Summary of text [comment] page 61-62

[Are resistance and resentment the only paths?

“To resist” is “to carry the label of the anti-object and to feel the burden of iniquity projected upon you”.

Pro-object accusers want to presume that their idolatry is true. Resistance validates their object.

Most scapegoats do not even know this. They validate “the accusation as sensical” (even though the accusation is technically misleading or false) by expressing anger and protesting their innocence.

Christine O’Donnell in 2010 makes a good case study.

Her response to false accusations inadvertently assisted the true believers in her persecution.]

[Please, do not accuse me of think^anti-object.

Think^pro-object accuses “those who are not in the organization” of false ideologies (think^anti-object) and bad conscience (conscience^anti-object).

These accusations ruin innocent lives.

These accusations bankrupt the accused.

How can the accused respond to these projections of power?]

Summary of text [comment] page 61-62

[This is the choice offered by Progressives:

Adopt our idolatries or feel the punishment of the sovereign.

How will they punish those who do not adopt their idolatries?

The sovereign powers will accuse the non-adopters of think^anti-object.]

Summary of text [comment] page 61-62

[Whoever holds the trappings of power suffers a temptation to sin.

Moreover, they carry the burden of bearing a thing of power, laden with hope and change.

What hope? What change? For some organizational goals? Goals that divide the world? Goals that become the attractors for idolatry?

Amazingly, this is where America stood in 2008. Progressive and so-called liberal think^groups had already established their “objects that bring people into organization” (such as mandates for equality, tolerance, fairness, environmental protection, education, health, and many, many more) as bureaus within the central state. They had sovereign power.

They wanted more power. They needed to takeover the healthcare and financial markets. They got the opportunity in 2008.

Each of the bureau’s object^orgs demand submission by those outside the supporting organizations. All people (regardless of organizational affiliation) are expected to adopt so-called federal mandated goals. This requires citizens to surrender responsibility and freedom. Opposition appears either complicit or no longer relevant.

Why would Americans vote for this?

Why would they have voted to surrender the freedom of others, but apparently not their own?

Americans had already become less virtuous.]

[First comes uncontrolled spending, then capital controls, then the border is closed.]

Summary of text [comment] page 61-62

[The Progressives target the entire nation. They know that “people will try to vote with their feet”.

If Progressives established their religion in a single state, let’s say, Massachusetts, then people would move elsewhere.

The Progressives are no different than all previous emanations of the Enlightenment Godhead in this regard.]

[In sum, sports stadiums derive from social construction. They are imbued with “references constructed on references”.

Therefore, the American system permits the establishment of religion for the sovereign states, but not for the sovereign nation.

The American Revolutionaries knew that people would ultimately vote with their feet. False sovereign religions drive people out of their states.]

Summary of text [comment] page 61-62

[In the late 1700s, the American revolutionaries tried circumvent the establishment of a sovereign religion in two ways.

First, they amended their Constitution.

Second, they placed public works in the hands of the states.

They knew that public works would be sites for infrasovereign ambitions. For example, “building a sports stadium at taxpayer’s expense” may not seem religious because “it appears to be a sensible construction”. Stadiums are supposed to increase economic activity.

Critical inquiry is supposed to stop at this sensical statement. Self-declared “not religious” postreligionist (enlightenment) believers will insist that exploration stop at this explanation.

However, even “a cursory anthropological examination of so-called sports stadiums produced by human civilizations” readily demonstrates that they imply more than “economic activity”. They are cult sites for civic religions.]

[Alliances of infrasovereign religions may gain sovereign power.

I call the alliance “sovereign religion” or religion^sov.

I call each party an (infra)sovereign religion.]

[What about businesses?

Businesses act as institutions when establishing organizational objectives.

If those objectives do not include the pursuit of sovereign power, the business may not be classified as a religion^infrasov. If they pursue sovereign power, they may be so classified.

In America, Progressive legislation has transformed many large business corporations into religious^infrasov entitities. Many of these entities cannot meet the bottom line without advantages provided by the sovereign. But what do they materially offer in return? The offer immaterial rewards, instead.

This has been seen before. The First Battle Among the Enlightenment Godheads (1914-1918) was a fight among mercantilist religion^sovs. The monospolistic business communities of each nation had established themselves as religion^infrasovs.

Theologians should critically compare the business ideologies of large (monopolistic and mercantilist) corporations in the late nineteenth century to those of today.]