Exploring the Social Imagination

Monday, August 31, 2015

Separation of Church and State ~ Atheists View

The separation of Church and State was and was not the agenda in the beginning of this country. It was the agenda if we accept the idea that it was to keep the State from imposing a particular religion on the people in order that people can worship freely or not at all. It was not the agenda because it was not meant to eradicate religion from any American's public life. The 1st Amendment was written as such to control the State from having ultimate authority over and above any

one's public and private life. In this country, we have a right to have a voice 'freedom of speech' in public and in private.

We have many other civil liberties that grant us freedom of personhood as long as we are not breaking laws that prohibit others from their same right and not causing physical and or emotional harm. The later is much more difficult to manage since what my neighbor or boss might call just positive criticism could be for me derogatory and hurtful. Relativism is a slippery slope. The atheist would know this too. And, they would also agree that people have a right to believe what they want to, since that is what they want - not believing in God is the belief that man is all there is. Any believer in God then would have to tolerate the unbeliever and there are not enough incidents that show or prove a believer being intolerant of an unbeliever... it has always been the other way around.

Likely, the atheist would agree that it is better to know people publicly ...where someone stands on issues, laws, preferences and beliefs as declared publicly. One would and should feel and be safer in such a society knowing those things about you.

Atheists must also know that most of what modern man considers moral is what has come out of religion. Mosaic law is still the basis for 21st century law. If that is not true, there where has man taken his law and morality from? If man is the basis for all perfection and good in this world, then where did he get is ideas from? Many only knows what works for him in the place he is. That does not mean it is good for him or anyone... only a reasonable amount of giving and taking is what he accepts in his life and he wants the most in every instance. Rarely, do we see man giving what he has to another. If that were so popular among men, there would not be any poverty.

If you argue that man is inherently bad and that is why we need law then your atheist argument does not work -which is that we can all be good without God... we just have to be good and good laws make us good. Who makes good laws? Good people??? Atheists recognize that people are not good and thus they need good laws. So, who makes good laws? The State? Who is the State ... remember man is inherently bad.

If someone finds a way to keep man in check or create good men, then who will decide if they are good enough. It's a bottomless pit. Only an absolute perfect being like God could know what is good and good enough. You may ask, Man is not good then??? Did not God create man in his image? Yes, then man disobeyed and fell into corruption and out from paradise. Is man still the image of God? Now, that is a good question? To be sure, the atheist is glad to have no answer for it, though not better for it.


~ John 14:9 Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."


Thursday, August 27, 2015

The State and the Evils of the Social Imagination



The Holocaust of WWII should be a reminder that the State and its ambitions have few good intentions for society, though they promise it. It is when the state usurps the natural role of the human being: mother, father and family and attempts to build its own by means of what it deems science that the State destroys that which it wishes to be perfectly. The argument held by Nazi Germany was that the State is superior and is the best means for 'pure' and good society.  

According to the ideology of Nazi nationalism, the central entity or unit governing political and cultural life is the nation. Each individual 'belongs to' a particular nation and attains identity by virtue of his or her relationship to the nation and its 'national life.'~ Richard Koenigsberg


The means to attain this kind of 'national life/good society' was seen through the implementation of Eugenics which is the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The popular theory supporting this was that life for humans in society can and should be ruled the fittest. By WWI, many scientific authorities and political leaders supported eugenics. Though some say it failed as a science, in the 1930s and ’40s, there were eugenicists practicing this as a science. The Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races.

Are there scientists/doctors since the 30s and 40s that still study or practice eugenics? In 1954, Britain’s Annals of Eugenics was renamed Annals of Human Genetics. In 1972, the American Eugenics Society adopted the less-offensive name Society for the Study of Social Biology. Its publication, once popularly known as the Eugenics Quarterly, had already been renamed Social Biology in 1969.

U.S. Senate hearings in 1973, chaired by Edward Kennedy, revealed that thousands of U.S. citizens had been sterilized under federally supported programs. The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare proposed guidelines encouraging each state to repeal their respective sterilization laws. Other countries, most notably China, continue to support eugenics-directed programs openly in order to ensure the genetic makeup of their future.

Despite the dropping of the term eugenics, eugenic ideas remain prevalent in many issues surrounding human reproduction. Because certain diseases are now known to be genetically transmitted, many couples choose to undergo genetic screening, in which they learn the chances that their offspring have of being affected by some combination of their hereditary backgrounds. Couples at risk of passing on genetic defects may opt to remain childless or to adopt children. 

Many couples choose to terminate a pregnancy that involves a genetically disabled offspring. These developments have reinforced the eugenic aim of identifying and eliminating undesirable genetic material. Counterbalancing this trend, however, has been medical progress that enables victims of many genetic diseases to live fairly normal lives. Direct manipulation of harmful genes is also being studied. If perfected, it could obviate eugenic arguments for restricting reproduction among those who carry harmful genes. 

Such conflicting innovations have complicated the controversy surrounding what many call the “new eugenics.” Moreover, suggestions for expanding eugenics programs, which range from the creation of sperm banks for the genetically superior to the potential cloning of human beings, have met with vigorous resistance from the public, which often views such programs as unwarranted interference with nature or as opportunities for abuse by authoritarian regimes.



Applications of the Human Genome Project are often referred to as “Brave New World” genetics or the “new eugenics”; however, the ethical, legal, and social implications of this international project are monitored much more closely than were early 20th-century eugenics programs. Still, with or without the use of the term, many eugenics-related concerns are reemerging as a new group of individuals decide how to regulate the application of genetics science and technology. 

*http://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics

Though eugenics then and now under new names, may sound as a reasonable option, it allows the State and its experts in their scientific institutions to make decisions which no longer considers the human being as superior ...this is the main agenda of the State and evils of the social imagination. 

Living a true Social Imagination

Mother is the beginning of the social reality. Socialization of the individual begins in the womb. Until we start cloning or growing fetus to full term in a facility, mother in our 'human' condition is the first encounter with social reality- social imagination. Role expectations are necessary in order to live a 'true' and complete social imagination. She introduces us to the basic program using basic information and builds or imparts more information when needed. Others in her immediate social reality also have a role regarding imparting information; father, grandparents and other children if the child is not the first born.


Who is it then that wishes to separate this connection, this life of information transmission? Is it the state? What is the state? Isn't it a collective of the social imagination? Emile Durkheim thought so and consider it the 'society' which came over and above the individual as in ruling /controlling the person. Was he right? Is that necessary in our social imagination? Is it a good thing and necessary for 'good' society?

What is good for 'society', living a true and complete social imagination? Durkheim missed what mother's do. It is the basic code which they pass on 'the will to live life' and it must be passed on in order for good society to exist. In order to live a true and complete social imagination mother must pass on this information and she is the one, not a top down structure that has eliminated mother's worth, presence and role in society.

Of course, not every mother in every society in every place has the same information. Cultures, histories, geographies with their economics as well as politics govern that, or at least seem to. But, what mothers every where do know and impart is life and the social imagination through shared intimate connectedness and contentedness and that equals security, peace and love.

 Let us pray that all mothers everywhere can fulfill their role in the social imagination.


Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Good Society ~ Free to Believe in the Social Imagination



The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June 2015 legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. But it also "ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths."

US District Judge David Bunning says no to the idea that the June ruling infringes on a local elected official's religious beliefs. He argues that Davis is "free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do ... and that her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk," he wrote last week.

Davis' lawyers compare her to other religious objectors, such as a nurse being forced to perform an abortion, a noncombatant ordered to fire on an enemy soldier, or a state official forced to participate in a convicted prisoner's execution. Davis said "This is not something I decided because of this (June) decision that came down," (Davis testified in federal court last month). "It was thought-out and, you know, I sought God on it." ~ AP Adam Beam, Aug. 18 2015

It seems that the June ruling should support Davis based on the clause that ensures that all or any religious organizations and ‘religious’ persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths. Is Davis a teacher? Not by title but by position and status – yes. 

Effectively, no one can attack her or any person for doing their job as they are elected to do so. And, this is the very argument used by homosexuals – their personhood cannot be attacked as they are just trying to live their lives and do their jobs in the way they see it, well so is Davis. One might draw the conclusion that homosexuals do not consider other people's personhood who are not homosexuals.

There is no intention to deny homosexuals their ‘rights’ or to deny them free to believe in what they do only that they do not deny others that same right. The argument that Davis is a public figure and should be made as in forced to do her job is not only a bad argument but goes against American democracy and civil liberty. 

No, she should not be forced. She has a right to do her job the way she sees fit as elected by the people she represents in her community; after all, that is how she got elected and we must assume that she was elected by the people who were and are well aware of who she is and what she believes and that is why they elected her. 

If we say that is not true, that people do/did not know, then aren't we saying that voting people are ignorant. Wouldn't we also be saying that people are either senseless or clueless about most officials they elect. And, maybe they are. Thankfully, when people come to their senses and they do, they the have right to pursue the removal of elected officials. At this time, it does not appear that the people (as in majority) that Davis was elected by are trying to have her removed. 

Someone asked, “but, wouldn’t you feel bad if you were left out of the norm or circle”. And, the response was... “so, you think there are people that have never been left out or on the 'outs' ”.  Many times, each and every one of us finds ourselves on the ‘outs’. This is life. We are not equal in every way nor can we all have what we want when we want it or have what we want because we think we deserve it. 

That is why; we can feel on the 'outs' with family members. Or, sometimes the community puts us in the ‘outs’ because changing a tire in one’s own driveway is forbidden or hanging laundry in the backyard is forbidden or banning the fresh fruit and vegetable peddler from putting up a stand or those that think dogs should be allowed in the local restaurants and be allowed to sit under the table while their owners have dinner and then there are those that prefer to ride bicycles to work and or to the grocery store for shopping but there is no safe way because the people don’t have the tax money to put in sidewalks to every place they want to go or there are those who think they deserve a lot of money for doing their job (not talking about Walmart workers, talking about school administrators), or those parents who demand cheaper higher education for their child who is limited by ability or the ones who are not limited but unfortunately seem never to be in the right place at the right time in order to prove themselves... and there are those who are on the 'outs' because their candidate did not win. 
 

What is the advice for situations of this kind... when you find yourself on the ‘outs’? Find a way in, become a piece of the puzzle. That does not mean to twist and turn the piece to make it fit...twist the arm of the majority. One must assimilate (study/learn) and thus become better able to integrate into the majority. How? The first step is to want to become part of the puzzle and then to walk away from the projected wall of protection and face the majority with respect for it being the majority (the puzzle you want to be part of) remembering that a majority forms and exists in a democracy because a practice or an idea has been working successfully for a long time and for a long time it has worked for the good of society which makes good society. And thus, you are in this way, a member of good society, free to believe as is anyone else in the social imagination of good society ... join in the circle and widen the majority!


 
Children as an example will not welcome the child that has a temper tantrum pushing and bullying to get in the game on the playground insisting that they can play too inasmuch as the child who knows the game well and joins right in.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Philosophic ism (s) in the Social Imagination


Rationalism - this ism argues that reason (man's) is the chief source of absolute knowledge; as if 'reason' exists outside the human mind and once exercised knowledge can be 'known' absolutely.

Subjectivism - this ism argues that every man 's reasoning is the ultimate source of his/her reality; as if every man/woman subjective view is all the truth he/she will ever know.

Perceptivism- this ism argues that if a man/woman sees it; it exists and thus a truth is created by different vantage points.

Idealism - this ism argue that ideas are the only means to truth, supposing that ideas exist in ideal types/forms and present themselves as such.



Empiricism - this ism argues that through our sense experiences we can know what it real and true. It is in this ism that we arrive at positivism as it takes senses a bit further interpreting them using rational or logical mathematics.



Pragmatism - this ism argues that thought is a practical function and its successes are repeated providing reality. If man considered something to be true its only because it worked in the past, present and is presumed to work in the future. In this sense, thinking is just the outcome of an operational program that thinks it has free will.

So what then is the social imagination? Is imagination thought, does it produce truth and reality? That's a good question. The social imagination is a collective entity of social encounters as - information encountering information. Whose information is right? Another good question especially considering the vast amounts of diversity in information in the world.


Can anyone then have true as in real information that is good for all people everywhere? Are we suggesting that out of the isms presented there is only subjectivism?  Cannot be because the social imagination says that there is no subjective information only shared information that is passed on because it works and now it sounds like pragmatism. But which information is passed on because it works, does it depend on the point of view as in vantage point and if certain individuals share the same vantage point and information works for them in that place they exchange it and do so because it was exchanged before, thus making it learned.

This why many scientists think that empiricism is the best ism because they test their senses and what appears to be working successfully by using logical mathematics. However, they seem to forget that the choices for what is logical math and what is not is based on the one or ones who perceive (s) and then others in and around that 'mathematical event' jump on board with that logic as it appears to be successful.

Is there any truth whatsoever? Perhaps Aristotle would have said that the only truth is the pursuit of the prime mover, which is the only absolute thing we can begin to imagine and grow in its imagination.




~ God is the ultimate source of our social imagination.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Secular Humanist Worship of the State in the Social Imagination

Whatever you read, think and do is always in context of the social imagination. What you think is right or wrong is because of the social imagination. It is the main attribute or cause for cultural as in social data. We are blocks of socially acquired information. What one group deems acceptable or right as in correct may be different from another group. This is the cause of conflict. There are those that have the aim of social engineering from the top down. The secular humanist thinks that this is possible to control information because it is they themselves that have the 'right' information which they deem is good for everyone.



The problem for the secular humanist social engineer is the source of that information. Who or what is or should be the source of information for all?  Secular humanists say the State. Non-secularists say God.  Of course, one can make the same case about acquired information when considering religion and or practices a religion which include the belief in a divine higher authority. Interestingly, this applies to secular humanists who practice civil religion as in the worship of a justified State which is thus becomes a church for secularists.







In regards to the social imagination, we cannot escape previously given information as it is socio-cultural data.  Florian Znaniecki wrote many years ago reflecting on social observations and investigations. You see,  information is written in early in the socialization process firstly installed by mother who has a given/set and or certain amount of information to impart depending on her own socially acquired information and choices to retain and or reject. From her and outwardly extending then to father, grandparents, siblings, teachers and the community which includes the wider society in the meaning of the culture, society, or the nation.

In this wider sphere of socio-cultural information, teachers and others in that sphere can impart information slightly different (unless alien in cultural data) from mother and parents. Its absorption depends on the character and appeal of the 'foreign' information to the child. If it seems to be completely against mother's especially and or parents it can be rejected entirely. If it is in line with mother and or parents it will be considered 'normal' as in an extension of her will. If it does not appear to be in line with mother's or parents, but when introduced to them, the child sees acceptance, it will be absorbed as a 'new' normal that mother agrees with. You see, Mother plays the most significant role in any society for this reason.

What is happening today? In the secular humanist mind, information must be equalized. Thus, the role of mother must be reduced to any member of the 'State'; a faceless yet 'caring' as in gentle selfless robotic type that seeks only to impart function appropriate information as programed by the State of the good of all. Why? Because, the programmer must be the State in order to achieve harmony as understood by the secularist. This is the preferred role for the initial caregiver in the State regarding any newer state member. For the secular humanist, there is no need for any higher authority and or entity as in a Creator of heaven and earth. The State embodies all men and thus it is the highest authority and it must be in fact - worshiped.


There is no danger then regarding who has right information for the source of all information is the same. All members are controlled by the State and not of their free will to choose what is right information but by the law of the State which must determine information.  Hence, the necessity of the First Amendment and thank God that some of the American founders were aware of the secular humanist love/ worship of the State.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Response to Comments Regarding Leftist Fantasy of the Separation of Church and State


To those readers who obviously misread the post about separation of church and state (it is suggested to read it again), sadly those readers have self placed blinders. It was thought to have been made perfectly clear that the First Amendment does not use the wording 'separation of church and state'...there is no such statement in the Constitution. However, it has been interpreted that the First Amendment does say that. Some people think it means that the founders called for a separation of church and state and that government has the right to intervene in religion. It does not.

What the First Amendment does do is protect the freedom to be religious and to practice a religion. It prohibits government from establishing any religion and interfering in the free exercise of.

 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise therefore..."

However, one can see a possible misunderstanding when reading the post... Looking at the misnomer of the separation of church and state as being written in the Constitution will help us illiterate the reprobate. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. No was it ever. People have been led to think it is in the Constitution through propaganda to uneducated masses. What does the Constitution say? It says that government shall not make any laws regarding religious beliefs and practice. The government cannot start a religion or make any laws affecting people's religious practice and world view. The government must stay out of religion entirely even if they don't like what is being said.

