Saturday, May 22, 2010

Bigoted Rachel Maddow and her institutionally racist Statist-liberalism are in no position to point fingers at Rand Paul

(By Chris Moore) -- In this interview currently sweeping the Internet (video and transcript here), MSNBC's Rachel Maddow grills Rand Paul on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, of which he supports nine out of 10 of its Title provisions, stating time and again that he is opposed to all forms of institutional racism. Maddow self-righteously shakes her head in feigned disgust and contempt when Paul stands up for private property rights that conflict with a tenth provision, and implicitly accuses him of supporting violence against those who advocated desegregation:
PAUL: Well, there's 10 -- there's 10 different -- there's 10 different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of 10 deal with public institutions. And I'm absolutely in favor of; one deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that.

But you know, the other thing about legislation -- and this is why it's a little hard to say exactly where you are sometimes, is that when you support nine out of 10 things in a good piece of legislation, do you vote for it or against it? And I think, sometimes, those are difficult situation...

MADDOW: The reason that this is something that I'm not letting go even though I now realize it would make the conversation more comfortable to move on to other things and I think this is going to be a focus for national attention on you, I guess until there's at least clarity on it, is that issue of the tenth, not the nine, but the tenth out of the 10 portions -- proportions of the -- the tenth of the Civil Rights Act that you would want to have discussions about. As I understand it, what you`re saying, that's the portion of the Civil Rights Act that said you can't actually have segregated lunch counters here at your private business.

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is, is that there's nothing right now to prevent a lot of re-segregating. We had a lot of it over the last 30 or 40 years.

What I would say is that we did some very important things in the '60s that I'm all in favor of and that was desegregating the schools, desegregating public transportation, use public roads and public monopolies, desegregating public water fountains.

MADDOW: How about desegregating lunch counters? Lunch counters. Walgreen's lunch counters, were you in favor of that? Possibly? Because the government got involved?

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: Right. Well, what it gets into is, is that then if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant, even though the owner of the restaurant says, well, no, we don't want to have guns in here.

The bar says we don't want to have guns in here, because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other. Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?

These are important philosophical debates but not very practical discussion. And I think we can make something out of this --

MADDOW: Well, it's pretty practical to people who were -- had their life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about gun ownership. This is not a hypothetical, Dr. Paul.
But this is pure hypocrisy on the part of Maddow and the corrupt institutional racism she herself unquestioningly rubber stamps.

First of all, the Democrat Party, whose political perspective and interests Maddow and MSNBC essentially represent, is institutionally racist itself. Here is what I've written (in comment) on a previous post about this problem:
In the 111th Congress, there are a total of 257 Democrats in the House. Thirty-one of them are Jewish (all Congressional Jews are Democrats except for Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican). That's nearly 12%. (Again, Jews comprise less than 2% of the country).

And the ratio is even more out of balance in the Senate, where there are a total 57 Democrats, plus two "Independents" that caucus with the Democrats. Of that total of 59 Senators, 13 are Jewish -- an astounding 22%.

How many black U.S. Senators are there? Only one: Roland Burris, the only black in the entire Senate, even though African-Americans comprise over 12% of the country (and a lot higher percentage than that of loyal Democratic Party voters).

So it seems the Jewish supremacist Democrats have pulled a bait-and-switch on the "people of color" who routinely provide a big chunk of their votes, running as the party of diversity, equality and racial justice, yet promoting Jews (every one of which in Congress is a Zionist) in hugely disproportionate numbers to the highest levels of national office, and limiting blacks and Hispanics to the Capitol's service entrances.
So clearly, by the standard of equal representation according to race that the Statists profess to subscribe to in their blanket support for the Civil Rights Act regiment, Maddow's team has constructed some institutional barriers to black and Hispanic advancement in the Democrat Party leadership in favor of a Jewish leadership that can only be described as racist.

Secondly, the Democrat Party itself routinely votes billions in essentially unconditional financial and military aid to Israel, and provides it nearly unconditional political support at the UN and elsewhere around the world. Israel, by nearly all objective accounts is an institutionally racist, segregationist, Jewish supremacists state that viciously discriminates against non-Jews in general and Palestinians in particular in ways that make the Jim Crow South look like a walk in the park, and often enforces this discrimination by carrying out State-organized murder, both in Israel proper and in the occupied territories.

