The Kavanaugh hearings are an enormous attack on legal principles, beginning with the concept that one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Yet the Marxists seek to destroy that principle by claiming that allegations are sufficient to destroy someone’s credibility.
It is an existential threat, and what is being threatened is the existance of civilization.
If an accusation is the only thing needed to convict, threaten and/or destroy, there is no possibility of the viable existance of a judge or jury — the case is tried by spin doctors in the court of public opinion, and the most persistent BELIEF predominates above reason, facts, credibility or truth.
It becomes necessary to understand that existance must always be above belief, not only to prevent the atrocity of injustice, but also to maintain sanity, and fight off the increasing insanity of Marxism.
Toward that end, I offer certain Social Axioms to be considered to stem the tide of insanity that has taken over most of our civilization. These are expanded with more details in http://www.planmon.somee.com/english/study/ambiente.html.
Either existence or belief is primary in guiding our actions in any particular situation or moment in time. The primacy of Existence holds as axiomatic that reality must be accepted because we really exist, we do not imagine, invoke or conjure up our existence. Existence requires that we live by our productive efforts, originality, and knowledge that we are responsible because our acts have real consequences. The primacy of Belief, by contrast, avoids causes so that it can duck responsibility. It permits being a copy and living from the productive efforts of, others. If someone says “nobody can prove they exist” they are claiming that existence is what they “imagine.” Such a statement contradicts the fact that expression itself means interacting with a real existence outside themselves. To complete the contradiction, it is obvious that they see the same reality as everyone else — they must, just to be able to cross the street, drive a car or survive if no one else is around. It is only when they want to impose their whim above reason that they allege that existence is only what they say they imagine. By claiming “conviction” and “belief” they avoid having to prove that they have value to interchange, and by so doing, they can defraud at will.
Primacy of Existence
Value is proved if both benefit from the interchange. Belief without proof only yields benefit for parasites who offer no value. The primacy of Belief leads to interests which serve as impediments to an honest interchange of values, so removing these impediments is neither agreeable nor convenient, because parasites find it to their advantage to impose their whims using force instead of defending their ideas with reason. All find it convenient, for example, to believe that “someone” who is most “popular” should lead the group, “coordinate” the efforts, tell us who are our enemies, and direct wars, but it only benefits the parasite who lives from the efforts of the others. “Someone” less popular and more competent may have a better plan. Others find it convenient to say that they believe in “karma,” “spirits,” “the beyond,” “mystic truths,” “supernatural happenings,” “extraterrestrials,” religious dogma or a personal god who is all powerful, all knowing and does not require that we define our values for ourselves, but it only benefits the parasite who live from the beliefs of others. “Belief” without proof is convenient and irresponsible.
“Axioms of uncertainty” is a blatant contradiction in terms used to justify ignorance. It can only be used to justify ignorance because it seeks to avoid admitting that we must learn what we do not yet know. Deductions and inductions follow from axiomatic, demonstrable truths, not uncertainty. Axioms are undeniable truths which are obvious to all in observable reality. It is not a belief, justification, whim or claim by someone in power. It is the basis of the theory which enables deduction, induction, and explanation of other phenomena. Because uncertainty permits naming and justifying a phenomenon without explaining, it provides no new insights or knowledge. The only valid reason to admit that no non-contradictory explanation exists now is to find it later. Such an admission is not meant to be convenient, it is meant to challenge. The greatness of human possibilities is opaqued by the smallness in their search for convenience. It is not necessary to “believe in” or “like” what I or others say, but to know if it is truth or a lie, you must prove or disprove the assertion for yourself. And the tools you have for doing so are information, example, logic, reason, the scientific method, and a strong argument. When there is judgment, someone is right, someone is wrong. There is debate, truth and a direction for improvement.
We exist. That is sufficient to prove that we exist. Existence does not require our approval, belief or justifications. But, to prevent us from inserting subjectivity — feelings, emotion, wants, whims, or “belief” it does require that we temper our consciousness with the discipline to observe and reason.
Primacy of Belief
The primacy of Belief requires that even our existence be “conjured up” with consciousness, conviction, and belief. It is unnecessary. If we do, in fact, exist, we will reach the same conclusions as with Primacy of Existence. If we do not, it does not matter what, or how much, we believe. The only purpose of Primacy of Belief is to let us sidestep thinking to justify any hallucination, wish or whim as true without having to prove it. Thinking does not let us trick ourselves nor manipulate, shaft or destroy productivity with existentialism, “pragmatism,” “positivism,” “spiritualism,” or “oriental mysticism.”
With Primacy of Belief, parasites contradict existence. Because reality and morality provide the proof that both parties have value to interchange, parasites use belief instead of proof. In that manner, they defraud by interchanging values for promises and money for debt. Reality, and Primacy of Existence does not permit justifying reaction without action, changing the common good for the average bad or justifying immunity and impunity with “tolerance,” “human rights” or “social justice.”
Only Primacy of Belief permits denying reason and the only purpose for denying reason is to avoid the responsibility that reason would not permit. If Existence is primary, it is clear that those who say they CANNOT perceive reality without the distortion of their SENSES simply WILL NOT perceive reality without the distortion of their WHIMS. They want to STEAL both the production and respect of producers.
Primacy of Belief justifies whim. Without whim, the social world works exactly like the physical world. When international bankers tell the politicians that they must impose taxes on the population to establish a “culture of tribute” as a condition of receiving loans, politicians whim to comply, not only to take the easy money of the loan, but also because it helps them control the population. They prefer to satisfy their whims than to ensure the well being of their country.
Primacy of Belief is unacceptable in the physical world. If a mechanic says he can fix the car by faith, that he will take a poll to decide if the car has reached the “ideal” compromise between broken and fixed, or that we should “adapt” and accept the car’s state, it is an obvious fraud. It is obvious in the physical, and it should be obvious in the social. What “postmodern philosophers” hawk as “too profound” or “unreachable” is a fraud designed to be incomprehensible. Since its origins in Plato, through Kant, Hegel and Marx, the “masterworks” of these pseudo-philosophers are scams to invert the morality of the physical world and build a world of whim and “altruism” which enables parasites to blame producers for their own failures and take credit for producers’ success.
The common good can only be bettered by explaining and perfecting ideas. Surveys, statistics and other political justifications seek to convert the common good to the average bad. The Prince, by Machiavelli, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, The Art of War by Sun Tzu, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, and the parts of the old testament that contain the commercial code may be filled with the ugliest thoughts about how to obtain power and dominion over others, but they are “good books” because they explain axioms, tactics, and techniques that have been used to destroy good with bad. By explaining instead of justifying, they provide a point of reference for political commentators. They can say that someone’s political methods are Machiavellian and others will understand because Machiavelli explained the tactic. Kant, Hegel or Marx, on the other hand, only justify political whims. To end the tactics and techniques of evil, they must be explained. There is no value or need to “justify” or “believe in” what can and should be proven.
More at: http://www.planmon.somee.com/english/study/ambiente.html
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.