This blog is a response to a professor on:
Thanks for getting us started Axxxx. There is a principle in Sociology called the Thomas Theorem. The basic premise of this theorem is that what is perceived as reality by people becomes real in its consequences. That is, something can become real just because people perceive that it is real. I wonder if that theorem comes into play when we discuss this threat. Communism, as a political ideology, was certainly on the rise in some countries and it happened that it also rose up in countries where totalitarian rulers had gained control. Couple those factors with the increasing globalized economy in which all countries were striving to become major players and you have a competitive cauldron beginning to boil. I am not proposing that the threat was contrived as much as I am playing devil’s advocate to spark further discussion by suggesting that the environment existed in which an evil threat could be identified to focus the country on a threat.
I think my answer was relevant:
If you are fishing I might as well go down the hole since your going down that vein and expose the intent.
We will start with Jeremy Bentham and the pleasure principal which was not congruent with the frame work of the Constitution in its Ideology nor was it for English Law or the Common law which he set out to undo. Believing he could devise a better system based on his knowledge of Law as attested in the Pannomion and yes he was by some a prodigy and even tried to get our founding father’s to accept his Ideals for setting the foundations in this country and they were completely Rejected by Samuel Adams and the Committee on Constitutional Reform and many others in the 1800’s, they knew then that the ideologies he proposed based on human reasoning and not on a Supreme Law of the Creator were nothing more that theory and not practice as attested to in John Adam’s three volumes:
Vol. I-III especially in
Vol III History of the Principal Republics in the World.
And the ideals set forth proven in time for a thousand years of history as the fatal flaw in all governments that man rights are endowed by a Creator. see
The Rights of Man.
for the use and Benefit of all Mankind.
By Thomas Paine
Starting pg 4…
Pg. 5 hand of his Maker
Pg. 6 unmake man (we are warned of the Atheistic threat here).
Pg. 7 male and female (natural order of God expressed here)
and the use of Natural Law is within the confines of the
understanding of The laws of the Creator, not in man or like
England’s Law the People as the Supreme Power
Rights of Man:
Being an Answer to Mr Burke’s Attack on the French Revolution
With a Preface to George Washington
By Thomas Paine
Theories are not something you base your law system on, it is fallacious to even conceive of, yes, men can lead people down a road by simply making a continuous statement till it is considered fact or becomes a self full filling Prophesy as in the assumption of evolutionary theory and thought, and yes I understand I would need to clarify for the unlearned in this subject as to the specifics, all Christians believe in a form of evolution we are not talking about changes within the species which are congruent with the “The Law of Biogenesis. This was espoused by Pasteur (who was a Bible believing man) we are talking about ultimate origins as he disproved spontaneous generation by his swan neck experiment and the contents remain sterile in the Institute De Pasteur to this very day, but it is not the issue this is only the smoke screen and conman’s game. This issue of Evolution fails the first three criteria for the Scientific method which are Observation (not in theory), second Repeatable (not in theory) and Universal (not in theory) as I have stated before these are matter of Religion and Philosophy not Science and those who choose to try to prove this Ideology are conmen. The struggles are in Ideology stretching back to the days of the Greeks and the likes of Anaximander who said we came from fishes which prompted Sir Henry Haeckel to altar the original wood cuts (for producing printed copies) of one of his colleges and give us the gill slits of the embryo which are still published to this day and were a lie from the beginning as he was called before a College court and totally discredited in his life time which by the way Wikipedia never mentions (go figure), but the gill slits live on as a easy way to support the issue but it’s a lie. Ontogeny does not recapitulate Phylogeny”(note the American Medical Association no longer holds a list of Vestigial Organs from that theory “ Science triumphs over itself, we found out they are necessary”), the gill slits were folds of skin that become the nasal pharynx region as you learn in Biology (they weren’t gills, they never were gills, did you misunderstand they were never gills), this is the stupidity with which this argumentation exists for props and proofs and muddies the water of the ideology we discuss supported by science. As for the Thomas Theorem and its derivatives are used in science to mask the issue and the secularization of its understanding of our political views as espoused in the textbook Power and Society that we owe our constitutionality to Classical Liberalism and John Locke which is not the truth even Thomas Jefferson a Universalist was wise enough not to bind on the Constitution, even though he desired it in his writings others knew the dangers of and the end results of a Humanist and Atheistic Government which has its basis not on a Creator and a Supreme Law but on man as the sole authority of existing and it leads to Hedonism and the complete dissolution of the law and governments and hence the danger of Jeremy Bentham who kept hidden in his writings on the freeing of the homosexual community he sought to release, fearing the wrath of the English government, and is rearing its ugly head again espousing his writings in our society proposing this type of Philosophy. It was never the intent of the founding fathers to have our government separate from the morals of religion and make it an Atheistic or Humanistic Government and anyone who espouses that effort is blind to history and ideology (in doing so you bind and outlaw Religion) and these type of men needs to tread carefully our Freedoms and Liberty are at stake. The axiomatic principal has always been an understood “Where there is no Law there is no Sin” in other words when you make no law concerning something you do not bind it or cause it to be bound as in the Constitutional statement:”Congress shall make no Law concerning Religion”, not to outlaw it or restrict it but to protect it and its freedoms.
This is not a rant it is a warning from History, I do not seek to offend, only to tell the truth, do your research, and yes I have in my library over a thousand volumes on this subject and if you need references I can supply them for you, or use Google books as a resource and learn.
Skip Pallo (Semper Fi)