Si Deus pro nobis quis contra nos? If God is for us, who can be against us? In English that doesn't really make sense. Lots of people can be against us. We glance over the word 'be.' In this case, it has a profound operation. What it really means is, if God is for us, then what else is there? None can contend with the will of God and succeed.
It's so important to remember simple things, like the fact that we are to be doing His will, bringing about His kingdom. " No one will say,' Lo, here it is!' or ,' Lo, there it is!' for the Kingdom of God is within you..." When we say the 'Our Father,' we say," ... Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven..." The kingdom of God comes through obedience, purity, and uprightness of heart. And when it does come, it brings with it all the benefits of a kingdom," But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you."
Before Christ said the latter, he had been talking about the cares of life. He wasn't talking about the wants of life, he was addressing basic human needs saying," Therefore, take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things." What would Christ say to the Catholic Church in America? What would he say about our fiscal dependency upon the federal government that makes us beholden to the point of moral dereliction? What would he say to a Church that values its tax exempt status over its sacred, God given mission to denounce evil and propagate righteousness?
When the clergy conscientiously fails to denounce politicians who support the institutionalization and protection of evils like abortion, homosexual marriage, pornography because it would imperil the finances, the rights, and the privileges of the Church, what do you imagine Christ ought to say? Is it too much to think about? Is it not your problem? Not your business? The same Church that does this is the same Church that teaches that you may not do evil to accomplish good. Is this a real case of the clergy saying, "Do as I say and not as I do and all will be well?" Or is it quite simply what it appears to be... cowardice?
"But we could lose our parishes, our schools, our hospitals, our cathedrals...," So? We should do evil, or fail to do good, then, so that we might obtain the privilege of existing from the wicked? I think not. All who offer this argument are like Peter when he took Christ aside and began to rebuke him, when He told them that He must go to Jerusalem and all the things that He would suffer. Peter had a worldly mind, in which the preservation of what was already was the highest goal. As St. Thomas Aquinas said," If the highest goal of a captain was the preservation of his ship, it would never leave port." In essence, that is the philosophy of the coward. It's very similar to the philosophy of hedonism, which is also the voice of the world, which says that pleasure and convenience are the chiefest goods. Christ rebuked him for it," But he turned and said to Peter," Get behind me Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."
"But we could literally and radically cease to exist! We could find ourselves in a situation not unlike that of the 3rd and 4th century Church!" You don't say? You mean that bishops and priests and religious might have to work jobs like the early Christians did? You mean that the Catholic Church would have to pay its own way, as it once did? I'm reminded of the 'Fable of the Bees' whose hive through corruption grew to a size they would not have done had they not become corrupt, and how by God taking from them in a single hour that ill gotten gain and restoring to them that virtue lost, they found real happiness and true goodness, though they suffered greatly." Beware the leaven of the pharisees, which is hypocrisy!" That leaven which puffs up and expands, and makes things seem greater than they are. That leaven which has gotten into the Church, swollen it, bloated it, till it is distended and grotesque.
Now is better than ever for the responsibility of the Church, of the bishops, priests, and the religious to be realized, for them to stand up and say to the flock," Gird your loins... for you are a stranger here." So that the whole Church may say with Christ," I must go to Jerusalem..." For as St. Paul says," If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him." And do you so quickly forget the words written to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna? " Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. be faithful unto death, and i will give you the crown of life. he who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death."
The Church has the responsibility of St. John the Baptist in this time. Its purpose is to be preparing the Church for the return of Christ. It's to be bearing fruit in season and out of season. Do not forget so easily the fig tree which the Lord cursed and upon which he found no fruit out of season. He spoke out against Herod, because of his marriage to his brother's sister. St. John spoke out against the same Herod from whom the pharisees received monies. Against that same Herod who gilded the temple in gold, and draped it in silk, and built up its colonnades. The same Herod who made the temple more glorious than it had been since the days of Solomon. And what did Christ say when the apostles marveled and pointed it out to him?" Truly I say unto you, there shall not be one stone left here upon another."
That is what the Church must do. At present, that is not what we are doing. At present it is we who are the pharisees. It's our religious institution taking the hush money." Take this and be quiet on politics. Take this money, and let society be the government's business. Take this money and provide the medical care we tell you to. Take this money and teach what we tell you to in your schools."
