A long article at Zero Hedge, sent by Rossa, goes into “inner morality” and that of our “leaders”:
Morality is a highly misunderstood component of human nature. Some people believe they can create moral guidelines from thin air based on their personal biases and prejudices. Some people believe that morality comes from the force of bureaucracy and government law. Still, others believe that there is no such thing; that morality is a facade created by men in order to better grease the wheels of society.
All of these world views discount the powerful scientific and psychological evidence surrounding Natural Law — the laws that human beings form internally due to inherent conscience regardless of environmental circumstances. When a person finally grasps inborn morality, the whole of the world comes into focus. The reality is that we are not born “good” or “evil.” Rather, we are all born with the capacity for good AND evil, and this internal battle stays with us until the end of our days.
Every waking moment we are given a choice, a test of our free will, to be ruled by desire and fear, or to do what we know at our very core is right. When a man silences his inner voice, the results can be terrible for him and those around him. When an entire culture silences its inner voice, the results can be catastrophic. Such a shift in the moral compass of a society rarely takes place in a vacuum. There is always a false shepherd, a corrupt leadership that seeks to rule. Rulership, though, is difficult in the face of an awake population that respects integrity and honor. Therefore criminals must follow these specific steps in order to take power:
Pretend To Be Righteous: They must first sell the public on the idea that they hold the exact same values of natural law as everyone else. The public must at first believe that the criminal leaders are pure in their motives and have the best interests of the nation at heart, even if they secretly do not.
It goes on to list many others.
Zero Hedge, on the whole, is both bearish and inclined towards observing the bad motives of “leaders”, as many of us do – it might be termed libertarian in outlook and this particular author inclines towards the “both good and evil in Man”, which is hard to argue with. He chooses one way or the other or a bit of both. Choice is the issue.
In the case of Bush, Obama etc., under the thumb of Them, the dualism has been observed many times – one “balances” a good act with a bad and then a good one again and what we might fail to understand but an observation of their play-acting at memorial services etc. and what some of Them I have known said themselves confirms – is that they genuinely believe that thereby they are doing “good”, i.e. for our “greater good”, as defined by their ascended masters.
The closer you get to The Power, the more you find the “evil ones” lurking.
I’ve been reading these people up for a decade now and there really appears to be a feeling inside them that they are doing this good thing – this is why they’re so tenacious in what they do, as with all global elitists – they smile a smile of pity on us poor sods and our “mistaken ways”. We, on the other hand, get angry because we see – the writer at Zero Hedge, Autonomous Mind as well, Restoring Britain, whomever you want – Lord Somber, Amfortas, many, many people from many many walks – we ALL see what they are doing and how evil it is in its effects and implications.
Churchmouse believes in Original Sin. There’s a case for that view but the word “depraved” might be OTT, although I think he uses it in a theological sense. Original Sin is up against John 3:16, the underlying premise of which says we have a choice. In fact, the whole idea is that we freely choose one way or the other, which comes back to the Zero Hedge man.
And Predestination – who can say? Was Obama born to evil? Was Bush? Or did they meet it once they began on the path? There is much material on the inter-generational, self-perpetuating alien trauma they visit on their children who seem “born to rule”. The Manchurian Candidate is in that mix – Raymond Shaw was a toff in America’s hierarchy. The word no one must use is satanic and yet people like de Vey made a career out of it and fitted in with the military well. Gottlieb and narcotics and people throwing themselves out of windows, Bohemian Grove and its weird ceremony – why on earth would it take that form, even if it is theatre? These are questions they haven’t answered satisfactorily.
When you look at Darfur and the way women and children were treated, the fiendishness, also in Algeria with the various killing squads, in the “leaders” of Islam in general, in Shariah Law, masquerading as morality – there’s evil there. And yet the Zero Hedge man would not accept that it is any more than this dualism – this “balancing” of good and evil.
I say, as august people have through history, that there is very much an evil entity – sentient and insane. If it’s good enough for the Lord to identify this entity in these terms, it’s good enough for me. Beware False Prophets, we’re told and that includes those who play down and try to redefine the argument into this “balance”, the yin and the yang, all of that – that’s a false model.
The more real model is that Man strives for good, ever onwards and upwards, like climbing a mountain or ziggurat and always believes he is doing good, even when he is not. The evil entity[ies] waylays the good intent and takes it down paths it should not go.
Which is the way to go? In external terms, the good book is as good as any – Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount – if everyone at least paid lip service to that, then we’re reasonably OK.
But now, today, we’re adrift from our moorings, we don’t adhere to anything but the law of the jungle – kill or be killed, take your pleasures as a beast and spare not the children in doing it. No crime in excess.
The whole protective framework has been dismantled and the young don’t know what they’re doing because the old won’t tell them and even if they do, the young have new gods.
They’ve grown up with a hedonism which stuns those of a certain age and upbringing. I saw it so many times in the things of childhood which many young do not put aside at the appropriate time but retain it, still pursue it, see the world in terms of it – placing our own personal rights and interests over others in an amoral way, rather than an immoral way.
I place my own interests centrally too – you do too but at least you recognize some sort of classical liberalism here – there are limits and others have rights too. This is where libertarianism founders, in the pursuit of some of their own inalienable, hedonistic right to do anything and don’t you dare tell me what to do.
There’s a childlike aspect to that. There’s also an element, once texts like the Sermon on the Mount are never known by the young growing up, of there being no arbiters any more except this Zero Hedge “inner morality”, which so many seem bereft of it now.
And you can’t say anything because you’re immediately lumped in with the New Puritans who’d ban smoking. I don’t want to ban smoking but I do want to see limits to people’s excesses. because society as a whole is suffering.
What of all these Anakin Skywalkers running around, drugged out and living some bacchanalian life of the Self? Model for a society to follow? There’s a point – don’t know if you can see it – when being a lad or being a ladette crosses a line and becomes a new religion in itself.
There were three specific incidents which caused me to jump ship on this lifestyle. One involved a lodger I took in and that lifestyle was in-house, so to speak, for a long time. Another is for another time.
There was a third incident where there was a local church youth group meeting – the naive old thinking they were providing good things and the right path for the young and the young certainly paying more than lip-service to the ideals as one does when young – they were probably genuine enough kids at the time. Moggsy says it’s not any kids she knows of but perhaps she can’t see the forest for the trees. Or perhaps I was with a rougher crowd.
However, once the olds had gone, there wasn’t even any finesse to it – in those church grounds, the whole thing came out and it was being done on the grass, in among the graves, in the entrance to the church. Did anyone see me, a peripheral visitor from another land, as someone who was supposed to control that event? I wonder these days if I had failed to see what I was meant to do.
This wasn’t just some piece of theatre old people like to dream up – these kids had no sense of place, no sort of dignity – it was as if it were suddenly transformed into a dystopic night. Every one of us had our parties, we listened to the Stones and Zeppelin, these were the cool things to do but unless you were brought up differently to me, at least we found a room and wouldn’t desecrate a church. In a strange way, if the urinating against the church stones were a deliberate act, it would almost have a sort of point to it – a protest of rejection – but this wasn’t that.
There was a sort of emptiness in the hedonism, where it had gone past some point of decency. Sure, decency is not a word you could use for any of our behaviour but there is, as the Zero Hedge man noted – some sort of inner knowledge when something is right or wrong.
And there are many pundits today arguing that there is not – that all is relative. People who should know better and are looked up to as icons of morality, custodians of the community’s morality, are into this relativism.
This was present at the St Paul’s spectacle with Occupy. And what are the influences on the kids which we think will miraculously cause kids to do the right thing?
Gaming, Eminem [at that time], Mads, Rap and its values. I don’t know how I can put this without convicting myself but for some reason, I was privy to much of it, never abetted it but was there and that’s where the dilemma for me started – this was beyond the pale. So no, I didn’t start preaching as I appear to be doing in this post. I walked away.
Hence I was still part of open invitations until I walked away from all of it. I thought at the time that they’d grow up as we eventually did, come out of it, become responsible to the extent of at least having limits to our behaviour. Don’t know if you can see but this doesn’t appear to have happened with so many – they haven’t grown up at all. Women in their 40s are still at it, men are still imagining their studhood, the party’s the only reality and married men and women look on enviously. Seems pretty empty to me.
I’m not writing about a righteous, blameless life but about limits, perhaps having some noble pursuit. Knowing when to hold ‘em, knowing when to fold ‘em. Knowing when to walk away.
There’ll be a hiatus for some time – woke up late and am behind in today’s doings out there.