Clumsy Political Science

He said: "A debate has to take place and all views must be expressed. What better place than parliament for this? I tell you, we must not be ashamed of our values, we must not be afraid of defending them."

Monday 22nd June saw Nicolas Sarkozy make this ambiguous statement in the French Parliament, referring to ‘defence’ as being part of the parliamentary tradition of ‘debate’. The phrase ‘not be ashamed of our values’ is a worrying aspect of political rhetoric not in the least because there seems to be no moral high ground these days on which to peg values that give the right of one section of society to dictate by mob politics of parliament how another section of society should dress. In a multi-cultural, pluralistic, diverse society, where moral relativism is preached as the modern framework for social discourse, here we have a plutocrat telling the French nation that they must defend values that are opposed to the values of others. What Neanderthal values are these then?
Are these values expressed as part of a psychopathological back draft from the political psychosis de la French Revolution? On one side we have the French obsession with mythologizing their historical place in the process of social revolution where the endless rhetoric about a more equitable, fair and diverse culture based on compassion and acceptance is dribbled out in the EU, while on the other, we have a spokesman for a partisan intelligentsia, obsessed with subjective values ascribed to a mythical collection of people whose existence is inferred by the collective possessive pronoun ‘our’, as in ‘our values’, who proceeds to allude to a framework for the ‘debate’ with a not very subtle use of trigger words like ‘shame’ and ‘defence’.

Parliament is the place where mob rule takes place under the guise of ‘democratic debate’. Here, members are coerced by the Party whip into conforming to the type of political narrow mindedness that is exemplified by Party acolytes like Sarkozy who is clearly lost in a fantasy world of an internalised schema of values and beliefs from which he extricates himself by making a sublime call to arms of the Party faithful by externalising them as being ‘common’ values and beliefs in need of defence.

Party politics is mob politics run by little mobsters. Its mobsters naively – I hope – use subliminal references as a tool to incite the base instinct of the animal to protect an identity. An identity that is manufactured by the State anyway. (See my booklet ‘Blasphemy & Identity’) This is an identity of values and beliefs that is ideologically territorial, that articulates the defence by an invisible herd of people bonded by their occult tattoos, signs, symbols and totems, to erect barriers of social exclusion to ostracise and then murder their fellow humans. The nice décor of political science is its ability to paper over the spirit of murder and violence that lies just beneath the surface of a recycled Aristotelian sophistry.

An attack by State figurines on the religious practices of a group of people is an attack, not on religion, but on the thin veneer of their two faced politics. On one hand they use high minded principles of morality and ‘social responsibility’ to outwardly give credibility and intelligence to the political revolution of creating an utopian society, citing exclusion as a necessary evil (as do the lecturers from Zeitgeist), while on the other hand inwardly concealing a fear of difference that expresses itself in the language of defending an abstract collectivisation of souls under the vague title ‘our values’. In the Reith Lecture this discussion about identifying the purpose of social dialogue takes us into the very same region of mob politics, where information supporting particular theories is kept on track by the doyens of culture operating the push and pull levers in the twinned towers of Media and Educatia, to create enough critical mass in the public mind of an evidence based dialogue that can occupy the high moral ground for justifying inhumanity to man all in the name of ‘social progress’. Witless utopian gutter talk.

The war in the Middle East is the fruit of this kind of mob politics. The critical mass of public support for murdering their own kind in a far away land is properly kept on track by a sophistry of words that lulls the conscience into believing that the moral question of murdering men, women and children can be resolved by ‘looking at the evidence’. Even if these Neanderthals in power have to use the false flag operation to create more convincing proof of evidence, what is critical to them is the indoctrination of the public consciousness by a regular news feed that keeps the public mind anaesthetised from seeing the reality of the evil they support.

Jesus Christ is here to expose it all. Because He lives, therefore I am. My common bond is with Jesus Christ – the only human being who suffers not from psychological dissonance.

All the fabricators and engineers of fear in the State machinery of death will be exposed for what they are. DESTROYERS OF LIFE. Their two faced political theories will be exposed as nothing but a shoddy veil covering a deep seated psychotic hatred for Creation and The Creator.

God's love is amazing but human love aint....

The idea of an emerging new world headed up by a philosophical junta boasting the supremacy of the human race over its environment is a very dangerous one. Not in the least because it is an idea that is as old as the Neanderthal whose offspring has produced a whole series of ‘civilisations’ that have mostly dried up through excessive blood letting.
The ideas proposed by the Zeitgeist sect are extremely worrying, for hidden within the sophistry is a logic reductio ad absurdum that forcefully reduces the individual to excepting that he/she is nothing but an extension of the group. The absurdity is menacing since non-conformity to this world view, that humans are an integral part of unified systems they call ‘natural’, necessarily requires regulation by a form of punishment called ‘ostracism’. I quote, ‘Your personal beliefs, whatever they may be, are meaningless when it comes to the necessities of life’. And what constitutes necessities of life I presume excludes a belief in a God who can love a damn sight better than humans can?
According to their perceptions of the ‘natural’ world, whatever that means, we are all connected ‘naturally’, like cogs in a big anthropological clock, and our success in creating this new emerging reality is dependent on conforming to their view that social integration only works if we deny the existence of a God whom they claim separates people.
This is a nihilist ground zero philosophy that at its heart is a sophistry concealing a hatred toward those who give thanks and who give verbal credit to God for whatever kindness they receive from their environment. It is only God who is capable of love anyway and it makes me cringe when I hear people say they love each other when they haven’t clue where divine love originated, and how undivine they are in their present state of sin.
‘We love you Mark, but get out of our church, you are ostracised for not conforming to our world view’.
Human love is always missing the mark in God’s eyes, that is why He came as Jesus Christ to COVER us with HIS LOVE so that we can be certain of God's love while living in a world where human love fails.