Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks; The Armenian Genocide Scandal Sunday, Dec 8 2013 

We must remember that the Orthodox are the original Protestants. They broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D. with the famous East-West Schism and this schism was inflamed with the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 and the Siege of Constantinople in 1204.

The History of the Orthodox Armenian Genocide and the atrocities committed against them can be read in Henry Morgenthau’s Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, CHAPTER XXIV. THE MURDER OF A NATION.

http://library.antibaro.gr/text/Mikra_Asia/Ambassador%20Morgenthau’s%20Story%20-%20Armenia.pdf

I also refer the reader to this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLyrpaTKCCE

The Young Turks were a secularist progressive movement, and a

“coalition of various reform groups that led a revolutionary movement against the authoritarian regime of Ottoman sultan Abdülhamid II, which culminated in the establishment of a constitutional government. After their rise to power, the Young Turks introduced programs that promoted the modernization of the Ottoman Empire and a new spirit of Turkish nationalism. Their handling of foreign affairs, however, resulted in the dissolution of the Ottoman state.

In 1889 a group of students in the Imperial Medical Academy in Istanbul initiated a conspiracy against Abdülhamid that spread rapidly to other colleges in the city. When the plot was uncovered, many of its leaders fled abroad, mainly to Paris, where they prepared the groundwork for a future revolution against Abdülhamid. Among the most notable of the liberal émigrés was Ahmed Rıza, who became a key spokesman for the influential Young Turk organization known as the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), which advocated a program of orderly reform under a strong central government and the exclusion of all foreign influence. A major rival faction was formed by Prince Sabaheddin. His group, called the League of Private Initiative and Decentralization, espoused many of the same liberal principles”.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/654123/Young-Turks

This progressive secularist group was involved in the Armenian Genocide. We read from THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS,

“On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens — an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.”

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Letter_from_The_International_Association_of_Genocide_Scholars

Professional Douche-bag Cenk Kadir Uygur of the Young Turks You Tube Channel, an infamous and too coincidental title for a news show, denied the Armenian Genocide:

http://www.salon.com/1999/06/16/punk_2/

http://www.thedp.com/index.php/article/1991/11/column_historical_fact_or_falsehood

We continue to see secular movements and Muslim movements work for the benefit of the Papacy.

Cenk who do you really work for?

Email Letter to Mike Wynn of the Courier Journal Concerning Pastor Matt Singleton Friday, Aug 2 2013 

The following is an email letter I just sent to Mike Wynn of the Courier Journal http://blogs.courier-journal.com/politics/author/mwynn/

concerning Pastor Matt Singleton.

“Mr. Mike Wynn

I am wondering why, in your article, “School science is hotly debated in Kentucky”

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013307220132

you did not mention Mr. Singleton’s primary arguments against the Evolutionary theory.

http://www.biblesmack.blogspot.com/2013/07/july-23rd-speech-requesting-that.html

Isn’t that what this whole fiasco is about? His historical reference to the dismantling of Materialism in the Pre-Socratic era of Greek Philosophy as well as the Induction Fallacy (Asserting the Consequent) were substantial points that were never mentioned in the article or in the video that was posted.

Why were these not mentioned?

Drake Shelton”

Some Questions for “Educated” Secularists Friday, Jul 26 2013 

I am having a conversation with some folks over new legislation in Kentucky’s Department of Education.  This is for my own convenience.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

What is a sensation and how does sensation produces abstract thought?

How do you identify numeric substances?

How does Science  not commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent (Induction)?

How can Mathematics  be justified from the Monistic view of Physical reality?

How do we determine Good from Evil?

If knowledge is only particular experience how do we know about universal ethical norms?

If everything is constantly changing how do we justify universal ethical norms like universal equality, and the moral condemnation of slavery and racism?

Does your interpretation of the Golden Rule imply that a Warden, in charge of executing a convicted Serial killer, should release the Serial killer, because if the Warden were in the place of the Serial killer, and the Serial killer in the place of the Warden, the Warden would desire freedom?

How can the abstract concept of a moral person be produced from sensation?

How is a decision just if it is not unanimous if all people are sovereign unto themselves….How can the decision be just if it violates the sovereignty of the individual?

Where does a Government or anyone get the authority to coerce someone else? By what right does a majority coerce a minority?

Is the majority decision distinct from common good? If so what is the distinction?

By what right does a Social Contract coerce the children of the original body politic to contract and surrender their rights and become a member of the body politic, whatever that means?

What is a Nation?

These issues are memorized off the top of my head with these wierd acronyms that happen to work for me.

Saimz

Sensation, Aristotle’s numeric identity, Induction, Mathematics and numbers justified from the material world, Zeno’s Paradox

Huctuag

Huperousia anthropology, Universals, Change, Teleological Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics, Ateleological Ethics, the Golden Rule

Muccon

Moral Person, Unanimous Decision, Common Good, Coercion, Original contracting body, Nation-What is it?

History of Atheist Democide (Second Edition) Saturday, Jul 20 2013 

I have written this before but I wanted to make it just a bit more brief and more accurately documented. I have tried to focus on more recent events and I have left out the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen who were murdered by the Atheist French Revolution and its Reign of Terror.

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a 19th century German political theorist and a colleague of Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). Engels was a German revolutionary political economist and a fellow Materialist with Marx. When Charles Darwin introduced his Anti-Christian theories to the world as his interpretation of the Origin of Species (1859), these men supported him and found his theory quite convenient to their philosophical and political agenda. Marx published his influential work Das Kapital in 1867. Marx promoted the abolishment of private property and concluded with a plea for action, and action he received. Much of this action was after his death through a Russian revolutionary named Vladimir Lenin, who was influenced by Marx‘s book.

Darwin‘s atheistic theories were the biological basis for a theory of society called Social Darwinism, developed in the 1870s. This view stressed competition between individuals but it was also connected to the ideas of Eugenics, Racial Supremacy, Imperialism, Fascism, Nazism, and Industrial Capitalism, the struggle between national or racial groups and formed the basis of Engels’ and Lenin’s Dialectical Materialism. The action that Marx wanted now had a Philosophical and a Sociological foundation.

Operating off of Marx‘s and Darwin’s ideas, Lenin and his successor, Joseph Stalin massacred tens of millions in Russia. R.J. Rummel, author of Statistics of Democide,[1] says in his Democide in Totalitarian States,

“Similarly, that Stalin murdered tens of millions is becoming generally appreciated; but that Stalin, Lenin, and their successors murdered some 61,911,000 Soviet citizens and foreigners is little comprehended outside of the Soviet Union”.[2]

Many of these murdered Russians were Orthodox Christians.

The Republic of China (ROC), founded in 1912 after the overthrow of the Qing dynasty, ruled the Chinese mainland until 1949. In the 1946–1949 phase of the Chinese Civil War, the Chinese Communists defeated the Chinese Nationalists (Kuomintang) on the mainland and established the People’s Republic of China in Beijing on 1 October 1949 and was proclaimed such by the Atheist Mao Zedong who was highly influenced by Vladamir Lenin. R.J. Rummel pointed out in his How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder, Table 1, that Mao’s People’s Republic of China killed over 100 million people.

Atheist, Fidel Castro, is a Cuban revolutionary and politician. He was Prime Minister of Cuba from 1959 to 1976, and then President from 1976 to 2008. Along with Mao Zedong, he was highly influenced by the Marx-Leninist tradition. Though born and baptized Roman Catholic and trained by Jesuits, he became an Atheist. The Cuban Revolution was an armed revolt by Fidel Castro. Castro moved against the regime of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista between 1953 and 1959.

Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il were installed into power by Joseph Stalin and the Soviets. R.J. Rummel says in Chapter 10 of his Statistic of Democide, 

“From 1948 through 1987 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was ruled by Kim Il-sung, an absolute communist dictator who has turned his country into an Orwellian state…Perhaps from 710,000 to slightly over 3,500,000 people have been murdered, with a mid-estimate of almost 1,600,000. But these figures are little more than educated guesses.”

What is clear is that Il-Sung’s Communistic Juche philosophy led to the starvation of over 3 million people. Kim Jong- Il ruled in North Korea from 1994 to his recent death in December of 2011. His regime held up to 200,000 political prisoners and his starvation politics has killed at least 2 million people in the 90s and we do not even know how many more in the 21st century.

Now to the atheist Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge: R.J. Rummel pointed out in his How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder,

“Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000.”[3]

Possibly, the most devastating outgrowth of the application of Darwin’s theory to Society, Eugenics, is Abortion. Negative Eugenics focused on lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. Unfortunately this history does not begin in Nazi Germany but most of it originates right here in the United States. Francis Galton was an Englishman who applied his half-cousin’s (Charles Darwin) biology to society. He believed that Western Civilization protected inferior species from extinction. This needed to change and a systematic elimination of inferior humans was necessary for our evolution. After being highly influenced by Galton’s work American biologist Charles Davenport became the father of American Eugenics. Not surprising Davenport was removed from the well known Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory for his racial views and his replacement James D. Watson was removed in 2007 for his racial leanings after serving there since 1969.  Atheist Margaret Sanger was an associate of Davenport and was highly influenced by his eugenics philosophy. She is the founder of Planned Parenthood where Americans kill their unborn children today.

There are clear links between American eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger and Harry H. Laughlin with the Nazi movement.  Harry H. Laughlin wrote the Virginia model statute that Nazi Ernst Rudin used for his Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. Laughlin even received an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936 for his assistance to Adolf Hitler‘s cause.  Ernst Rudin wrote articles on eugenics for Margaret Sanger‘s Birth Control Review. Sanger was a known racial hygienist  and even attended and spoke at a New Jersey meeting of the Ku Klux Klan auxiliary.

In Nazi Germany, Social Darwinism naturally evolved into racial hygiene theories by men like Fritz Lenz, Eugen Fischer and Otmar von Verschuer. Hitler believed that the racially pure were to be encouraged to reproduce while the racially un-pure were to be sterilized or killed. Abortion, birth control and forced sterilizations were suggested. According to the National Right to Life website, over 50 million unborn children have been murdered in the United States since abortion was legalized in 1973. Following Hitler’s regime, a man named Josef Rudolf Mengele (1911-1979) a.k.a. “The Angel of Death” mastered the science of abortion. The perfection of Nazism came with the eugenic interpretation of  Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche’s doctrine of the Superman and his book The Will to Power. Nietzsche objected to his Materialist colleagues when he asked them why evolution has not yet reached its goal. He used this argument to prove there is no purpose to life or ethics but only a will to power. Atheists have disputed that Darwin’s theories led to Hitler’s Nazism. Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus, has specialized in this issue and published a book From Darwin to Hitler proving the distinctive role that Darwin’s theories played in the Genocides of the 20th Century.

Now to bring things home for us, after the Communist German Revolution of 1848, Communist military officers from that revolution migrated to North America and led the Yankee Union Army in their invasion, rape, pillage and murder of our ancestors and the black slaves here in the Southland of America in the so-called American Civil War. Karl Marx himself was a firm supporter of Abraham Lincoln and saw the Yankee cause as a Communist Revolution! Karl Marx writes in his letter to Abraham Lincoln,

“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”[4]

Here is a list of Union leaders who were Communists:

Brigadier General Joseph Weydemeyer; Assistant Secretary of War Charles Anderson Dana; Brigadier General Louis Blenker; Major General August Willich; Union Intelligence Allan Pinkerton; General Carl Schurz; General Alexander Schimmelfennig; Major General Franz Siegel;  Brigade Commander Friedrich Karl Franz Hecker.

In conclusion, the modern media, and modern state education consistently presents religion as a source of violence and conflict in the world. Ex-Catholic Priest, and popular Protestant apologist Richard Peter Bennett, who is a specialist on the Roman Catholic Inquisition has documented the murder and torture of over 50 million people within the multi-national and 605 year history of the Roman Catholic Inquisition. Even the most nefarious and condemned institution in religious history is only a walk in the park compared to the atrocities committed by atheist regimes in a single century!

The Atheist Deception at Blogtalkradio Thursday, May 30 2013 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drakeshelton/2013/05/29/the-atheist-deception

End Darwinism in the Public School Friday, Apr 26 2013 

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/end-darwinism-in-the-public-school.html

Communism-The Anti-Thesis of the Global Synthesis Monday, Apr 1 2013 

Lest I be accused of simply showing the logical connections between Hegelianism, Yankee Capitalism and Communism, I offer Mr. Sutton’s work as evidence of a historical connection as well.

Having laid the foundation for my rejection of Karl Marx’s Communism and his Roman Catholic Theology Proper, I would like to now demonstrate to the reader how his Neoplatonic-Roman Catholic Dialectic fleshes out in application.

I will be initially quoting from the Manifesto of the Communist Party first published in 1848.[1] Of course, Marx does make some valid criticisms of Yankee Capitalism which I will also include.

The CM says,

“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”.”[2]

This is striking! I would not have taken Marx to be the kind to actually point this out. Truly, Yankee Capitalism has made the individual the primary concern of society and that individual is then not to see his family as his primary base of concern but himself. His life’s goal is then, not to maintain his race, his family and his religion, but to travel the earth to whatever distance necessary to follow  Commerce and War. This has fragmented the old national and racial bonds between men and made life nothing else but Commerce and War. Marx has no improvement because his economic is simply a reaction to the Yankee Capitalism (Thesis and Anti-Thesis) and thus when the Yankee Capitalist is in need he looks not to his family but to the State which greatly pleases Marx. We will see these many agreements between Yankee Capitalism and Marxism.

Agreement #1 Both Yankee Capitalism and Marxism reject the primacy of the Family and Racial obligations.

The CM complains,

“A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. ”

There is too much commerce, and Communism bares a great deal of guilt in it. In an interview with the late Aaron Russo, Russo pointed out that the Rockefeller’s were behind the American Women’s Liberation movement (A Communist Movement) in order to  influence the other half of the population to be involved in public work so that there would be an increase in commerce and taxes.[3] Women used to take care of the home and raise the children in order to maintain the private social order and now they are helping to feed the State and the Yankee War Machine.  Do we now see how Communism and Capitalism work together?  Secondly, the Southern Plantation system was the best system to compete with Yankee Capitalist Industries which we will see later. This system has also been destroyed by Communist Propaganda and the now Popular demand for equal rights. Again, Communism helps Yankee Capitalism.

Agreement #2 Both Yankee Capitalism and Marxism wanted the destruction of the Plantation and slavery.

Agreement #3 Both Yankee Capitalism and Marxism want the women working due to universal equality.

The CM complains again,

“In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.”

Except in Southern Agrarianism and moreover, the absolute free labor system has still failed to stake the interest of Capital in their labor. The labor of Capital is now as disposable as a Coke Can. I deal with this in greater detail here.

The CM  makes a great point,

 “The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.”

Only in a society that believes in universal equality and women’s suffrage. Do we not then see how our problems continue to be sociological and not economical? This has greatly contributed to the genocide of White European peoples in the last 60 years. The modern white woman cares little for family and is now consumed with her career. They care little about having children and raising a family.[4] This has devastated our race.[5] And though the modern white man sees little significance in preserving his race, in a very short time he will be face to face with a majority colored population that does care about race and wants nothing else but to see the white race annihilated.  When white people become a minority in a land they are not respected for their humanitarian efforts. They are a hated and persecuted minority.[6] Atheism and liberalism is the end of a people. It is genocide!

The CM states,

“In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.”

