The Reasons We Fight The New World Order
Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 9 months ago to Government
This well-written article precisely reflects my thoughts exactly. Here's one of my favorite lines from the article: "It is no accident that NWO elites end up contradicting themselves by claiming morality to be meaningless while pronouncing THEIR personal morality to be pure."
Governments come and go. Monarchies, Parliaments, Communists, Socialists, Tories, Whigs, Republicans, Democrats fool the electorate into evangelism in the latest "ism". But, all is usurped by the Rothschield Maxim,"Give me the power to issue a nation's currency and I care not who makes the laws." Bankers are the henchmen of source evil. They profit in peace or war by alternating the cycles. Sadly in war, blood is the health of the nation. More valuable than gold to a debt monitization economy because debt monitization cannot exist without Tribute Slaves. The debt monitization economy cannot collapse except on: 1) failure of war 2) whim of banker / stock market manipulation 3) prosperity which pays down debt which cancels currency in circulation. Fractional reserve banking is the most pervasive form of slavery types ever conceived by the mind of man, not requiring, governors, visors,drivers, strong arms, whips, chains, swords or spears to effect. For the taxed Tribute Slave will work himself to death not requiring all the above cited drivers if only he can "keep a little". Bankers have no distinguishing characteristics born of race or gender and exist rarely among the major population; making them impossible to isolate and remove to liquidation. Because the Tribute Slave is ignorant of this, and because the Tribute Slave is bred to trust worthiness, honesty, good will, moral character, a true believer, unwilling to see the darkness in human beings; they will not accept, believe, or learn that respectable looking men of outward philanthropy could really be the small, shabby, man behind the curtain in "The Wizard of OZ"
I have to point out the flawed assertion that says that since the author doesn't know something, no one else does either. That's merely elitism of another form! What the author should have said was something like "I don’t claim to know what ideology would make a perfect society, and I certainly don’t know the exact solutions needed to get there. I hope that eventually someone figures it out."
I can forgive him a minor slip like that, however, as the rest is very cogent and well-spoken.
http://personalliberty.com/author/brando...
But again, as I have said countless times here, there has to be some morality because if it is different for everyone, then there is none.
It has to be defined outside of man, else, the Elites are no different than us in their pursuit of self.
The other term for laws which come from "inside" men is moral relativism - the concept that I can just make things up (and change them) as I go along. This is the ultimate mentality of the elite.
The facts that give rise to morality are the requirements of human survival and our necessity of making choices. Morality based on subjectively making things up in Pragmatism or moral relativism versus mystic appeals to an unexplained supposed intrinsic "outside source" is a false alternative. Rejecting either side of that false alternative is not by itself enough.
Rand herself debunks this as logically fallacious because it asserts that human beings have the power the define, alter or change the universe, when such is not the case. We only recognize the principles of the universe and categorize them as "natural law". The principles do not exist because we exist, but exist wholly and independently from us, but until we obtain consciousness, we are both oblivious to them and they are completely inapplicable to us in such a state.
Morality can be said to be the study or exercise in applying principles and concepts that interact with natural laws to bring about consequences. "Immoral" acts are those which violate natural law and bring about consequences with negative associations or value, while "moral" acts are those which act in concert with natural law and bring about consequences with positive associations or value.
Not so. And I have read Piekoff's work and you are perverting the words in the very first chapter as per my first assertion.
I agree that knowledge is restricted to man, because it is a measure of one's understanding of the universe and therefore must be directly tied to man itself, but principles exist independently of our knowledge of such. Gravity has existed long before you or I were born, and will continue to exist long after. The speed of light is a principle - a constant - just as e, i, the constitution of matter in the universe, etc. All of those are natural laws and principles.
Now, are there principles of human interaction which are dependent on the existence of man to be relevant? Surely. But it is wholly fallacious to assert that everything originates with man's perception.
For a beehive.
For an ant colony.
Perhaps even a grove of trees.
You're not a bee, an ant and if you are not happy with where you are, get up and move. You're not a tree.
http://youtu.be/YfRtbIQ1kTw