What is the misunderstanding that one may have gotten from the post...? That the First Amendment was misunderstood. The wording 'separation of church and state' is not used in the Constitution and that is what was posted. It was explained that the Constitution does not explicitly provide for any religion and thus keeps religion free from the grasp of an 'institutionalized' body of people = government.

Is there then a separation of church and state. No and yes. It is not explicitly written that there is. However, upon sound libertarian interpretation one immediately knows that the government is ordered to stay out of the church - separation of church and state.  It is written in such a way that anyone who values liberty can clearly and simply read that the people retain the upper hand. The First Amendment is for the protection of the people and their beliefs from institutionalized government- a government that through its elected power takes its authority to mean total control over people's lives/beliefs.

The founders meant that institutionalized government cannot intervene in people's lives when it comes to faith - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof....

When we read the First Amendment correctly, we understand that it means that government cannot create a religion or become one; therefore, the First Amendment actually allows religion of and by the people to be the highest authority in their own (men/women's) lives, not government and that is the main point which was expressed.

Only one response had it right and deserves to be posted...

The entire point of ensuring that the government cannot influence religion was borne out of the historical experience of Europe where the ruling authorities were also the arbiters of faith. The experience of the founders was that the citizenry had the right and obligation to influence public policy based upon their faith while government had no authority to do so. To suggest that faith and public policy were to be completely separated for the purpose of 'better government' is nonsense invented by humanists to secularize the public square and is a direct violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.  ~ JTG

It is the leftist that wants to have government as the higher authority... apologies for misunderstandings

Friday, August 7, 2015

The Leftist Fantasy of the Constitution and the Separation of Church and State

The Constitution is the most successful social contract ever written. It has opened up the eyes of many countries around the world in that they have embraced and begun to practice such libertarian ideals. Does it the Constitution have some flaws?... only a lack of foresight regarding of the coming of the reprobate leftist.


The reprobate leftist now occupies the ruling class which is on a mission to eliminate this successful social contract and they have been at it for a long time. Why?  Because, they do not like the fact that it shackles government (essentially it does in order to protect average people from such corruption). They - the ruling class dislikes the notion that average people have a voice. The dislike a doctrine that gives such people a voice and the fact that they cannot control such a voice.


This in fact controls them and forbids them to rule as authoritarians. They don't like the idea that average and even below average people know what is best for themselves. They certainly don't like that such people have a right to rule and have a voice which the Constitution guarantees.



Marxism and Communism have infected our ruling class and hence they are now reprobates. They hold an authoritarian world view that the average Joe should serve the state and the state is now them - ruling class. They don't like the idea that our Constitution puts the little man in the drivers seat hence the ruling class holds that libertarian doctrine in contempt.

Looking at the misnomer of the separation of church and state as being written in the Constitution will help us illiterate the reprobate. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. No was it ever. People have been led to think it is in the Constitution through propaganda to uneducated masses. What does the Constitution say? It says that government shall not make any laws regarding religious beliefs and practice. The government cannot start a religion or make any laws affecting people's religious practice and world view. The government must stay out of religion entirely even if they don't like what is being said.

It does not say that religion should stay out of government or influence public policy or not influence the people. This was done by the founders because in Europe at the time and all times past, the government was the arbiter of religion and could punish people for practicing in others ways that the government did not see fit or like. Our founders created a system to protect religious faith in the public and in the private.

And, now our reprobate ruling class has convinced a generation of people that religion should not influence the government and that is not true. Too many ignorant people have let this happen. A lot of secularists have been able to have more and more influence due to this and sadly it is also due to a falling away from the church and faith in a creator - God. Which is actually due to media propaganda spewed out and paid for by the leftist reprobate ruling class and their social ills (indulging in the flesh and greed) that plague our social imagination.


So, it is highly likely that without an actual disinfecting of this ruling class, the Constitution will become an obsolete document and we will enter a dark totalitarian world where freedom is extinguished.

If you have to relabel something then there is something fundamentally wrong with what you are selling. 

~ anonymous

Monday, August 3, 2015

Toleration and Being Tolerant in the Social Imagination

Toleration and being tolerant in the social imagination can only go so far. Why? Because, tolerating anything means putting up with. Yes, that phrasal verb is used in the Webster dictionary to define the verb - to tolerate. Hard to believe. I suppose for anyone who never knew what the word meant. Do people think to tolerate means to love, to like very much, to like something or someone a lot or even enough to stand them. Or perhaps people think it means to prefer someone else's views over your own and or your group's view on life... and yes we all belong to a group. That is how we identify who we are and are not. We are after all, social creatures. We are not isolated islands of individualism though some people like to think that we are.

Sorry, but no one prefers someone else's likes over their own likes and or preferences. I told that to my students and they were so surprised. Really? Yes, really. They made lists of their likes and preferences and to their surprise, they were not the same likes and preferences that others had in the classroom. Of course, there were some that had either similar likes/preferences and or the same but this was not the case 100%.

Why? Because, we are socialized by our mothers who have their likes and preferences based on those that were passed onto them or some they formed through other social interactions. Its all information. We are given information and we choose which we like and don't like. We choose not to like some based on the encounter we had while given the information. Our mother's may have told us to eat green vegetables which is most people consider to be good information but because we did not like the encounter with that information or have a positive encounter with that information, we do not like green veggies. Yet, because it was told to us by our mother a person with authority that it was good information, we choose to tolerate some green veggies... to an extent.

Yes, as elementary an illustration as that seems, it applies to larger and even more complex information which includes other people, places and things.

This is what I consider normal acquisition of information and normal process of choosing to like or dislike information. The abnormal acquisition of information is when information is methodically programmed in by an authority outside of mother (mother= the person who gave birth and loves us as no other could and who seeks to provide for you) who have an agenda - to control you for their purposes.

Who is that 'other' authority? The State! Now, of course one can make the argument that the State must look out for others' interests who are different from yours as their mother was different. That I could agree as long as the means for and reason to provide you information other than mother's is not to control you but to open your eyes to alternatives that would be good for you and everyone. Well, in saying that, I suppose that could be the State's defense no matter what their agenda.

How to tell if they are actually looking out for you and just suggesting alternatives and not enforcing them? The means is the key. And, whatever the means, it should not decrease the amount of freedom you have should to choose or not to choose. Yes, the State can even make that promise... your freedom is not being taken away. You still have the right to choose or not to. However, can we see propaganda that is singling out your likes and preferences as bad and even intolerant of others' likes and preferences? Today, yes.

Should people be punished for their likes and dislikes, their preferred information? That is a good question. There has to be agreement on what is bad information and good information. Bad information is when the majority people are continually hurt by a particular information. Because, if the majority are being hurt... then it is really bad information.

If a minority are hurt by bad information, it is more likely that they are outside the sphere of receiving better information rather being targets of bad information. Because, bad information is never good information and never circulated unless there is an agenda.

Yet, we are being told today that bad information is now good information. Why? Because when a certain authority has an agenda, this is the strategy.

Why? Because, really good information is good for everybody and if everyone had really good information certain authorities would not be necessary.



When authority sees itself being limited or made non existent because obstacles no longer exist or threats no longer exist, it defends itself. It does so by targeting people's likes and dislikes and then claims that certain likes and dislikes and even preferences are wrong as in bad information.

This group of people 'with their bad likes and dislikes, are being labeled intolerant toward certain or even all information.



Thus, the group is targeted as being intolerant and 'by new and just law' has to conform to the authority which has set the new just standard of toleration. How? Well if they claim to know good information from bad then they must certainly claim by ultimate and absolute authority even if it is electorally instated. Otherwise, they could not know or distinguish good from bad information and certainly not know good information for everyone unless they had such authority. You see, we forget that even such electoral authority over and above us seeks to remain there and they can remain in power and authority by making them appear to be necessary givers of good information.

And, you see, if everyone had access to good information, then we would not need any such authority. You see, in a free and open society there is no need for any such power/authority to dictate what they think is good information or bad, we the people can decide for ourselves.Yes, we can make mistakes but mistakes come from bad information and only bad information gets served when someone wants to be served. This we should not tolerate.

Should we tolerate other's information? As long as they can tolerate ours/yours/mine. Is that even possible? Only when they/we agree on the source of good information. Is that possible? Only if there is God and not a State.





those who claim to be tolerant are the most intolerant...