Thirdly, what is Rachel Maddow's position on Israel's institutional discrimination and mass murder? She's all for it. Here is a snippet from another post I wrote specifically on Maddow, documenting the revelation of her Jewish supremacist bigotry as epitomized by her support for Israel's ruthless attack on Gaza in the winter of 2008/09:
...recall Maddow's reaction at the height of Israel's atrocities, when it was carrying out the butchering of defenseless women and children in what the United Nations would later find to be war crimes, the phony "humanitarian" Maddow set up her whitewash of the atrocities with standard hasbara (Zionist "explanation" propaganda) that Israel is "a tiny country, a Jewish state, right smack dab in the middle of the Arab world, surrounded on all sides by Arab nations, many of whom do not recognize Israel's right to exist."

What any of this had to do with the Jewish state's butchering of Palestinian women and children is totally irrelevant, other than as means to, again, justify the Zionist ideology and its abuses by presenting what are clear bullying, police state offensives as mere defensive measures taken to "protect" a "vulnerable" population of historical "victims."

Watch Maddow and her Zionist-ideology hasbara here (and keep in mind that as she spoke, Palestinians women and children were being massacred in Gaza by the Israeli authoritarians) and decide for yourself whether this despicable, saccharin-sweet, "politically correct police state" shrew is an ideological Zionist or not:
So Maddow supports both the de-facto institutional racism in the Democrat Party, and the de-jure institutional racism of Israel (backed by mass murder), but has the chutzpah to pass judgement on Rand Paul for raising questions about how one of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act conflicts with private property rights? Not only that, but she's getting away with her hypocrisy virtually unchallenged? The Statist masters of agitprop and public manipulation clearly have an increasingly totalitarian grip on the political dialogue in this country.
-----

Comment [from Liberty's Flame]: #1. To: Chris Moore (#0)

While there is no denying MSNBC's hypocrisy (note there are no people of color on air anchoring, or holding significant positions reporting) this type of 'defense' of Rand Paul does far more harm than good.

To be blunt, this is the only way Rand Paul WON'T WIN a landslide in November.

Screeching 'da joooooooos' sheesh....is this actually a defense of Paul or designed to get him put into the 'kook's kook' catagory held by his father?

Badeye
-----

#2. To: Badeye (#1)

"Screeching 'da joooooooos' sheesh....is this actually a defense of Paul or designed to get him put into the 'kook's kook' catagory held by his father?"

If it was that easy to defeat Paul and his ideas, Leftist and/or neocon operatives and agent provocateurs would have done it by now.

This is about the Jewish supremacist double standards of Statist liberalism (and its right-wing twin, neoconservatism).

The days of screeching "anti-Semitism" every time issues like this are raised are as anachronistic as accusing opponents of Barack Obama of being ipso-facto racists for opposing his agenda.

Welcome to the wild, wild West of the Internet. The politically correct MSM gatekeepers/censors are dying out. Don't bother trying to step into their shoes. It won't work.

-----
#3. To: Chris Moore (#2)
Get over yourself, newbie....(laughing).

I suggest you make such grand statements to somebody that hasn't been involved in internet political forums for the past decade. They might be impressed. I'm not.

The views stated above in your article are the only way Rand Paul loses in November. Its my hope he doesn't hold those views, because if he does he's going to be defined by his opposition as even more of a kook than his father.

I don't have any investment in him, beyond wanting that seat caucusing with the GOP to block this administration. That stated, if he comes out with the above LUNACY he deserves to lose, and I hope he does.

We saw enough of that shit in the last century.

Badeye
-----
#4. To: Badeye (#3)

"We saw enough of that shit in the last century."

Are you referring to Jewish Bolshevism, which murdered millions, or Nazism, its antithesis, which also murdered millions? Either way, libertarianism has nothing to do with either, unlike neoconservatism and Zionism.

Which of those do you subscribe to?

-----

Badeye: "This kind of crap hurts Rand Paul. If you don't see this, you aren't very astute politically. If you do see this, then you just don't want him to win the election come November."

Do I think the Rand Paul camp should go after the Statist liberals and neocons currently self-righteously attacking him over his supposed social racism when they themselves are tenacious supporters of the most vicious institutional racism both domestically and abroad with their unconditional support for Zionism? No, because most Americans aren't ready yet to divorce themselves from Jewish supremacism, so the issue can be easily demagogued (just like the racial issue, but even more so). Thus now isn't the time. But that doesn't mean others outside of the Rand Paul camp can't attack Statist liberals and neocons for their rank hypocrisy, undermine their self-righteous poses, and discredit their moral authority to pass judgment on anyone.

I’m not part of Rand Paul’s campaign; I’m just engaging in free speech -- which anti-American neocons and Statist liberals despise, hence their plans for “hate” laws, which pseudo-conservatives like the Bushcons will probably roll over for.

10 comments:

apollonian said...

Racism Is Virtue Of Loyalty, And Paul Should Only Be Supported For Tactical Expedience
(Apollonian, 22 May 10)

So Chris, what's "institutional racism"?--(another one of ur elaborated, needlessly complexified phrases, I'll note)--is that like China for the Chinese people?--makes sense to me. See LibertarianToday.com, "Bigoted Rachel...," 22 May 10. Is it like Saudi Arabia for Arabians?--makes sense to me. Russia for Russians?--why doesn't this make sense? What's wrong w. racism?--see, u're lacking a premise, I submit.

For in a determined (objective) reality, THERE IS NO "GOOD-EVIL" as there's no perfectly "free" human will. Everyone simply does one's best. So u need to explain (a) what u really mean by "racism," and (b) what's wrong w. it, if there's anything wrong.

For this is a "racist" world, comrade Chris--it's the way it was meant to be--it's fifth commandment of original Ten: "Honor thy race" (parentage). USA was made by "whites" for whites (whatever that means--for "white" is an abstraction which requires definition)--and this makes eminent sense.

But then we had the Civil War and destruction of USA and its Constitutional system and Republic built necessarily upon states' rights, and it's just taken a long, long time to die out--still in process as we speak, CYCLIC "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler.

Thus blacks--an enemy, alien race--were "en-franchised" by the victorious whites of the US north in order to spite the murdered and enslaved Southerners of the south who fought doggedly and had forthrightly killed so many masses of invading Yankee goons during the war.

Thus USA was made into the stinking, putrid, filthy Judaic-friendly and -oriented EMPIRE it is now, presently dying, about to enter HYPER-inflation stage and flame-out demise (we hope, anyway--Halliluyah)--good riddance.

Rand Paul is muddled and compromised no less than his senile, old father--even though both of these are far, far better than even worse Jew-sympathetic gentile scum who front and serve for the Judeo-empire-of-lies, USA.

[---------see below for part two to above entry------A.]

apollonian said...

[---------here's part two to above entry---------A.]

* * * * *


So Chris, I submit ur "analysis" is muddled and over-elaborate, yet once again--even though, to be sure, u certainly make some excellent pt.s, without a doubt. Of course Jews are hypocrites--if they weren't, they wouldn't be Jews, would they?

But nonetheless, unfortunately, ur vision is caught-up, as usual, in murky details of a basically fallacious, moralistic-Pharisaist, delusionary, ABSTRACT world, u being utterly BLIND to real, CONCRETE world of racial virtue--virtuous, as it makes sense for HONEST folk who keep to CONCRETE simplicity.

Hence political solution and key is to UNITE the volk--all gentiles against an easily visible negative--anti-semitism, for direct purpose of JEW-EXPULSION. And there are no "good" Jews (Talmudists, never forget--see RevisionistHistory.org and Come-and-hear.com for best Talmudic expo) anymore than there are "good psychopaths."

Of course Jew-expulsion would and should, logically, include extermination of all those sympathetic to Jews, who actively support and defend Jews, like especially, Jews' most crucial allies, the "Judeo-Christian" (JC--see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) hereticalists who say Christ was Jew (Talmudist) and support enemy terror-state of Israel which did 9-11 (see Bollyn.com).

Note then anti-semitism includes anti-zionism automatically, logically, and naturally. Corresponding philosophic tenets are Christian TRUTH founded in Aristotelian objectivity (hence determinism) vs. Talmudic subjectivism and delusionary, perfectly "free" will, "good-evil" Pelagianism, criminal lies and fraud, and statist collectivism.

