Soylent Green will be for Everyone, eventually!

 
Probably not too many of you out there know anything about the film "Soylent Green". Of course, it is of a dystopian theme for the future. Yet, when we look at the world today, that dystopia looks plausible future utopia. Why? Consider the growing population as well as the aging population. The current administration just commented that the greatest part of our debt is due to health care and the aging population. Yet, that same administration wants to expand health care for seniors in order to accommodate them and somehow bring down debt.

Well, it is certainly a strategy which has the agenda or goal to show how impossible that is and or will be. When young people (those under 65 or even 55) have had enough in terms of working to pay for that expansion  they will claim it is more humane to eliminate those that have lived and had jobs in order that the younger generation have their chance. This is even attractive and seems righteous but who is calling the shots on this, who is really in control and moving forward this agenda/goal?

Those that have money and power and want to remain as such in the future as they very well know it is impossible to sustain the current system let alone a future system with an aging population. The ruling class, the elites, will likely see such practice as humane and even civil; but, they couldn't be among them nor their children. Why? Because, someone or special group has to remain awake, alive and in control. They have reason or justification to live and that is to ensure the process of progress - what they know to be and deem the progressiveness of mankind.

Do you think it could not happen? Well, the beginning stages already appear at our doorstep. A content analysis is vital in illustrating this event on the horizon of a soylent green future.

CNSNews Feb . 23, 2016~ "The real problem that we have when it comes to debt is very simple," the President told the nation's governors on Monday. " It is that our population's getting older, and we use a lot of health care.

"Some of it is because -- the accident of how our health care system evolved means that we got private-sector involvement, and they've got to make a profit, and they've got overhead, and so forth...essentially, we spend about 6 to 8 percent more than our wealthy nation counterparts, per capita, on health care... is our debt."


You can get rid of all that discretionary spending. It won't matter, because the big-ticket item is Medicare, Medicaid, and in the private sector, the big-ticket item, that's where the inflation is, is on the health care side." Yet, Medicaid expansion is a "smart" way for the states to save money over the long-term.

Really, by expanding Medicaid to serve an aging population you can save money? The private sector cannot have any part in this because they have overhead; so, what does the government have... control? 

What will the progressives suggest next?

The Mental Eyeglasses We Cannot Remove from this Social Imagination

Any order out of chaos we think we are able to bring about with good intentions or not is an absurd idea. How is that possible? It is impossible because we all wear mental eyeglasses that we cannot remove. Really?

Immanuel Kant one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Yes of all time. Is that possible? Yes. Sorry millennials... there is little room at the top of true intellect, true insight, the elect of the Creators creation.
Read Kant, if you can or have access to his work not someone else's view of his work. In the history of Western philosophy, Kant holds a place comparable to Plato and Aristotle (M.Raspanti 1998: pg. 53) and if you don't know who they are, stop reading this post now only because what comes next will not be understood.  Yes, stop now because the key to Kant's philosophy is that the world of reality is unknown and unknowable. I have read Kant and he was incredibly insightful and because of him physicists were able to make huge contributions to understanding the social reality - the social imagination.

From a sociologist's point of view, there are good works out there that give an excellent view of Kant's philosophy. One that comes to mind is Matthew Raspanti. He saw and wrote that Kant's philosophy stems from  an attempt to explain what makes 'scientific' (man's observation) prediction possible. What puzzled him was the fact that the raw material of experience comes to us through our senses and yet nature is found to conform to general laws that scientists are able to formulate by rational mathematical means. Yet, Kant pointed that such scientists were not able to confirm whereby those rational mathematical means come from... other men - what would be their source? For Kant this compromised the observations made and therefore whatever was concluded was simply what the observers agreed upon not any real facts that could be absolutely knowable outside of men's mind - Raspanti 1998: pgs. 53-56.

Kant's solution was to deny that the raw material of experience is actually raw. In the Kantian view, we never experience nature as it is in itself. What we do experience is not raw material coming to us directly from external things, but something that has been shaped by our minds in the process of becoming our experience. Raspanti is right on about Kant as he posits that it is not surprising then that we find that our experience conforms to principles prescribed by our minds. Kant concluded thus that it is not the mind that conforms to things; it is things that conform to the mind - Raspanti 1998: pgs. 53-56.

In Kant's view  we never merely observe. What we do do... is contribute to what we observe by interpreting it, organizing it, correlating it with prior knowledge, and so on. In doing so, the mental tools we use are certain universal principles of thought. Rose colored glasses... when we wear tinted eyeglasses, everything we see inevitable appears tinted. In similar fashion, the mind is fitted with a number of mental eyeglasses which transform everything we experience, without our realizing it. For Kant, the world as it is, independently of our minds is called the world of noumena. The world of noumena, of "things in themselves", is and must remain unknown. Whatever attempts we make make to reach out to it are inevitably frustrated by our mental eyeglasses which we cannot remove - Raspanti 1998: pgs. 53-56.

One might argue that Kant could not be right because if the world outside the mind was unknowable, we would have never observed and or discovered it. Good point, however, Kant was right. Yes, there is something and or things out there that we through social interaction arrive at in terms of a definition; but is there any other way to know it outside the mind. No. Does that negate an absolute creator? No, it suggests that we are able to observe something and arrive an idea of it - based on the cosmological argument for a Creator as in intelligent designer. The fact that we can observe anything and exchange our observational experiences suggests that there is a world of noumena; though unknowable. The fact that we desire to peek under the curtain suggests that we already know that there is something greater than what we think we see.

Yes, we have rose colored glasses and we know why? Given by someone to control what we see when we peek under the curtain as that is our desire to. We know innately that this is a fallen world and we long to see what the real original design is. One might think that the glasses either allow us to really see or they keep us from really seeing. That is the question we should ask especially in this fallen world as both could be true.

It maybe that what we might see would be so great we could no know it from where we stand. The rose colored eyeglasses being  necessary, given to us to peek in our attempt to understand what has been created by the Creator. Yet, would that really be the way to see what God sees the way He sees it... the creation He made as He saw it? Rather not. I doubt God would give such glasses out. Yet, we do appear to be wearing them. Why? Well, Satan handed them out at the fall so that we can see the world his way.  Can we ever remove them? Yes, and they were by Jesus Christ.
















*Source - The Virtual Universe: Philosophy, Physics and the Nature of Things, written by Matthew Raspanti - 1998.

Ignorance or Integration ~ Common Core in the Social Imagination

Is creating ignorance necessary in order to build a common core to thus sustain one kind of social imagination? Yes, that is what social engineers do. It is necessary to tear down what was/is thought of as real or good and or correct in order that everyone can get on board agreeing on the same things, ideas and way forward for all. Sounds like an excerpt from the Communist Manifesto, doesn't it?  Maybe it is.

Firstly, in order that such an agenda be put forward and acceptable, people must have and feel a certain amount of comfort: housing, food, clothing and education. Yes, education is part of feeling comfortable in the place you are. The human mind though of greater abilities or capacity in some than in others has an innate desire to learn; after all, we are essentially AI running programs created by a programmer. So, why isn't the program running smoothly? Good question.

The problems faced in this fallen world 'program' go back a long way. And, we can say that what was then remains the cause for today's social problems... all are due to the fact that corrupted programs have taken over the original program. Thus, it is assumed that by their 'our' works ~ we can be saved.

That is the way of this fallen world, salvation is ours... "Yes, We Can'' is the motto and the way the world appears to be moving forward in terms of sustaining a common cored social imagination. Where's the ignorance in that? This is ignorance of one kind and the foundation for the other. What kind of ignorance is that kind and is it necessary? Its the 'We' that is the first kind, the necessary kind as Zamyatin wrote about and it starts with education or actually a lack thereof but rather controlled.

Limit the amount information is initially the beginning to building a common core. Being able to read is necessary, of course; so that all can read the 'right' information. Learning to write is not important. Basic math is only the idea of how to arrive at making equations which is better than knowing absolutes. In this way whenever math 'as amounts/percentages' changes, one can easily accept the new information which explains how that was arrived at and explains away all other. This is all that is required because it is true in social reality, all reality is agreed upon information.

Which means that only certain histories will be informed and certain books read having certain philosophy or right thinking in them. There should be no curiosity, nor will there be. All information is understood to be given on a need to know basis. Food and housing and clothing the additional comforts are provided and the provider is the government, not mom or dad or the family. What is good for you is decided and put forward.

This agenda is underway. Many children do not know who to write, they do not know that food can be grown in their own backyard, they do not know how to cook or how to make their own clothes, that it is even possible. They do not know that people died for causes in American and other world histories. They do not know that people were killed by those with the right information. They are ignorant in many respects.

But don't worry, that is the beginning of the common core in the coming 'global' social imagination.