What should be clear by now is that I believe liberals and conservatives have a different view on politics and religion, but why? Liberals want everyone to believe that the difference is that they care more about people, but they don't. Like the street corner preacher wants to prove to God how much he cares about converting people to Christianity, liberals do care more than conservatives about proving they care more about people. And like the street corner preacher, this need to prove to others how much they care only undermines what they are trying to accomplish.
The problem here isn't so much about what liberals think, as it how they think. Some insight into this how they think can be seen in how liberals and conservatives view government and what our rights are. I've already written much about both already, but let's have another look them
Beginning with democracy, liberals have a very perverted view of it. What everyone seems to think it means is that it is a system where
we the people decide what is best for us, but do liberals really believe that? I believe that they would have no problem having a benevolent king who enforces liberal ideology. (Can there be any other reason for their support of Fidel Castro?) It is clear that is who they vote for. They want liberal elites deciding what is best for us. For them, there is no distinction on how a government should function from a monarchy, other than how to decide who the king should be.
The only system that actually delivers what
we the people want is the free market, and that isn't the government. All of the abuses that people perceive the rich perpetrate upon us are not possible without the government siding with them. The government does not protect us from the rich, they enable them. Without the government, the only way the rich can remain rich is by delivering what
we the people want. In other words, they would have to earn it. Government, from the liberal perspective, is suppose to redistribute what people deserve, not what people earn.
In order to support the liberal perspective of government, they have even perverted what a right is to anything they believe people deserve. A conservative believes rights are inalienable, and thus require no one to determine who has to have something taken from in order to give to others.
The basic principles of democracy and the rights of citizens have completely different meanings between liberals and conservatives, and there has to be a reason why. The only explanation has to be a completely different thought process, and I view it as whether the person doing the thinking is enlightened or not.
Don't tell me. I know where your tired thinking is heading. You think conservatives are enlightened while liberals are not. Correct?
Not quite. It's true that no liberal is enlightened, yet very few conservatives are either. Most people who call themselves conservative merely recognize the wisdom that comes from conservative thought, but that doesn't make them enlightened. In fact, these conservatives only undermine conservative principles with their ridiculous blather. A good test to determine whether you are enlightened is by whether your actions are truly accomplishing your goals, and with daily examples of conservatives shooting themselves in the foot, or engaging in circular firing squads, it's clear they are not concerned with accomplishing a thing.
In fact, I don't even consider myself enlightened. I certainly don't live a lifestyle worth emulating if that's how you go about judging it.
Then why should I listen to you?
That's just it. I don't want you to listen to me. You won't learn enlightenment here. It can only be found within you. I may not claim enlightenment, but I know it when I see it. Hopefully what I write here will help you see it too.
And speaking of ridiculous blather, there is a great deal of it to be found on the Internet on what is enlightenment. I'm not saying that there isn't much to learn on the subject, but you'll never achieve it by studying it. Enlightenment isn't so much a what as it is a how, and there is very little about that to be found.
To start with, there is no 'attaining' enlightenment. Enlightenment is a journey, not a destination. It's merely a process by which you evaluate what are the right or wrong decisions to make. And importantly, understanding that to make no decision is still a decision.
That's why it is important to identify the wrong decisions, and not just focus on what the right ones are. There is a term I've heard many times called the
Do Something disease. When faced with some terrible calamity, people who are not enlightened feel a need to at least do something. I can assure you, when someone is gripped with the do-something disease, they will almost certainly make the wrong decision.
Take for example the tragedy that occurred in Newtown CN. It was a terrible thing when that mentally disturbed young man shot all those children, but nothing being discussed as a response to that tragedy will make a difference. Sure, the elites that are pushing it are just using it as a way to advance gun control, and they know what they are doing would not have made a difference if what they want were in place at the time, but the only reason they have any traction is because our populace is inflicted with the do-something disease. All that matters to them is that something must be done, and doing nothing means that you don't really care about what happened there.
Yet before we can get into what is enlightenment, we need to spend some time discussing what it is not. More specifically, what is its opposite.
That's easy. It's Stupid.
I can understand where you get that misconception, in that enlightenment requires intelligence, so the more intelligent you are the greater the possibility that you can find yourself on an enlightened path, but it's foolish to believe that if you are intelligent then you are enlightened.
Take for example Albert Einstein. He was quite intelligent, and since he spouted a lot of liberal dogma, many have considered him an enlightened man, but I would profoundly disagree. There are two clear examples of what he is credited with saying that demonstrates this.
The first is,
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. This seems like a very clever saying, which indeed it is, but it is highly unenlightened. Probably the most dangerous and destructive thought process to come out of what is considered enlightened thought is pacifism. I blame pacifism as the real reason all of the great mass murders took place in the last century, from Stalin to Hitler to Castro and many others. All of them could have been prevented if it weren't for the pacifist amongst us, and that saying of his explains why.
Any rational look at our history will show that almost every war we have been in occurred because the enemies we eventually ended up having to kill anyway, believed that we, the United States of America, would not fight them. As such, the only way to prevent war is to prepare for it. Only when our enemies know without any doubt that we are ready, willing and able to confront them can they be prevented from committing the horrors that they do.
It takes an extreme misunderstanding of human nature to believe appeasement will ever work, and that leads to the next example of Einstein's unenlightenment, which is his definition of insanity.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results..
I would admit that if you are doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results then you are insane, but that is not what this saying is about, because no one does that. The purpose of this saying is to dismiss people you don't want to understand, and not wanting to understand the people you disagree with is the polar opposite of enlightened thought. I have been hearing this saying by Einstein uttered a lot lately by liberals in order to explain why conservatives are doing what they are doing, and they do so specifically to avoid considering why they are doing it.
Let's face it. In spite of all of his good intentions, Albert didn't understand people, and he didn't really want to. There was no doubt he was incredibly brilliant, and said many insightful things, but he was far from enlightened.
So if you don't think he was enlightened, what do you think he was? Evil?
No, but there is a correlation. If you think about it, all of the great evil people of the past and present were very intelligent people. Stupid people can be evil, but there are no examples of great evil combined with stupidity.
This is why it is so important to have a word that describes the opposite of an enlightened path, because if you are not on it, your on something else. I don't like to use unelightened, because you could just be stupid. So without any readily available term, I'll make one up. All intelligent people are either on enlightened paths, or endarkened ones. Technically, I believe all people are on enlightened or endarkened paths, it's just that the more intelligent you are, the more obvious which path you are on.
Sometimes with intelligent people it's hard to tell, like with Albert Einstein, but if you understand what endarkened paths are, it's actually quite easy. Take for example Bill Maher. I don't get HBO at my home, but whenever I'm in a hotel with it, I always try to catch an episode of Real Time. Bill is incredibly intelligent and says some pretty insightful things, but there is no more obvious endarkened individual walking the planet today.
I recently watched an episode where he went on a long diatribe of how Ronald Reagan was the most evil president we ever had. You should watch it. It's absolutely stunning in its brilliance, insight and pure undiluted evil nature. I have never seen a greater example of using facts to spin a web of lies for the sole purpose of instilling hatred into the hearts of those who listen to it.
I can't think of a man who without committing evil acts, sows more evil in this world than Bill, and that's what endarkened paths do to you. They make you evil without appearing to be evil... at least you don't see it in yourself.
This is an important distinction to make. Evil and endarkenment are not the same, but are related. Before I get into what enlightenment is, you must understand what endarkenment is, and luckily Bill provides the best example available. If you want to be enlightened, you really must watch Real Time every chance you get. Enlightened paths are hard to see, but endarkened paths are as bright as day, provided you even know they are there.
And if you don't know they are there, you are most certainly on one.
Back up a second. You don't get to make stuff up like endarken, then use it to defend your absurd positions. Albert and Bill are great men, and you're nothing. Why should I believe you?
Greatness is purely public perception and speaks to nothing about enlightenment. I would even say it works against enlightenment as people are willing to believe some thing just because some 'great person' said it. The opposite is also true. To dismiss some thing just because it was put forward by someone who is a nobody, goes against any form of enlightened thought.
But I understand where you are coming from. People who think the way I do must be seen as evil or stupid or both, so there can't be another option like we are well intentioned, but wrong. You believe we are stupid or evil specifically so that what we say can be dismissed. Whether I'm a great person or a nothing, really plays no part in it.
I on the other hand have no intention of dismissing Albert or Bill, and even advocate that they must be listened to so that their criticisms can be challenged. This is the essence of enlightened thought. People who sincerly disagree with you must be listened to. Enlightenment grows when you overcome obstacles, not by dodging them. Dismissing, or actively silencing someone is the essence of endarkenment. Specifically, endarkenment means that you don't want to know what challenges you.
It's one thing to be too stupid to understand something. Endarkenment means you can understand, you just won't, and so actively seek ways to avoid it.
Enough about what enlightenment is not. It's time to get into what it is. There are many aspects to enlightenment, and the most critical is to see what can't be seen.
Huh? See what can't be seen? That sounds like an oxymoron.
Not at all. Far too many people are guided by what their eyes can see, and not by what only their soul can. A great example is socialized medicine. People can see all of the poor people that receive medical treatment that they could not afford otherwise, but can they see the poor that are dying because of it?
It all comes down to whether you believe in the free market or not. As I described previously about how free market forces drove the price down, and the availability up, on microwave ovens, the same is true for medicine. Between the money the government forks into medicine, which artificially props up high prices, and the legal restrictions and lawsuits sponsored by the government in it's wholly vain attempt at
protecting people, medicine is far more expensive and less available than it would be if the government hadn't got involved.
I didn't believe it when you said that before, and I don't believe it now. The poor need to be protected with government sponsored medicine. I don't know why you don't get that? Even if what you are saying is true, lowering prices only benefits those with money, like the rich.
The free market benefits the poor far more than the rich. The rich will always be able to afford the best medicine. They always have, and always will. Without the free market, the poor will always be groveling before the death panels that socialized medicine requires, asking to have their ills covered.
Any casual observer of life will know you can't give everything to everyone. All finite resources require some form of rationing. With free market forces, the more money you make allows you better access to health care, and in turn, lowers the cost and increases the availability to others. When the government determines who gets what, costs remain high, and the poor needlessly die because of it.
The bottom line is that there are people dying now who would not otherwise, but you can't see that with your eyes. There is no scientific method of analyzing this. How many have died, if any, can only been 'seen' with your soul. It's like giving a beggar on the street the change in your pocket. Your eyes can see the gratitude from the bum you gave the money too, which makes you feel good, but can't you also see how this condemns him to further live on the street, which should make you feel sick.
This leads to another thing the liberals aren't seeing. What that bum needs more than the spare change that your eyes can see, is the affirmation that comes with that hand out. By handing over that money you are implicitly stating to that bum that he is not to blame for his current condition, and more importantly, that you don't expect any better of him.
Endarkened people are all about what they can see with their eyes, and can quantify with their facts, while enlightened people are all about what can't be seen, and are driven by what is good or evil.
This leads to my definition of enlightenment, which is:
Enlightenment [en-lahyt-n-muhnt] noun
The ability to see good and evil in order to make the right decisions.
All of us who do recognize that their is good and evil in this world do see it, but not with our eyes. We see it with our soul. This makes it very misleading. If our soul is not pure, what we recognize as good could actually be evil, and vice versa. So an enlightened path is one where we seek to recognize good and evil, and not play God and determine what is to be good or evil.
This is why liberals can't be enlightened. Assuming they even recognize that good and evil does exist, their notion of it is about bending what good and evil are to match their utopian dreams, rather than identifying what they really are to shape their objectives. What they want done requires government to accomplish, but government is force, and all forms of force are evil. By forcing themselves to see this evil as good they warp their soul, which distorts their perception of good and evil.
Enlightenment then is the process by which you make yourself good, and it is this distortion, or lack thereof, that determines how good you are. Regardless of your intentions, the more you see evil as good, the more evil you are, and the more evil you will cause.
Going back to the first page of my web book, I asked you whether you are good or evil, and on it I stated:
Yet if the above question does cause you a moments pause, and makes you wonder whether you are good or evil, then there is a chance you might be good. Only people who know they don't have all of the answers, and are actively evaluating what is right or wrong can possibly be good. Being a good person is a process; not a state. It is a journey; not a destination.
Bringing this forward, does it not ask you whether you are enlightened? Critical in that paragraph is evaluating what is right or wrong, because as my definition implies, it's not good enough to identify good and evil, you must use it to make the right decisions. This is why every decision by liberals is an epic fail.
I don't see any failures by liberals, let alone epic.
Your notion of civil rights are a prime example.
No surprise there, you racist-misogynist-homophobe.
We'll get into your ad hominem attacks later.
For now, there is no denying our past where blacks were enslaved, and women were treated as second class citizens. A lot of progress has been made to right those wrongs, but no thanks go to liberals. They have only made things worse.
Of course that is how you would feel. As a white male, society discriminates in your favor. We are only trying to correct that. Or are you saying that we should not confront evil?
Yes you should. Enlightenment requires that evil be confronted. To not confront evil, and think you are doing good (as pacifists believe), evil flourishes, and your endarkenment deepens. The problem is your reliance on government, and the belief you are doing good with that evil, is what makes things worse.
As I said before, I will concede that as a white male, society has conferred upon me great advantages, but not by design. While government has turned strongly against us white males, it is women and minorities that have been harmed the most.
As a white male, I am free to do what I feel is right without being denounced as a traitor to my sex or race. More importantly, no one will take pity upon me when I fail. This reinforces my independence, so no matter what your words or actions may intend, society expects me to succeed, if for no other reason than to be the source of wealth to tax and spend on those that government
There are many examples of what such favors have done. I don't want to get into what liberal government has done to harm blacks, because it's just too sad to contemplate, the way they went from actual slaves to virtual ones. Also, using statistics to explain such harm like 70% of blacks are born to unmarried women, just flies over liberals who believe father's aren't really necessary, so let's talk about the harm that government favoritism has done to women.
As I stated earlier, there is no doubt that women have not been respected as they should in our society, and still don't quiet frankly. Some progress had been made since the early part of the 20th Century, but most of those gains were undone by liberalism.
Take for example one of the worst aspects of being a man, which is that he once had expectations placed on him by society to sacrifice his time with his family in order to succeed at work. Instead of correcting this, liberalism states that women must sacrifice the family for a career. That's suppose to be progress?
Where feminism (which is only a form a liberalism) has really failed women, can be summed by the troupe attributed to Gloria Steinem
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. I don't know how well they have convinced women that they don't need men, but they have done a damn fine job of convincing men they are not needed by women. Men are dropping out of society in droves. Women are excelling ahead of men in the feminist-oriented education system at all levels, and they far outnumber men in college. Yet are women really benefited by this?
As far as marriage is concerned that supposed patriarchal institution whose only purpose is to enslave women it used to be that only married men were deserving of respect. Not now. I can't recall the last time I heard one man congratulate another who said he was going to get married ... and meant it. Are women really benefitted when men dismiss the importance of marriage? I know men aren't.
Yet men aren't going anywhere. They are not hiding under rocks. They are very dynamic creatures, and if they can't have a necessary and constructive role in women's lives as men, then they will have a destructive one. Yes, feminism (liberalism) has done a damn fine job of convincing men that marriage is meaningless, and that they have no constructive role to play in women's lives, but at what cost? Are women really better off after what feminism has wrought? Yet what else can be expected when the evil of government is brought into play? Men are indeed turning into the worthless creatures that feminism demands of them, so from that perspective, feminism has been a great success. Yet the only gains I have seen by women from feminists' policies are pyrrhic victories.
Yes, evil must be confronted, and there are many lingering evils in our society like racism and sexism that must be eliminated, but your not going to do it with evil, particularly when you can't or won't recognize what is good or evil in this world.
So government has no constructive roll to play?
Of course it does. Contrary to the impression I have given you, I am no more anti-government as I am pro-war. I just recognize them for what they are. Evil. And since I am no pacifist, I recognize that evil has to be on the table as possible actions, whether it is government or war, and as far as I am concerned, they are one and the same. They only differ by intention.
If you believe that liberal government has in reality benefited you, why are you complaining?
Because I believe that winners and losers only exist together in games. In real life, everyone wins or everyone loses. This is my core belief in the free market. If both parties of a transaction don't see it as a win, then either thieves or the government got involved, and we all lose when they do.
I cannot stress this enough. I believe that I will never really win while others are losing.
Fundamental to this belief is that I don't believe in them. I only believe in us. As I explained earlier about the words dark and cold, you can use them in a factual manner, but that doesn't mean it exists. Who they are exists only in your mind. Any time you harm one them, you really are harming one of us.
Us and them are words used to help us understand the people we encounter. The process of understanding almost anything is through categorization. We group like things together in our minds in order to draw relationships and dissimilarities. The important thing that you must understand is that this categorization occurs only in your mind, and is not a reality.
To understand the confusion that there are some people that can be classified as them, rather than seeing them as us,you only need to look at the complete misunderstanding of justice versus revenge. We all know in our hearts that there is a difference, but particularly with liberals, they treat them as if they are one and the same. I have never heard one of them utter the word justice without knowing what they really mean is revenge.
As you will learn as your enlightenment grows, the things that work for you are real, and the things that work against you are an illusion. The concept of us works in our favor; the concept of them works against us.
As an example, consider the thoughts that run through your head when someone does something wrong. When one of us does something wrong we think in terms of forgiveness and redemption. When one of them does something wrong we think in terms of retribution and revenge. Which of these actions do you suppose is something that builds, and which do you suppose is something that destroys?
Justice builds our society. Revenge destroys it. They could not be more dissimilar.
What a hypocrite! You have been calling liberals 'them' all through this web book.
No hypocrisy here. Just as I use dark and cold, I use them. What you will not find anywhere in this web book is for me calling for any form of retribution against liberals. They harm themselves just fine on their own.
As for liberals and the use of them, they couldn't survive without it. Liberalism is all about us & them politics. Without a them to exact revenge upon, their entire ideology falls apart. There is no purpose for it without haves and have not's. Some people must be victims and others must be perpetrators, and the perpetrators must be punished.
You may not be directly calling for revenge here, but conservative politics are all about keeping the poor and minorities down. What do you suppose the War on Women is all about?
Projection. Your heart is filled with hate for people like me (them). Since you perceive us as evil, we must be doing more evil than you, so you see in us what really resides only in you. You are projecting your hate into us.
So you're saying that racism and sexism doesn't exist? ...that I'm just making it up?
Sure it exists, but it has nothing to do with conservatism. I would say blacks are far more likely to be racist than any other group in this country. The question is whether you are actually seeking justice, or just revenge that you have labeled as justice. If you can't tell the difference, then your are most likely seeking revenge.
So you say that racists should just get away with it?
First of all, no one is getting away with anything. Racists harm themselves with the hatred in their hearts more than who they hate. Like I described on a previous page about how criminals would be better off if they weren't, the same is true for racists. Racism in the black community is devastating them, and it is their attempts at revenge that feeds that racism.
Justice on the other hand, such as the civil rights legislation in the 60's, which eliminated the government sponsored racist policies, benefited all people. And that's the difference between the two. Justice is what we do to us. All of us. Revenge is what we do to them.
Racists don't believe they are harming themselves. What should we do to those that fail to learn?
This is a classic example of the do-something disease. Sometimes there is nothing that can be done with the fools that believe that hating someone from another race will benefit them. Keep in mind that life is filled with adversity, and the belief that it can be eliminated is pure folly. The only thing that liberal policies have done is instilled in many minorities and women that when they encounter adversity any adversity they should whine and complain until someone else removes it. This cripples them, because they are far more likely to see adversity when it doesn't exist.
Just because someone doesn't like you, doesn't mean they do so because of your race or sex. Since it is so much easier to find faults in others than faults in yourself, believing you must respond to every act of perceived injustice is just an excuse so that you don't have to be responsible for your life. Life is about overcoming adversity. Deal with it. You will be far better off than demanding someone else deal with it.
You may talk a big game about 'Us,' but all I hear is 'Me' 'Me' 'Me.' There is no 'Us' in self-interest. Some sacrifice of the individual has to be made for the common good.
There's no Us in government either, and there can be no common good when the individual is sacrificed. Us is You and I, not It.
Have you ever wondered why congress can get such low approval ratings, yet incumbents pretty much get re-elected every time?
Lobbyists, and their fat campaign contributions.
That sure is some pretty lazy reasoning. You really think people vote for whoever spends the most money on advertisements? If you do, isn't the problem really with having a gullible citizenry?
Why do the same polls that give congress in general such low approval numbers also show local support of their own congress person equivalent to what he or she was elected with? Here's another interesting one. I have heard that polls regularly show that 80% of our population think education in this country is bad, but more than that think the local schools that their children go to are good. What both of these things point to is that we are much better at perceiving the real world around us than we are at perceiving the world that we can only be told about.
The point I'm trying to make is that if we want to make a real and positive change in the world we actually live in, we need to focus on the local level, and not hand a lot of power to people who are telling us things we'll never really know about. Our lives are only made better when the government allows us to decide what is best for us, and that begins with respecting the individual. We are never going to know what is best for people we really don't know, so let's stop pretending that we do, and start believing what our souls tell us, not what only our eyes see through mass media.
This is what is described so well in The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. What he describes as wealth, I would describe as benefit. What benefits us can only be brought about by the free market. No central authority can deliver what we really want, because all central authorities are built upon perceptions that can't be substantiated. The power given to government, is better spent by us, and I'm not talking about money.
There is so much more I could offer to help you on your road to enlightenment, but that would make this page far longer than it already is. Yet I want to write a little about how pseudo-intellectuals muddy the water of enlightenment, and no better illustration of that than what they think of fear.
Before I get into what I had planned to write, a prime example of this recently came out of Will Smith's movie After Earth. All I needed to know that this was no movie for me was when in the trailer he says,
Danger is real. Fear is a choice. This is an example of the kind of psycho-babble that liberals dabble in all of the time. Actually, fear is the recognition of perceived danger. Without fear, there is no perceived danger. The only question is how are you going to respond to that fear. Is it going to be with cowardice, courage or anger. Those are the choices, not fear.
I say perceived danger in order to explain what is going on when any liberal spouts about
Speaking truth to power. In almost all cases they have ginned up something to be afraid of in order to believe they are being brave, but it's their anger that gives away the lie they are really speaking of.
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement was a good example. Here was a bunch of cowards dishing out hate and anger at corporate America, but have you noticed that it didn't go anywhere? The reason it didn't is because they were doing exactly what those in power wanted them to do. As I explained before, corporations are the liberal elites' necessary tool to accomplish their agenda, and Wall Street's massive donations to Democrats over Republicans prove that. There are reasons why the 20 richest zip codes in America went for Obama in the 2012 elections, and until the liberal tools that participated in OWS come to grips with why that is, they will be
Speaking truth to power about nonexistent danger for some time to come. Actually, there is real danger in corporate America, but not the kind these tools think it is.
What really got me thinking about fear and the responses to it, which helped me crystallize where I am today, was shortly after 9/11 when Bill Maher (my all time favorite pseudo-intellectual) commented on the courage it took for those terrorists to fly those planes into the buildings. He caught a lot of flack for that, but I was unsatisfied with his critics. They all basically boiled down to:
It doesn't take a lot of courage to fly planes into buildings when you believe you have God's blessing, and 72 virgins, waiting for you on the other side.
Both Bill's observation and his critics' comments seemed pretty shallow to me. Of course there had to be some fear in flying into those buildings. They weren't robots. Yet, jihadi's don't strike me as a courageous lot. Everything about them reeks of cowardice. They have so little faith in what they believe they lash out in anger. It then dawned on me that it was that anger that motivated them into those buildings. I now know that anger is what you fill your heart with when you don't have the courage to do the right thing. It was anger, not courage, that drove those men into those buildings.
It's also anger, not courage, that motivates liberals. They want to believe they are brave, so they easily fall into the lies that they either concoct in their minds, or are fed to them by their masters.
If you want to be enlightened, you must understand that cowardice, courage and anger are mutually exclusive responses to fear. Once you truly understand this, you will see that the difference between courage and anger is whether you really understand what it is you fear. Whenever you don't understand, it is anger that will fill your heart. There are no exceptions. When you are angry, the danger may be real, but it is likely not. The only thing that is for certain is that your response will be destructive.
This is what liberals and jihadi's have in common. They don't understand how this world works, and since it isn't working how they think it should, they fill their hearts with anger in order to move forward with what they believe is the right thing to do.
The way I perceive things, cowardice and anger are the same thing. They are what you do when you don't have courage for the things you fear. Anger and cowardice will lead you to do the wrong things. It is courage that will shine the light down the path you must take.
That's not true. Sometimes anger is required. Society must be angry at people like pedophiles, or else they won't get the message at what horror their crimes are.
Quite the contrary. Take the McMartin Preschool incident. Whether you believe the absurd allegations or not, the anger of all involved made a conviction impossible. Anger blinded the prosecution from the truth, and their anger prevented them from seeking other explanations of what might have been going on lest they be seen as sympathizers to pedophiles.
That's the problem. The prosecutors were afraid that others would accuse them that they weren't taking this serious enough. Hense the anger. Almost all cases of anger in this country are based on these kinds of fears. I don't care what the anger is. If you show me anger, I'll show you the fear at the root of it. When you're acting with courage, there isn't a hint of anger, and only when the truly courageous are involved will pedophiles receive the justice they deserve. Assuming, of course, justice is what you seek.
Which begs the question. Do people get angry because they want to seek revenge instead of justice? Being courageous won't allow them to. Being courageous only allows for justice, and pedophiles don't deserve it in their mind. Too bad for the men that will be falsly accused. Too sad for the children who will be harmed, like some of the children of the McMartin Preschool who will for ever need therapy, yet nothing ever happened to them at the school.
Hopefully by now I have helped you figure out what the path to enlightenment really means. This was the goal of my entire web book, and not just of this page. What it boils down to is the very first question I asked you.
Are you good, or are you evil?
Since enlightenment is a journey, not a destination, it is the questions you ask, and not the answers you get, that determine your level of enlightenment. Sometimes actions are required, so you need to settle on an answer, but once the decision has been made, you need to throw out that answer so that you will be open to a better one later on. Thinking you have the answers is a no surer path to endarkenment.
No better proof that answers lead to endarkenment is just about anything liberals believe. They ask a simple question like what to do about the poor and then rush to an answer, because they must have answers (the do-something disease). Of course the only thing their limited thinking can arrive at is the welfare state. This answer can be proven to be false because of the anger they have for anyone who disagrees that this is an appropriate response to poverty.
An enlightened person would continue to ask questions, like what does this specific person need? Some may need a hand out, but most in this country need a swift kick in the ass. What ever your answer is, you have to keep asking in order to evaluate the effects of your decision.
As for advice on whether you have an appropriate answer to act on, consider whether your acting with courage or in anger, and never confuse the two. But the best advice is to begin with my first question. Are you good or are you evil? And remember, doing good doesn't make you good. 'Doing' is based on answers, not questions.
The obvious folly of 'doing good makes you good' is pacifism. It's easily dismissed by simply asking one of them about the use of deadly force by the police. If killing people who have declared they want to kill us is wrong, surely the police killing us must be wrong too. If they are so sure pacifism is right, why aren't they calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent law enforcement officers from using deadly force. Your brain would have to be crippled beyond repair to not see the chaos that would ensue from such legislative action. How would any law ever get enforced without this ultimate threat.
So get this. In the mind of a pacifist, it is wrong to kill any enemy trying to kill us, but its ok for the police to kill anyone who doesn't do as the government demands. And anyone who thinks that all laws don't come with a default death penalty is very naive. Just because you have made other punishments available, doesn't diminish that it is there. It has to be there.
Kinda' makes the objection to the death penalty pretty silly, huh? Can there be a more endarkened thought than to think that it's ok to kill someone only because you have deceived yourself into believing you don't intend to do it? This is why liberals want to pass all of the laws that they do. They intentionally ignore all the consequenses of their actions. All that matters to them is what they knowingly intend from their actions. This is hallmark of endarkened thought.
It is true that if you want good, you have to do good, but just doing good doesn't get you there. Instead of thinking about doing good you should think about being good, and it's the questions you ask that get you there, not the answers. Ultimately, all answers are wrong, because there will always be better ones later. Assuming, of course, you are continuing to ask.
I now want to wrap up this page by explicitly stating what I implied at the beginning. While I have written a lot about enlightenment here, in no way have I actually explained it. I can't. Enlightenment is reality. What you see before you on this page are just words, and words can only represent reality. They can't be it, because you are the one responsible for ideas that come into your head while reading it, not me.
While words aren't reality, people are. God never intended you to achieve enlightenment by reading about it. He intended for you to experience it through the people around you. The best advice I can give you to get on an enlightened path is to look at the relationships you have with the people around you. But are you really seeing them? When you give the beggar the change in your pocket, are you really seeing all that you do, or do you only care about the superficial aspects of that exchange? When you do evaluate your relationships, is it with your soul, or do you allow what your will never really know that comes through mass media to influence you about them? It will always distort your perception of who we really are.
It is in us that you will find enlightenment, and in turn, find God as He has always intended.
Reality Enlightenment God Us. They are all the same. You can't know one without knowing the others.