CONCLUSION: Rand Paul should be supported by white, Christian, and gentile patriots on TACTICAL grounds only, with no illusions regarding Paul's cringing, disgusting subservience to Jews, Jews primary enemy of all mankind. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Chris Moore said...

America for assimilated and assimilating Americans -- of all races. Jewish nationalists are not loyal Americans because their primary loyalty is to Israel and Jewish nationalist interests. They have no intention of assimilating. Mexico-first La Razans are a similar phenomenon, only loyal to the Mexican government and its interests.

An example of institutional racism is what Jewish Zionists in Israel impose upon non-Jews with U.S. taxpayer money. U.S. taxpayer money should never be used to impose instructional racism anywhere, including America, because it is un-American.

White nationalists who support institutional racism should start their own country elsewhere, just as Jewish nationalists who support institutional racism should move to Israel.

apollonian said...

"Libertarian" Moralism-Pharisaism Fails To Serve Reality Once Again
(Apollonian, 22 May 10)

Well, u still haven't defined "institutional racism" and how it differs fm plain racism--which is VIRTUE of loyalty--as u can ck simply by consulting any dictionary.

"Jew nationalists" ("zionist" or not) is redundancy--Jews are Talmudists by definition, loyal only to fellow Jews, and are at war w. Gentiles--such is Judaism: war against gentiles. Thus Jews are simply criminals who indeed and in fact dominate organized crime in USA--see Mike Collins Piper's "The New Jerusalem."

People of a "nation," properly understood, have every right to see to benefit and interest of their own people, hence race--this is obvious in all reason, hence proper libertarianism. It's no different for the family which inhabits a house to so see to their interests, the home then corresponding to the nation, the family corresponding to the people of that nation--it's easy, obvious parallel.

So u see Chris, what's happening is u're just flopping about w. a contrived and elaborated moralist-Pharisaist (hence presumptuous and non-existent) ABSTRACTION once again, utterly dis-connected fm any concrete reality, living in ur "ivory-tower" theoretical dream-world, typical of "libertarian"-types.

CONCLUSION: People have a perfect right to be racist, seeing thus to their collective interests--this dialectic is just another example of pretended, fallacious, and grandiose "libertarian principles" conflicted w. reality, not serving any purpose but confusion--which mostly then just serves the Judeo-oligarchs, keeping gentiles in-fighting (as in this Rand Paul case) by means of false moralism at bottom of this contrived "racism" issue. Christian virtue of HONESTY is best policy. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Chris Moore said...

Appolonian, it’s really not that difficult. Institutional racism = State-imposed racism, be it by taking my tax dollars and using them to implement an affirmative action regiment, impose race laws, or send them to a Jim Crow State like Israel, which then implicates me in its actions by way of my coerced financial support.

What you don’t seem to comprehend, Appolonian, is that libertarianism, which flows from Christianity, like Christianity, is race blind, thus by setting up false barriers above or between the races by imposing programs like these, the State is flouting and attempting to destroy both Christianity and Free Will libertarianism.

Ultimately, one must choose between racism and Christianity, just as one must choose between Communism and Christianity, because they are irreconcilable; but there is no need to choose between libertarianism and Christianity, because one is perfectly consistent with the other.

The white race is diminishing note merely because it is being attacked and eroded by Jewry and the Left (which has been the case at least since the days of early Bolshevism), it is diminishing because it’s lost its way from Free Will Christianity and degraded into money worship, State worship and white racial tribalism as an antithesis to Jew tribal racialism (Bolshevism/Zionism). Why, just look at how many whites Nazism (white racial tribalism) cost the world. And State-worshipping Communism, through its anti-Christianity. And post-Christian American money worship, through its reduction of existence to a ledger.

Whites will never get their integrity and confidence in the future back through antithesis or emulation of racist Jewry, which is what you seem to be sanctioning. That’s a recipe for demise into darkness , defensiveness, and the paranoid siege mentality, as it has been for Jewry. Christianity is designed to transcend Jewry, not negate it. It is impossible to ever permanently negate racial tribalism, vindictiveness, and cultivated institutional racism as epitomized by the program of organized Jewry. The best of humanity seeks instead to rise above them all and lead be example.

Being white myself, I'm partial to whites, but if the white race no longer has what it takes to bear the cross and instead devolves into another scheming, paranoid, beady-eyed, siege-mentality entity like Jewry, no doubt another will eventually take up the mantle.

apollonian said...

Proper Issue Is Christian Truth, Hence Objectivity, Thus Determinism Vs. Jew Lies Founded Upon Subjectivism, Pretended "Free" Will
(Apollonian, 23 May 10)

Chris: like a Jew, u simply ignore the definition of racism which is VIRTUE of LOYALTY to people, ancestors, and culture as I noted for u, consistent w. 5th of original Ten Commandments, "Honor thy race" (parentage).

And such loyalty (racism) is perfectly consistent w. Christianity which upholds TRUTH and honesty, racial loyalty a necessity of defense and security in this world of sin and warfare.

U next bring up a new issue in "free" will--which perfect "free" will belongs only to God, by definition, human will LIMITED and dependent upon circumstances, subject to that absolute DETERMINISM founded upon cause-effect which all science demonstrates and verifies.

If human will was capable of absolute freedom and, for example, a conclusion not founded upon, and limited by previous premises, then it would by definition be an agent of MIRACLES--which it isn't. Humans are NOT God, and cannot exercise a perfectly "free" will.

White race suffers CYCLIC HUBRIS of classical Greeks, humans pretending precisely to that presumptuous, perfect and godly-type "freedom" of will as u uphold, this within CYCLIC "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler. Thus white folk must regain that HONESTY and racialist spirit--dropping and rejecting the presumptuous hubris u espouse, pretending as u do to a perfectly "free" will--which does NOT exist.

Nazis attempted desperately and heroically to defend white Germanic folk against murdering, psychopathic Jew-bolsheviki -led hordes which had been organized and harnessed fm the HUBRISTIC moralism-Pharisaism proceeding fm J.J. Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Eng. Utilitarians. Nazis didn't kill white folk; rather, they tried to defend them.

And Christianity is the way of TRUTH, hence objective reality, designed unquestionably to oppose Pharisaist (Jew) lies founded in Talmudic subjectivism and pretended, hubristic, perfectly "free" will.

Thus all gentiles can co-exist, but on strictly racialist basis, USA founded by white Christians for white Christians, obviously. Non-whites will have to have their own governments and nation-states--which are obtainable upon strict "states' rights" basis.

CONCLUSION: Chris: the issue now btwn us is reduced to that of reason and determinism vs. mysticism and perfectly "free" will--or simply Christian objectivity vs. Talmudic subjectivism--it's u who champions Judaic subjectivism and perfectly "free" will by which u pretend to "good-evil" Pelagianist hereticalism. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Chris Moore said...

Yes, Christianity is an extremely mystical belief system, thus "faith."

Although Nazism had a slight mystical element, Nazis and Marxism are essentially atheist-materialist, racial and economic determinists, respectively, which is why they inevitably end badly.

Zionism is a combination of Nazism, Marxism, and mysticism, which is why it is ending badly.

apollonian said...

Christianity Entails Truth, Objectivity, Reason, Honesty, And Determinism
(Apollonian, 23 May 10)

Chris: now we're starting to get somewhere by way of analysis.

First, note Christianity upholds truth (Gosp. JOHN 14:6 and 18:37-8), hence objective reality, necessary criterion of truth--hence determinism--absolute cause-effect, this determinism (thus "sin") is affirmed by St. Paul, Romans, though I don't have exact verse.

Note further all science verifies such determinism--as all science is founded upon determinism.

Christianity is not necessarily mystic in the slightest, rather eminently rational; in fact, it rather rejects mysticism and subjectivism, though it acknowledges not all humans are capable of strict logicalistic reasoning, thus making use of an aestheticalist-type mentality, conveying its msg by way of drama and the "passion narrative," "parable," etc.

"Faith" is a gross buzz-word; it's only supposed to mean LOYALTY. "Faith" does not, properly understood, mean wishful thinking by which u then achieve magic and miracles--or by which God is soooo impressed w. ur wishful thinking (or loyalty) he then does miracles for u.

Chris: problem w. ur expo is it's utterly without any citations or references, so ends up as simply ur own opinions and assertions, otherwise unfounded.

CONCLUSION: Finally and once again, note there's nothing wrong w. state-imposed racism (loyalty) or collectivism as long as it's consistent w. Constitution, etc. Politics is inherently collectivistic, after all. Thus a nation made by white Christians must logically racialistically defend white Christians--same as for Chinese, Arabians, Russians, et al. But at least u admit u're mired in mysticism, bereft of reason for ur above conclusions. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Chris Moore said...

@ Appolonian: "there's nothing wrong w. state-imposed racism (loyalty) or collectivism as long as it's consistent w. Constitution"

The only way one can rationalize state-imposed racism is to make the determination that not all races are fully human. The concept that not all races are fully human is a Judeo concept; Judaism doesn't consider non-Jews to be humans, but rather evolved animals that can speak, and to a certain extent, reason. Your statement represents Jewish thinking (a charge, ironically, that you constantly throw at others).

The mistakes the Founders made (mostly revolving around slavery) were a consequence of their failure to purge themselves of Judeo-thinking, heart, soul and intellect, and instead cling to the Old Testament and the glorification of Abraham and his tribe. I believe they realized this was a sin, and the only defense I can offer on their behalf was that they were on the vanguard of revolutionary human rights change in other areas, and breaking with the slavery of the past (and present in some areas still today) they felt was so radical it might jeopardize their chances for the success of the new Constitutional Republic.

apollonian said...

Definitions Are Extremely Important For Any Serious Discussion
(Apollonian, 24 May 10)

Chris: I notice a continuous, obsessive pattern on ur part--u moralistically presume there's something wrong w. racism, that it's something other than how it's defined in accord w. any dictionary. Racism, I say again, for at least third time, is VIRTUE of LOYALTY, in accord w. fifth of original Ten Commandments. Like a Jew, u continue to just ignore simple, obvious facts of reality. Logically, ur fallacy is known as "begging the question."

U also utterly fail to understand how governments arise: BY MEANS OF CONTRACT among the people. Rightful Government then essentially ONLY arises among races of folk, as all history attests, or tribes within race, that's all--people who already have a bond of commonality. Government is something practical--NOT something imposed by theorizing and wishful-thinking like urs.

Fm the beginning of history, RACE was driving force. Sometimes a tribe of a given race arose and acted in natural collectivistic fashion, much as it was comportable w. human reason--such is the conduct of humanity. Sometimes one tribe would fight another within a larger race or nation--as among Celts or Germanics.

U seem to imagine people are slaves to one another, and that people of one race are beholden to others--this is simply absurd and utterly un-real. U need to refer to practical examples fm history, I submit.

Chris: life sucks--in accord w. Greek tragedy. Fundamental nature of humanity is sin, in accord w. Christian principles. Life IS WAR--excepting only very briefly, for very few, when they're lucky and they exert their reason. Such then is circumstances of government and that basic social contract.

It's highly presumptuous of u to pretend u know very much about USA founders' "mistakes," I submit--it rather indicates quite a bit of self-righteousness on ur part. Founders did their best like anyone else. US Constitutional system lasted all of 72 yrs--till 1860--we've lived in a ever-degenerating Judeo-empire ever since, now falling apart at the very "seams."

Note there's nothing at all wrong w. slavery; if there is, u need to say exactly what it is. Slavery is practiced nowadays in US prison system, for example, even though it might be called something else.

Slavery is what u do with prisoners of war--rather than killing them--such was the Roman understanding, I believe. Slaves were merely "living dead people," according to Romans. Slavery was somewhat an act of mercy--but mostly an act of expedience by the conquerors.

Chris, u seem to be one of those who lives mostly within a theoretical-type mentality which Ivory-tower "theory" u then want to impose upon reality. Everything u say on the subject (as of race) seems to proceed fm presumptuous moralism-Pharisaism--what u think "OUGHT" to be--without saying why and how it proceeds in reason fm actual human nature and practice.

CONCLUSION: Ur "moralism" itself is something u merely dictate without demonstrating in rational manner. For morality properly understood is simply logic btwn means and ends, that's all. Given a particular end which one chooses (which could be anything), means are determined which must merely follow rules of efficiency and consistence towards ends, ends determining means, means justified by ends, according to definitions. Q.E.D. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian