ilk rather than the religious “fiends” they seem so obsessed with. Of course, this is a history modern atheists would rather ignore or rewrite.
I have always been concerned with the dilemma of the collectivist ideology, but even more so in recent months, as our world creeps closer toward global crisis. Crisis always provides circumstance and cover for dangerous philosophical totalitarianism.
Not long ago I came across the column “Some Atheists And Transhumanists Are Asking: Should It Be Illegal To Indoctrinate Kids With Religion?” on Huffington Post. It was written by Zoltan Istvan, a transhumanist and self-proclaimed “visionary and philosopher.”
Firstly, I have a hard time taking anything published by the Huffington Post seriously. Secondly, I have a hard time taking anyone using the name “Zoltan” seriously. Thirdly, I have a hard time taking anyone who labels himself a “visionary” seriously. That said, it is important to study the propaganda of the other side carefully. You never know what kinds of truths you might come across amid all the lies.
The article does not really define what it considers “indoctrination", but I would assume transhumanists and atheists would argue that anything not scientifically proven could become indoctrination. Interestingly, Istvan starts his tirade against the handing down of religious beliefs by admitting that science has added very little to our overall knowledge of the universe. After all, human beings experience only a narrow spectrum of the world around us, and there is indeed much we do not know. For some reason, it does not dawn on atheists that perhaps our limited scientific observations of the universe do not necessarily outweigh or deny the existence of an intelligent design.
In order to distract from their fundamental lack of knowledge, modern collectivist governments and movements have always made the promise of technological utopia and endless abundance in order to sway the populace into supporting establishment power. We will all work far less, or we will never have to work at all. Shelter, food, health and wealth will be provided for us. Our free time will be spent studying the nature of the cosmos and perpetuating the cult of academia, protected by a benevolent technocratic governing body straight out of an episode of “Star Trek.”
Not surprisingly, John Maynard Keynes himself predicted in 1930 that technological advancement and economic abundance would result in a three-hour workday and infinite time to amuse oneself by the year 2030 in his essay “The Economic Possibilities For Our Grandchildren.”
This was the same essay in which Keynes referred to the financial concerns of many at the onset of the Great Depression as “misinterpretations” and “pessimism.”
Transhumanism, a mainstay of global elitism and the New World Order, also uses fantastical images of scientifically created contentment to sell itself to starry-eyed rubes packed into the circus tent of the technocratic carnival. The very essence of the movement is the argument that one day ALL knowledge of the universe will be obtained by mankind and that through this knowledge, we (a select few anyway) will obtain godhood.
Again, as in the Huffington Post column, the claim is that science knows all or will eventually know all and that whatever has not been dissected and observed by science like the conceptions of religion must, therefore, be dubious myth.
Ironically, there is far more scientific evidence of God and spiritual life than there is evidence against. So by the very standards many atheists hold dear, it is they who are peddling indoctrination rather than truth.
In the world of mathematics, the good friend of Albert Einstein, Kurt Godel, is famous (but not as famous as he should be) for writing what would be called the “incompleteness proof.” In mathematics, a proof is a statement that is ALWAYS true and can always be proven true. Godel’s proof shook the very foundations of the mathematical world, because it outlined the fact that all mathematical knowledge is limited by numerical paradox, and that humanity will never be able to define all things through mathematical means.
Global elites such as Bertrand Russell had spent years of effort attempting to prove that mathematics was the unbridled code of the universe and that the universe could be understood in its entirety through the use of numbers. Godel shattered this delusion with his incompleteness proof, establishing once and for all that math is limited, not infinite. The existence of mathematical paradox along with an undefinable “infinity” lends credence to the religious view that there are indeed some things man will never know, but at least he has the ability to prove that he can never know them.
In the world of quantum physics, the work of Werner Heisenberg, along with that of many other scientists, has shown that the very mechanics of the world around us are not at all what they seem and that traditional physics is only a hollow shell of knowledge limited by our ability to observe.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle dictates that the observer of a particular physical state always affects the object being observed, making it impossible to know all the data necessary at one time to predict the future of that object. If a person hoped to become a god, he would certainly need to be able to tell the future; and to tell the future, one would need the ability to observe and record every aspect of every particle interacting in the environment around him. Any unknown quantity could change the outcome of any particular event. Heisenberg found that particles act very differently depending on how they are observed. In some experiments, he even discovered that individual particles appeared to be in two places at the same time, thus making them wholly unpredictable.
This behavior in the building blocks of matter is confounding to many in the realm of physics. Add to it the fact that scientists remain fixed on an endless and apparently futile quest to find the base particle that makes up the universe, and once again we find that the dreams of the transhumanist atheists to attain godhood fall terribly short. In addition, the apparently "intelligent" behavior of inanimate particles under observation leads one to question whether the universe is really just a chaotic mess of matter, or a dynamic living machine.
In the realm of psychology, Carl Gustav Jung discovered through decades of research the existence of inborn psychological contents. That is to say, from the moment of our birth, human beings contain complex elements of knowledge and identity, meaning we are NOT merely products of our particular environments. Jung called these pieces of inherent information “archetypes.”
The most important aspect of archetypes for our discussion is the existence of opposing views, or “dualities.” The concepts of good and evil, the concepts of conscience as well as guilt and regret, are not necessarily taught to us. Rather, we are born with such elements already within us. The fact that we are born with an at least unconscious understanding of good versus evil means we have the potential power of choice, a power beyond the realm of environment and beyond the reach of would-be tyrants and collectivists. If this does not constitute scientific evidence of a human “soul,” then I do not know what does. The fact of archetypes is undeniable. The question is: Since they do not come from environment, where do they come from?
Istvan’s column doesn’t mention or regard any of the scientific evidence for the existence of an intelligent design. He merely argues that science is the only definable known quantity, and only the known quantity is an acceptable form of belief. But what if the known quantity is so limited as to make a society dangerously ignorant?
The article goes on to promote (somewhat shamelessly) the author’s book, in which the hero, a transhumanist atheist, is given the power to reshape society into any form he wishes. The hero questions whether he should remove religion from the picture entirely, for if religion were erased, wouldn’t the world finally be at peace? Istvan himself questions whether religious expression should be banned in the case of children, so that they are given the chance to “choose” what they wish to believe later in life. This, of course, disregards the fact that children are already born with the prospect of choice, which is why many children who grow up Christian do not practice it later in life, and why many children from atheist homes end up joining religious movements. The idea that all children are permanently molded or damaged by their parent’s unchecked beliefs is complete nonsense.
What the author reveals in his work of fiction is the greater threat of the atheist and transhumanist ideology — namely, the arrogant assumption that they know what is best for the world and the public based on their scientific observations, which are limited and often misinterpreted. This problem extends into the oligarchy of globalists, who adore the theories expressed in Plato’s “The Republic,” in which an elite cadre of “philosopher kings,” men who have achieved a heightened level of academic knowledge, are exalted as the most qualified leaders. However, leadership requires more than knowledge, even if that knowledge is profound. Leadership also requires compassion and informed consent, two things for which the elites have no regard.
The New World Order, an ideal often touted by globalists and defined by their own rhetoric as a scientific dictatorship in which collectivism is valued and individualism is criminalized, seems to me to be — in its ultimate form and intention — a battle for the human soul. They try to convince us that there is no such thing, that there is no inborn conscience, that there is a rationale for every action, that spiritualism is a frivolous and terroristic pursuit, and that cold logic and science, as defined by them, are the paths to prosperity and peace. They also seek to tempt the masses with imaginary stories of attainable godhood and artificial Eden, promises on which they can never deliver. Anyone can point a gun at you and demand your fealty, but this is not what the elites want. Rather, they want you to voluntarily resign yourself over to the hive mind and sacrifice your conscience in the process. While one might argue over what it is they "truly" believe at the core of their cult, it is undeniable that collectivism, moral relativism, and atheism are their favorite promotional weapons.
The reactionary responses to my criticisms of the elitist philosophy will likely involve endless renunciations of crimes committed in the name of religious fervor. I agree; religion has always been exploited, usually by the elites themselves, to enslave as well as to murder. Even today, I hear some so-called Christians argue in favor of genocide using half-baked interpretations of biblical reference. But at bottom, I much prefer a world in which religious expression is free, rather than abolished in the name of an overarching zealotry in the form of a stunted mathematical morality. I prefer a world where the spiritual side of existence is allowed to add to observational awareness. Logic alone is not wisdom, after all. Wisdom is the combination of reason, intuition and experience.
I refuse to live under any form of theocracy, whether religious or scientific. The idea that we must choose between one or the other is a farce — a controlled debate. The individual soul (or whatever you want to call it) is the only thing that matters. It is important that we never forget that when we fight against the NWO, we are not just fighting for liberty; we are also fighting for something profoundly and inherently spiritual. Though we might not be able to define it, we can feel it. And that is enough.
REMINDER: Alt-Market's winter donation drive is now underway! If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Bookmark
Hits: 11364
Comments (63)
written by Stef , November 19, 2014
"The fact of archetypes is undeniable. The question is: Since they do not come from environment, where do they come from?"
- Our genes. Spiritually I'm not an atheist but an agnostic. Yer we are spirit and matter. And the workings of this matter is clear and observable in the animal world: my genes are competing with yours and they must survive, the "closer" you are to my genes, the more friendly (family, race). All instinctive knowledge are passed through these sets of biological codes. We are indeed formidable machines. But the idea of one united mankind is an utopia that goes against the Vera laws of nature that have produced who we are and every biological system surrounding us. It appears cruel on the surface only when view through the eyes of humans.
Then is there something much larger at work? A God? As you mention: there are more signs that points to a yes than a the contrary.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
written by Rodster , November 19, 2014
It sets up those in power as GOD. Therefore they answer to and are unaccountable to NO one but themselves for any harm or evil they cause to others.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
written by Steve B. , November 19, 2014
The basic thrust is cogent enough, though I would change some emphases.
1. ...Antony Sutton.... Much has been written about the rise of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. They look every bit as manipulated into existence as communism. I intend no insults to any believer out there, but, however sourced initially, as any institution, each of these religions, imo, has been colonized and infiltrated for the purposes of control. Communism is not a novelty and atheism isn't either in establishing tyranny.
2....cult of choice...Nothing about atheism that implies communism. I was an atheist for 40 years, though I am not one now. But never a communist. The tyranny and ludicrous illogic of monotheism are nearly invariably the reason people become atheists. As such, atheism serves a liberating purpose. As such, it also has no content of its own, and is merely the denial of ONE form of religion/spirituality. If universalized, it is indeed an act of faith. The golden rule is pretty much the basis for action, whether one is an atheist or not.
3. ...atheists in power...No worse (and no better) than religious zealots in power, a point acknowledged at the end. Again, it's not the atheism or the religion, it's the psychopathic priest classes that run them.
4....archetypes...No doubt a powerful idea, but hardly free from serious controversy even today. It goes by many names. How did the field get populated? Totally unclear, but Max Planck, founder of quantum theory, who talked with Jung, came away saying the quantum field was "conscious." I think this is probably correct. Quantum physics and Jung are thus versions of the Mystery Schools, which start with a primal Consciousness which acquires contents over time as it experiences itself. Human beings are part of this, droplets in the ocean. The archetypal field would then be products or depositaries of past human experience, which would also be the experience of Consciousness itself. This is not provable but certainly it is suggestive to me. Incidentally, this is precisely what the Hegelian dialectic is really about (evolving Consciousness, initially appearing as mere Being which is in actuality, because devoid of attributes, No-thing, which gives rise to Becoming which becomes actualized Spirit after a long process--note how the dialectic works here, as each aspect logically morphs into its opposite and is aufgehoben in the third member; nothing is lost in the process and so an experiential Akashic field or archetypal field forms, always conscious)), not at all about political manipulation in ANY sense. He was a man of the Mystery Schools. The Ayn Sof in the Kaballah is close to this as Hegel's starting point, as is the starting point of Godhood in many non-monotheistic religions. Hegel further argued that Consciousness (Call it God, though Hegel prefers Geist) continually evolved as it grew experientially. Thus Mankind was viewed as God's greatest expression so far. So in that sense Man is God. The Absolute is essentially Subject, he famously said. This is not what the Illuminati mean. Hegel was influenced by Jacob Boehme, very much a Mystery School man, though it seemingly came as a psychic shock to him as a shoemaker with no education. This is the alternative where God has no beard and the there is no brimstone and cloven hooves.
5....transhumanism... The Illuminati do not need monotheism any longer to enslave people, and so with the rise of technology, a new scientific priest class is installed to replace the religious priest class, perverts as they nearly all are. Atheistic? I think for many of these blood drinking, pedophilic satanists, they are well aware of multiple hyperdimensions and they are absolutely not atheists. Quantum physics is the Kaballah (or take your pick of Mystery Schools where this idea appears) and the zero point field or quantum foam is the source of a holographic projection called the 5-sense world. It is the Ayn Sof. Matter is merely a projection of vibrating strings, and in that sense "illusory." There is no base particle (Higgs) and they know it, as all particles become vibrating strings of energy as they are analyzed. CERN seems part of the attempt to access hyperdimensions, of which there are 10-11 in string theory. That there are beings I those dimensions they freely admit. Those dimensions occupy the same space as the 5-sense world, just different frequencies. And just last week comes a paper showing that the frequencies can interact or "bleed" into one another. Think we're being told something? The body may thus be a biological computer in which consciousness can be encapsulated. Look, I have no doubt that this will be used to enslave mankind, but just what these guys are doing for themselves is either utterly insane and comical or stunning. We'll know soon enough. Their grandiose plan seems to be to become God. this is often called the "left hand" path of the Mystery School wisdom, as such a serious perversion of the right hand path. But the Universe gives us both, and the bad guys seem to win almost all the time. Which is why the Gnostics claimed that the hyperdimensional Demiurge and the Archons ran the joint as a parasitic penal colony and farm run by psychopaths, the only way off a reincarnational cycle being perfection. Not saying I believe this, though as a metaphor it has undeniable charm.
6...Gödel's proof....This showed mainly that there are truths within any axiomatic system that cannot be proven within the system. The truths can still be known outside the system. Penrose thinks that this means the human being is not a computer and that consciousness emerges quantum, mechanically from the microtubules. Of course, this is all hotly contested and I surely have no considered position here, though, as noted, I do suspect that I am a droplet that developed out of the sea of Consciousness, an individual.
Enough for now. Lots of gas, and maybe no heat or light...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +9
written by Brandon Smith , November 19, 2014
@steve
Just a couple of corrections...
2 - Communism is synonymous with atheism. Marx was a rabid atheist. So was Lenin. So was Mao. I never claimed all atheists are communists, however, the tendency of communism is to always promote atheism. It is important to keep that in mind and ask yourself "Why?".
4 - As far as archetypes, yes, there are many theories as to their origin. However, all of them tend to lean toward some version of intelligent design, and, I don't know of any version that claims with certainty that God has a beard.
5 - Again, as mentioned in the article, it is not clear what the globalist cult really and truly believes in. Perhaps the luciferian ideology is just another control mechanism aimed at their middle-management followers. The point remains, however, that atheism is indeed the primary philosophy of choice which they promote in order to control the masses. As outlined in the article, there are numerous reasons why atheism is useful to them.
6 - This is the only argument you made which is mostly off base. Godel's incompleteness proof showed that there are elements of truth within a system that CANNOT be defined mathematically. And, for scientists, if something cannot be proven mathematically, then it cannot be proven. For the rest of us, it might be possible to know a thing intuitively, but that does not mean we would have the power to dissect or control that thing, which is what the elites desire. Godel's incompleteness proof destroys the globalist idea of mathematical ascendance. Even if they get what they want, they will never truly get what they want. This is why Bertrand Russel was so desperate to prove Godel wrong. He knew the true implications of the proof.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +12
written by agent , November 19, 2014
I like the idea of using Pascal's wager in a different sense.
Strictly from a psychological and emotional viewpoint, is it more ADVANTAGEOUS THAN NOT TO BELIEVE IN GOD?
FOR ME, BELIEF IS GOD PROVIDES HUMILITY IN THAT I BELIEVE THERE IS AN INFINITE INTELLIGENCE MUCH SMARTER THAN I.
