Thursday, June 14, 2012

The Obfuscation Factor

A heavily edited, partially truncated, nearly rewritten, but highly provocative article from AMERICAN THINKER
[NOTE: The following was so poorly written in my never humble opinion, I felt duty bound to enhance its meaning and improve its character before sharing it here. If that seems arrogant or presumptuous, please forgive me.  One of the purposes of this blog is to preserve, protect and defend the use of English, as I knew and loved it, before we were subjected to the systematic process of “ignorantization” and “idiotification” popularly –– and regrettably –– known as “dumbing down.” ~ FreeThinke]  

By Jonathan David Carson

Obama was raised by communists, he [associated] with communists in school, he [continued these associations after he finished school], he talks ... like a communist, [but] all we [dare] say, [however], is that he promotes envy and class warfare. That's like saying that Charles Manson [is unattractive].
Oh, [we are told], he takes money from Wall Street.  Warren Buffett likes him.  [Yes], and Engels was an industrialist.  ...  The New York Times liked Castro.  What else is new?

... [T]he vast majority of human beings ... have no compunctions] about criticizing –– even condemning –– religions whose nature seems foreign to them, yet we lack the courage to [condemn] even the [barbarous] religion of the [defunct] Aztecs   ... 
This is not ... theoretical ...  It costs ... lives ... lives of our ... soldiers today in Afghanistan, tomorrow [Heaven] knows where. 
[At] Jihad Watch  ... you will see –– from [the] mainstream press ... that Copts are slaughtered in Egypt, Christians blown up in their churches in Nigeria, teenage girls raped and murdered in England, mutilated in France, [subject to honor-killings] in Michigan, women stoned in Afghanistan and Iran, worshipers imprisoned in Indonesia.

... [Not long ago] a man beheaded his wife and dismembered her body in front of her six children.  In Germany!  "After he lunged at police with the severed head of his wife he threw it from the roof of his five-storey apartment building to the street below."  It will happen in Duluth tomorrow and Des Moines the day after.  We [dare not] say that he was a Muslim –– only that he was a Turk named Orhan Sircasi  ...
[W]e cowards ... won't even stand up to Muslim cab drivers who refuse to pick up blind people because they have seeing-eye dogs. We [meekly] go to other lines in the grocery story because we are intimidated by a Muslim [cashier] who [refuses to] ring up our pork sausage.  And we are afraid to say that, [while] we may not know exactly what Obama believes, whatever it is, it [can’t be] good.
We hear ... about [our] "secular society," but there is no secular society.  ... What [we] call “secular” [today] is [usually] New Age, and when it is not, it is some other form of [non-Christian worship], such as scientism or Obamamania. People [tend to be] religious [by nature], [yet] we are supposed to act as if religion does not matter.

The liberal establishment ... [scoffs] at [those] who think Obama is a Muslim.  But people who think that at least engage in a [deductive] reasoning process, unlike those who simply laugh.

... [T]he [scoffers] ...  take Obama's word for his Christianity, but we know what [his word] is worth.  He [claims to have] attended church for twenty years, but [never noticed] that the preacher was a [fulminating], hate-filled [anti-American bigot].  [Our president] slanders Christians who "cling" to their religion, but ... bows down to Saudi princes  ... He greets Muslims [in ways] that Muslims ... [characteristically] use only among themselves ...

[T]he main point. however, is that [people] really [do tend to be] ... religious.  ... [N]ot all religions are alike, [or even remotely similar].  [T]o be indifferent to the religious [character and] motivations of [others] ... is [downright pusillanimous] in a world where acid is thrown in the faces of little girls [just] for going to school, [and innocent victims of religious intolerance are beheaded simply for being Christian].
Why can't our media [and] our leaders face facts [and call a spade a spade]?


  1. The progressives who run out western societies have a fundamental hatred of them. They feel guilty for our success, even while they enjoy the fruits of it.

    No one needs to be racist or bigoted about setting immigration policy. 60 years ago it was considered sane and rational to only allow those in who shared out values and who wanted to join our society and not wage war with it from within.

    Letting in people who do not share our values is suicidal.

  2. Naturally, I couldn't agree more, Kurt.

    The dye was cast with the treacherous Immigration and Naturalization reform Act of 1965, which was deliberately designed to ensure the dissolution of our Caucasian, Christian, Anglo-European dominance and ascendancy.

    Teddy Kennedy usually gets the blame for this, but I believe he was used as a cat's paw by forces far darker and more insidious than even the DNC. Teddy, as you may remember, was none too bright.

    This mentality, I maintain, was a direct outgrowth of the mentality forged by scheming leftists at Nuremberg that resulted in our adoption of The UN Charter –– a document Alger Hiss delighted in claiming as "his baby."

    We won the Great War, but lost the peace to insidious forces defined or at least heavily influenced by The Frankfurt School -- the followers of whom are those "Intellectual Morons" we discussed the other day,

    Thanks for stopping by.

    ~ FreeThinke

  3. I believe our country has been in a downward spiral since the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Were this not true, then we Americans would have insisted upon better leaders. We would have by now grown weary of an electoral system that disinterests truly good and capable men, and brings to the fore the most proficient snakes politics can create. The fault of this is the pathetic ignorance of the American voter, an education system that poisons, rather than refines the minds of our young, and a body of lawyers who know how to employ words to manipulate under-educated citizens.

    It is working, however. There is no greater testimony to this than Mr. Carson’s observations and the fact that we elected someone who may be the least qualified man to serve as president ever. It is difficult to remain engaged in a system so broken, and I think in many ways, politicians of both parties do hope that we will “drop out” of the process. If we do, they win. I do not think our America will long last this persistent assault upon common decency and American exceptionalism.

    Your efforts have much improved Mr. Carson’s endeavor.

  4. Hello, Sam.

    I agree with your statement. I think the process of our dissolution may have started even earlier, however, with Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting and his unilateral, king-like taking of vast areas of land which he single-handedly set aside for future use. These great tracts of land became our system of National Parks.

    This is one instance where a despotic, unconstitutional act bore good fruit. I haven't visited any of the parks in many years, but when I was a young lad fifty-five to sixty years ago, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Estes, Bryce Canyon, The Garden of the Gods, Royal Gorge, The Grand Tetons, Pike's Peak and other natural wonders were glorious, thrilling, memorably beautiful places to visit. I have no idea what they might be like today, and maybe I don't really want to know? My memories of those early expeditions still give me great pleasure.

    But TR's aggressive, high-handed approach to the presidency was probably the beginning of Big Government as we know it today. His interference with the inner workings of Business set a bad precedent, even though his motives may have been good.

    But yes, the income tax and the Federal Reserve were established under Wilson, so he was a very bad president, indeed.

    My grandparents were born c. 1870 –– immediately after the Civil War. My father would be 104 this month, and mother's 99th birthday will occur in mid-August.

    I'm heading for age 72 faster than I like to think, but that means that I've been privileged to have had contact with people who witnessed all the watershed events that concern us anew today.

    The elders in my family were just regular folks, but I can tell you they were well aware of the dangers implicit in the actions taken by TR and Wilson, and I can tell you this, even though most of them were undistinguished immigrant members of the working class, they DESPISED Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- saw right through him as if he were a sheet of glass. So my conservatism has very deep roots.

    Thanks for your visit, and please come again.


  5. The whitewash of Islam has been going on for decades -- and has picked up in pace since 9/11 after a brief period of the facts about Islam seeping out for a few years.

    Every day in classrooms all across America, students are told just how wonderful Islam is. Go figure.

  6. I agree with FT ... we romanticize Theodore Roosevelt too much. He was no conservative, that's certain. He reminds us that the road to hell is paved with good intention.

    I like your blog, FT.

  7. "What people call secular is almost always New Age, and when it is not, it is some other form of idolatry, such as scientism or Obamamania."

    I'm am secular, yet I despise New Age and do not subscribe to scientism etc. What, I wonder, would Carson suppose my idol to be, or would he allow that I have none?

  8. Cab drivers can refuse helper dogs?

    Where? Not in America you dim witted Libertarian.

    I had this really traumatizing run in with a Muslim at the Museum of Fine Arts. I went to the cafeteria for a beer and a couple slices and a Muslim women was on the register.
    She handed me the opener rather than open the beer herself which is the general practice.
    The freaking nerve of making me use a church key. Just another example of how Muslims are taking over.

  9. Good morning, Jez,

    Atheism or agnosticism, themselves, as well as Progressivism –– in fact virtually all the "isms" –– qualify as forms of religion, or "idolatry," if you prefer.

    I'm a Christian, but I'm willing to accept a non-Christian's likely analysis that we Christians idolize the [to-themmythological] figure of Jesus Christ. Stern Christian Fundamentalists might take umbrage at that, but I, personally, have no problem accepting a lack of acceptance in others.

    My personal interpretation of atheism would be that it suggests the [usually fervent] Believer in Unbelief sees his own –– presumably rational –– interpretation of events and natural phenomena as the only reliable truth available.

    A Believer in Unbelief would, of course, tend to gravitate towards those who see the world through a similar-if-not-identical prism. I'm sure this is true for followers of all the various identifiable "persuasions."

    Fundamentalists accuse me of being a liberal all the time, because in their worldview anyone whose thinking is not congruent with their own has no right to call himself a Christian.

    From where I sit any form of humorless, passionately rigid, uncompromising, unquestioned belief in anything makes one qualify as fanatic, and I think fanaticism is dangerous.

    Mr. Carson merely raised points worthy of discussion. My sharing his article, which I practically rewrote but only from a syntactical standpoint, does not mean that I wholehearted endorse everything he said.

    Any speech or writing favoring a particular point of view is bound to annoy or offend any number of people, but disagreement does not mean we have a right to upbraid and abuse one another in debate.

    Thank you for visiting. I hope you'll come here often.

    Good day to you.

    ~ FreeThinke

  10. A gentle reminder to those who come here just to call attention to themselves, or for the express purpose of making rude, insolent, hurtful remarks:

    We welcome altercation
    But without vituperation.
    If you're here just for sensation
    Please find a new location.

    Intelligent, insightful, well-researched, politely phrased criticism is welcome from any and all sources. Continual sneering, jeering, snideness and unnecessarily cruel or caustic commentary will probably be removed.

    You may call it censorship, if you like. I prefer to think of it as establishing and maintaining high standards and helping us to stay in closer touch with "our better angels."

    Thank you for your cooperation.

    ~ Freethinke

  11. "My personal interpretation of atheism would be that it suggests the [usually fervent] Believer in Unbelief sees his own –– presumably rational –– interpretation of events and natural phenomena as the only reliable truth available."

    You claim atheism == empiricism (or worse, solipsism)? I suppose that atheism is often inspired by empiricism, but that's as close as they get IMO.

    "any form of humorless, passionately rigid, uncompromising, unquestioned belief in anything makes one qualify as fanatic, and I think fanaticism is dangerous."

    Would you say that you are not fanatical about Jesus? While I judge many flavours of christianity to be largely benign, I would hesitate to call it entirely "safe; citing for example the lesser commission (Matthew 10: "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword...").

    "Fundamentalists accuse me of being a liberal all the time, because in their worldview anyone whose thinking is not congruent with their own has no right to call himself a Christian."

    As I understand it, any christian who does not necessarily hold scripture & some creedal dogma to be inerrant is liberal. This would be your position, wouldn't it? Do you mean something else by liberal?

    "Any speech or writing favoring a particular point of view is bound to annoy or offend any number of people, but disagreement does not mean we have a right to upbraid and abuse one another in debate."

    Please accept the above as it is intended: mere disagreement. :)

  12. Isn't every form of sincere belief grounded in empiricism? In other words we tend to trust our feelings and perceptions derived from personal experience and gravitate towards systems or other individuals that appear closest to whatever it is that makes us feel most comfortable?

    I am not in any way a scientist, so I'm not qualified to say much about science –– or mathematics either –– but it's difficult for me to believe there is any such things as true "objectivity." I do believe objective Truth exists, but few-if-any are willing to accept it –– assuming they could even recognize it –– because Truth flatters no one in particular.

    So i would a rare bird indeed who could honestly claim to be non-partisan.

    I believe "Reason is but the slave of Passion," and that most human endeavor is at root an attempt to justify our "gut" feelings.

    I'm not fanatical about anything with the possible exception of aesthetic standards in Music, Art, Architecture, Poetry, Literature, Drama, and Interior decoration, and even there my tastes are very broad, but by no means all inclusive. I do not believe, for instance, that just because lots of people appear to like something that that necessarily makes it good.

    I've always been fond of a remark attributed to Oscar Wilde: "Whatever is popular is wrong."

    I'm sure I'm a highly liberal Christian in that I feel an inveterate hostility towards the chronicles of Sadism, genocide, horror, gore, cupidity, self-righteousness contempt and arrogant self-justification we call the Old Testament. Evangelicals writhe in indignation at my beliefs.

    No. I'm a humanitarian first. The brand of Christianity to which I ascribe must serve those interests. I cannot believe we are here merely to be slaves to an autocratic, ill-tempered, sadistic vituperative, ill-mannered old despot some tyrant in the deserts of the Middle East dreamt up long ago and decided to call God.

    I am certain god exists, but I have a different notion of who and what He is. I wish I could say it was original, but it is not.

    A far as our" offending" one another is concerned, I would hope that by now that you and I have grown past that phase, Jez. I have been more-than-a-little shocked at the bilious rhetoric I've indulged in on these various sites. I'm not at all like that in person, so I'm making an honest effort to reform by trying to set a more gracious tone with this blog.

    I hope you'll visit often.

    ~ FreeThinke

  13. "Isn't every form of sincere belief grounded in empiricism?"

    Other systems of epistemology are available. For example, you might be more of an idealist than an empiricist.

    "I believe "Reason is but the slave of Passion," and that most human endeavor is at root an attempt to justify our "gut" feelings."

    I've arrived at this conclusion too, with respect to ethics. Conscience is a gut feeling sense which fails us when faced with a sufficiently complicated dilemma; the field of ethics is an exercise in solving those dilemmas in a way which is consistent with the gut feeling responses we get from simple dilemmas.

    Likewise. I've pretty much given up contributing to western hero, although I admire silver fiddle I can't say the same for most of his commenters, or at least the ones who respond to my remarks. I don't know how he maintains his even temper.

  14. Good morning, Jez. I would hope that people of conscience who bother to think at all, and try to behave rationally would never give up on one another.

    As a dear old Methodist minister with whom I was barely acquainted once said, when I confessed to being depressed about the state of mankind:

    "Do not weary in well doing. There have always been more weeds than flowers in Nature's garden. Just be thankful you are blest not to be one of the weeds."

    It was probably the nicest compliment I've ever received. I doubt if I deserved it then or now, but you'd be surprised at how much solace it still gives some sixteen years after it was first said.

    People are confused, angry, feel the world spinning out of control, storm clouds gathering everywhere, gloom and doom predicted daily on every front.

    It's no wonder so many seem in edge and too ready to give rude retorts in an anonymous forum.

    I think we ought to cut each other a little slack.

    One thing's certain, no matter how knowledgeable and enlightened we may believe ourselves to be, no one's going to accept our understanding of the truth without a fight -- if ever. ;-)

    Be of good cheer. Giving in to pessimism won't help a thing.

    ~ FreeThinke



We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––


Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.