It is, it has become an adulterous relationship that the Church has with the government. That should make Catholics tremble in fear and with shame." I have seen thine adulteries... for I AM a jealous God." On the one hand we can make a clean break and experience a liberation of conscience unprecedented. Can you imagine? True freedom! Not that other sort contrived by men that the government distributes arbitrarily at its leisure. The freedom that Christ gives! On the other hand, we can be like Judas Iscariot, the traitor, and take the thirty pieces of silver.
All the succor, all the benefit, all the amicability, influence, wealth, and power in the world can not justify the silence the Church is selling to the government. It cannot. The Church sold its voice, and now wonders why the sheep have scattered. Where is the shepherds voice? Where is his crook? At the risk of ruining the literary flow of this letter, I want to quote from Braveheart when he addresses the nobles who are a type of the clergy in this case, specifically the bishops," Why is that impossible? You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right to something better." This is precisely the situation we are in.
Make no mistake, if we were to ever be our true selves, it could only result in persecution. When you think of the dullness and banality of your own faith, do not wonder. When you wonder at the timidity of the Church, and you see how the government has us in a convenient little box with all other religions, hope shrinks away. When you wonder what happened, when you read the Book of Acts and you look at the Early Fathers, when you read the lives of saints and you wonder," What happened? Where is this Church? What changed? Why is the Catholic Church just another face in the crowd in the 21st Century?" You know in your heart the reason. It's because we asked for permission to exist. It's because we took their money. It's because we allowed ourselves to be subjugated, literally we became subjects, whereas our fathers would not tolerate such a yoke.
We have been called to suffer with Christ, who gave Himself for the life of the world. It is not always better that we should live. "Greater love hath no man, than to lay down his life for his friends." The Church must lay its life down for the sake of humanity... we were called to do this. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you. Are you persecuted? Are you really persecuted? Or do people just disagree with you? Or do people intermittently just not like you? Is your Church really challenging society with its godliness? Or is your Church merely a carping annoyance whose moral opinions are little more than an occasional gadfly that can be shewed away? The answer means everything.
The Church is called to be Christs. What do you think it means? You know what it means! Friendship with Christ is enmity with the world. That is not just a reality for the individual Christian, it is the reality for the Church. Pray for your priests to have moral courage. Pray for your bishops to stand in the day of temptation. Pray for the courage they need to seek first the kingdom of Heaven. Pray for the resolve necessary to accept what will be lost. Pray for them to have a vision of what will be gained, for," Where there is no vision the people perish." Pray for hope, for," He who keeps the law, happy is he." the law of righteousness.
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Saturday, 2 March 2013
Friday, 7 January 2011
Dumbocracy
There is no more sure means of destroying a civilization, a society, a religion or any other institution than by employing democracy. A lot of people go on and on about how great democracy is. They mention freedom and democracy together, as though freedom is gotten or ensured by democracy. But it has always been known that democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the many over the few, the ignorant over the enlightened, the base over the excellent, the mean-spirited over the noble-spirited.
You know from my blogs that I never make ostentatious appeals to other men greater than myself. I don't quote them to make my points, but I resort to the application of reason. However, on this subject, why should you believe me? Since childhood everyone around us has been filling our heads with democracy. They've been telling you since the first time you said the pledge of allegiance," A free country is a democratic country!" and,"Democracy makes all men equal!" You've even seen us "bring" democracy to more than one country by force in the last twenty years. Whenever someone would say something about another form of government, they were shot down with their comments and ideas, unless they were shooting down the other forms of government.
Republics were for Romans, Nazis, and Soviets. Monarchies were for the British and Arabs. Dictatorships were for banana republics and Asian people. And all those countries that were truly democratic, like so many African states, were simply doing it wrong. I can't undo the last 20 years of brainwashing with one blog. But I can break from tradition and give some quotes from greater men than myself. Listen to them:
"In our so-called democracy we are accustomed to give the majority what they want rather than educate them to understand what is best for them."
~Carter G. Woodson~
"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time."
~E. B. White~
"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."
~Ron Paul~
"The world is weary of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians."
~Benjamin Disraeli~
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism."
~Vladimir Lenin~
"Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated."
~Gilbert K. Chesterton~
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."
~H. L. Mencken~
"Democracy is the road to socialism."
~Karl Marx~
"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."
~Franklin D. Roosevelt~
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."
~Oscar Wilde~
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."
~John F. Kennedy~
"Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure."
~Ronald Reagan~
"The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires change of heart."
~Mohandas Gandhi~
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
~Winston Churchill~
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
~John Adam~
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "
~John Adams~
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
~John Adams~
"Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal."
~Aristotle~
"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers."
~Aristotle~
"In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme."
~Aristotle~
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."
~Aristotle~
"The mob is the mother of tyrants."
~Diogenes~
"Democracy passes into despotism."
~Plato~
"Democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike."
~Plato~
"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."
~Plato~
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
You know from my blogs that I never make ostentatious appeals to other men greater than myself. I don't quote them to make my points, but I resort to the application of reason. However, on this subject, why should you believe me? Since childhood everyone around us has been filling our heads with democracy. They've been telling you since the first time you said the pledge of allegiance," A free country is a democratic country!" and,"Democracy makes all men equal!" You've even seen us "bring" democracy to more than one country by force in the last twenty years. Whenever someone would say something about another form of government, they were shot down with their comments and ideas, unless they were shooting down the other forms of government.
Republics were for Romans, Nazis, and Soviets. Monarchies were for the British and Arabs. Dictatorships were for banana republics and Asian people. And all those countries that were truly democratic, like so many African states, were simply doing it wrong. I can't undo the last 20 years of brainwashing with one blog. But I can break from tradition and give some quotes from greater men than myself. Listen to them:
"In our so-called democracy we are accustomed to give the majority what they want rather than educate them to understand what is best for them."
~Carter G. Woodson~
"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time."
~E. B. White~
"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."
~Ron Paul~
"The world is weary of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians."
~Benjamin Disraeli~
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism."
~Vladimir Lenin~
"Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated."
~Gilbert K. Chesterton~
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."
~H. L. Mencken~
"Democracy is the road to socialism."
~Karl Marx~
"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."
~Franklin D. Roosevelt~
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."
~Oscar Wilde~
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."
~John F. Kennedy~
"Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure."
~Ronald Reagan~
"The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires change of heart."
~Mohandas Gandhi~
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
~Winston Churchill~
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
~John Adam~
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "
~John Adams~
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
~John Adams~
"Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal."
~Aristotle~
"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers."
~Aristotle~
"In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme."
~Aristotle~
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."
~Aristotle~
"The mob is the mother of tyrants."
~Diogenes~
"Democracy passes into despotism."
~Plato~
"Democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike."
~Plato~
"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."
~Plato~
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Labels:
Africa,
Asia,
Australia,
Democracy,
Europe,
Government,
Ideas,
North America,
Opinions,
People,
Politics,
Quotations,
Republic,
Revolution,
South America,
Thoughts,
Voter,
World
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Abortion- Not Smart
Talking about abortion is always difficult, not because we must grapple with semantics, morals, ideas, ethics, virtues, science, medicine, or anything else of that order. It is difficult to talk about because there is so much wrong with abortion that one struggles to know wear to start, which door to enter, where to grab on, which error and vice to first expose. Now, perhaps some of you are in favor of abortion and don't like what I've just said, but hear my argument if you will; I'm going to keep this one secular. I will gladly read any rebuttal in the comments section.
First, let me not make a moral criticism of abortion, but rather let me propound to you some commonsense reasons for why abortion is bad for society. In the first place, it causes hypocrisy in government. The United States government says that it does not fund abortions with tax payer money, at least at this present moment. Is this true? No, and an emphatic resounding 'no' at that. Companies like McDonald's, Sam Adams, Coca Cola, Swiffer and many more give millions and millions to Planned Parenthood every year so that they can have huge tax write-offs. That means that the tax money they would have had to pay was diverted to an organization whose primary mission is to provide abortions and contraception. Monies owed to the state, taxes, was given to abortions.
How exactly does the government not pay for abortions when such so-called philanthropy is at the expense of the government, a detriment to its total collection? What? Because the money didn't pass from the government's hands the government didn't fund abortions? How can anyone say that when it was the government in the first place who agreed not to collect the monies so that it could be so diverted? The government is financially complicit in abortion. For the government to say that it doesn't fund abortion is a pathetically feeble deceit of the first order.
Are you not convinced? Let's try this with other organizations. What if Smith & Wesson had given one million dollars to the Irish political party Sinn Fein back when they were fund raising in America during the 1970's, during 'The Troubles,' for the IRA. Keep in mind that the IRA is considered a terrorist organization by the United States. Let's imagine further that Smith & Wesson got a tax break out of it. Everyone in America and the U.K. would be screaming about how the U.S. government was funding terrorism against the U.K. in Northern Ireland, in the same fashion that the PRC and USSR funded North Korea and North Vietnam.
Or let's imagine that the U.S. government declared that it wasn't attempting to sway the Iraqi economy in any particular direction, that it wasn't interested in imperialism or colonialism. Then, let us imagine further that congress passed a bill which said to all U.S. oil corporations that they would only pay 50% domestic taxes and 75% foreign for 20 years if they established themselves inside Iraqi oil fields. The U.S. government's actions would be irreconcilable with its words.
This is precisely what we have here: lies, deceit, and hypocrisy. Do you imagine that this sort of behavior is acceptable and good for government? Or do you suppose that such governments are worthy to govern their people? Can such governments be trusted? Perhaps, up until now you've been saying," The government does the same thing with write-offs to religious organizations." You are correct, but the government never said,"We don't give money to religious organizations." What the government says is that there is a separation of Church and State, so that no religion is founded or established by the government. That statement was in direct condemnation of what king Henry VIII did when he established and founded the Church of England with his secular power.
Also, notice that it is a separation of Church and State, not church and State. If the separation of Church and State is to be understood as an absolute as so many like to suggest, how then does the State impose this law upon the religious without dissolving such a separation? The very idea doesn't even make sense. How are they separate when religious interference in politics is limited and prohibited by the state if such restrictions are imposed by the state? It cannot be! This species of separation defies logic, unless such a phenomenon were accidental and mutual, but it is not. The nature of the separation must be otherwise defined. Ergo, as stated, there is a separation of Church and State, so that no religion is founded or established by the government.
So, it isn't the same. What happens with abortion and religious organizations are very dissimilar in substantial ways. There's no need to address or entertain that assertion further. Let's rather look at the fiscal responsibility of abortion. The last time I checked, every American has an estimated monetary value. Some of you might remember the old movie "Boy's Town" with Spencer Tracy. In that movie there is a line that says," That boy is worth $10,000 dollars to the state!" It was said in reference to an orphan played by Mickey Rooney. But that was back during the Great Depression. Everyone back then was estimated to be worth about $10,000 to the state. That means that the mathematical mean of what a person will produce is X amount of dollar from the time they are born to the time they die.
We can contrast this with the debt average. I keep hearing rough numbers about the amount of debt allotted to each American; supposedly it's about $2.5 million and rising. That is to say, if we took the national debt and distributed it equally across every living citizen in the United States, each of us would owe approximately $2.5 million dollars. Now, today each of us is obviously worth more than $10,000 USD, quite a bit more in fact. More like $1.4 million. So, that means you still have $1.1 million hanging over your head if you are an American citizen.
All of that to say, every person born in America alleviates $1.4 dollars of debt. You could also say they generate $1.1 million. Still doesn't change the fact that they alleviate more than they generate. Abortion on the other hand costs money and generates none. Abortion is fiscally irresponsible; it does not have the power to generate wealth, only to stymie growth and progress. Any semblance of wealth is an illusion, comprised of money merely changing hands, insurance monies, and donations. It is a drain on society. The average abortion costs about $300 dollars, but certain procedures which occur less frequently can cost up to $1,000 dollars.
So, let's do some simple math here. I'm gonna be conservative with the constant here; the old general estimate of how many abortions have occurred since Roe vs. Wade is 50,000,000. Now, it's closer to 60,000,000 if it isn't almost there. So, 50,000,000 it is. And as we stated, the vast majority of abortions cost about $300 bucks. So, $300 bucks it is. Now, understand, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, that this is not statistical science here. This equation proves nothing. It's merely an illustration, but a powerful one.
If we multiply 50,000,000 with 300, we get 15,000,000,000. That's $15 billion dollars in debt to kill the unborn. If we multiply 1,400,000 with 50,000,000, we get 60,000,000,000,000. That's $60 Trillion dollars. To put that in perspective for you, the infamous national debt is $14 Trillion, 5 Billion. Abortion has hurt us financially, regardless of what oat bran hippie fear-mongering fanatics might say about over population. Abortion has hurt us badly. And because of abortion this generation not only suffers from old debt, but at some point will face what Europe now faces: more dependents than there are people to depend upon. Enter welfare state.
We can't say that we'd be better off or worse off debt-wise at the present moment, or at least I'm not qualified to say so. It would probably take a decade, hundreds of people, and lots of money to find out the precise truth of the matter. But it's very probably we'd be in the exact same place we are at right now, financially speaking. Except for one thing: having too few people to support the aging population of 'baby-boomers.' That certainly would not be a problem. Abortion is irresponsible, it exists primarily because of irresponsibility, and creates a culture of irresponsibility. Abortion is bad for the world, plain and simple, even leaving moral arguments aside.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
First, let me not make a moral criticism of abortion, but rather let me propound to you some commonsense reasons for why abortion is bad for society. In the first place, it causes hypocrisy in government. The United States government says that it does not fund abortions with tax payer money, at least at this present moment. Is this true? No, and an emphatic resounding 'no' at that. Companies like McDonald's, Sam Adams, Coca Cola, Swiffer and many more give millions and millions to Planned Parenthood every year so that they can have huge tax write-offs. That means that the tax money they would have had to pay was diverted to an organization whose primary mission is to provide abortions and contraception. Monies owed to the state, taxes, was given to abortions.
How exactly does the government not pay for abortions when such so-called philanthropy is at the expense of the government, a detriment to its total collection? What? Because the money didn't pass from the government's hands the government didn't fund abortions? How can anyone say that when it was the government in the first place who agreed not to collect the monies so that it could be so diverted? The government is financially complicit in abortion. For the government to say that it doesn't fund abortion is a pathetically feeble deceit of the first order.
Are you not convinced? Let's try this with other organizations. What if Smith & Wesson had given one million dollars to the Irish political party Sinn Fein back when they were fund raising in America during the 1970's, during 'The Troubles,' for the IRA. Keep in mind that the IRA is considered a terrorist organization by the United States. Let's imagine further that Smith & Wesson got a tax break out of it. Everyone in America and the U.K. would be screaming about how the U.S. government was funding terrorism against the U.K. in Northern Ireland, in the same fashion that the PRC and USSR funded North Korea and North Vietnam.
Or let's imagine that the U.S. government declared that it wasn't attempting to sway the Iraqi economy in any particular direction, that it wasn't interested in imperialism or colonialism. Then, let us imagine further that congress passed a bill which said to all U.S. oil corporations that they would only pay 50% domestic taxes and 75% foreign for 20 years if they established themselves inside Iraqi oil fields. The U.S. government's actions would be irreconcilable with its words.
This is precisely what we have here: lies, deceit, and hypocrisy. Do you imagine that this sort of behavior is acceptable and good for government? Or do you suppose that such governments are worthy to govern their people? Can such governments be trusted? Perhaps, up until now you've been saying," The government does the same thing with write-offs to religious organizations." You are correct, but the government never said,"We don't give money to religious organizations." What the government says is that there is a separation of Church and State, so that no religion is founded or established by the government. That statement was in direct condemnation of what king Henry VIII did when he established and founded the Church of England with his secular power.
Also, notice that it is a separation of Church and State, not church and State. If the separation of Church and State is to be understood as an absolute as so many like to suggest, how then does the State impose this law upon the religious without dissolving such a separation? The very idea doesn't even make sense. How are they separate when religious interference in politics is limited and prohibited by the state if such restrictions are imposed by the state? It cannot be! This species of separation defies logic, unless such a phenomenon were accidental and mutual, but it is not. The nature of the separation must be otherwise defined. Ergo, as stated, there is a separation of Church and State, so that no religion is founded or established by the government.
So, it isn't the same. What happens with abortion and religious organizations are very dissimilar in substantial ways. There's no need to address or entertain that assertion further. Let's rather look at the fiscal responsibility of abortion. The last time I checked, every American has an estimated monetary value. Some of you might remember the old movie "Boy's Town" with Spencer Tracy. In that movie there is a line that says," That boy is worth $10,000 dollars to the state!" It was said in reference to an orphan played by Mickey Rooney. But that was back during the Great Depression. Everyone back then was estimated to be worth about $10,000 to the state. That means that the mathematical mean of what a person will produce is X amount of dollar from the time they are born to the time they die.
We can contrast this with the debt average. I keep hearing rough numbers about the amount of debt allotted to each American; supposedly it's about $2.5 million and rising. That is to say, if we took the national debt and distributed it equally across every living citizen in the United States, each of us would owe approximately $2.5 million dollars. Now, today each of us is obviously worth more than $10,000 USD, quite a bit more in fact. More like $1.4 million. So, that means you still have $1.1 million hanging over your head if you are an American citizen.
All of that to say, every person born in America alleviates $1.4 dollars of debt. You could also say they generate $1.1 million. Still doesn't change the fact that they alleviate more than they generate. Abortion on the other hand costs money and generates none. Abortion is fiscally irresponsible; it does not have the power to generate wealth, only to stymie growth and progress. Any semblance of wealth is an illusion, comprised of money merely changing hands, insurance monies, and donations. It is a drain on society. The average abortion costs about $300 dollars, but certain procedures which occur less frequently can cost up to $1,000 dollars.
So, let's do some simple math here. I'm gonna be conservative with the constant here; the old general estimate of how many abortions have occurred since Roe vs. Wade is 50,000,000. Now, it's closer to 60,000,000 if it isn't almost there. So, 50,000,000 it is. And as we stated, the vast majority of abortions cost about $300 bucks. So, $300 bucks it is. Now, understand, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, that this is not statistical science here. This equation proves nothing. It's merely an illustration, but a powerful one.
If we multiply 50,000,000 with 300, we get 15,000,000,000. That's $15 billion dollars in debt to kill the unborn. If we multiply 1,400,000 with 50,000,000, we get 60,000,000,000,000. That's $60 Trillion dollars. To put that in perspective for you, the infamous national debt is $14 Trillion, 5 Billion. Abortion has hurt us financially, regardless of what oat bran hippie fear-mongering fanatics might say about over population. Abortion has hurt us badly. And because of abortion this generation not only suffers from old debt, but at some point will face what Europe now faces: more dependents than there are people to depend upon. Enter welfare state.
We can't say that we'd be better off or worse off debt-wise at the present moment, or at least I'm not qualified to say so. It would probably take a decade, hundreds of people, and lots of money to find out the precise truth of the matter. But it's very probably we'd be in the exact same place we are at right now, financially speaking. Except for one thing: having too few people to support the aging population of 'baby-boomers.' That certainly would not be a problem. Abortion is irresponsible, it exists primarily because of irresponsibility, and creates a culture of irresponsibility. Abortion is bad for the world, plain and simple, even leaving moral arguments aside.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Labels:
Abortion,
China,
Church and State,
Contraception,
Fiscal,
Government,
Hypocrisy,
Irresponsible,
Law,
Money,
Planned Parenthood,
PRC,
Russia,
USA,
USSR,
Welfare
Thursday, 30 December 2010
Conspiracy Theories and Their Theorists
It is important to know and acknowledge that conspiracies do exist, often elaborate in nature and other times deviously simple. They can occur at all levels of society amongst virtually any number of people. Indeed, we ourselves can unwittingly play a part in these conspiracies. However, just because anyone may be enacting a conspiracy anywhere does not mean that everyone is part of a conspiracy everywhere.
Most reasonable people will evaluate facts as they come and attempt to make sense out of them, according to their varying abilities, cataloging them chronologically into certain genres. As these facts and evidences become abundant, they build a case for something in their own mind. This same process occurs with the fomenting of a conspiracy theory. The problem is that often benign stimulus from unrelated events, such as any fact, may coalesce with what we think we know about the nature of a given entity.
To explain what I mean in the main, imagine if you will that Adam thinks he's been ripped off by the federal government on his tax return. Later, in his Psychology class, Adam learns that the U.S. government has performed many unethical psychological experiments on their own soldiers in the past. Next, Adam sees an insurance report that says he failed to appear in court. Finally, Adam sees Barack Obama openly criticizing and censuring U.S. citizens. Adam, finally, theorizes that the government is steadily pushing the limits of what it can get away with because it wants to have control over everything.
However, Adam has made this rather life changing decision from passion and not reason. Adam fails to realize that the government took back taxes from his tax return and thus it was smaller than he expected. Secondly, he does not know that the insurance report is showing the failure of a clerk to log his payment of a citation. Adam's tax return and citation have nothing to do with each other, further they have nothing to do with the President of the United States, neither do they have anything to do with psychological experiments from the 1950's and 1960's. In fact, each of these stimuli are so insular in nature that you can not logically connect them in any fashion, therefore, they do not corroborate.
What does corroborate is the emotion. Each even would cause any reasonable person to have feelings of disgust, anger, and indignation; all these emotions that Adam felt were directed toward government. The emotions were so intense that Adam's mind did not catalog these events according to their appropriate genre, but according to the emotion solicited. Each time the emotion comes up in relation to the subject at hand, in this case the government, it reinforces his conclusion.
To call a conspiracy theory a "theory" is a bit misleading; "theory" is a safe nomenclature that saves the conspiracist shame and embarrassment. In fact, most often the conspiracist is not propounding anything at all, rather they are stating what they believe to be a fact by the presentation of evidences. Adam believes the government is evil, he knows it, and instead of coming out and saying it plainly he does as much by stating all the things that we previously mentioned. He presents these evidences in such a fashion that will make anyone who doesn't agree with him seem unreasonable or stupid; this of course is an insecure attempt to manipulate the beliefs of others. Now, Adam is doing the conspiring.
Adam falls victim to something called cognitive dissonance, which is the tendency to accept information and ideas that confirm our beliefs, ideas, and world view, while at the same time it is the tendency to reject that information and those ideas that do not agree. Imagine that someone hears Adam's story and begins with great enthusiasm to commiserate with him and recount their own worse stories of how the government screwed them over. Do you imagine that Adam will continue with caution or will he not rather think," FINALLY! Someone who understands!" Then they get together and make even more elaborate theories and repeat them over and over until those become beliefs as well.
On the other hand, imagine that someone does not agree with Adam; instead they bring up various benevolent government programs with patriotic fervor and begin to laud the country. Do you imagine that Adam will immediately go along with them and abandon his point? No. He will attempt to point out the flaws of the person's argument and try to prove that the positives they mentioned are actually diabolical negatives designed to trick you into thinking the government is good. And if the person doesn't take what Adam says wholesale he will write them off as brainwashed imbeciles.
There is no sobriety of moderation in Adam, and in this case there is none in either of his opponents. That is the real problem with conspiracy theorists, they do not believe that what they are saying is a viable theory, but rather that it is bullet proof, ironclad, air-tight fact. Therefore, they become frustrated with anyone who doesn't agree with them. They offer their so-called "theories" with a disproportionate and imprudent enthusiasm, because to them they are factual discoveries. When they conjure up a so-called theory, it's like they are Isaac Newton having an apple fall on his head all over again. Ergo," People accepted Newton's apple, why not mine?" Which creates another conspiracy theory.
People who "live for conspiracy theories" are people who try to establish their self-worth through various substitutes, people who can't conquer reality so they criminalize it, people who are emotionally insecure, people who are lonely, people who have something to prove, who are cowardly, who worry themselves to death, or neurotic people who are bored.
Some conspiracy is real and some theorize soberly, but that is rare indeed. One should be careful not to become a laughing stock, just like one should be ashamed to make eyes roll. One should be careful not to become afraid of their own shadow.
Most reasonable people will evaluate facts as they come and attempt to make sense out of them, according to their varying abilities, cataloging them chronologically into certain genres. As these facts and evidences become abundant, they build a case for something in their own mind. This same process occurs with the fomenting of a conspiracy theory. The problem is that often benign stimulus from unrelated events, such as any fact, may coalesce with what we think we know about the nature of a given entity.
To explain what I mean in the main, imagine if you will that Adam thinks he's been ripped off by the federal government on his tax return. Later, in his Psychology class, Adam learns that the U.S. government has performed many unethical psychological experiments on their own soldiers in the past. Next, Adam sees an insurance report that says he failed to appear in court. Finally, Adam sees Barack Obama openly criticizing and censuring U.S. citizens. Adam, finally, theorizes that the government is steadily pushing the limits of what it can get away with because it wants to have control over everything.
However, Adam has made this rather life changing decision from passion and not reason. Adam fails to realize that the government took back taxes from his tax return and thus it was smaller than he expected. Secondly, he does not know that the insurance report is showing the failure of a clerk to log his payment of a citation. Adam's tax return and citation have nothing to do with each other, further they have nothing to do with the President of the United States, neither do they have anything to do with psychological experiments from the 1950's and 1960's. In fact, each of these stimuli are so insular in nature that you can not logically connect them in any fashion, therefore, they do not corroborate.
What does corroborate is the emotion. Each even would cause any reasonable person to have feelings of disgust, anger, and indignation; all these emotions that Adam felt were directed toward government. The emotions were so intense that Adam's mind did not catalog these events according to their appropriate genre, but according to the emotion solicited. Each time the emotion comes up in relation to the subject at hand, in this case the government, it reinforces his conclusion.
To call a conspiracy theory a "theory" is a bit misleading; "theory" is a safe nomenclature that saves the conspiracist shame and embarrassment. In fact, most often the conspiracist is not propounding anything at all, rather they are stating what they believe to be a fact by the presentation of evidences. Adam believes the government is evil, he knows it, and instead of coming out and saying it plainly he does as much by stating all the things that we previously mentioned. He presents these evidences in such a fashion that will make anyone who doesn't agree with him seem unreasonable or stupid; this of course is an insecure attempt to manipulate the beliefs of others. Now, Adam is doing the conspiring.
Adam falls victim to something called cognitive dissonance, which is the tendency to accept information and ideas that confirm our beliefs, ideas, and world view, while at the same time it is the tendency to reject that information and those ideas that do not agree. Imagine that someone hears Adam's story and begins with great enthusiasm to commiserate with him and recount their own worse stories of how the government screwed them over. Do you imagine that Adam will continue with caution or will he not rather think," FINALLY! Someone who understands!" Then they get together and make even more elaborate theories and repeat them over and over until those become beliefs as well.
On the other hand, imagine that someone does not agree with Adam; instead they bring up various benevolent government programs with patriotic fervor and begin to laud the country. Do you imagine that Adam will immediately go along with them and abandon his point? No. He will attempt to point out the flaws of the person's argument and try to prove that the positives they mentioned are actually diabolical negatives designed to trick you into thinking the government is good. And if the person doesn't take what Adam says wholesale he will write them off as brainwashed imbeciles.
There is no sobriety of moderation in Adam, and in this case there is none in either of his opponents. That is the real problem with conspiracy theorists, they do not believe that what they are saying is a viable theory, but rather that it is bullet proof, ironclad, air-tight fact. Therefore, they become frustrated with anyone who doesn't agree with them. They offer their so-called "theories" with a disproportionate and imprudent enthusiasm, because to them they are factual discoveries. When they conjure up a so-called theory, it's like they are Isaac Newton having an apple fall on his head all over again. Ergo," People accepted Newton's apple, why not mine?" Which creates another conspiracy theory.
People who "live for conspiracy theories" are people who try to establish their self-worth through various substitutes, people who can't conquer reality so they criminalize it, people who are emotionally insecure, people who are lonely, people who have something to prove, who are cowardly, who worry themselves to death, or neurotic people who are bored.
Some conspiracy is real and some theorize soberly, but that is rare indeed. One should be careful not to become a laughing stock, just like one should be ashamed to make eyes roll. One should be careful not to become afraid of their own shadow.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Labels:
9/11,
Aliens,
Cognitive Dissonance,
Conspiracy Theory,
Corroborate,
Da Vinci Code,
Discover,
Emotion,
Facts,
Free Masons,
Government,
Illuminati,
Plot,
Politics,
September 11th,
Taxes,
U.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)