IN ADDITION, I feel there is a purpose, a divine mission for my presence on earth.
And, maybe most importantly, my life is not my own.
I was created by my parents and a third party.
Therefore, I can better accept my time on earth is limited, and be grateful for reaching today.
Shalom,
Don Levit
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
written by KenChimp , November 19, 2014
It is my firm opinion that the current animosity within the liberty movement for atheism, and the matching animosity within "liberal scientific academia" for spiritual beliefs is simply another dichotomy to be used by those in power to control the narrative.
Brandon mentions that atheism is invariably the dominant paradigm within every communist government that has arisen throughout the 20th Century. Indeed, I would go so far as to say this is the case since the concept of communism was developed in the late 19th Century.
What we need to understand is that this is an instrumental development. As Brandon has pointed out, if the state is to become "God" in the hearts and minds of the people, no other "God" can be tolerated. Sound familiar? It is the same with nearly every religious tradition, at one point or another, which ever rose to primacy among large groups of people.
Statism IS a religion. The reason why statists prefer atheism is exactly why Brandon stated it is preferred among communist statists.
Atheism itself is not devoid of ethics or moral principles. Religion itself is not the source of ethics or moral principles.
For my part, I am convinced these principles arise as adjunct to complex (sentient) life forms which are socially oriented, and yet individually self-aware. We might attribute this to some sort of creator, and indeed I believe there is such. We might just as easily and just as correctly attribute this to biophysics and chemistry within a universe that is, at its core, probabilistic and not deterministic.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
written by Brandon Smith , November 19, 2014
@Kenchip
I agree for the most part, however, Archetypes go far beyond moral dualities into extremely complex psychological concepts, which lead me and many others to believe that they are a kind of code embedded within the psyche. Such inborn complexity truly overshadows the idea of mere biochemical evolution. Something much more epic is going on behind the human mind.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
written by Jellric , November 19, 2014
"Secondly, I have a hard time taking anyone using the name “Zoltan” seriously."
I spit my drink out reading that. lol
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
written by GreyMadder , November 19, 2014
History has shown that good always seems to prevail, although with durations of chaos such as those in the Dark Ages. Most human beings have a yearning for inalienable rights, and it is this yearning that eventually turns the tide and brings the masses together to topple an oppressive government which does not believe in those rights.
We will soon see the great collapse and from the ashes the NWO will attempt to rebuild society as they see fit: They will fail.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
written by Joe Blow , November 19, 2014
They just substitute one god or series of gods for another. That being the State.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
written by visitor , November 20, 2014
Ayn Rand was against religion and she was rational. In fact, I defend that Christianism is a packaging of rationalism sold by faith instead by reason. I support that JesusChrist would have been a libertarian (as 10 commitments are a representation of Natural Law and so well organized Thomas Aquinas).
>>> "Marx was a rabid atheist. So was Lenin. So was Mao."
Making arguments from facts is not rational.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
written by Brandon Smith , November 20, 2014
@Visitor
I'm not sure what your point is. As stated earlier, not all atheists promote communism, but nearly ALL communists promote atheism. This was a primary issue in the article, not the question of so called "rationalism". You should probably try to wrap your head around the difference in assertions. Also, Rand's theories on objectivism were not all that "rational", in fact, I see them as utter garbage and many Libertarians would agree, but all philosophies have their weak points. At bottom, who cares if Ayn Rand was an atheist or a voodoo priestess? It's not relevant to the discussion in the slightest.
Also, what is not "rational" about making arguments from facts? This is the funniest argument I've heard all week (that's saying something) and I would love to hear a real explanation...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
written by Purplefrog , November 20, 2014
Cogent.
Balanced.
Prophetic.
Excellent.
Question for the readers:
What makes a human being human?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Maduin , November 20, 2014
I think in general it would be difficult to slot the globalists under any particular belief system outside of a general lust for power... note that the term "globalist" is more of a catch-all phrase for these people. They remain individuals like you and me, and I suspect they have a variety of beliefs and motives that differ from one globalist to the next. We can say two things of all of them though, 1) their ultimate destination appears similar to that of the Roman Emperors of antiquity, Alexander the Great and so on, but by subterfuge rather than overt military campaigns. The object is no different though, the attainment of absolute power over the world. And 2) they have no regard for belief systems establishing a framework of eithics and morality established from outside our reality (e.g. by God transmitted to us by Moses, or Jesus).
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to view globalists then as people seeking to forge their own religion, to be "as gods" so to speak, rather than subscribing to any particular belief system that already exists. Atheism provides them with a proverbial blank slate to draw something upon, and doing so is their attempt at immortality.
Having said that, I would say for the time being there is nothing remarkable about the globalists. They are not particularly different from the empire builders of previous ages. The scope and scale is greater. The whole surface of the earth not just the "known world". They commandeer science and technology to reach into the lives of individuals more effectively than previous empire builders. But they are not doing anything fundamentally new under the sun, at least not yet. By all accounts the passage of time will destroy them too, in the physical sense (what our senses can perceive), that being the common fate of everyone and everything.
You need not apologize on behalf of religion or people who are religious. People who commit heinous acts in the name of any particular god or religion, in general misunderstand the self-same and dissociate themselves from what they believe in by their very actions. In that sense these people are no different than the globalists, with the exception of their self-deception. The "real" religious people are the ones who don't make the news. Yet they have one advantage the globalists will always lack, perspective.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Sage Eurasian , November 20, 2014
As suggested by Steve above, many problems associated with 'religion' are particular problems of the three MidEast faiths, Judaism-Christianity-Islam, very different from the much more open-minded South- and East- Asian faiths, which allow believers to choose among many spiritual pathways, and have much gentler core ideas / writings.
Re the MidEast Semitic 'Desert Bloc' religions, all have very disturbing, partly barbaric 'holy books' (Bible-Talmud-Qur'an), involving child mutilation (circumcision), genocide (see Hollywood actor Gary Devaney's 'The God Murders' for compilations of horrible, kill-all-women-and-children-and.-animals Bible texts, worse than the Qur'an really), slavery, conquest, my-God-only-or-die absolutist fanaticism, the right to kill - deceive - manipulate - enslave your opponents, and the eternal-torture-chamber hell that is horrifying from an Asian faith point of view.
Egypt's Dr Ashraf Ezzat argues that the 3 Semitic religions are all rooted in the Bedouin mentality, adopting its characterists of extremism, brutal belligerence and lack of high culture. Now half the world has these religions, perverting the idea of what religion is at all.
Arguably, the 3 cultures today causing the most problems, are the 3 cultures which mutilate the genitalia of male babies, leaving male minds perhaps tormented for life (Americans, Muslims, Jews do the horrible circumcision practice, also thus killing hundreds of male babies each year.)
It is amazing to read something like the Bhagavad-Gita, or the Dao De Ching, and then actually *read* the Bible ... the first are still great spiritual works with very little to criticise, the Bible full of monstrous horrors (which most people pretend is not there) ... tho yes you finally get to some nice things in the Bible too (tho even half-Buddhist Jesus has several bad moments, e.g., accepting torture, a king killing those who do not follow him, etc.)
Today's India is a mess after 1200 years of conquest and colonisation by Muslims and 'Christians', and suffering from a perverted caste system etc. ... But in the ancient world 2500 years ago, there was a huge 'Enlightenment' rolling out of ancient Persia and India:
- 2500 years ago, 'Cyrus cylinder' of Persia, monarch granting freedom of religion, human rights, seeking the end of slavery
- Ancient Indian 'Hindu' faith offered choices, open-ness to all, did not seek to wipe out local gods and spirits, individuals, even children, had many spiritual options ... a vibrant sexuality was itself one way to approach God (See Kama Sutra, the temple sculptures at Khajuraho, making the point that even wild sexual fantasies are a window to God) ... the core idea is we are all God but separated from full unity with the divine, and on a (usually long) road to circle back to it
- Though there is suffering or heaven between lives for your good or evil actions, there is no terrorism of 'eternal hell' and especially not for violating some 'religious rule'
- Ancient India was not a slave or conquest culture, and Indian societies began abolishing the death penalty 2000 years ago, and this was widespread in north India in the 1st millenium before the Muslim conquerors came ... following that lead, as spiritual ideas spread across Asia, China and Japan also had their eras of ending that practice ... not again equalled till modern times
- A great university at Nalanda India existed for around 1700 years before being destroyed by Muslim conquerors
There was a nice film version of the Bhagavad-Gita in Peter Brooks Mahabharata ... a warrior Arjuna has a chariot driver who turns out to be Krishna / God ... before a righteous battle, the warrior has questions, and God stops time itself, and explains what life is all about, first 10 minutes here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ205esn7qE
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Archi , November 20, 2014
Dear Brandon,
It seems to me that your whole argument is built on a false syllogism:
All communists and globalists are bad people.
Most communists and globalists are atheists.
Therefore, most atheists are bad people.
In the same vein, you could write:
Hitler loved painting.
Hitler was a dictator.
Therefore all those who love music are potential dictators…
This kind of approach is equivalent to go hunting /sniping in the forest with a bazooka: not only will you completely miss your target but you will also hurt yourself and your team in the process.
You write “that atheism is itself based on an act of faith: faith in the idea that there is nothing beyond our perceptions of existence.”
If you had bothered to open a dictionary or read the Wikipedia – a task apparently below someone as worthy as yourself – you would have found a completely different definition:
“Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.”
Atheism is the rejection of beliefs such as Santa Klaus, the Giant Spaghetti Monster, Jesus Christ and whatever you wish to include in this list. Atheism is NOT the idea “that there is nothing beyond our perception of existence.” Being an atheist myself, I DO believe that there is something beyond my perception of existence.
If you want to know more about atheism, I suggest you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, but you are probably not interested.
In sum, if you want to invent your own definitions, subvert the English language and all the rules of logic to create your own Newspeak, I don’t think you are qualified to criticize the globalists. Maybe you have spent too much time studying them and you are becoming just like them. Like them you now believe that anything is possible if you wish:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH (George Orwell, 1984)
I used to read your work with a lot of interest (for many years) but lately I have noticed that there is nothing new in what you write: you have replaced originality and insight by repetition and aggressiveness – I don’t like it and I won’t come back. Good luck to you and good bye!
Archi
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
written by Jim Klein , November 20, 2014
Brandon, I view yours as one of the brightest minds extant. I know The End--oops, I mean The Beginning--is near when I read a mish-mosh liike this, from you. You had a ton right and you had a ton wrong. I don't care to get into detail presently, and other commenters have touched upon some of the problems.
But this one line may be the stupidest line you've ever written. It's not just false, but false on so many levels in so many ways that it simply can't be left standing...
"Communism is synonymous with atheism."
Please retract. Thanks.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by mattcash , November 20, 2014
In order to distract from their fundamental lack of knowledge, modern collectivist governments and movements have always made the promise of technological utopia and endless abundance in order to sway the populace into supporting establishment power. We will all work far less, or we will never have to work at all.
-------------
Ironically, I find that productive work is what really makes people happy. The so-called utopia of sitting around doing nothing all day and watching TV just makes a person depressed.
I don't mean that we should all go work in a coal mine or some other slave labor--clearly there are benefits to automation. But the idea that we should focus our lives on entertainment and distraction seems to be one of the underlying principles of the consumer culture. However, it leads to a shallow life devoid of true happiness.
Additionally, in our society, 'the system' would like to harness any productive work towards its own purposes via the corporate/fascist power structure. It seems that if one wants to do good in this society it is almost necessary to work for free because the output of man's labor is so monopolized by the debt-backed monetary system.
I believe the way to 'break the back' of the system which exists today is by choosing to stop using their fiat money. This is the source of their power, more than any other mechanism of control used by the elite. Good luck finding anyone else who will understand that argument though! It is practically impossible to find anyone offline who even knows what gold and silver is about. It seems nearly hopeless.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
written by George L. , November 20, 2014
Atheists in power are much more violent and murderous than even the most rabid religious zealots. Stalin alone killed magnitudes more people than all the religious zealots in all of history. Once an atheist in power goes down the road of killing opponents or scapegoats, there's nothing to stop them.
Also, it should be pointed out that sociopaths tend to do well in large bureaucracies such as governments and large corporations. The statist-atheists vision of a collectivist society is just a recipe for a boot stomping on the face of humanity, forever.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
written by Steve B. , November 20, 2014
To your numbered paragraphs:
2. Basically I agree with this. Communism is intertwined with atheism as a program. But many Christians would call versions of intelligent design, so-called Godless religions (Buddhism, Kaballah, Vedanta), atheism also, namely the ones which are not monotheistic (think Sistine Chapel ceiling, understanding that Michelangelo was steeped in hermeticism/Mystery Schools). This is the Judaic-Christian-Islamic tradition. Who do we imagine gave us these slave systems? My own view is that there is intelligent design, but not at all in any Biblical/Koranic sense. The quantum foam is conscious, as Planck thought. Evolution as formulated is also a fraud. Communist atheism in any event is an attack on monotheism and an adoption of evolution in some form (Marx tried to ingratiate himself with Darwin). In this narrow attack on religion, it is correct. However, by being enmeshed with evolution and universalized as a blanket denial of anything other than matter, it actively promotes falsehood and societal manipulation and, as noted in agreement with your take, is just another empty faith. That the scientific dictatorship can be even more debilitating than the monotheistic frauds I also take as correct. It's mind control and much more.This was the point I was trying to make. Which is why atheism is being promoted, as the 2,000 year old religious control system is being jettisoned and has atrophied in nthe face of scientific control techniques. Curiously, the arch-atheist Nietzsche, wrote this:
"State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'"
I think many of us agree with this, and this disentangles atheism from any necessary connection to any political agenda such as communism, though as a basis for this particular agenda it is clear enough.
4. Agreed, and I never meant an contrary implication. Again, Jung is no monotheist. So this is all firmly within the old Mystery School position. Understood there are many versions of this, of which Buddhism, Vedanta and the Kaballah are most obvious, as already noted. I do not identify with any of these appellations, though they have points to make, imo.
5. Atheism is useful but the great majority are not atheists, at least in the US. Atheism corrodes moral values, certainly, but it is technological and sexual degradation which is far more important in eroding values. One can have moral and spiritual values and not believe in the Christian, Islamic or Judaic God. I myself am an example of this, and I am not bragging as I find it simple enough to do. This is the God to which straightforward atheism was directed, and, yes, it is useful. But you need to be an un thinking moron (imo) to buy the monotheistic rubbish to begin with. That the New Age "intelligent design" religions as an alternative have also been infiltrated and coopted is also plain enough. All trivial nonsense, except among those few who can think it through. (Sheldrake's morphic fields are clear scientific "new age" proposals, and are related to Jungian archetypes. Jung can be forgiven if his views are half-formed, as the scientific basis for it all is only now coming into view.) As in control all sides as the human species highway is littered with moral and spiritual roadkill.
6. Well, no, I wasn't off base here (though I admit that I can be and have been). Here's a link to the Stanford philosophy resource, followed by a quote from the discussion:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
A common misunderstanding is to interpret Gödel's first theorem as showing that there are truths that cannot be proved. This is, however, incorrect, for the incompleteness theorem does not deal with provability in any absolute sense, but only concerns derivability in some particular formal system or another. For any statement A unprovable in a particular formal system F, there are, trivially, other formal systems in which A is provable (take A as an axiom). On the other hand, there is the extremely powerful standard axiom system of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (denoted as ZF, or, with the axiom of choice, ZFC; see the section on axiomatic set theory in the entry on set theory), which is more than sufficient for the derivation of all ordinary mathematics. Now there are, by Gödel's first theorem, arithmetical truths that are not provable even in ZFC. Proving them would thus require a formal system that incorporates methods going beyond ZFC. There is thus a sense in which such truths are not provable using today's “ordinary” mathematical methods and axioms, nor can they be proved in a way that mathematicians would today regard as unproblematic and conclusive.
However important Godel's proof is, I don't think it has the far-reaching consequences you imply. IMO, these guys are deep into hyperdimensional physics (and related communication with chosen entities), and that the material universe is likely a hologram. This goes way beyond the incompleteness issues and is a matter of advanced physics. Any string theorist (most quantum physics practitioners) will indicate that this is indeed the implication. See Kaku's books for plain discussion of this. That string theory is the Kaballah I think transparent. Which is not to say string theory is established fact as yet, though we are surely trending that way. And the Illuminati surely believe this, imo.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Mullister , November 20, 2014
I thoroughly enjoyed this article, very well thought out. I also love agnostics, I do however wonder why they never use the Latin word, ignoramus.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Brandon Smith , November 20, 2014
@Archi
It's interesting that I keep having to repeat this same point to the pro-atheists. Let's go over it again, shall we -
I never said all globalists are "bad people", but the predominance of their philosophy certainly tend to lead to very bad things happening. At the top of the pyramid, though, I would say yes, they are all evil, in the sense that they disdain natural law and seek to supplant it with their own power structure.
Communism is an extension of that power structure. I never said all communists are evil, I just think most of them are dupes, conned into a philosophy which is designed to enslave them.
Every major communist regime in history has promoted and enforced atheism. AGAIN, atheists, if they value logic like they claim, should question why that is.
Finally, Atheism is indeed based on faith. Atheists don't just deny the faith of other belief systems, they claim to KNOW those systems are false. How do they "know" that religion is incorrect, or based on myth? How do they know there is no intelligent design? They CAN'T know. There is no scientific evidence to support their claim, and far more scientific evidence to support the opposite. Therefore, their base their philosophy on assumption (faith) in the idea without the preponderance of evidence.
I do find it fascinating though that atheists become so riled at the factual suggestion that their belief system is based on faith as well.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
written by Brandon Smith , November 20, 2014
@Steve
4. Jung was actually a long time Christian, though he often lamented on the path that the religion had taken. He was indeed a monotheist, one who respected the archetypal value of all other belief systems, past and present.
5. Again, I never said that moral values come from religion. I did point out though that moral values are inborn products often expressed in archetypes, as Jung discovered, and this highly suggests an intelligent design. Therefore, you and I are not the originators of our own conscience, we are born with it. It is a gift, not something we can take ownership of. Also, religion itself is an extension of the archetypal god image, NOT a product of the elites. The elites cannot "create" a religion, they can only exploit our preexisting and inborn conceptions of God. God, in archetypal form, existed long before the elites learned to exploit religion.
6. Yes, the Stanford interpretation of Godels proof is simply wrong. Godel's proof states that:
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
You can always draw a bigger circle, but there will always be something outside the circle. This logical fact applies to the universe as much as the individual. Godel used mathematical paradox and infinity to show that mathematics is limited. ANY mathematical methods. He proved for any computable axiomatic system that is powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of natural numbers that:
A) If the system is consistent, it cannot be complete.
B) The consistency of the axioms cannot be proven within the system.
This is the most profound mathematical discover of the past century. It proves, once and for all, that there are limitations to logic and mathematical knowledge, and only supports the findings of quantum physics. The fact that academia has been struggling for years to dismantle Godel's work and have failed is a testament to its importance. I suggest you read Godel's work and his own interpretations rather than Stanford's. They may have an agenda.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
written by Ignatius , November 20, 2014
Communism didn't spring fully conceived from the mind of an atheist Jew sitting around Paris smoking opium, drinking absinthe, and "thinking lofty thoughts."
The actual origin of Communism as we know it today is the Paraguayan Reductiones, where the "Society of Jesus" [sic] enslaved over 300,000 Guarani natives in 50+ communes, there was no ownership of property, where men and women were "both equally liable to labor", there was a "central repository" into which "each deposited according to his[her] ability" and from which each was supplied "according to his[her] need", and other such niceties. From the late 1500's and for the next 100+ years, this became the model of mercantilist slave labor, the Jesuit "Black Ships" exporting goods for huge profit across the known world, until the Portuguese threw them out of both Portugal and Paraguay.
It was in this testbed that the 10 planks would be perfected. Later, they were transmitted to Karl Marx by his tutor, Peter Beckx, later to become Superior General of the Order.
Before Josef Stalin became head of the Soviet Union (not long after a revolution funded through New York and London), Iosif Dzhugashvili was a student at a Jesuit Seminary.
Look into the true authors of the Protocols and Mein Kampf, and you'll see the fingerprints of the same folks, setting up "Joos" as the patsies for "Godless Communism" and enemies for "The Final Solution".
To unravel the history of the last 500 years, one must look to Weishaupt and Loyola, not Marx and Hitler. This is not a commentary on Catholic people of faith, simply a reflection of the Satanic influence that has infected Rome, and similarly all earthly organizations.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Ollie , November 20, 2014
Hi,
Just to let you know it looks like someones ripping off your work:
http://jerseylibertarian.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-new-world-order-does-it-all-just.html
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
written by eduardo , November 20, 2014
It's true. I am an atheist and I just don't understand why so many of my fellow atheists are statists. If an atheist educates oneself on history,economics and politics,as they did with religions,they should come to the same conclusion. That religions and government are all ways for men to control you.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Lawfish , November 20, 2014
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. Atheists do not believe in a "God." By definition, lack of belief cannot be considered knowledge.
I, for one, am agnostic. I admit that I do not know what our creator is or any of the other answers to the many questions religion seeks to answer. I acknowledge that science only raises more questions. The problem is that, from the beginning of time, there have been men who pretend to "know" what God really is and what all his rules are. Those are the charlatans and the people who follow them are also willingly enslaving themselves. They are certainly not free thinkers.
I too have read much of your work, Brandon, but lately it has strayed from the message I originally took from you. I find it difficult to believe that a person possessed with your intelligence would advocate a position that people who don't "believe" in any of the Gods portrayed by man are somehow inherently evil and/or predisposed to evil.
I do not believe in any of the Gods of any religion established to date. But I do thank the creator when I eat an animal for the fact that that animal had to die in order to feed me. I appreciate that I am a small part of the bigger whole. I also understand the difference between right and wrong and I practice that difference. The most amoral reprehensible people I know are the ones who go to church every Sunday and look down their noses at me because I don't.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
written by visitor , November 20, 2014
rational -> moving from abstract/arguments/theories to facts/details/emotions (deduction)
empirical/emotional -> moving from facts to theories (induction(
you did an induction and induction is not rational
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php
despite everybody call himself rational, the word itself has a proper meaning, and the consequence is that MUST of people TODAY, IS NOT rational
funny eh!
------
the other discussion can be derived from here
by the way, i lie your articles,
regards
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by visitor , November 20, 2014
i meant i like, sorry =:-)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by visitor , November 20, 2014
and not being rational but emotionals is the reason that people is easy to cheat with wrong paradigms, as you exposed in other very good articles. And the root of not being rationals but emotional look for it on money created out of thin air, the positive economics methodology and keynes
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by visitor , November 20, 2014
and to clarify why atheism has nothing to do with faith. i am atheist because i am rational, same a Ayn Rand. I share your values. The difference is that mines come from deductions and yours come from religion (induction). This is why i said that christianism was created to deliver rational values to empirists
Think about it, it matches
;-)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
written by Brandon Smith , November 20, 2014
@Visitor
That's an interesting theory, the problem is everything I have posted is based in verified fact, therefore, not emotionally based. Even my assertion of intelligent design was based in fact, supported by scientific discovery, therefore - rational by traditional standards, or at the very least, logical.
Beyond that, I think there is a difference between being rational, and exerting "rationalizations". Maybe this is where we are diverging, on our definitions.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by visitor , November 20, 2014
no, no, but facts verified does not create a theory. This is induction. According to Popper, for me the one with the best method (critical rationalism), facts are only worth to REJECT theories (created in reason) but not to demonstrate/create them (falsacionism).
Scientific discovery is a wrong method as well. Our monetarism society is based on scientific method (positive economics methodology, i.e. induction), Austrian method was hypothetical deductive, i..e based on deduction.
And the problem of any science and scientific method is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
(our problem, lack of information on top)
If you are using induction to achieve libertarianism is because god, not because you are convinced (reason).
At the end, I agree with you and we are reaching the same thing but probably by different paths and with some words distorted.
In your theory about atheism, I think there are 2 dimensions: reason/emotion and faith/atheism and therefore 4 cases. Atheism is not itself the cause of current society but emotionality (by fiat money)+ atheism. Very complex anyway.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Brandon Smith , November 20, 2014
@visitor
I wouldn't say that our monetary system is failing because of the scientific method. Our monetary system is DESIGNED to fail, and to impoverish, so, it is actually succeeding in the job it was intended to do.
Also, facts can be used to support and verify theories, not just reject theories. This is how most truth is discovered, after all, through theory tempered by consecutive discovery of fact.
I think we are thinking along the same lines, though I would clarify that my position warns of the dangers of exploitation of any system of belief that assumes superiority to all others, namely, the problem of zealotry. My point was that even atheism is susceptible to zealotry, even more so than religion in a way, because atheism uses scientific substantiation as the end-all-be-all of truth. But, not all truth can be determined by science, as I have shown. Some truths are arrived at through other more intuitive means. Atheism + zealotry = rationalized catastrophe, for where religion blames "passion" and emotion for it's missteps, atheism defends its missteps with scientific relativism and revisionism, which, in my opinion, is far more frightening.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
written by visitor , November 20, 2014
Well, both are ok.... by different paths. Yours is more about values/education (rather than faith if you want). Our is about reason. AS ATHEIST, I do not need god to be libertarian.
Under the rational approach (Popper), humans never can reach the truth. Only can reach truth valid enough until proven false by facts (e.g. classic physics).
As Rothbard said positive economics (the foundation of monetarism) imposes values to the people and forces then to think irrationally/emotionally. And this is for me the root of the problem: No the lack of religion BUT THE EMOTIONAL VALUES IMPOSED BY FIAT MONEY. I agree, as in your case, that, you can have ***a moral barrier*** on your educational/values (or religion) against this imposed emotionality. But for me, the key problem is emotion (vs reason) rather than atheism (vs faith).
But I do not have arguments to say that my approach is better than yours either. Just to extend your paradigm.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by NoName , November 20, 2014
A quote;
"Conversely, the study of the spirit and the mind have been prohibited by science which eliminates anything that is not measurable in the physical universe. Science is the religion of matter. It worships matter.
The paradigm of science is that creation is all, and the creator is nothing. Religion says the creator is all, and the creation is nothing. These two extremes are the bars of a prison cell. They prevent observation of all phenomenon as an interactive whole.
From: Alien Interview / Matilda MacElroy by Lawrence Spencer
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
written by Mangrove , November 20, 2014
Brandon, I've enjoyed your work for quite awhile now. This is such a fine and in-depth piece, and I just wanted to thank you for saying what I FEEL so well. I was raised Christian, eschewed that because of the hatred and hypocrisy I witnessed growing up, dabbled in Buddhism a bit, and now, at 61 years old, find myself lost. But not really. I'm only lost in terms of the constructs that societies present to us -- i.e. the control mechanisms. I'm actually quite content and happy in my belief system, which is generally agnostic since I can't claim to really KNOW anything for sure. And, knowing is the only way for me to have true faith in anything.
Anyway, I like Mark Passio's approach which is to follow Natural Law. It's essentially the Golden Rule of doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Or, NOT doing unto others anything you wouldn't want done to yourself or your loved ones. Can't it be that simple? Yes, I believe it can. http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/
I also like the adage Listen To Everyone, Follow No One. And while I do try to be broad-minded so that I even hear the hateful ones (up to a point), I tend to gravitate towards those who don't have a control agenda. What's troubling nowadays is that there is so much deception going down. It takes a lot of work to sift through the liars disguised as benevolent truth tellers.
I started a forum, which is more of a journal or blog, since there are very few participants, that's primarily focused on the Ebola psy-op. It's the perfect example of how authority figures across the board are conspiring to use a pandemic threat to control people and attempt to bring about the NWO. I actually included one of your recent articles, "The Economic End Game Explained" in which I resonated with the contention that TPTB are likely going to create a scapegoat for the economic collapse. My belief is that Ebola + Terrorism could be what they're planning. At any rate here's the link to my comments on your article, following by a general link to the forum, for anyone interested.
The Economic End Game Explained
http://between.yuku.com/sreply/254/Ebola-PsyOp-MAIN-DISCUSSION
between | the | lines
http://between.yuku.com
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by visitor , November 20, 2014
Just a question and I do not expect response: The society should be libertarian because....
(1) it delivers the right values (religion, education) or
(2) because it works better for majority (reason).
What should be the argument to defend liberty?
Regards
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
written by Brandon Smith , November 20, 2014
@visitor
A society should be free, not necessarily libertarian, and for reasons I would think obvious. First, freedom and choice are the primary elements of natural law. We are born with the drive to be free, and any social system that denies this fact will ultimately collapse. Second, tyranny only produces tragedy and no tyranny ever built made the world better for the common people. Rationalizations against freedom surely exist; just read Mein Kampf or Hegel's works. Of course, rationalizations are simply bastardizations of reality.
I would add that libertarianism is the only sociopolitical ideology I know of that is based on the non-aggression principle. Meaning, we seek a society that refuses to use the force of the state to assert power over others, and do not wish to interfere in the lives of others unless they seek to violate the rights of the innocent. There are only two kinds of people in this world - those who seek to control others or harm others for gain and those who want to be left alone. We only seek to be left alone in peace, and that is an ideal the world could survive on eternally.
I always ask people, who would you rather have as a neighbor - a libertarian who minds his own business, is prepared for any emergency, and who will defend your liberty as much as he defends his own, or, a communist/collectivist/statist? Most people choose the libertarian.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
written by visitor , November 21, 2014
As commented I share your values so I understand and agree with all your arguments.
But if I were a collectivist I could disagree with all of them: they will say that their collectivism was not properly applied (e.g. USSR), natural law means nothing for them, as they believe we belong to the community, libertarian communism (leftist anarchism) also can be theoretically based in non-aggression principle and in the European Country where I am from (no longer), they always will prefer a collectivist neighbour.
This is why I asked above: Arguing on the basis of values only would lead, again, to the war. Arguing on the basis of reason would lead to the battle of ideas, which we should win, because our arguments are stronger. Or, maybe, we could find the society that fits for both sides. This debate is non existing today so it looks we are heading to the other thing. Is what people wants everywhere, looks like :-(
(Any tickets to the moon?)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by visitor , November 21, 2014
However, BTW, I agree with your false paradigm West-East some messages ago, so maybe it can even be worst that war... we do not deserve any better.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by zuimon , November 21, 2014
Brandon, you said: “This, of course, disregards the fact that children are already born with the prospect of choice, which is why many children who grow up Christian do not practice it later in life, and why many children from atheist homes end up joining religious movements. The idea that all children are permanently moulded or damaged by their parent’s unchecked beliefs is complete nonsense.”
No, it’s not complete nonsense, there’s a great deal of truth to it. All of us are permanently moulded and damaged by many (if not most, and possibly even all) of the beliefs of our parents. As an adult, the fact that one might become Christian seeming to have had no Christian input as a child, is just another pattern one is carrying out that one gained from ones parents. It’s irrelevant whether you become a Christian or New Ager or whatever, for the underlying pattern that is making you do whatever it is you do in every aspect of your life will be found in your early childhood. Have you looked at Alice Millers work on Childhood Repression? We take it all on from our parents. We absorb, and even inherit, and so are greatly affected by, more subtle levels of personality than just the physical genetic level, such levels including: emotional, mental, spiritual, psychic, and most importantly of all, the will. It all goes into us at conception and then is ‘activated’ or ‘brought into being’ through our forming years, and then as adults we repeatedly live out the patterns we’ve received from our parents and carers in a cyclic manner, that is until we decide we no longer want to remain subject to these deeply ingrained unconscious patterns, when we can seek to heal them. But healing them by looking to our feelings and not by trying to use our mind or any of the many available mental techniques as many people fall into the trap of doing. And our soul is orchestrating every part of it - every moment of our personality expression, and so experience, in Creation.
If you want to live Natural Law, that really means Natural Truth, such as we observe nature living. And to live that truly, we are to live True to Ourselves, which means, to fully honour, acknowledge, express and seek the truth of every feeling we feel. Our feelings are the hidden key to our truth that so many people are looking for. The truth - your truth - is found through your feelings, not on the top of any mountain or in a church, it’s all right there within you. Only the great conspiracy we’ve all been indoctrinated into is denying so many of our feelings, and particularly our bad ones, thereby denying ourselves the truths such feelings would naturally reveal to us through life. Our parents failed us by not allowing us to freely express, and so uncover the truth of, all our feelings throughout our forming years - that is the great evil we’ve all been subjected to, which is what we’re all out-working in the world.
So far as I’m concerned, what you have outlined here in this article Brandon is really the truth of the evilness we all live under. Technically on a spiritual level we are all living in a Truth-Rebellion. Once I came to understand God has brought us into life on this world to experience evil, making us all be evil, and then we can at some point should we wish to heal ourselves of our evilness do our Feeling-Healing or Soul-Healing with the Divine Love (Divine Love Spirituality), everything dropped into place. To say that a person or that group of people are the evil ones is not taking into account ones own evilness and part in the corruption, of which we’re all a part of. And sure some people might be more evil than others by certain parameters we’ve decided upon, but really we’re all in the same boat.
And to get out of it, one is then faced with doing the hard work of healing ones evilness, which is what you’re getting at by trying to live true to the natural laws of life, which really is simply Living True To Oneself... or, true to ones soul.
I thoroughly enjoyed your article,
wishing you all the best,
James.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
written by Brandon Smith , November 21, 2014
@Zuimon
No, it is nonsense; probably one of the greatest lies of our age, and it comes primarily from the half baked psychology of Freud. If choice is inherent (it has been proven by Jung to be inherent through archetypal duality) then environment will ALWAYS be secondary. It doesn't matter what your parents do or don't do; ultimately, YOU CHOOSE whether or not their actions will affect you. You choose whether or not to be a Christian, or an atheist. You choose whether you will react negatively to an abusive environment, or learn and grow from the experience.
This is why not every criminal comes from an abusive environment, and not every well-balanced person has compassionate parents. Environment only affects us to the point that we ALLOW it to. People don't like to hear this fact, because it means they can't blame their environment for their shortcomings.
Again, inherent personality and knowledge are a psychological and scientific FACT. Environmental molding is a collectivist sham.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Brandon Smith , November 21, 2014
@visitor
It's not quite as simple as that. Arguing on the basis of "superior ideas" is still a waste of time if you are dealing with zealots. The very basis of their ideology requires a devotion beyond reason. Therefore, nothing breaks through the wall. Zealotry ALWAYS leads to violence or war. It may be one sided violence if we do not fight back, but there will be violence all the same. Which is why I don't bother trying to convince such people. My goal is only to educate those who are not yet aware of the stakes in the fight. War, as it were, is inevitable.
Also, there is such a thing as universal values, and universal truths. Once again, Jung's work shines a light on this. People have the choice to abandon or ignore these universal values (such as personal liberty) but they are ingrained in the psyche of every single human being regardless of time, place, or culture. One cannot argue against universal values unless they come from a place of factual and philosophical dishonesty.
I would not hold my breath during the battle of ideas with globalist psychopaths - suffocation is guaranteed, and you would be doing them a favor.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Brandon Smith , November 21, 2014
@zuimon
Actually, what you are doing is applying the power of God to parents and environment and disregarding the inborn conscience (or soul) which people are given.
Your understanding of psychology is clearly limited, and I'm not sure why you have chosen to argue a subject you know nothing about. Numerous criminals have come from good environments! All you have to do is some research to find that out.
Robert Yates, a serial killer from Washington:
"A middle-aged father of 5, Robert L. Yates Jr., a decorated military helicopter pilot, and National Guardsman was convicted of 15 murders but suspected of as many as 18. The most prolific serial killer ever sentenced in Washington state, he now sits on death row.
He came from a solid, loving home with encouraging support , a moral upbringing and Christian teaching from the time he could walk. He was an obedient child, a dedicated student, and a team player on the Oak Harbor High School football team..."
http://www.karisable.com/skazyates.htm
Or Herb Mullin, who came from a healthy family and background only to slip into insanity, re-imagining his entire life up to that point as some strange conspiracy to make him a killer; which, again, is common for criminals to do - blame environment and parents for the shortcoming and bad decisions they alone are responsible for.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/mullin/adult_2.html
Again, evil is a choice, not a product of environment. This is scientific fact. Frankly, your insistence on ignoring these facts is rather odd. I also think it is a bit ignorant to place the blame for every criminal on the shoulders of the parents. This is a collectivist attitude which is based in fantasy, not reality.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Dupree , November 21, 2014
It is enjoyable to watch the atheist head explode at the observation of their own religious faith!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Dupree , November 21, 2014
@zuimon
You always have a choice in how you react to what the world throws at you. This doesn't make us God, it makes us individuals. We do not exert control over reality but only over own own individual thoughts and actions.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
written by visitor , November 21, 2014
well, i am not looking to fight with anyone, I just want to set up a system where people living beyond their means can not take the power.
but wake me up when you have destroyed each other...
"Where liberty is, there is my country." - Benjamin Franklin
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Brandon Smith , November 21, 2014
@visitor
None of us are looking for a fight, but the fact of history remains, that even if you want peace, sometimes a fight will still find you. So, you should be ready for it. Also, I don't expect that spectators will fare much better than participants this time around.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by visitor , November 21, 2014
....but this debate is not in any, so called, libertarian circles, Brandon. I do not see anyone planning how and where a libertarian society should be done. The only debate I see is how bad is this and how bad is that. Then, it makes you think that, despite some people defend libertarian values, they are not really using them. They are just defending their educational values and tradition. And this is different. We did a mistake in 1971, well, assume it, and think how to start again. BUT, if you have lived beyond your means (e.g. debt) and you cannot start again, them you did not behave previously as a libertarian and, that's right, now you are forced to fight. Being and behaving as a libertarian and defending libertarian values I think are different things.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Brandon Smith , November 21, 2014
@visitor
I think you are now painting with such a broad brush it negates your position. In fact, I'm really not seeing a coherent argument from you on anything, and I'm starting to think you just like to hear yourself talk.
WHO, specifically, is not having "this debate" that should be having this debate? Name some names. Libertarians discuss the proliferation of their ideals all the time and act on those discussions constantly. They're not perfect, and they have flaws, but I can't think of any sociopolitical movement more dedicated to its cause. They join organizations and communities all across the country in order to better express their ideals and make them reality.
Also, what is your definition of a "Libertarian society"? Who is supposed to implement a Libertarian society? Because, there really is no such thing and never will be. The very suggestion is an oxymoron. There is simply either a respect for personal liberty, or tyranny. We see no need to "Libertarianize" anyone, only demand individual rights be recognized. The idea that a movement needs to condition the masses to accept its particular label is a decidedly collectivist one...
Beyond that, I don't know what "mistakes" you are referring to, but every Libertarian I know lives by their principles. What are libertarians not doing that you expect them to be doing, specifically?
The state of the world today has NOTHING to do with the actions of Libertarians. If anything, they have stalled the advance of the globalist empire for many years. The fight is coming because the elites SEEK IT, not because we are not doing our jobs. Such a suggestion is ludicrous. You can argue the superiority of your ideas and principles with a shark until you turn blue, but the shark is still going to try to have you for dinner. He (like the globalists) does not care what you have to say.
Behaving as a libertarian and defending libertarian values go hand in hand. There is no separation between the two. If you can show me an example of libertarians not living by their own creed, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, you are just conjuring hypothetical nonsense and hollow opinion.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by visitor , November 21, 2014
well, yes a few examples of self-claimed libertarians no living on their own creed (IMHO):
* https://freestateproject.org/. I doubt you will read on them anything about property rights or about positive negative liberty. They even do not know the difference. So, using the term liberty is just poetry to sell a food festival as it means whatever you want.
* http://www.elcato.org/ Mixing Mises with Friedman when they were based on totally different principles. Same thing, poetry.
* http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/ Observer of Obama's affairs.
* http://mises.org/ Probably the most clear about what negative liberty is but, for example, they have not any discussion board.
I do not complain against what exists, (anyone is free to put whatever he wants on line), I just wonder where are the libertarians in action? Doing things rather complaining? Where is the real libertarian debate?
I can not call libertarians those that does not distinguish between positive from negative liberty and their first and only argument is against government.
The elites just exists because the citizens have behave as sheeps and became debt slaves. Who is more dangerous? the problem is not the elites but the system, elites are just the obvious consequence.
Regarding atheism it can have meaning in an specific US context but, outside, I doubt it is meaningful. So is the debate about libertarian principles in general or liberty in America? Because, if you are speaking ONLY about America, I have nothing more to say.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Brandon Smith , November 22, 2014
@visitor
It seems to me that you are more interested in criticizing existing groups and individuals for not acting in a way YOU think is appropriate or productive. This is not the same as those groups not acting on their principles, they just don't happen to be acting in a way you personally deem "worthy". For instance, when has the freestate project ever acted against the principle of property rights? When have they ever refused to support property rights? Show me an example. Mises doesn't have a discussion board and THAT is your example of not standing by their principles? Really? Why do they need a discussion board? Because you happen to prefer one?
If you want a discussion board on negative liberty, then why don't YOU start one? What are you doing for the liberty movement that puts you in a position to criticize the productivity of others? I'm not sure why anyone should take you seriously if all you do is haunt message boards and complain about how liberty groups won't do the things you think they should do.
Also, the argument that the elites exist because of the people is disingenuous and overly simplistic. You can't expect to be taken seriously if you are only going to relate half the story.
The elites exist outside of the ignorance of the masses and always have. In fact, they tend to perpetuate the ignorance of the masses. It is not entirely the fault of the public that the elites use subversion and lies to attain power, after all, we can't be suspicious of everyone all the time, to do so would be insane, which is why lying works to an extent.
If I live in a bad neighborhood and I leave my door unlocked, and my house is ransacked, then I am partially to blame for the event. However, the criminal is still guilty of perpetuating the crime. I should not have to have my door bolted and my windows barred. The criminal is still the ORIGINATOR of the crime, not the victim, even if that victim made the crime easier to commit.
As far as atheism goes, I have already shown why it is meaningful, not just to the U.S., but the world. Communism/socialism is being promoted globally, and atheism is following swiftly behind in numerous forms, including transhumanism. Your opinion that it is not an issue means nothing to the facts already presented.
You obviously have an agenda you are trying to promote here, but for some reason you won't come out and say directly what it is. I'm finding the circular discussion a bit tedious. You keep posting but you haven't made any clear statements other than baseless personal opinions on libertarianism that are completely unsupported by fact.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Miggy , November 23, 2014
It only seems you touched on "religion" as a tool to control the masses which in many circles and ministries this is true.
What I did not read, and maybe I just did not read far enough, is the teachings of the true Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which without Him and accepting and following Him man is doomed, do not be deceived.
Jesus taught many things and stands for some divisive principals but only when man is taken by his own lust. Jesus at the end of the day taught gentleness, freedom, kindness, forgiveness, redemption, peace, charity and much more.
The kind of things the enemy (NWO) wants us the think it stands for but at the end of the stands for the polar opposite and thus the great deception and pounding of atheism.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Brandon Smith , November 23, 2014
@Miggy
It's about religious freedom, it is not meant to be a sales pitch for Christianity. I don't care if someone is Christian, or Muslim, or Hebrew, or Buddhist, or even atheist, as long as they don't try to force their views on anyone else through political power. As soon as any of them display an attitude of zealotry and militancy, they are my enemy, and I will make it my mission to ensure they never come to power. This includes "Christians" who claim the divine right to rule, which I have run into in the past...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Miggy , November 23, 2014
True Christians don't claim the divine right to rule. Not sure where that came from.
You will find the true Christians volunteering quietly at food pantries and soup kitchens all throughout every city in this nation. Hundreds of thousands of them helping those afflicted by too many things we have time to discuss here.
You will read about the crooked and misguided pastors who drive Bentleys and use organized religion for personal riches and there will be those who point to them and say "See, Christianity is a ruse".
But you never hear about the true believers doing the work of the Lord, quietly and diligently, hundreds of thousands of them, feeding and sheltering those who really need it. They don't make headlines and don't cause divisions but they are all over. The true Christian.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Brandon Smith , November 23, 2014
@Miggy
No one here is denying the reality of charitable Christians, or charitable people from any religion. Charity is not exclusive to Christianity. Just as charity is universal, so is the potential for zealotry. I've run into numerous Christians who have fallen into zealotry and who rationalize violence in in the name of spreading their ideology, and who even promote theocracy. It's called "Dominion Theology" and has been prevalent amongst evangelical groups since the 1970's.
Atheism has similar problems of rationalized destruction in the name of the "greater good". No religion or ideology is entirely immune except those which value the non-aggression principle (the principle that no group has the right to take the inherent liberties of another group or individual). Again, I don't care what people believe in, as long as they don't attempt to use force or political power to subjugate other groups. This was the point of the article above.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jim Klein , November 28, 2014
Hey, Brandon. I could hardly believe that you stuck to the end speaking of the groups---the attributes and actions that they have and do, let alone the thinking behind it...as if all of this weren't taking place within the single minds of single individuals. Please tell me this is fundamental to you---I mean as a basic fact, not merely some cognitive theory.
Or don't. It's nearly every day now I see something I would've thought as impossible. You sticking with collectivism, would have been one. So please say it ain't so, if it's not, and then I won't have to wonder about this...
"Atheism has similar problems of rationalized destruction in the name of the 'greater good'."
I know there are some crazed atheists out there, but to associate "atheism" directly and universally with thinking "in the name of 'the greater good'"...well, that's one the more absurd contentions I've ever read. I hope you retract this and the yet more plainly absurd claim that "atheism" and "communism" are synonymous. That's a direct assertion that every instance of one is an instance of the other. The Endarkenment is here, maybe, if you stick with that one. Thanks.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Brandon Smith , November 29, 2014
@Jim
Apparently you did not read the full article, or my responses to the same foolish assertion you have made on multiple occasions. It is truly amazing that I find myself having to repeat the same answers over and over again when particular people need only think through the issue logically.
As stated earlier, Atheists are not necessarily synonymous with communism, however, show me a communist regime that has not promoted atheism? They are very rare. Communists (i.e. collectivists) have chosen atheism as the new 'faith' of the new world order for many reasons (which I have outlined extensively in the article above). You cannot separate communism from atheism. It is an essential tenet of the geopolitical system.
As far as groups are concerned, all groups require the participation of individuals in order to exist. The life of the group means nothing without the life of the individual. Your reaction to the article is rather incoherent and not fully formed, but at what point did I claim individuals were not a factor? This is a silly and naive misdirection. When individuals give over their liberty to a group in the name of some vaporous "greater good", as many atheists today do (why are so many atheists today tied with statism, population control, and general scientific barbarism?), they also hand over their individuality. They are no longer individuals, though they do have the power to become individuals once again if they wish.
In terms of attributes, Jung proved beyond a doubt that many are indeed universal. If humanity is ever a "collective", it is because we all share the same archetypal attributes and inherent knowledge. This does not erase individualism; unless outside collectivism takes over. Which, it often does. Please tell me you are not ignorant of these facts, otherwise, any discussion on the matter would be a complete waste of time.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Norman , December 01, 2014
In some countries, Zoltan is a perfectly normal first name.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Brandon Smith , December 01, 2014
@Norman
Self proclaimed "visionaries" named Zoltan are not normal in any country...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by John Allen , December 18, 2014
Brandon,
You and your commentors seem very bright, so , I present this Bibical truth, you know not where you came from and you know not where you go. The question addresses birth and death. Adam, Eve and Jesus are genetically perfect, all others have genetic imperfections from the Garden of Eden. That is why Jesus was sacrificed on the cross, he was without blemish and he did not fall for The Evil One's temptation.
Since Israel denied the Prophets of the Almight G-d of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, man has been allowed to try all forms of Goverment and all have failed. We await the Kingdom of G-d on earth ruled by its king Jesus Christ.
All that you address in your comments falls under Good and Evil and all the fancy words will not alter it.
With all due respect
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
