This is a look at the Left. It has been occasioned by recent events; new, but with a long lead-up to them.
First, a look at the institution of marriage; as just looked at - with somewhat surprising nearsightedness, in my opinion - by the SCOTUS. Marriage - besides having very strong religious connotations - is conducive to a well-ordered society and state. The felicitous raising of children by their parents takes pressure off the state, to have to do something about the raising of children in the state. The commitment inherent in the marriage institution is, then, a legitimate interest of the state. In the American form of government - i.e., of a federation of states; and more specifically, a federal constitutional Republic - the federal government wouldn't normally have much if anything to say about this institution, because it is not one of the powers or specific areas of interest specifically delegated to the federal government in the constitutional contract (whereby the federal government is one of limited powers - "few and defined," in the very defining words of the so-called Father of the Constitution, James Madison). But the federal government has gotten involved in the area, via questions around taxation, e.g.; whereby the federal government has indicated its support for the institution by giving married couples a tax break, as opposed to two people simply living together.1 Leaving aside the question of taxation itself for the moment - i.e., the constitutionality of a federal income tax in the first place - the federal government also got involved in the matter via the Congress's passing of the so-called DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act). The SCOTUS has now ruled that Act unconstitutional, on a couple of grounds; one with some legitimacy, and one on very specious grounds.
The grounds with some legitimacy is the one that says that the subject is not one for the federal government to have gotten involved in in the first place, is, rather, in the States's domain.2 The other is a curious legal decision based on the presumption by at least some of the SCOTUS justices that the Act is based on 'bigotry', i.e., personal animosity towards same-sex persons. To which I can only groan, at first. And then utter one word in disgusted response:
Bollocks.3
This is what is passing for law in this day and age???…Apparently so; and I guess I should say, for further clarification: in this day and politically correct age. For we are living in dangerous times; whereby personal socio-political proclivities are starting to be the basis for purely legal decisions. But I'll continue, so as not to get bogged down in that subject; which is a subject entire in itself.
Second; and as well, a bit of a response to the 'same-sex' issue. Being a parent is the great civilizing influence on the human animal. That is what primarily moves him out of his animal (mammalian) nature and more into his human nature.4 It is, then, selfish of women who want to have children without the father; thus denying the father the experience of fatherhood - his primary responsibility in life. That is the primary reason why I am so opposed to single parenthood (and lesbian 'families').5 And support the institution of marriage.
Moving on to the issue of 'liberalism' - on the breaking-away from 'traditional values'/ways of being - itself. And I'll try to keep this treatise on the subject brief.
1) Leftists don't have to tell the truth about things, because they believe there is no right or wrong 'but thinking makes it so'; i.e., that if it furthers 'the cause', it's right. It is called 'situational ethics,' I believe is the term; also, 'Saul Alinsky ('Rules for Radicals') tactics'.6 It is also called corrupt behavior.
If you lie to people about something, you have lied to them. Period. It doesn't matter if your lie allowed you to do something that 'furthers your cause'. You lied. And its employment - as a weapon, of war - brands you as a liar, and a cheat, and a deceiver.
As, e..g., the man who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama's lying about his background.
That way of being does not lend itself to the bringing about of the Nova Earth, and the Nova Being inhabiting that New Earth. It brings about, rather, a pale imitation of the real thing.
Which brings me to my second point:
2) Liberals - not even hardcore Leftists, aka socialists (perhaps aka democratic socialists; as 'opposed' to merely 'social democrats'. Or just plain outright communist/statist goons) - love to spend other people's money for them - be 'liberal' with others' income. There is some good intentionality in there - lend a hand to the less well-off - and some truth in it, as to the ideal society (that we are all heading for; and so they have an intuition of, an intimation of, the future ). But the larger truth in it is that they are trying to create a godly society without God. (As Marx envisioned.) And more: even trying to usurp God. Be the equal of God. Storm the ramparts of the highest degree of the heavens, as it were.
And again: there is some truth in their position; for we are all God. But of God. Are all One. But are not the One.
We are of The One. Sparks, fractals, points of view of the All That Is. Until we return fully to the house of our Father, as the parable goes, of the Prodigal Son. Have 'earned' our way back to total Unity. But we do that through awareness, and understanding (having learned our lessons, as gods in the making), and gratitude, for what we have been given: life - sentiency - with meaning. NOT through a process marked by the quality, the attitude, of arrogance, of pridefulness ('Look at me! Look upon me! I am a god! I am a power unto myself!').
Pride, indeed, goeth before a fall…
…and speaking further of the Bible:
The Christian tradition has 'identified' this 'weakness' in the story - parable? - about the fall of Lucifer, and how a third of the hosts of heaven fell with him, in declaring himself the equal of his Father/Mother God,7 who would lead the offspring of God back to the house of their Source by Force. By compulsion. Whereas the Christed Son would accomplish The Mission by the use of the power of Love - the very stuff of the universe, of their Being (so that we are always 'in love'). And so, to this day, there are the souls who believe in the power of forcing people to 'be good', and those who believe in the power of allowing their fellow offspring to be good. That it is their choice. Not to be made for them, in a process marked, and marred, by the quality of compulsion.
We, here, now, are faced with that choice. The choice, not only whether or not to return to the House of our Father by obedience to the loving Will of the Father - or even at all. But whether, or not, to follow the way, the path, of Force.
The way of the Fallen One.
Which way leads to perdition. For it is not the way of the Creator. It is the way of a son of God who would feign be a Usurper.
And we come now, back, to the story - yes, even the parable - of our time. And the 'microcosm of the macrocosm,' of the phenomenon of a half black, and half white, Usurper 'on the throne' - in the Oval Office.8 The highest office in the land 'of the free, and the home of the brave' 9 - of America; the former hope of the world, in laying down the template for the future world: of essential liberty.
It can still be its potential.
But it needs a little 'house' cleaning done to it first. A little 'house' work.
And not - I repeat: not - by Force. Which would defeat the spirit, the purpose of the whole exercise. But rather, in a way that emulates the way of the Father. Which is to say: the way of Love.
May we rise to this occasion. In our ongoing ascent to the furthest reaches of the heavens.
Back home.
Where we belong.
All.
Of Us.
Which brings up the 'Compassion' bit of the title of this blog. To say: that we are all 'saved', even those who deny their own Creator - deny there is any real reason for existence, and have willingly, by choice, gone over to the Dark side; there, doing hideous things to their fellow divine sparks, for thinking them, and treating them like, 'other', separate from themselves.
How much more compassionate can you get than that.
Which brings up the 'Compassion' bit of the title of this blog. To say: that we are all 'saved', even those who deny their own Creator - deny there is any real reason for existence, and have willingly, by choice, gone over to the Dark side; there, doing hideous things to their fellow divine sparks, for thinking them, and treating them like, 'other', separate from themselves.
How much more compassionate can you get than that.
---
footnotes:
1 And like the support given to the adoption of children by the issuance of federal tax credits; and some states having followed suit.
2 But the ruling also failed to override a lower federal court order ruling a proposition passed by a solid majority of the people of the state of California barring same-sex marriage to be 'unconstitutional'. But I thought this was supposed to be a State issue; not a federal issue???
Go figure.
3 I'll add a quick couple more here, for clarity's sake:
Homosexuality - and the whole range of 'sexual preferences'/'gender disorders' - is primarily due to an imbalance of hormones in the womb/fetal bath at a particular, early stage of fetal development, when the fetal brain is being sexed, resulting in male brains being 'wired' into genetically female bodies and vice versa and every abnormal stage on the spectrum in between, like trannies. The hormonal imbalance is due to a number of causes, which is a story in itself; suffice it to say here that homosexuality, then, is due to an abnormality; and therefore, it is an abnormality.
That's not bigotry That's science. And we should not be making an abnormal state 'the new normal'. That is to compound an error; to institutionalize an error. To try to make two wrongs make a right.
So, back to the traditional 'take' on the institution of marriage; which has merit.
(N.B.: Homosexuality can also have a karmic factor involved. But that discussion would take this blog beyond its purpose.)
3 I'll add a quick couple more here, for clarity's sake:
Homosexuality - and the whole range of 'sexual preferences'/'gender disorders' - is primarily due to an imbalance of hormones in the womb/fetal bath at a particular, early stage of fetal development, when the fetal brain is being sexed, resulting in male brains being 'wired' into genetically female bodies and vice versa and every abnormal stage on the spectrum in between, like trannies. The hormonal imbalance is due to a number of causes, which is a story in itself; suffice it to say here that homosexuality, then, is due to an abnormality; and therefore, it is an abnormality.
That's not bigotry That's science. And we should not be making an abnormal state 'the new normal'. That is to compound an error; to institutionalize an error. To try to make two wrongs make a right.
So, back to the traditional 'take' on the institution of marriage; which has merit.
(N.B.: Homosexuality can also have a karmic factor involved. But that discussion would take this blog beyond its purpose.)
4 I speak of 'him', as the mother has her own instincts going, for the nurturing and protecting of her offspring. The father cares, but more in the role of protecting his property.
'In the beginning,' the Homo erectus, of course - the template for modern man - didn't even understand the role of his erectus in the appearance of a baby in his clan. The 'seed' awareness only came later, in the picture of the evolving of human life on Earth.
(Which is a more complex story than our current 'experts' tell us. But that, as they say…)
5 A correlate subject here (which I briefly touched on in footnote 3 above) is the masculinizing of females going on - the same as the feminizing of males going on - because of environmental influences, such as the estrogen mimics/ endocrine disrupters in plastics, that have become endemic in our polluted waterways. But again, that's a whole subject-story in itself.
6 And 'taqiyya,' or 'taqiyah', in Islamism, as I understand it: their 'principle' of Holy deception to unbelievers/'the enemy'. And we are in a war; between the socialists/atheists and the capitalists/Christians. In showdown time.
7 And the Elohim; which is a plural term. But we won't go there, right now…
8 I have been an unhappy camper ever since I learned that my Constitution was being trampled on; that there was a Usurper in the Oval Office of my country.
The excesses of the Bush/Cheney administration were bad enough - needed, and still do, to be unmasked, especially for its role in 9/11. But outright defiance of the Constitution, in letting a person run for and be elected to and be confirmed in the highest office in the land who was and is not eligible for that particular office - this was rubbing our noses in it.
'Our': the citizenry At least, that segment of it who stand with the constitutional republic; and will not stand for seeing it being turned into an empire.
Humanity has had 'the grandeur that was Rome'. It doesn't need to go through all that sort of lesson-learning again.
And P.S. If it turns out that the Usurper's biological father was not, after all, who he has sworn it was, and that person was, after all, a U.S citizen at the time of the Usurper's birth, the Usurper still needs to vacate the office, forthwith; for he has committed crimes in that coverup; and is, therefore, not just a liar, and a cheat, and a deceiver. But a criminal to boot.
To be booted.
Before he really swings into action, and jackboots America into oblivion.
Or at least, tries to.
He's got more than a few patriots standing between him and that desired outcome, of his and his cadre; who have drunk from a poisoned chalice. The poison of Force. Rather than the elixir of Choice.
8 I have been an unhappy camper ever since I learned that my Constitution was being trampled on; that there was a Usurper in the Oval Office of my country.
The excesses of the Bush/Cheney administration were bad enough - needed, and still do, to be unmasked, especially for its role in 9/11. But outright defiance of the Constitution, in letting a person run for and be elected to and be confirmed in the highest office in the land who was and is not eligible for that particular office - this was rubbing our noses in it.
'Our': the citizenry At least, that segment of it who stand with the constitutional republic; and will not stand for seeing it being turned into an empire.
Humanity has had 'the grandeur that was Rome'. It doesn't need to go through all that sort of lesson-learning again.
And P.S. If it turns out that the Usurper's biological father was not, after all, who he has sworn it was, and that person was, after all, a U.S citizen at the time of the Usurper's birth, the Usurper still needs to vacate the office, forthwith; for he has committed crimes in that coverup; and is, therefore, not just a liar, and a cheat, and a deceiver. But a criminal to boot.
To be booted.
Before he really swings into action, and jackboots America into oblivion.
Or at least, tries to.
He's got more than a few patriots standing between him and that desired outcome, of his and his cadre; who have drunk from a poisoned chalice. The poison of Force. Rather than the elixir of Choice.
9 which current condition remains to be seen...
No comments:
Post a Comment