This turned out to be a total lie. Communist society turned out to end the existence of the laborer. The problem is men are totally depraved and when all the property was given to the state who was supposed to virtuously disperse all equally, the State starved millions of its own people and massacred millions more. You see Capitalism and Communism is Thesis and Anti-Thesis. The Synthesis, the true purpose behind all, is Global Government and a massive global population reduction.[7]

Agreement #4 Global Government

The CM complains,

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.”

I would agree with this because the Yankee Capitalists practice their version of wealth re-distribution primarily by way of usury.

Agreement #5 Wealth redistribution.

The CM states,

“But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.”

Notice, Marx does not deny that his Communism promotes community of women. His point is, yes, we believe in community of women, but this in no way means that we are INTRODUCING the idea. Now, I agree firmly that Yankee Capitalism promotes too much luxury, idle-ness and immorality. Dabney spoke to this issue in great detail from pages 301-330 in Defence of Virginia which I cataloged here.  The Southern system maintained a reasonable restraint on the excessive wealth and luxury of the rich while not falling into the trap of Communism.

As a side note, I would ask the reader to think of anyone they have know who abstained from sex before marriage. It is an unheard of phenomenon in the Yankee ruled United States.

Agreement #6 Community of Women and widespread fornication.

The CM states,

“The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.”

Now we are getting to the heart of it. Do we not then see how Yankee Capitalism was used to end our National Sovereignty? Agrarianism reasonably preserves the independence of a land. When a people know how to live off of the land, they are free in a way the modern man cannot possible fathom. If in the case of a global or international economic collapse, an Agrarianized population could survive without massive social unrest. But this kind of life is demonized and mocked in our media and entertainment venues.  Are we continuing to understand how our economic problems stem from much deeper sociological issues?

Agreement #7 Globalism-Both systems reject Genesis 9-11; Are we seeing why racialism is such a demonized idea in the West.

The CM states,

“What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.”

And this is not different with Communism. The ruling class in America shoves Communist lies and propaganda down our throats in this system. The two biggest pieces of propaganda pushed by our Communist Government is the Abolitionist propaganda against the South and Charles Darwin’s insanities. That the state controls the thinking of a people is no discovery by Communists. It is natural law, which is why the First Amendment and legislation like it is a fool’s illusion and always will be.

The CM states,

“What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other.”

And such it always will be. It is a biological reality that will never disappear. Why not then administrate it properly while keeping that exploitation as mild as it was in the South?

The CM states its core principles

“1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.”

With the abolition of all rights of inheritance (#3), the invidualism so indicative of Yankee Capitalism, is enshrined by the Communists. Gal 6:7’s application to families is then uprooted and rejected. #5’s affirmation of monopoly would make any Yankee Capitalist happy.

Agreement #8 The individual’s emancipation from familial or tribal responsibilities and benefits.

Agreement #9 The morality of Monopoly

In Frederick Engels’ Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith 1847 he attempts to lay down the ethical theory of the Communist movement stating in question 5,

“For example, every individual strives to be happy. The happiness of the individual is inseparable from the happiness of all, etc.”

Here Engels is espousing Teleological Ethics; more specifically Psychological Hedonism. This theory asserts that the Good is pleasure. On this view all people always desire pleasure and nothing else but pleasure. This theory is an illusion. Will the Psychological Hedonists refuse bitter medicine or a discomforting trip to the dentist to cure their ailment? Will they not suffer the pains of employment? All these do not give pleasure at the moment. If not an immediate pleasure, maybe then all people always desire or act towards a future pleasure?  Clark objects,

“There are many evidences that this is not true. A drunkard may know that guzzling his liquor will make him sick and give him a headache, but he guzzles. He desires the immediate pleasure and sacrifices the pleasure of tomorrow.” (Christian View, pg. 118)

The difficulties continue for secular theories because it can never be determined how a good desire is distinguished from a bad desire. And finally, the definition of pleasure as sensation falls prey to the hundreds of criticisms Clark has made to the entire endeavor of Empiricism.

Applied to society this theory evolves into Utilitarianism. This is the ethical theory that affirms that the proper moral action is one that produces the overall happiness for the greatest number. In utilitarianism, the individual must sacrifice his own interests for the interests of the whole or the state.  Clark summarizes the problem with teleological theories:

“It would be necessary to know not merely the immediate results of a given choice, but the more remote, and the still more remote into an indefinite future. It would be necessary to know the effects of the proposed action on every individual who might possibly be involved. And all these effects in their various degrees would have to be balanced against the same calculations made for each of the other proposed policies. Only after all these calculations had been completed could it be said that such and such ought to be done. But obviously these calculations cannot be completed. Therefore, a teleological system cannot conclude that one action rather than another is a moral obligation.” (Christian View, pg. 124-125)

Engels states again,

“Question 9: How did the proletariat arise?

Answer: The proletariat came into being as a result of the introduction of the machines which have been invented since the middle of the last century and the most important of which are: the steam-engine, the spinning machine and the power loom. These machines, which were very expensive and could therefore only be purchased by rich people, supplanted the workers of the time, because by the use of machinery it was possible to produce commodities more quickly and cheaply than could the workers with their imperfect spinning wheels and hand-looms. The machines thus delivered industry entirely into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered the workers’ scanty property which consisted mainly of their tools, looms, etc., quite worthless, so that the capitalist was left with everything, the worker with nothing. In this way the factory system was introduced. Once the capitalists saw how advantageous this was for them, they sought to extend it to more and more branches of labour. They divided work more and more between the workers so that workers who formerly had made a whole article now produced only a part of it. Labour simplified in this way produced goods more quickly and therefore more cheaply and only now was it found in almost every branch of labour that here also machines could be used. As soon as any branch of labour went over to factory production it ended up, just as in the case of spinning and weaving. in the hands of the big capitalists, and the workers were deprived of the last remnants of their independence. We have gradually arrived at the position where almost all branches of labour are run on a factory basis. This has increasingly brought about the ruin of the previously existing middle class, especially of the small master craftsmen, completely transformed the previous position of the workers, and two new classes which are gradually swallowing up all other classes have come into being, namely:”.

These problems are results of the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution’s rejection of Patriarchalism and its affirmation of universal equality, so pervasive in the Abolitionist destruction of Southern Plantations. Engels brings up an important issue. In Dabney’s Defence of Virgina, pages 325-326 we read the Southern reply,

“Now we emphatically and proudly admit that Southern society has not learned the frugality of New England; which is, among the middle classes, a mean, in-hospitable, grinding penuriousness, sacrificing the very comfort of children, and the kindly cheer of the domestic board, to the Yankee penates, Mammon and Lucre; and among the upper classes a union of domestic scantiness and stinginess with external ostentation and profusion ; a frugality which is “rich in the parlour, and poor in the kitchen. The idea of the Southern planter is the rational and prudent use of wealth to procure the solid

comfort of himself, his children, and his servants at home, coupled with a simple and unostentatious equipage abroad, and a generous hospitality to rich and poor. But we fearlessly assert, and will easily prove to every sensible reader, that slavery was peculiarly favourable to the economical application of labour, and of domestic

supplies and income. The attempt to carry the freehold tenure of land down to the yeomanry, subdivides land too much for economical farming. The holdings are too small, and the means of the proprietors too scanty, to enable them to use labour-saving machines, or to avail themselves of the vast advantages of combined labour. How can the present proprietor of a farm of five or ten acres in France or Belgium, afford a

reaper, a threshing-machine, a three-horse plough, or even any plough at all ? The spade, the wheel-barrow, the donkey, and the flail, must do his work, at a wasteful cost of time and toil. But the Southern system, by placing the labour of many at the direction of one more cultivated mind, and that furnished with more abundant capital, secured the most liberal and enlightened employment of machines, and the most convenient “division of labour.” Moreover, the administration of the means of living for the whole plantation, by the master and mistress, secured a great economy of supplies. The mistress of Southern households learns far more providence, judgment and method in administering her stores, than are possessed by free labourers or by blacks. The world over, those who have property are more provident than those who have none. For, this providence is the chief reason why they have property; and the improvidence of the poor is the cause of their being poor. But even if the slaveholders had no more of these qualities, all can see that an immense saving is made by having one housekeeper for ten families, with one kitchen, store-house, and laundry, instead of ten kitchens, ten store-houses, and ten varying administrations of stores. A smaller supply of provisions secures a greater amount of comfort to all, and a great saving of labour is effected in preparation of food, and housekeeping cares. A system of slave labour is, therefore, more productive, because it is more economical.

In all this argument, the anti-slavery men keep out of view a simple fact which is decisive of the absurdity of their position. They shall now be made to look it in the face. That fact is, that in free States, a large portion of all those who, from their moneyless condition,ought to pursue manual labour, are too lazy to do so voluntarily. But they must live, and they do it by some expedient which is a virtual preying on means of the more industrious, by stealing, by begging, by some form of swindling, by perambulating the streets with a barrel-organ and monkey, or by vending toys or superfluities. Their labour is lost to the community; and their maintenance, together with their dishonest arts and crimes, is a perpetual drain from the public wealth. But slavery made the lazy do their part with the industrious, by the wholesome fear of the birch. Slavery allowed no loafers, no swindlers, no ” b’hoys,” no “plug-uglies,” no grinders of hurdy-gurdies, among her labouring class.”

In the Southern system the Planation provided a strong competitor for Yankee Capitalism. A Plantation using many slaves with community of property could afford the large industrial machines. This preserved agrarian society which kept us off of the globalist grid, while at the same time allowed us to enjoy and benefit from modern technology.  Do you see what happens when we think we are smarter and holier than God? Now, the unemployed Yankee black free laborers which Dabney complained of, are now  the modern day gangsters, drug dealers, and organized crime syndicates.

During the so-called Great Migration[8], blacks left the South in mass and moved into Yankee cities where they found little hope of lawful sustenance. In response, they formed themselves into Gangs.

The United States Department of Justice’s National Gang Center Bulletin, in a piece, HISTORY OF STREET GANGS IN THE UNITED STATES by James C. Howell and John P. Moore says,

“The second period of gang growth in Chicago commenced in the 1930s as the result of a steady migration of Mexicans and blacks to northern cities. Black immigrants arrived first, following the U.S. Civil War, to escape the misery of Jim Crow laws and the sharecropper’s life in the southern states. Between 1910 and 1930, during the “Great Migration” of more than a million blacks from the rural South to the urban North for jobs, Chicago gained almost 200,000 black residents (Marks, 1985; Miller, 2008),

giving the city an enormous urban black population—along with New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, and other Northeast and Midwest cities. From 1940 to 1950, the Chicago black population nearly doubled, from 278,000 to nearly 500,000  (Miller, 2008). Most of the immigrant blacks in Chicago settled in the area known as the Black Belt, a geographic area along State  Street on the South Side, where abject poverty was concentrated  (Wilson, 1987).

Large numbers of black workers were inspired “to leave family and friends and seek their fortunes in the North” (Marks, 1985, p. 5). But they faced formidable challenges. Many observers thought the black migrants were unqualified for the upward mobility paths that white immigrants had used in Northeast cities. However, “the reason for non-assimilation of Black migrants into American society was not because Blacks were non-urban or unskilled. It owed substantially… to racial segmentation of the labor force structured to keep them at what they had been recruited for, a source of cheap labor” (Marks, 1985, p. 22).

The origins of Chicago’s serious street gangs can be traced  to blacks’ disproportionate residency in socially disorganized  inner-city areas, dating back to the period between 1917 and the early 1920s (Cureton, 2009).12 “As more and more Blacks populated

Chicago, there was an increase in delinquency among Black youth as well… As one might anticipate, these activities invariably led to Black youth hanging out together and forming cliques, major ingredients for the formation of street gangs”  (Perkins, 1987, p. 20). In addition, “athletics played an  important role in the development of early Black street  gangs” (p. 21). The games fueled conflicts between rival teams. By the mid-fifties, Black street gangs “began to vent their frustration and perpetrate violence against the Black community.” (Pages 6-7)

As for their impact today, the FBI’s, 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends[9] states,

“Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others”.

This is not to imply that all Gangs are black but the point I think is clearly made. The Yankee Abolitionism failed miserably if it was ever meant to succeed and our predictions of how Abolition would morally and socially affect the blacks has been fully vindicated.

http://blackracismandracehatred.blogspot.com/

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hc0309.pdf

Englels,

“Question 16: How do you think the transition from the present situation to community of Property is to be effected?

Answer: The first, fundamental condition for the introduction of community of property is the political liberation of the proletariat through a democratic constitution.”

Now this is an important issue to discuss. Did the Protestant Reformation and the Scottish Covenanters establish Democracy in their rejection of the Divine Right of Kings? No.

I deal with this in my A Treatise on Ethics and Politics pages 7-10.[10]

Engels,

“Question 21: Will nationalities continue to exist under communism?

Answer: The nationalities of the peoples who join together according to the principle of community will be just as much compelled by this union to merge with one another and thereby supersede themselves as the various differences between estates and classes disappear through the superseding of their basis — private property.”

Here we see the clear Communist agenda behind Abolition and the 20th century Civil Rights movement. It is then, no surprise that the first major author to use the word “Racist” was a Communist named Leon Trotsky.[11] The Bible clearly teaches against a general mingling of the races.[12] If you think this is Southern white racist propaganda I refer you to  Frederick Engels’ The Principles of Communism 1847 where he states,

“In antiquity, the workers were the slaves of the owners, just as they still are in many backward countries and even in the southern part of the United States.”[13]

The so called Civil War was nothing short of a Communist Revolution as I have cataloged in detail.[14]

Communism truly is the Economic Theory of Big Industry. Engels says,

“That big industry, and the limitless expansion of production which it makes possible, bring within the range of feasibility a social order in which so much is produced that every member of society will be in a position to exercise and develop all his powers and faculties in complete freedom.”[15]

Firstly, the paradox in this all, is that Industrialism was proved to provide an inferior standard of living than Southern Agrarianism for the working class. Robert Fogel’s Time on the Cross states,

“Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free negro in the South.”[16]

And again,

“The material (not psychological) conditions of the lives of slaves compared favorably with those of free industrial workers.”[17]

And again,

“U.S. Slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe.”[18]

Secondly, Engels appeals to absolute freedom. This brings me back to my primary objection to Marxism’s Metaphysics and Anthropology which I wrote earlier.[19] This system is inherently Luciferian. All over Marx and Engels, you will find this obsession with “Freedom”. Engels states in our present consideration,

“The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.” (7)…

“The handicraftsman therefore frees himself by becoming either bourgeois or entering the middle class in general, or becoming a proletarian because of competition (as is now more often the case). In which case he can free himself by joining the proletarian movement, i.e., the more or less communist movement.” (9)…

“Big industry, freed from the pressure of private property, will undergo such an expansion that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison as manufacture seems when put beside the big industry of our own day.” (20)…

“Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations. It will, therefore, free them from the one-sided character which the present-day division of labor impresses upon every individual. ” (20)

Marx and Engles are fundamentally concerned about keeping man free from any sort of social determinism. The paradox in it all, and this is right in keeping with its Hegelian roots, is that this “freedom” is socially established with the cruelest of compulsions and  ends up “freeing” man by stripping him of all that it is to be a person. It dissolves his personality and humanity into a social collectivist monad.  As soon as the Protestant Reformation was established in England, there was a huge Cultural explosion with the Elizabethan Era. And then with the Treaty of Westphalia the Western World was brought into the modern period and with it, the greatest Western literature and music ever composed.

What did Communism produce? Nothing but death! No one worthy of note! No Shakespeare, no Bach, no Rembrandt.

Communism has unlocked the gates of hell. Just to stick with the labor aspect, under today’s Capitalist-Communist Hegelian Dialectic we have child slave labor with the Walmart-China connection, a huge world-wide industry in trafficked Sex Slaves, and a massive Prison slave system, which said prisons are now privately owned![20] Yankee Capitalism indeed!

Just like in England, after the death of Oliver Cromwell, we have a pro-Jesuit Charles II-like Government, all the more willing to spread immorality and gross persecution upon Anglo Protestantism.  I have cataloged the gross immorality in our country here, here and here. To add another staggering statistic, a recent CDC Fact Sheet, Incidence, Prevalence, and Cost of Sexually Transmitted Infections in the United States states,

“CDC’s new estimates show that there are about 20 million new infections in the United States each year, costing the American healthcare system nearly $16 billion in direct medical costs alone.”

Communism’s racial policy has also unleashed an inquisition upon the Anglo and European peoples:.

http://blackracismandracehatred.blogspot.com/

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hc0309.pdf

Take these Social results of Communism along with their Southern inquisition[21] and their many 20th Century Inquisitions [22], I wonder why the modern civilized man even allows these people rights of citizenship and  assembly. Could it be because he himself is a Communist but doesn’t have the guts to take it consistently? Could it be that the modern man will have no other choice but to return to Southern Agrarianism for his survival and emancipation from a Global Empire? Could it be that the South will rise again?  The South MUST rise again.


[17] Ibid., 5

[18] Ibid., 126

Atheism and the Occult; Kissing Cousins? Saturday, Mar 16 2013 

A brief examination of Europe before the Reformation, will reveal an ignorant, superstitious, and idolatrous people subordinate to the Vatican.[1]

This period is described very well in the 1953 movie, Martin Luther. See 1:20-3:30

Here we see that the Dark Ages thrived on a synchronization of Christianity and gross pagan superstitions.

This is precisely the culture that the Jesuits are creating in the West. Atheism has paved the way for the return of Paganism. I have already shown the clear Jesuit agenda to create a secular movement to destroy and replace the Reformation.[2] [3]

In the late 1980s Geraldo produced a documentary of sorts on the rise of the Occult in America. See the 28 minute mark where the now well-known Satanist (And Military Officer ) Michael A. Aquino, admits at  28:55 that Satanism has been the end of an Atheist journey for many people and  that Atheism was the stepping stone into membership in the Occult for many.

I also found this interview with Satanist Peter Gilmore interesting.

At 0:45-0:55 he says that Satanists start out as atheists and then discover that they are their own gods. Gilmore states that Satanists are materialists at 6:45. Interestingly enough, Satanic priests are also called The Black Pope (3:57,5:33); just like the Jesuit General!  

In an interview with prominent Satanists many years ago The First Family Of Satanism, the Satanists bragged that Christianity will soon be dead and the Bible will soon be considered a myth. This is the deception. The Jesuits have deceived the Secular world into thinking that they are ushering in another Enlightenment with human progress and education. Wrong! We are getting and we will continue to get the grossest superstitions and we will be back right back to the Dark Ages very soon.

Look at the so called Protestant Churches today. The discipline of Doctrine, Theology, and simplicity of Worship has been replaced by irrationalism, emotionalism and outright chicanery.

Instead of producing the greatest minds in the world, as we used to, to our international pride, so-called Protestantism now produces scandals and outright charlatans.

The Charismatic Movement itself operates off of the exact same type of superstitions that ruled the Dark Ages.

 This influence has been infused into Christianity by the rise of New Age Pagan Philosophy and New Age Pagan Philosophy is the result of the Darwinian deception. As we will see, Darwinism is really an old Pagan view of Anthropology and Soteriology. The following are very well referenced documentaries by Christian apologists speaking to these very issues.

When I lived in South Carolina I worked with a very vocal Atheist Activist. I have worked with many Atheists and I have been shocked by their hypocritical allegiance to the Occult. Very often I found them reading the Horoscope section in the Newspaper and seeking the advice of Tarot Card Readers and Astrologists.  

Is this just a coincidence? I don’t think so. The Jesuits want to plunge our Protestant Civilization into ignorance and superstition so that they can unleash a new technology and convince us that they are aliens or have some kind of alien divine power so that we will give them unchallenged submission. This will be the platform to saddle the Old Holy Roman Empire onto the world once again.  I have said it before and I’ll say it again: Secularism is not Enlightenment, it is Counter-Reformation Propaganda.


Dialogue With “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees” Friday, Jan 25 2013 

Jaimehlers, of the Why Won’t God Heal Amputees forum, has replied to my recent blog against Secularism.

 

Sensation is produced by the effects of electromagnetism.

 

I did not ask what its source was. I asked what it was.

 

Vision is the direct detection

 

You are conflating sensation with perception.

 

of electromagnetic radiation, hearing is the detection of vibrations

 

All you are doing is substituting the word “detection” for sensation and perception.

 

Perception is caused by the makeup of the body’s physical structures that allow for sensations; i.e.

 

You are again describing the source of of perception. You are not defining perception.

 

 Abstract ideas are derived from perception, because they are actually based on emotions (which are based on perceptions).

 

You have conflated an idea with an emotion. You have not shown how emotion causes cognitive activity. The fact is, it is cognitive activity that precedes emotion as you just said,

 

We perceive something, so we have an emotional reaction to it.

 

You see the cognitive activity comes before the reaction here but then later you say:

 

An emotional reaction causes an abstract idea (or a concrete one, depending on the circumstances).

 

Now this statement is also filled with error. An abstract idea is by definition something universal not particular. Thus an emotion, which corresponds to a particular event is not something universal but particular. You have thus failed to show how an emotion can produce an abstract idea.

 

 This is a good example of why you cannot solely rely on logic.  Gill may have “proven” that language was impossible, yet it clearly exists

 

Then you are proving your principles by your conclusions. This is the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

 

we are using it to communicate with each other right now.  If language was actually impossible, we would not be able to have this argument, therefore it clearly is possible.

 

And I have an explanation for that but this thread is not about me it is about you.

 

Therefore, the particular language does not matter provided we both have a sufficient understanding of it.

 

You are using the word “matter” ambiguously as you are with the word “understanding”. In the former you could mean “exist” in the genus of being or you could mean  “have a defined identity” in the genus of epistemology. In the latter, you could mean “operation” but seeing that you just admitted that Gill has made the endeavor impossible for an empiricist you have only asserted by ad hoc that you have this said understanding.

 

Your error is your attempt to rely on logic to resolve every question, even questions it is not suited to answer.

 

According to coherency theory, that is the way to demonstrate knowledge. Syllogisms are the paragon of knowledge, not empiricism.

 

If you try to use a hammer to pound in a nail, it does a very good job; but if you try to use it to drill a hole in a piece of wood, it will not work very well.  The same goes here.  All four of your attempts to refute individuation use logic, but logic is not good at refuting things that actually exist.

 

So then you admit then that the abstract does not exist. Aristotle took genus out of the category of substance I think you will have to admit it. Then you have admitted that abstract ideas do not exist. This is just the black hole of empiricism. That means that just in the last paragraph that I am replying to these words that you typed have no justification whatsoever:

 

“If”, “to”, “a” “in”, “it”, “very”, “but”, “piece”, “same”, “All”, “four”, “of”, “refute”, “logic”, “good”, “exist”, “that”.

 

Are you starting to see the problem?

 

You are referring to the problem of induction.  Note that it is not the same thing as the induction fallacy.  The induction fallacy happens when a sample used for testing is found to not be representative of the whole.  The problem of induction is whether or not the information that we base an inductive conclusion on is representative of the whole or not, and the only way we can actually find out is to discover that it is not.  That does not make it a fallacy.

 

The conclusion is asserted first to be representative of the whole. That is asserting the consequent.

 

As I have so answered.

 

You did not such thing.

 

I addressed this in my earlier post.

 

A  reply is not to be confused with an answer.

No, as I showed in my earlier post.  By declaring empiricism invalid, you have sabotaged your own argument.  The fact of the matter is that you cannot prove empiricism invalid without some way to test the validity of your premise.

Coherency theory, not Empiricism.

 

You are essentially arguing that you can do so with logic, but this is impossible, so it is nonsensical to make that claim.

 

You think it is impossible because you think an operation is a demonstration of truth, which Kline refuted. Kline showed that both Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry had equal function. Function does not equal truth.

Your use of those logical proofs in this case were indeed attempts to confuse the issue.  Logical proofs cannot determine the validity of a premise, therefore giving me the choice of logical proofs to determine the validity of something makes no sense

The coherency of the whole provides a self attestation to the postulate.

No, but you cannot determine that it is valid with logic.  It shares that with something that’s subjective.

Well, the coherency of the set provides a self attestation of the postulate.

No, it is my assertion that you cannot show that coherence theory is valid with just logic, because logic can not validate logic.

You are using the words “show” and “valid” as if I have not already admitted that my first premise is not proven. I admit it is a dogmatic affirmation, not a proven one. However, that does not mean it is an arbitrary one as the coherency of the set provides a self attestation of the postulate.

 

It is circular because you attempted to define atheism in such a way that it plethora would have found himself defending circular logic if he had agreed with your proposition.

 

Well I am trying to show you that all theories operate off of axiom’s or postulates.

 

Basically, you devised a catch-22Wiki (if atheism depends on empiricism, then it cannot be skeptical, because in order to be skeptical it cannot accept empiricism), a logical trap that relies on circular logic.

 

It does not rely on circular logic but on the reality that all theories require axioms and postulates.

 

As I have said multiple times in this post, you cannot verify logic with more logic.  You must use something else to verify it.  Normally, empiricism is used to verify logic, but you excluded that, so you have nothing you can use to verify your logic.

 

You are conflating  the genus of being with the genus of epistemology. By verify you could be referring to experience in the historical chronological order of things, or verify in the logical order of propositions.

 

 

The Failure of Secularism at the University of Louisville Tuesday, Jan 22 2013 

The attached video is an audio recording of my speech at U of L last week. I can email you the MP4 if you would like.

 

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: