Sillik, please enlighten us as to your current definition of “God”. Your country’s understanding is: “GOD. From the Saxon god, good. The source of all good;” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) “The supreme or ultimate reality;” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) What source of all good would you like to put behind us? On this blog, you have sided with a few of your “gods” such as Marx, Mao and Lenin (they being sources of good). Your putting behind us, “the Gods”, would then by application eliminate the supreme or ultimate reality. AND, I say hmmmm; only a god could create a fiscal / religious system where a collective can earn a share of the universe. Sillik, you can contribute positively to your country by changing you religion and gods.

The quote on its face is very accurate; by example: "Our problems ARE man-made". Though such self-made problems are recognizable as to origin, the question remains, are the problematic actors going to change? "⋯ all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." (Declaration of Independence) Once, human destiny was attempted to be solved through a "Republic". The "republic" was to live within "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) protecting and enhancing individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty for all. Though a "constitution" outlined a method of evolving to such, heinous man-made problems were allowed to flourish during the republic's start up (such as slavery). Once that specific form of slavery was solved, an occupying statist theocracy began to infest the land with slavery for all (implementation of the communist manifesto's 10 planks for example). The problems may be solved, BUT, are the subject human beings willing to unite to abolish the forms to which they are accustomed?

I smile whenever you implement one of your god's idioms; by example: "a lie told often enough becomes the truth" (Lenin)

Humanism is either a philosophy (NOT science or law); OR, it is a perceived moral / ethical system (“religion” not science or law) that centers on: the sentient corporeal beings’ duty to promote the specie’s benefit. Religion is: “ real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to ⋯ our fellow men.” (Bouviers Law Dictionary) A base premise of/to Humanism is that the sentient being “man” is a “god”. Secular Humanism is an oxymoron. The use of the term "secular" here, only separates this specific religion's beliefs from others. Of course, as a dutiful mentally ill child / socialist, you need to add some hocus pocus to hide the real meanings of the here subject words.

Sillik, you make me smile when you, by cherry picking accident, are so accurate. You do have an inalienable right to express what you like — correct or incorrect. As a true socialist, it is obvious that you can not help yourself in attempting to change the meaning of words and adding vague off topic word salad, endeavoring to validate your religion. Humanism in thought or deed has NO relationship to science (by the way, what is, "reasonable", science? — Is that a humanistic / socialistic qualifier for what science is acceptable?). It is accurate that if proper variables are conceived as appropriately relate to a problem, solutions may be found. If the "problem(s)" is/are individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, prosperity and joy at nature's law, humanism / socialism is/are in fact — a solution.

One of the problems with theocratic socialism is the dogma that, the meaning of concepts, terms and words must be sufficiently altered or eliminated as not to expose a socialists core beliefs or destructive actions. The actual and in fact definition of "religion" is but one illuminating factor that exposes socialism and other humanistic enclaves for what they are.

As Goebbels wrote; :”socialism is a religion”. Carl Marx’s socialist ambitions, atheistic desideratum and religious purposes were identified when he wrote “My object in life is to dethrone God ⋯”; AND, “We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.” The devolving establishment of socialistic religion within the States united, complete with its demonic “woke” dogma, is a most heinous and foul degradation of the noble being man. If religion, with its many sects (Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hindu, Human Secularism, New Age, Socialism, etc.) was fully exposed in schools, inclusive of actual belief systems and historical results of such dogmas - I don’t believe the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land would have gotten such a foothold or had such influence.

A promised expectation is a polar opposite of an intrenched anguish or despondency. Is it wise to live in conflicting extremes (future and past at the same time, by example)? I don't think so. Hope is a forward looking desire of the unknown while, despair is a looking back observation of things gone wrong.

I remember contemplating this quote when it first was introduced here. I didn't know whether I should put 5 stars or 5 thumbs down. If the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land hadn't morphed into such a socialistic theocracy, the quote would have to receive a minimum of 5 thumbs down. By example: All human beings are children, sovereigns and heirs to the Patriarch and King of the Universe - thus, each and every, any and all have the same / equal rights as any other (no matter the national origin). Citizenship to the de jure States united does NOT imply or give individual sovereignty, inalienable rights or liberty at the laws of nature and of nature’s God as all such is a faculty of birth.

Also, admitting foreigners indiscriminate citizenship is NOT an issue of giving rights but rather, allowing a personal responsibility in participating with a body politic's lawful (nature’s law) direction. The citadel of our liberty and sovereignty is NOT dependent on our country BUT - are rather a faculty of birth.

We can start by rejecting socialism as it is nothing more than a childish superstition. More people have suffered and died in the 20th and 21st centuries by socialism's theocratic implementation than any other primitive name (wether inspired by the primitive adversary or otherwise).

From the leader's (totalitarian commander) perspective, much more accurate than not / much more often than not. Periods of time where an outside-in view have defined a society of individuals acting as united sovereigns seem to be a state of anarchy (the time of Judges in the old Testament, by example) demonstrates the here quote's coming to be. Such united sovereign efforts seem to be overcome by a rising king or oligarchy that makes the subject people react the way the totalitarian wants them to.

Hmmmm, the "theory" of free speech? Is "truth" a theory also? Is "larger", "stranger" and more "many-sided" a philosophical unanswerable plucked from the ethos? Is "justified" on the whole by experiment a lawful, religious, or otherwise intangible conclusion? Is this very daring and surprising theory really one of the great discoveries of the modern time? OR, is "free speech" an individual sovereign's inalienable right within liberty at "the law of nature and of nature's God"; and NOT, a legal positivist's word salad to be bantered by the empty carnal man's “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Sillik, being more of a Marxist purist, it is obvious you are not enthralled by the messenger BUT, his socialist message fits perfectly with your theocratic dogma. Personally, I'm anti-socialist — I am for "freedom of the spirit and will of an individual;".

Sillik, beyond the obvious, actual and simple answer, a little deeper dive may help. All FRNs are as the say — a financial obligation to pay that which was borrowed (with interest) — a note. The note then goes through the process of illicit conversion. The then converted note is forced upon an economic system as a medium of exchange (erroneously being called money). As a conversion, the medium of exchanged (note) is used in compounded debt in eliciting services and products. Said compounding of debt cycles multiple times (standard example is a vacationer pays the inn keeper, the inn keeper compounds the debt use by financially acting with the hardware store, etc.). Your national debt clock example cherry picks a specific debt cycle and then adds an illusionary relationship to keep the chattel enslaved and misinformed.

Sillik, socialists lie.

Sillik, there is something else that I'm really glad for; and that is, to know that mental health is based on the Sillik scale.

Sillik, (-; I'm so glad you intend to repair my impairment — I've needed fixing for so long ;-). AND because, how it stands at present, my Mr. "superior" existence owes nothing to the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land / nation (your so-called U.S.A). From your socialist perspective, what is the lawful nexus that demonstrates how I owe to your god two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.)?

Sillik, your word salads are vague generalities with NO! substance (false presumptions as a foundation, added to by erroneous propaganda). By example: The system that uses a unit of measure called dollars is a system of debt that can NOT ! ! ! be paid off. Each dollar in circulation was borrowed with interest. If each dollar (Federal Reserve Note = FRN) borrowed were to be paid back, that would not address the interest (usury) owed. More FRNs would have to be borrowed to pay back the interest. The debt by design can not be paid back. To come to a lawful and factual answer, you will have to quit giving so much credence to the socialist accountants in the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land / nation and their media.

If Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos along with every million / billionaire there is gave EVERY cent they posses and/or control to the government for the purpose of debt elimination, it would NOT begin to scratch the surface of debt elimination (there are still FRNs out there in circulation). “No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt”.

The only way the “national debt” can be paid off is if the nation that created the debt (not the non-represented individual sovereigns) eliminate the Federal Reserve and produce constitutional money based on gold / silver / a specie of intrinsic value.

Sillik, what is astounding is your ignorance of the subject matter and your Pavlovian trained response. If the debt you reference belong's to the nation, let the nation pay it. The nation doesn't represent or speak for me, my individual sovereignty, inalienable rights or liberty and it does not operate at constitutional law. What is the lawful nexus that transfers the inanimate nation's debt to me, you, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos or any other sentient being? What is the aforementioned  billionaires share of a foreign intangible's debt and why? Sillik, your erroneous delusion of FRNs and the system of debt only works in the diluted mind of ignorant chattel. Your professing to be a socialist is once again proven out.

Sillik, a question for you; do you have socialist fiscal scholars or other learned experts in Keynesian economics available to you that you may rely on?

Sillik, being the (-: good :-) socialistic atheist that you are, what did you mean by "good God"; AND what is a good damning? ;-)

;-). ;-). ;-)  LOLOLOLOL, hahahaha — Silik, what would you discuss? Your mental illness, complete with illusions of grandeur, are cute but not impressive. Even after the most simple banter on this blog, you've admitted that you do not understand economics, the Federal Reserve or any of the fiscal elements that individual sovereigns are suffering under and/or are being burdened with. Your god, the inanimate United States of America, can not be in debt or burden. The inanimate and unconstitutional U.S.A is being occupied by an establishment of religion that inflicts individual sovereigns that once enjoyed a "laws of nature and of nature's God" offered prosperity.

Sillik, WHAT? Your word salad is a non-sequitur to a question (scientific examination) that is non-related and doesn't exist. Starting off with an equal comparison and coherent understanding:  Religion is: “ real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to ⋯ our fellow men.” (Bouviers Law Dictionary).

What reasonable scientific examination would you propose? The loving, charitable, NON—violent / force, free will "God" of the quote is of course very different from your "god" (government). Both gods are unseen to the mortal being. What services does your god require at law or religion for the nation (the United States, its territories or otherwise)? Again, what are the elements, methods, parameters and otherwise of your perceived reasonable scientific examination, AND, what would the results demonstrate?

AMEN and ABSOLUTELY ! ! !

We hold this truth to be self evident.