RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
Countrymen,
Well-known it is that criminals confuse language to confuse marks. Stacy McCain writes volumes illustrating this phenomenon as embodied in just one individual.
Centered at the vast conspiracy and criminal organization masquerading as the Democratic Party is the confusion of human values with a language about human rights.
Human rights is neither a religious nor a US Constitutional category of thought. It is socialist, which is to say criminal, agitprop. It’s virtue is its vagary. It can mean anything a troublemaker wants to make it mean. Today it means eliminate X. Tomorrow, eliminate eliminationists. Today I want this, so it is a human right. Tomorrow, I do not want you to have that, so it is not a human right. All because of some unexplained or nebulously articulated human right criminals define and of which there are none.
Human rights agitators catalogue libraries of phrases known, from experience, to arrest economy, reason, common sense, choice and sympathy and to infuse these with confusion, wherein there is profit. At the end of this confusion-tutti-frutti a voice of Amnesty International employs that library to deploy such phrases. They are extant for at least 90 years. Yet still they confuse the dull, the marks, which explains their continued use. And the majority of Americans are dull getting duller. Easy marks.
Calm and alert humans have no interest in human rights. They have every interest in human values. Their categories of thought are religious and constitutional. Inalienable — not human — rights derive from human values. For examples, see discussions here, here, here and here.
Human values are specific, definite, clear, precise. Easily understood are their meanings and purpose. Nebulous they are not. Fixed they are. They do not deteriorate through time. Space is no impediment to them. Explorations of human values in practice and in contrast to human rights are here, here, here, here and here.
Human rights is criminal talk. Human values is human talk. Human rights must be agitated. Human values drive themselves.
Update 1: Consequences in grand national strategic goal derive from the distinction between human rights and human values.
Update 2: And Al Saud intends to keep it up. See also here.
Update 3: Global Divestment Day
Update 4: How about a RICO suit at Tom Steyer?
Update 5: On 27 January 2015, Marine GEN (Ret.) James N. Mattis addressed the United States Senate Armed Services Committee on the subject A New American Grand Strategy. At Hoover Institution, who published an adapted version of General Mattis’ address, I commented — with edits here — as follows:
Not that it matters, but, I both appreciate and despond over General Mattis’ address here. Appreciate because (1) as a genuine warrior he says what he sees and eloquently and (2) his heart is unalloyed courage and compassion. Despond because (1) his address reflects lack of situational awareness — half his auditors at least regard the nation state, including USA, as obsolete and perishing — and (2) his address, although latterly specifying or implying serious tactical weaknesses of current operations, transits the periphery of his title: grand national strategy.
It is rare for a military leader to grasp and execute the several strands — principally diplomatic, economic and military, but others as well — of grand national strategy sufficiently to create a rational grand national strategic *goal* that is also inspirational. It is rare for anyone to be able to do that. General David Petraeus has that ability, which is why the Anti-American, Globalist-partisan US Justice [so-called] Department is persecuting/prosecuting him. Asking Congress or a bureaucracy to develop that ability and execute with it compares with asking a herd of cats to organize an expedition to summit Annapurna. Distilling and serving a happy grand national strategic *goal* is a personal, leadership thing few can do, but some definitely can and do accomplish. Their thoughts merit discovery and attendance.
The cynosure of a nation is not her grand national strategy. It is her grand national strategic *goal.* Given what we see now, project and anticipate — always expecting the unexpected, as General Mattis mentions, thankfully, in his address — where and what do we want to be as a nation three, five, ten, etc. years hence? What is our goal? What do we really, truly — as a nation — want for and of ourself to be, to do, to think? What is our inner necessity as a nation? What are we on this earth to accomplish as a national presence? And why do members of Congress not live in the states from which they were selected for office?
Related: On 04 March 2015 Marine GEN (Ret.) James N. Mattis wrote for Hoover Institution under title Using Military Force Against ISIS. I commented:
I am content that GEN (Ret.) Mattis’ thinking, clear and compelling, be expressed in public. Thank you, General! Our countrymen are working their way towards how they will think and what they will do when they are quit of the hag riding their back. And they will be that. This exercise in preparation for the restoration of national sovereignty and wealth flowing from national moral and intellectual strength is what should be happening and what is happening. I am content.
Update 6: An interesting comment string arose at Instapundit when Glenn Reynolds referenced Mark Cunningham on the subject of what The Fraud should say about Islam. I commented as follows, making an important observation regarding the effect of religion on affairs:
Were I to take Cunningham’s essay as serious thought — and I think it is not — I would say his face is too close to the canvas, he has seen a couple of swirls of paint and yelled, “Eureka!” Were he serious, he would pull back to ponder the whole canvas or at least more of it than has caught his fancy. His enthusiasm would, shall we say, moderate.
Serious, productive thought cannot come from other than a monastic. Men and women bearing the daily burdens and cares of life, such as Cunningham, simply cannot and will not create intellectual and moral forms that benefit anyone lastingly. They are too busy, and justly so, one hopes. Such men and women can use such forms once they are created, but create them they can not and will not. Those stepped way back from the canvas — monastics — do that. The truth is the whole.
AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA
