Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Communitarian boots stomping on a human face -- for as long as we allow it

Flowers appeared in my garden today, even my tomatoes are blooming! Still picking out communitarian beetles by hand although seeing only 2 to 5 a day. One of the elder Indians in Chitina told Corina to put cayenne pepper along the sides of the plants, she said it worked in their community garden. Been in the nineties for a week and I'm filling water jugs continuously. Rebuilt shower gertee attached to the back of my little gertee... it's positively luxurious now. :)

I like the slant of what Bobby Garner has to say in this email forward, and I'm extremely curious now to see a list of all our new "czars." I know the constitution's silence on the presidents' ability to sign binding treaties with foreign powers is one of the most serious loopholes in the contract. I've also some familiarity with the use of Presidential Executive Orders. I'm unfamiliar with Signing Statements, which shows how non-current my research has become. When I finally get back to having a regular phone line again, I'm going to have a lot of catching up to do.
I received this email on July 1st but it fell into my junk folder and I didn't find it until now. I thought it important enough to pass around, because you don't need to look very far in todays news to find current examples of its accuracy.

Our younger generations have been conditioned by our public schools to accept all of this as the normal progression of history, and while they may find parts of it alarming, they are easily able to excuse it, and look the other way. But the facts remain, that we are now governed by a monstrosity called government, but it is unrecognizable by any constitutional standard other than the one heavily corrupted, but officially approved by the Supreme Court and our Head Czar In Chief Obama.

Speaking of Czars, various accounts have the total number at more than 30 now. I'm not sure anyone really knows the exact number, because there may not be any requirement for reporting that information. I suspect that these appointments are reported only to impart to them the aura of respectability. The constitution gives the President complete authority to direct the operations of the White House, but it is completely silent on the appointment of Czars. Why? Because the framers of that document took every precaution against such things without naming any specifics. They understood that any specifics would leave unavoidable loopholes.

The White House by the way is not a constitutional branch of government. The Office of the President is one of the three branches of government, but the White House contains the home and office spaces of the President. The President has complete control over what happens there with very little oversight. He manages those offices via verbal commands, Executive Orders, and more recently by Signing Statements. Executive Orders are submitted to Congress for review. If they don't review them, or take no action, they become legally enforceable as law. I haven't researched Signing Statement, but they are both routinely abused, because no President has constitutional authority to dictate his policy into the law of the land, and that's what has been happening for many years. I can find no record of congress acting against any Executive Order, and they have therefore been allowed to pass into law by default.

The effect is that the President now rules the country by precedent established by abuses of his constitutional authority to rule the White House and Washington D.C. Senator Robert Byrd who was elected to Congress in 1952 is one among many who presided over much of the political maneuvering which led to this state of affairs. Now, he finds it politically expedient to question Obama's Czar appointments. Do you think they really had no idea of where this was all heading? On the question of whether it was all planned or accidental, I recommend None Dare Call It Conspiracy(pdf).

The recent appointment of John Holdren as Obama's Science Czar is one that has caused quite a few to sit up and take notice of the rather disturbing implications of this person advising the President on matters of science. Not that you need reminding, but medicine is a science by the way, and that is a hot issue with this administration. People are asking questions such as: Is John Holdren Obama's Dr. Strangelove?

See forwarded message below.

Bobby Garner
http://www.congregator.net/

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 25 years later - and it's all happening!
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:29:25 +1000
From: Gee Temp
To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@mail.wide.net.au>


Picture of the future – Globalisation

"Power is in inflicting pain & humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces & putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.

Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?

It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias the old reformers imagined.

A world of fear & treachery & torment, a world of trampling & being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain.

The old civilisations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred.

In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, & self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy - everything.

Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution.

We have cut the links between child & parent, & between man & man, & between man & woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives & no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science.

There will be no distinction between beauty & ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed.

But always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing & constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever."

From the book, "1984" - George Orwell,

7 comments:

Bobby Garner said...

I believe that Orwell's world relates to the Transcendence which comes immediately after the relatively short Communitarian synthesis phase of the Dialectic. The synthesis will be the failed Utopia's mentioned by Orwell, the impossible Brave New World. The book None Dare Call It Conspiracy makes the point that Socialist theory assumes that it will lead to conditions so peaceful and tranquil that there will be no need for government. That's what total disarmament is all about in anticipation of that.

At the time that belief in Utopia proves false, no one will have any ability to resist the formation of Orwell's Jack Booted power based omnipotent thuggery. The sudden failure of Utopia, will initiate the Transcendance to Transtopian Transhumanism. This establishes the conditions stated by Orwell as a technology based, anti-human death-dealing tyranny.

the tent lady said...

I don't understand how belief in Utopia can be proved false. Belief is not based in facts or evidence, and people do not believe in something because they think it's true, nor do they stop believing when the evidence proves it to be false. Who says there will be a sudden failure of Utopia Bobby? I don't see how that can happen.

I'm sorry but I see this whole theory of the final stage of human evolution after the ultimate synthesis makes me a tool for the Jack booted thugs, since apparently the only way to avoid the final death curtain is to help the world maintain their belief in communitarian Utopia. Wouldn't it be far better for me to help prolong the synthesis if the last phase of the dialectic is torture and death?

Bobby Garner said...

Utopia will not fail, but it will fail to materialize. Every belief which is contrary to the truth and reality is eventually proven false. Why is that so? There is a very close relationship between belief and ignorance. I have written quiet a lot about this, but my most concise statement answers the question: What is belief?

Communitarianism is the new term for Utopia, and replaces Communism which was the term used by Marx.

"To achieve the SOCIALIST dictatorship of the proletariat, three things would have to be accomplished:
(1) The elimination of all right to private property;
(2) The dissolution of the familv unit; and
(3) Destruction of what Marx referred to as the "opiate of the people," religion.

Marx went on to state that when the dictatorship of the proletariat had accomplished these
three things throughout the world, ... the all powerful state' would miraculously
wither away and state socialism would give way to Communism. You wouldn't need any
government at all." - None Dare Call It Conspiracy

We know now that Communism died at the end of the Cold War. The events surrounding the death of Communism just happened to lead directly to the birth of Communitatianism in Rio in 1992. So the full implementation of Communitarianism is the expected Utopia. The definition of Utopia according to Webster Online is: "an imaginary and indefinitely remote place". Infinitely remote would be more accurate. Wordnet defines it as: "ideally perfect state; especially in its social and political and moral aspects". Does this not define the dreams of Communitarians?

Now, what does "ideally perfect" mean?
IDEAL; adj. 1. existing as an archtypical idea. 2. a: existing as a mental image or in fancy or imagination only. b: conforming exactly to an ideal, law or standard: PERFECT.
IDEAL; noun 1. a standard of perfection, beauty or excellence.

The Ideal Gas does not exist anywhere in the universe, but the "Standard Gas Law" is based on it and finds great utility in the physical sciences. The formula for the pendulum is based on ideals which are physically impossible. A weight having zero mass suspended from an infinitesimally small cord.

According to this logic, Utopia is the very idea of Communitarianism. The design standard which guides its formation and implementation. Not the actual practice of it.

Utopia and perfection are gross contradictions of physical reality. Only God is the authentic original, IDEAL, ESSENTIAL, the TRUE, the STANDARD, the PERFECT. It is beyond the reach of man, therefore man will never achieve it. No belief can overcome the truth.

The vast majority of people working for the communitarian ideal believe it will materialize in physical reality due to the influence of the "mass mind". They also believe in magic.

When it becomes obvious that the mass mind is powerless, and their ideal, like free energy, is impossible, they will revert back to their power base and rule by force. There will be no other choice available.

Bobby Garner said...

Niki, your last question causes some concern. It implies that you may be thinking that supporting the synthesis is your best choice because it's better than what follows. I have shown many times the futility of choosing the lessor evil, and it seems that you are suggesting that this is what we should do.

The widely accepted belief that the Dialectic is composed of only the thesis, antithesis and synthesis does not hold up under careful analysis. The book Social Disorganization explains the process: "Certain forces (thesis and antithesis) were present in the society beneath the surface which eventually led to its disorganization and the establishment of a new order (synthesis). This new order will be drastically different from the society which it superseded, but it too will be a transitory phase. Eventually a third organization of society (Transcendence) will appear which may continue for generations." Why? Because all power to resist will have been taken away from the people and consentrated in the hands of a few.

This resets the clock and restarts the centuries old tried and failed power based control. At this time it will have been proven that man has run out to the end of his rope, exhausting every conceivable form of rule. This is where Divine intervention kicks in and takes full control. Satan, the original liar and deceiver will be out of business, and none will ever again be tolerated.

It is my opinion that the Dialectic Tetrad provides the only satisfactory explanation for this transient nature of the synthesis which nearly everyone seems to be working for believing it will establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. The idea that it can be sustained is even more hopeless than the belief that it can be realized.

Bobby Garner said...

When Orwell says: "the stupid hedonistic Utopias the old reformers imagined", he is looking back to the future which is now. Except for a few isolated cases, there has been no effort to establish a Utopia. Nothing even closely resembling the global reach of "Visions" of peace and security in a Brave New World. That is happening only now with Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, and population reduction, all under the banner of Communitarianism. This is the only hope of global Utopia since the mythical and fictitious Atlantis.

Orwell is saying this Utopia was only imagined, and my position is that it is an impossibility and for that reason will not happen. Contrary to what many may wish to argue, the conditions disclosed in '1984' haven't completely happened yet. They are still working on their Utopian ideas for instance, which we know as Communitarianism.

We have recognized that any effort to defeat it is futile, but that doesn't mean that the only other option is to join the movement. What I am suggesting is detachment and disengagement. In a word, Neutrality.

the tent lady said...

Bobby I was repeating the types of things the communitarans say to me, playing the Devil's advocate for a second, just to see where it goes. I love your explanation and am so grateful that you have the time to address these core issues. Their use of dialectical logic is so much a part of everything they say that they always almost make sense... almost. Your grasp of science is such a bonus to seeing the flaws in their political science, and I'm grateful for it!

And my dear friend, do not be concerned that I am capable of choosing the lessor of two weevils, since only yesterday I met the leader of the WISE group traveling with a group of high schoolers teaching them how to be better "stewards" of the Copper River Watershed. I looked right right at him and said "I am absoltely opposed to everything you stand for." He was so suprised he asked me "why?" I gave him an earful that amazed me.. my parting words were "Would you consider yourself to be a communitarian?" He replied, "I never heard that word before." So I said that maybe he should go look it up online, because that's what he's teaching our children.

So ya think WISE will ever invite me to teach local children anything? hehehe. I did suggest he bring the kids over to meet Tim because Tim has a lot to teach about living off the land here. They're camping at the Community League tomorrow night. Too bad our showers aren't hooked up yet, the Merc's are closed and we'd be the only showers in a twenty mile radius. I could plaster the bathroom walls with anti communitarian grafitti like I did to my fence in Seattle. :)

Bobby Garner said...

Why, you little devil you. :-) I knew about this side of you Niki but had never experienced it before. I must say though that it was fun. So now we know where it went, and it was a productive trip. I always learn something or get a better understand when I write about things. Explaining things in different words reinforces the concepts. There were only a couple of lines here that I could copy and paste. The rest had to be written from scratch.

Thanks for stopping me. I was seriously considering whether I should post again. Who knows where it might have ended up.

Maybe that WISE guy will find this post. But will he wise up?