Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Christianity

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Walker wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:32 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:43 am
attofishpi wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:36 am

Just so you know, I think Walker is on your team, as in he is also an infidel.
I don't have a 'team'. He writes so much gibberish that it's impossible to decipher what the fuck he thinks about anything, but I had always had the general impression that he's one of the handful of 'kristoturd gang' members on here. He would have to be the only atheist in America who worships Trump then :lol:
Now that we’ve addressed the little shitty particular ignorance, we can now move onto the misguided, anti-humanity, immoral, and illogical principled support for abortion, to which you’ll bleat your typical, repetitive litany of lies, distortions, and baiting. You might not read it, but others will and say, huh, what about me, what am I?

These Radical Left-Wing Abortion Advocates (is there any other kind) live by a popular fantasy, and that fantasy is, what’s growing inside of a woman’s womb, is not human life existing and alive in one of the many stages of human development that begins at conception.

I mean, they're so screwed up they say that men can have babies. Good grief.

To them, a human in this stage of development is expendable because it’s worth no more than a bug’s life. Strangely enough, these fanatics of death have the same view of the last stage of life, when all the mysteries unfold. They think that’s worth no more than a bug’s life, and even push to kill old people like bugs, although certainly not with a bug’s agonizing pain. :roll: As if that justifies vivisection in the womb for all those others further along in their inevitable development, which are much more than a few. Oh no, of course not. I mean ... science. Yeah, that's it. Science!

These rabid, extremist abortionists think that their every fart and thought is the baseline of morality, and anyone should be attacked who deviates from their fantasy, that they hope to make true with repetition, hope to make true if they say it often, loud, and viciously enough, that what’s growing inside of a woman’s womb is not a human life. They do it that way because they don't have logic, or science, or even basic reasoning skills. What they do have is a rationale to make their self-image what it used to be before the complication. But of course of they don't know when they're young.

Before the words, before the labels, before the identified and delineated stages of human development, before folks started trying to define what a person is and counting angels on the head of a pin, even with the earliest of early human beings, that was Life there in the womb, just as it is now. Right there. Human life.

But oh, how those fanatical, Left-wing extremist abortionists wish it wasn’t so, because that so complicates their justifications and rationalizations, doesn’t it.

Better to admit in the clear hell of truth that it's human life rather than live in the comforting fog of delusion.

Admitting the truth won't kill you. It will make you stronger in ways you can't even know until you know them.
Fuck off you hypocritical little dogturd.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Walker wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 4:16 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 10:08 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:11 pm And that there is your story, that you have authored...not me.
It's not a "story." And I didn't "author" it. You did.

Never mind. I'm going to go back to paying no attention.
Quite wise. That one is the game-player type with some rather unpleasant personal tendencies who admittedly is just passing the time out of boredom. Add to that the unaware identity of relativist, and before you know it, it's like following up a bad bet with a bad flop and then trying to hope it out with another big bet and a low-odds river, when you actually know what's really going to happen.
That's right Walker, I only come here to pass the time, I give it all to the forum, because you never know, there maybe readers out there that resonate with what they are reading, seeing for themselves that my words of wisdom be they negative or positive is what a good philosopher will always provide to the masses, they will see the actual raw truth and not the sugar coated truth. They will see that my words are always free to those who just happen to be searching for that extra reach that most people on this forum are afraid to talk about. Or maybe my ideas are something they have never heard before. At least I have the guts to be honest about my motives to post here.

But yeah, here you are again sticking your beak in, because we all know you get off on bashing the people you hate. You couldn't possibly resist the urge to team up with the holier than thou righteous ones among us, in your pathetic attempt to warn them from the people who supply the unpleasantries of life. A task you have taken up with honor and such bravery is something you couldn't possibly miss out on. The opportunity to spew your vile contempt for anyone who is different is all too obvious now.

And you know what they say, strength in numbers, helps deliver a more fatal blow to the enemy, and nothing less to be expected from a sociopathic,psychopathic, narcissistic kunt like you.
Am I correct in making that personality assessment of you, it is fitting, or is it not even close, do let me know.
At least IC is more discrete at showing his utter contempt for nondual narrative, he is an expert at hiding his true darkside, so kudos to him for that.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Walker wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 5:37 am
Yeah. Chewing on the little snot does get tedious and repetitive, but it needed to be said.
And who better to say that than someone like you.

And is it any wonder why when it takes snot to know snot.

Own your snot. I do. It's extremely liberating to chew on the actual raw sugarfree coated truth that absolutely scares the shit out of you, poor lamb.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Walker wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:40 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 5:36 am
Walker wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 4:16 am Quite wise. That one is the game-player type with some rather unpleasant personal tendencies...
Wisdom for us both, perhaps. :wink:
Yeah, these baiters.

Masterbaiters of Philosophy, for sure.

I think they're fakes.
You think wrong, they're actually just regular people who have an interest in philosophy just like you, which you personally happen to take umbrage with, maybe because you come across as being a spoilt bratty petty little upstart with no off button when it comes flapping your lips in a gossippy kind of manner. You have no intellectual capacity to understand the 'Walk A Mile In Their Shoes' saying.....which can be helpful when dealing with the personality traits and antics of strangers on the internet. And rather than condemning them as trash who should go to hell just for being different, why not be the better person and just let them be, but that is maybe just your own shortsighted and negative vibe wanting to unleash itself on anyone that does not kiss your arse, so I'll just stick my ugly bad attitude on them instead.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

The raw uncut unedited sugarfree truth of reality.

Christian monsters in lamb and petal clothing look away. :shock:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guP4Y1Hol8A


"I do not see a benevolent god who watches the sparrow would be in charge of what has happened on earth for half a billion years."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:41 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 4:05 pmIt is not the way it should be, it is not inevitable, and it's not right. However, it is the way things seem to be operating now.
That's what I meant to concede.
That is all I said and all I meant.
Then we were not disagreeing. The legacy media are dishonest. That's not the way it should be. It's not right. We agree.
The outlets that use 'legacy media' in this way are your Pravda news.
Yes, they are. That is what they have made themselves.

As for the rest of the ad homs, I'm simply ignoring them. They don't have any relevance to the question of truth.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Walker wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:40 am The distinction is: blasphemy against God is the prohibition.
Yes.

All kinds of questions, objections, arguments, debates, other points of view, and so on are reasonable. There is no prohibition on reasonable objections, so long as they are phrased as that, and not as railery, abuse, insults against God, and such...blasphemy, in short. The latter is not just a sin against God, though it is certainly that -- it is a compounding of one's judgment, and as such, is destructive to one's soul. And a Christian can't, in good conscience, participate with one who is doing it...for the sake of the speaker, and for the sake of God.
In addition to doctrine, there are psychological detriments to blasphemy against God once one admits knowledge of right and wrong, which folks are adept at denying via relativism and delusion.
Blasphemy tends to be visceral, emotional and minimal in intelligence. What else can be said about somebody who is bent on cursing his own soul? I think when one gets to that point, "right and wrong" tend to be very far from one's thoughts.

But yes, relativism is corrosive to ethics and to inteligence, too. It's not blasphemy, though, but rather just a form of error. Error is forgiveable and corrigible. Blasphemy is a much worse category. It's not mere mistakes or even false doctrine, as bad as those can be: it's wilful, verbal hatred directed against God, and as such, the expression of a heart absolutely opposed and contemptuous toward God.
Matthew 12:31
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
There's theological debate about what the nature of this unforgivable sin actually is, and how it is actually committed. In context, it seems to involve attributing to an evil spirit the works done by Jesus Christ. That's specifically what the Pharisees did, in context. If so, it would not be possible for a modern person to commit it, probably. But that's not absolutely certain; it's possible it's less limited than that, and includes and such ill-speaking specifically directed against the Spirit of God.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Walker »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:40 am The raw uncut unedited sugarfree truth of reality.

Christian monsters in lamb and petal clothing look away. :shock:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guP4Y1Hol8A


"I do not see a benevolent god who watches the sparrow would be in charge of what has happened on earth for half a billion years."
You're still here, stinking up the thread on Christianity? You're an idiot.

Why don't you fuck off.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Walker wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:47 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:40 am The raw uncut unedited sugarfree truth of reality.

Christian monsters in lamb and petal clothing look away. :shock:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guP4Y1Hol8A


"I do not see a benevolent god who watches the sparrow would be in charge of what has happened on earth for half a billion years."
You're still here, stinking up the thread on Christianity? You're an idiot.

Why don't you fuck off.
Seems like I've fucked you off.

Image
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5144
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 3:03 pm Some perhaps professed to be. That's possible. I can't speak for them. They have their own answers to make.
Naturally, predictably, you missed the point. No, that's not right. You side-stepped the point through a typical action. If you can't speak for them you cannot speak for anyone. But if you cannot speak for anyone this means you cannot really see and assess anyone.
My point was merely this, though: despite seeds' presuppositions, it was never the Republicans or Trumpians who created slavery, or the KKK, or served as the Segregationist governors, or the thugs that beat up freedom marchers. They were Democrats, almost to the very last man. In the Civil War, who was the grey and who was the blue? What party did Lincoln the emancipator lead? To what political party did every last slave owner in all of America belong? And when the KKK marched down the main street in Washington, for what party were they campaigning?
It is a most ridiculous assertion to say that *Democrats brought slavery to the Americas*. What you are doing here is more or less what the Progressive set does: you are engaging in revisionism. You mention historical amnesia below. Yet the perspectives that you bring out here detail your basic ignorance of the real facts of the case and certainly not amnesia.

The United Staes was founded by men with a specific anthropology and that anthropology was supremacist. It was common everywhere. It was part of the way people saw the world and definitely how they saw 'inferior cultures'. Those who engaged in slavery did not *invent it* they employed it, made us of it. The supremacist attitude was just as common in the North as it was in the South. The issue can be seen with clarity when the ideas and attitude of Lincoln himself are examined. He was absolutely and completely racist (to use a modern term that did not exist then) and did not support in any sense living together socially or politically with Africans. He explained that these races were incompatible and that each race did harm to the other by being thrust into proximity. He advocated and worked for years to expatriate those of African race and to set up colonization projects in different parts of the world.

The War Between the States was not a war about slavery or its abolition. It was a military and a social-political operation to keep the South from seceding. The essential reasons were political and economic. The propaganda that supported the war against the South to keep it from seceding provides a picture of the sort of policy that the North developed as it shifted the United States from an idealistic republic to one dominated by a political and military establishment which also become, rather quickly and decisively, neo-imperialist.

The reaction by the South to the invasion by the North and the conquest of the South can be looked at similarly to the invasions and occupations that become common at the turn of the century. The Philippine occupation, the Cuban invasion and occupation. Elaborate and 'righteous' reasons were defined and became part of propaganda presented to the population of the States but these were false. The object itself was conquest, occupation, control, domination. These are the essential motives.

Just as with invasions and occupations we can reference in our present (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan), these tend to invoke reaction on the part of those who suffer invasion and occupation. The reactive forces are always brutal. This has to be considered when examining the ways and means that the South used to protect their *interests* and, in this sense, their sovereignty. This tendency can be examined judiciously. They did not have overt power to oppose the North and its policies, so their opposition took indirect forms. To resist the arrogations the North all sorts of clandestine tactics were used. This is not a defense of the segregationist culture that developed, it is an explanation. And explanations serve us far better than *idealistic lies*.

The American Civil War, in my opinion, must be considered and thought about within the context of an analysis of the present events. But it cannot (again in my opinion) be thought about through the images and interpretations that are presented and wielded by the American civil religion:
American civil religion is a sociological theory that a nonsectarian quasi-religious faith exists within the United States with sacred symbols drawn from national history. Scholars have portrayed it as a cohesive force, a common set of values that foster social and cultural integration. The ritualistic elements of ceremonial deism found in American ceremonies and presidential invocations of God can be seen as expressions of the American civil religion. The very heavy emphasis on pan-Christian religious themes is quite distinctively American and the theory is designed to explain this.

The concept goes back to the 19th century but the current form of this theory was developed by sociologist Robert Bellah in 1967 in the article, "Civil Religion in America". According to Bellah, Americans embrace a common civil religion with certain fundamental beliefs, values, holidays, and rituals in parallel to, or independent of, their chosen religion.

Bellah's article soon became the major focus at religious sociology conferences and numerous articles and books were written on the subject. The debate reached its peak with the American Bicentennial celebration in 1976.
There are other elements that would have to be considered, too. The South made its arguments in defense of the institution of slavery by referring to the Bible and to the New Testament. So the fact of the matter is that what is more central to Christianity, and certainly to American Evangelical Protestantism, and definitely to the American republic when it was conceived, is a permissive attitude about subjugation and slavery -- again based on quotes from the Bible itself. When one reads the defenses of those ideologues of the South in defense of their segregationist system the Bible figures predominantly.

The Abolitionist movement, and its philosophy, has to be examined also within a religious context. Lincoln was an abolitionist of the first order and had views deeply informed by religious ideas. He believed with all his soul that "if anything is wrong slavery is wrong". But he was absolutely committed to a racist outlook and a racist political and social philosophy. And if one believes that the abolitionists generally were integrationists one is wrong indeed. African Americans suffered tremendously in the North in the decades after the Civil War. It is an absolute (and a rather disgusting) fallacy to present the North as being righteous in this regard.

To then go on to present the notion that all these *evils* are the responsibility of the Democrat Party is an outrageous and really a vile lie. This does not mean that the present Democrat Party in its battles cannot be examined critically. But the idea that Immanuel is putting forth is ridiculously simplistic.
Check it out: these things are not historically doubtful at all.
You are totally ignorant of the history which you reference.
Historical amnesia is very widespread in America, it seems. The Left, in particular, often rewrites their history to serve their present prejudices. How else can we explain their forgetting of all this, or their inexplicable total amnesia about all the debacles Socialism has caused and is still causing?
Everyone 'rewrites history' and revises history to suit their projects and ambitions. The post-Civil War epoch is case-in-point. The dominant power controls the narrative when it controls how the history (pseudo-history) is presented through the State history books. Consider an NPR article reflecting on Robert Bellah's ideas about the American civil religion:
America, unlike some countries, is not defined by a common ancestry, nor is it tied to an official faith tradition. But it does have a distinct identity and a quasi-religious foundation.

Americans are expected to hold their hands over their hearts when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance or stand for the national anthem. Young people are taught to regard the country's founders almost as saints. The "self-evident" truths listed in the Declaration of Independence and the key provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights have acquired the status of scripture in the U.S. consciousness.

More than 50 years ago, sociologist Robert Bellah argued that such facts of American life suggest that the country adheres to a nonsectarian "civil religion," which he defined as "a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals with respect to sacred things and institutionalized in a collectivity."

For these beliefs and principles to give definition to a nation, scholars argue, they may need the power that a religion holds for its believers. Characterizing them as a faith system elevates them beyond mere personal philosophy.
This blurb is, in fact and in truth, an example of an expression of post-Civil War American civil religious doctrine! The early states were, in fact, autonomous regions that did not follow a federally established political and social doctrine. The Pledge of Allegiance is an example of an effort by a federal North to create a unified political ideology.

In fact America was founded by men who thought very much in terms of 'common ancestry'. Americanism has, in this sense, been taken over by an entirely different assertion about *what America is* which, substantially, runs against what it was and had been.

The way the American civil war is defined and presented is 'religious' in quality. The noble North sacrificed itself in a 'just war' against the evil demons of the South. This is a very ingrained picture. It still operates, and strongly so, within American politics and society today.
But as for however many pseudo-religious Democrats may have campaigned for slavery or Segregation, I think that's your continual problem, AJ. You don't know how to tell the difference between somebody who says they're something, and somebody who really is. So you think that people who did things that are utterly unchristian and are condemned by Scripture and the example of Jesus Himself should be regarded as Christians in every sense that somebody who actually follows Christ is.
Well, I am not closed to examining my *continual problem* [::: laughs :::] but at the same time I heartily suggest that you do the same. But here is the key: you cannot examine yourself. You cannot examine your biases and your prejudices. A false sense of who and what you are, seemingly driven by idealisms that you can't or don't live up to, dominates your perception. This results in a *skewed* outlook generally.
Last edited by Alexis Jacobi on Sat Nov 26, 2022 4:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Walker »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:54 pm Seems like I've fucked you off.

]https://www.spiritbutton.com/wp-content ... 279e9e.jpg
Seems like you're confused. Sounds and words penetrate your thick skull, but then you get confused. What you hear is your own moaning while giving the ol' dildo a workout, while you're focused on pictures of men.

Hey, I don't judge. Some kunts fuck dildos, some fuck gophers.

Me, I like home cookin', which is a whole other topic.

However, this is a philosophy forum, and since philosophy is beyond your capacity, why are you still here? Really.

Fuck off.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:32 pm It is a most ridiculous assertion to say that *Republicans brought slavery to the Americas*.
Good thing nobody said that. I marvel that you invented it at all.

But the majority of Americans continue to be entirely ignorant of the Democrats' unsavoury legacy. It was they who owned slaves, they who Segregated the South, they who invented and staffed the KKK, they who turned hoses and dogs on the Freedom Marchers, and so on.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5144
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Walker wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:40 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 4:28 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 4:03 pm You have surely gathered that I regard Yahweh as a 'fake' and as a literary-divine figure animated by a priest-class.
That you think that is the least surprising revelation on record.

Be careful in your conversation here, if you wish it to continue. I recommend you don't advance as fact that which is merely a hypothesis or question on your part, or you cross the line between inquiry and blasphemy. And if you do choose to blaspheme, then I will, for your own safety and the future of your soul, have to withdraw from speaking with you. I have to take thought for your welfare here, and do the moral thing, even if you choose not to.

So pick what you say next accordingly. I shall reply according to your choosing.
I haven't followed the dialogue too closely, but I did ask about blasphemy, and I appreciate the response. What you said in your response to me, and here, makes perfect sense, and it is kind of you to reply to me, and here to AJ. It's good of you to offer the admonition.

Living a Christian life brings much good to the world and oneself. I've seen it in many ways, although I don't lay claim to it.
Walker, it seems to me that there is no conversation that you *follow closely*. You seem, quite often, to participate quite superficially. And when you do express ideas and opinions they seem (to me) not very well thought-through.

What I said, and what I mean (still, with no change) is that the person of god as depicted in the OT is just as I said: "I regard Yahweh as a 'fake' and as a literary-divine figure animated by a priest-class". I have a host of sound reasons why I make this statement and I can defend the statement.

I make no statement about what is a *genuine* transcendental authority. And I am quite frankly at a loss as to how this could even be defined. Care to give it a shot?

Now, if the question then becomes: "If the god-image that was offered is not a 'real image of god', what then is 'god' and how shall 'god' be defined?" I feel I can certainly, and with integrity, offer some of my own thoughts and that of others who have dealt with the topic.

My principle assertion though is that Immanuel Can is working with a 'god-concept', a 'god-picture', which is demiurgic in nature. So then, to dismantle a demiurgic idea or set of assertions (about god, about divinity) will definitely be taken by those religious authorities who wield those definitions as 'blasphemy', it is in a philosophical context that we here talk about these things and *seeing through* a given conception of god, or disassembling that concept of god, or even seeing it as false or incomplete -- certainly there is nothing unwholesome in that activity.

I will agree, and I have said this many times, that when the "horizon of religious belief" was erased, and when people lost the sense of a metaphysical foundation, that there were (and are) certainly negative results. Not the least being what we call 'nihilism'. When average people become unmoored from a religious concept one thing that must be paid attention to is their fall away from standard ethical principles. And when they do that they become lost and ungrounded. This seems to me a fact that we can verify simply by examining the surrounding culture.

The idea of what 'blasphemy' is has to be seen within the context of power-centers and power-structures and within this on-going conversation we have to see the accusation of blasphemy as a power-play on Immanuel's part within a philosophically oriented conversation.

It is more helpful to begin with the idea of sacrilegiousness if one wishes to come to a fair notion of what the accusation of blasphemy was and perhaps still is.
Last edited by Alexis Jacobi on Sat Nov 26, 2022 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Walker wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:37 pm However, this is a philosophy forum, and since philosophy is beyond your capacity, why are you still here? Really.
This is a philosophy forum, as you rightly point out. So is this your idea of proper philosophy:
Hey, I don't judge. Some kunts fuck dildos, some fuck gophers.
:shock:
Fuck off.
:|
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5144
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 4:03 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:32 pm It is a most ridiculous assertion to say that *Republicans brought slavery to the Americas*.
Good thing nobody said that. I marvel that you invented it at all.

But the majority of Americans continue to be entirely ignorant of the Democrats' unsavoury legacy. It was they who owned slaves, they who Segregated the South, they who invented and staffed the KKK, they who turned hoses and dogs on the Freedom Marchers, and so on.
My mistake. I meant to write 'Democrats'. I edited the original.

The majority of Americans, to be truthful (and based on my direct experience) live within a general ignorance about so many important things. I suppose a good question is Why is that? What then is the right question? How has this come about? Who does it (their ignorance) benefit?

The 'majority of Americans' (to coin your phrase) live within an unreal world of images and half-ideas. They cannot very well assess a great deal, given the state they exist in. But those who live in that sort of world are neither Democrat nor Republican.
Post Reply