Hate Mail - I Have No Interest In Returning To A Past, Especially Not That Of Secular Liberalism Of The 1950s Till Today. We Move Forward Based On Experience Or Democracy Is Dead

BEEN A LITTLE BIT SICK this week, it's been pretty stressful with a significant family crisis.  But that's done.  

I don't feel in the least bit inhibited from my criticism of secularism, especially in the typical materialistic forms of it, the allegedly intellectual and the obviously vulgar forms which I ceased mistaking for two separate entities quite a while back.

I think the arguments I made for the disaster that "enlightenment" 18th century scientistic materialism being embedded in such abominations as the slave-power enhancing aspects of the Constitution, those which were partially, merely legally overturned in the Civil War Amendments and those which are retained, the anti-democratically constituted Senate, the abominable Electoral College and some other terrible things such as the life-time appointments to the Supreme Court, appointed by the President and confirmed, not by the most democratically constituted House of Representatives by by the anti-democratically constituted Senate, the various inadequacies of the so-called Bill of Rights, reluctantly taken up because Madison was forced into that in order to talk the Virginia legislature into adopting his Constitution, all of those are products of the materialism and naive scientism of the mythic and fabled "founders" and, as can be seen in the Senate this week, the goddamned Supreme Court in its shadow docket overturning of Roe a few weeks back, those are still very, very much with us.  I think in its real life as opposed to merely quasi-fictitious legalistic form, we're not entirely shut of chattel slavery anywhere near as much as we are coerced to pretend we are. 

I didn't make any secret of what I am, I am a thought criminal, I think forbidden things and I say forbidden things.  I don't do that out of desire to shock or to be naughty, I do it because the thoughts of the past have proven to be a disaster, especially those of the secular "elightenment" lefties.   I have a few absolute, basic stands that all others must rest on, absolute equality under the law, economic justice, social justice, that no one should be allowed by the merely civil law to do unto others that which they would not have done unto them - the basis of the real LAW and the Prophets.  If I ever violate those I want it pointed out to me because I really believe those things are real, I will not entertain any political, social, legal or scientific violation of them because observation and analysis of real life have convinced me those are true and that nothing good comes out of denying them or failing to put them into practice. 

I would note that while I am fully prepared to accept anything that mathematical logic or carefully done, validly conducted science tells us about the material universe and carefully done life sciences, I have never met even the mildest mannered, most reasonable-seeming materialist who will ever really respect anything which challenges their ideology which, at its basis, cannot seem to have the same kind of foundation in observation.  That is especially true of those of us who make rigorous and careful criticism of the ubiquitous ideological and preferential pollution of what is held up as pure science.    I have pointed out before that the philosopher of science and one of its more exigent critics of the last century, Paul Feyerabend, noted that in many ways even medieval scholastics were more open to no-holds-barred discussion of things than much of modern scientism and materialism.  I have found few main-stream theologians of today who are more close-minded than so many of the self-declared "free thinkers" who won't entertain the concept that our minds can be free of material causation so their self-declared "free-thought" must be delusional and their claim to it discrediting.   

I find it is one of the more constant experiences I've had in the years I've been doing this that whenever I give a charitably extended benefit of the doubt to a materialist that that they will prove that benefit so extended was futile.  There is no more rigid and unyielding ideology except, perhaps, the related ones of vulgar materialism founded in secular, civil law, here in "Constitution" talk.

That's enough "I's."