BenevolentM
Posts: 3394
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
|
What I am about to do is not considered politically correct because it can make my argument appear less strong. Politics is, however, the way of the dodo bird. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. They shall go extinct.
I am obviously trying to look into the future much like Yoda and I am tempted to insert a Star Wars quote here. There is another way to look at what happened in Benghazi. A humanist, human need, or psychological analysis. Suppose Obama knew that the attack was coming. Why would he have permitted it to occur? Obama in my analysis indeed may have had a so-called rational motive that stems from humanist ideology. Now you might be inclined to regard this as a contradiction.
Humanists do not regard contradiction as a problem though they will hold those outside of their group to this standard. This is because humanism is partially an occult practice. They feel they are in possession of some great wisdom teaching that they are just not sharing with their enemies. In truth their truth is only a half truth thus they are not as wise as they believe. I digress, however.
Everyone knows that humanism desires a one party global state which is governed by extremist humanist policies. Again, I digress.
Like I said it was odd in that the assault against the United States was made against the United States as if the Bush administration was still in power. Our ambassador was a human sacrifice. The surrender was intended to be maximal hence optimal though it was not in fact optimal as I pointed out earlier. It was optimal from a demonic point of view. It will do nothing to bring peace in truth, but may create the illusion of peace.
Humanists do not regard, as everyone knows, human life as intrinsically valuable. Hence, it is easy to make such so-called rational decisions. If life is miserable, life has no value according to humanism. Humanism adds a caveat to the value of life. If that life is inconvenient, it ceases to have value.
According to this model the President was derelict in his duty, but according to humanism there is no such a thing as duty since the notion of duty is regarded as irrational. According to humanism you don't even have a duty to uphold humanism which is a concept some may find difficult to understand. The reason why this appears sensible to a humanist is because they view progress in evolutionary terms. They figure that if you hold to notions of duty that you will go extinct and all they need do is apply a diffuse pressure against you that in turn is expected to encourage your premature demise.
It was not my intention to argue the existence of a demonic presence when I first started writing this. The reason why what I wrote will make my argument appear less cogent is that it would help explain why Iran might not attack the United States in the short term. The assumption is Iran is responding to a human need to feel secure. Humanism on the other hand is intrinsically threatening to their way of life. Humanism is playing by a different set of rules that makes them appear to be the good guys who hold no sword to your throat.
The following is suggestive and not necessarily cogent. The problem is that it is not impossible: The problem with the Jews is that it appears they may have sided with the anti-Christ.
|
RE: Why should we preserve Iran - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread