A Theoretical Deconstruction of Liberalism.

A Theoretical Deconstruction of Liberalism. I

 

The basis of liberalism needs to be inspected and a complete autopsy performed on this disease. We ought to begin the dissection of liberalism by examining one of their most celebrated (and intellectually dishonest), tenets: egalitarianism. 


Among the numerous, many incoherent, fluid versions of the term egalitarianism we learn that “everyone ought to be equal in economic and social opportunity.” One might think this an obvious and noble goal until the political and economic mechanisms of the implementation of this concept are inspected closely. Here, as is most usual, we find the inevitable link to communism where such an egalitarian doctrine specifies that everyone is supposed to enjoy material equality. That did work in Cambodia and North Korea according to certain notions of equality. Dead people are equal-- at least in a political sense. Noting that 100,000,000 people died as a direct result of this energetic far-leftist political notion, we can only show contempt for such a preposterous idea. People are not equal and probably shouldn’t be in any case. There is no way for the far-left and Marxists to gain equality without mass murder and/or confiscatory taxes or both and this theory is built into egalitarianism.

The snake oil theoretical basis of egalitarianism is touted by the understandable observation that material inequality is pervasive in the current economic systems globally. How novel! This corresponds with every worldwide observation dating back least 4000 years BCE with no contrary examples. The spurious details of egalitarianism start to brighten to the observer when it is made very clear that some method of forced material redistribution is necessary and mandatory for realization of this concept. Here is where the problems begin. The eternal quest for a governing body to exercise absolute coercive powers of material redistribution upon the masses have been tested, in limited numbers, by certain dictatorial political operatives thus producing the very inequalities of political power and inhuman coercion of the polis in exactly the manner that they complain about in their phony manifesto. As in the French Revolution, “…the second most important event in history according to Lenin (or was that Stalin?),” there was no limit to the abuses of the Bolsheviki and their lackeys could use in grabbing material wealth and wholesale murder and genocide and wasting it in failed social projects doomed to disappointment due to the intrinsic faults in the general theory. 20,000,000 Kulaks were murdered, several million Ukrainians were starved and some 30 million Russians died to support this concept of egalitarianism. The wealth in those cases were merely transferred to the Marxist elites and shared within their ‘Communist Party.’ They promptly exhausted these resources and hid away money in Swiss bank accounts. The USSR collapsed in 1989. But, there is no apology from the left for these actions and no call for something like a Russian War Crimes Tribunal to investigate how 60,000,000 people were murdered in the USSR and more in the People’s Republic and elsewhere. When 100,000,000 people die and certain political groups voice no serious objections we know there is a major problem yet to be solved.

The followers of Lenin, Castro, Sung, Ho and others did ‘redistribute’ shares of material resources in a vastly unequal manner to their political cronies, thus ignoring the tenets of egalitarianism in their selfish, ruthless and misguided cases. Party members suddenly became the material elites that they had previously ranted against and the masses remained hungry or dead. The promises of ‘land reform’ and ‘rule by the masses’ were short-lived. But, they had the loot!

The United States Declaration of Independence declares “all men are created equal", and, as such, each person should receive equal treatment under the law. The political assertion that "all men are created equal" fails in the face of world history everywhere. It is a goal. People are unfortunately not equal and espousing the classless system designed by the left is merely an excuse for murder and confiscation of power and wealth. Just check out the SAT and public school test scores and wonder why people are not equal, or even close to being so. Check the high school graduation statistics. All US citizens ought to be equal under the law, but not politically mandated to be equal in intellectual gifts, attitude, achievements or economic abilities. We might as well dump school tests and give away jobs at random. That would be a fine method for the left to select our brain surgeons. It turns out that favored leftist legislation actually forces inequality in the law by discriminating against many because of their color or other political an economic attributes. Examples of this include set-asides, reverse discrimination, quotas and certain court rulings that frequently are the reverse what the voters wanted. We have to manage ‘equality’ so that every person gets fair treatment and they are not just sorted politically where certain groups are sequestered in the gulags or mass graves, as is the celebrated leftist egalitarian solution to this problem. The left is actually against equality and equal treatment because if ordinary people are allowed to exercise their entrepreneurial skills they will defeat the egalitarian precepts and obtain unequal wealth. Such is the history of the bourgeoisie, the enemy of socialism and Marxism. Those who are unskilled or besotted with drugs and crime will sink to the bottom of society. All men were created equal but some choose to become unequal by their actions. The left needs those who cannot cope to fill their ranks with howls and votes. Their vote is a cheap purchase.

Modern liberalism depends, desperately, upon the concept of egalitarianism for their power base. Their bourgeois opponents have the wealth so they are the only source of this substance. Nobody ever accused the left of getting rich in honest business. Liberals must grunt and grab as much of this wealth base as possible. No liberal in good standing would ever suggest a tax cut. Or, if they did as a cheap artifice, recalling Clinton’s Middle Class Tax Cut would quickly drop the notion after the power was obtained to do so, as he quickly did after the election. No tax relief!

We find from the literature of political fiction (George Orwell’s Animal Farm) that "All Animals Are Equal, but the pigs seemed to be more equal than others”. The pigs in this reference are the liberals or their more violent Marxist congeners. This is the actual basis of egalitarianism: use any phony doctrine or persuasive slogan promising some unearned wealth to the masses, preferable festooned with gooey precepts, and then proceed to grunt and then grab the wealth and spend it on yourselves.

Egalitarianism is just a slick political system designed to confiscate your wealth and is merely a political construct that only benefits the ‘more equal pigs.’

rycK

Comments

Wayne McMichael Added Jan 5, 2018 - 3:28pm
It's simple... The mantra of the left is control, almost always to death, whether it’s people or programs. The mantra of conservatives, real people, is liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. The 2 are necessarily mutually exclusive. Free market capitalism is rooted in liberty and freedom. That is why leftist regimes build walls around their prisons/countries. That is why they need Iron Curtains, to keep their slaves in. Egalitarianism is a product of envy, fear, savagery. Leftists do not understand human nature, especially their own dysfunction and mental illness… yes, the desire to control others, beyond natural law, is mental illness. The left have no moral obligation to truth, justice or even life, only to their murderous destructive ideology or hate and envy.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 5, 2018 - 4:31pm
rycK, great article, well said.  This is not a criticism, I see all men are created equal as a corollary to The Law of Nature and of Nature's God.   What Liberalism gives us is Gnosticism (having knowledge), man made law that replaces natural law.   They argue that in this age of reason things are so complex that man is in charge of his environment, above the realm of the wild environment.   He can change his environment at will because of his knowledge, implying that makes him superior to nature.   
 
Jews, Christians, and Muslims share a common text of the The Law of Nature and of Nature's God, the Ten Commandments that was the product of the Exodus from Egypt of nomads, people without a nation that God made special by choosing them. 
 
Can anyone tell me where in these commandments is stated, “everyone ought to be equal in economic and social opportunity?”   This must be a man made law.  So the master minds that wrote this law with the power to change his environment.  Can anyone tell me why these master minds have failed so miserably?
 
Planed Parenthood is the leading abortion provider in America.  Can anyone show me a Natural Law that justifies the murder of hundreds of humans daily?   We absolutely know that a fertilized seed of an tree is that tree, will grow to one like its parents.  We absolutely know that at the fertilized egg of any fish or animal will become an animal like it's parents.  So please explain why a zygote cell of humans is something other then a human?  Show me the Natural Law saying otherwise?    You can only show me a man made law.   The abortion man made law is no different then the man made law that Hitler created to kill Jews in WWII, Stalin, Moe, etc., and the dying Ottoman Empire at the late 1800s early 1900s to murder Christians by the thousands.   End results is identical.   
 
Man has diluted himself to think that ability, the knowledge to slightly alter the environment made him master.  Made him a rule maker.    Then law making master minds, make rules to end tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, volcanoes, earth quakes, etc. .
Dave Volek Added Jan 5, 2018 - 4:43pm
Great article with impeccable logic. It seems the obvious course of action is to put all liberals, progressives, socialists, etc. in jail.
 
Let's start making a list of who these people are!
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 5, 2018 - 5:04pm
 blatherskite, in staying in line with your line of thinking.  Is that a bed pan on you head?
Wayne McMichael Added Jan 5, 2018 - 6:17pm
"What Liberalism gives us is Gnosticism" ...geeez dude, Gnosticism is the ONLY legitimate Spiritual pursuit. All, I mean ALL, religions came for that philosophy and discipline:) Take for instance Christianity... it started as a Jewish Gnostic myth religion. Please don't do like the Christian church, meaning the Romans, and try to destroy its roots:)
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 5, 2018 - 6:26pm
I did look up blatherskite.  A babbling, foolish person  In staying in line with a foolish person  that is babbling a perfect hat is bed pan.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 5, 2018 - 6:37pm
“Noting that 100,000,000 people died as a direct result of this energetic far-leftist political notion,”
 
Wow, that’s a lot.  How does that break down?
Wayne McMichael Added Jan 5, 2018 - 6:43pm
Jeffrey Kelly... here is a good source, and it's a hell of a lot more that 100 million:) More like 250 million in the 20th century alone:)
Wayne McMichael Added Jan 5, 2018 - 6:43pm
ooops- https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM
 
Wayne McMichael Added Jan 5, 2018 - 6:44pm
or just search Death by Government:)
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 5, 2018 - 7:03pm
Wayne, do you see the thing that looks like a paperclip at the top of the comment box?  If you click that you can drop your link in it.  That way I can click it and it sends me straight to what you want me to read.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 5, 2018 - 9:42pm
@ Wayne McMichael:
”More like 250 million in the 20th century alone:)”
 
Wow again.  If we average that out over a 100-year time period that’s 2.5 million people per year.  That’s something.
Autumn Cote Added Jan 5, 2018 - 10:44pm
No interest in engaging your commenters?
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 5, 2018 - 11:02pm
So, still working through the numbers.  BTW, I see this one a lot, this “100,000,000” murdered by awful Commies and, by extension, their leftist ilk.
 
This is what Wayne’s link says about this subject:
 
”With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto.”
 
Wow, that’s a lot of people.  That dwarfs what the Germans did in their concentration/extermination camps, though, to be fair, the Nazis had less time.  But, the Nazis did it more efficiently, so, in terms of time vs. people killed ratio, the Germans/Nazis win.
 
“Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst megamurderer.”
 
I don’t think this is giving the Chinese enough credit.
 
“Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia.”
 
Look, unless they slaughtered 1/2 their population I don’t give a damn.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 6, 2018 - 12:17am
My actual point is, the numbers touted by Wayne’s link are ridiculous.  
 
Don’t get me wrong, Stalin, Mao, etc. were disgusting people, responsible for the death of millions of their own citizens.  But, it does no one any good to politicize numbers to oversell a point.  
 
The closest I can figure is this alleged “61,000,000” includes deaths from all causes in the Soviet Union from 1917-1991.  The USSR fought a civil war (1917-1921/1922) and and fought off a brutal invader from 1941-1945.  I’ve seen high end estimates of the death toll during the USSR at 27,000,000, though the number is probably much closer to 20,000,000.  The total casualties inflicted during the Russian Civil War hover around 10,000,000.
 
This idea that “39,000,000 died in Gulags” is also ridiculous.  That number is higher than the estimated number of Soviet citizens that died during the whole of WW II.  The Gulags never held anything close to those numbers, much less anything equaling those casualty numbers.  
 
As as far as Stalin goes, as posted previously, Timothy Snyder estimated that 9-12 million people died during the 1930’s.  This includes those dying during the artificial famines during the early 1930’s and the Great Purge in the latter 30’s.
 
I discount any totals incurred during the Civil War and WW II.  These deaths are the result of war and cannot be blamed exclusively on either side.
 
Now, China did lose a lot of citizens during the “Great Leap Forward.”  Estimates meet at around 30 million people, with possibly about another million dying during the Cultural Revolution.
 
So, in the end, deaths directly attributed to Stalin and Mao equal around 43,000,000.  There’s no way that smaller countries like North Korea murdered an extra 50 + Million people, the idea is absurd.
 
Does this in any way minimize the horrifying crimes committed by these regimes?  Of course not.  But politicizing  the tragic deaths of millions in order to slander liberals is a vile thing to do.
George Kocan Added Jan 6, 2018 - 10:14am
The writer took on a big topic.  The nature of "liberalism" has both a complex history and a theory with many theoreticians contributing to the stew.  Egalitarianism attracts people on an emotional and moral level.  I do not know that "liberals" care much about the intellectual deconstruction. 
 
I put 'liberal' in quotation marks because I am tired of the term and it really misses the mark.  The discussion at hand is really about socialism.  Over many years of study, I have come to the conclusion that socialism is not simply about the distribution of goods and services.  Rather, socialism constitutes a rejection of the moral law.  It is a rejection of Western Civilization and the cultural basis for intellectual endeavors in general, of science, of history, of religion and of law.  It is a rejection more specifically of the US Constitution and the effort to create a political system which will not devolve into tyranny.  Note, how Vlad Lenin defined a dictatorship.  As educated persons know, Lenin gained fame as a community organizer who led the Bolshevik Revolution which high-jacked the reform government which Alexander Kerensky tried to set up.  He was not only a dictator himself but remains a major theoretician of socialism and communism.  His goal was to create a dictatorship, which he defined as, "rule based on force unrestrained by any law."  "Unrestrained by any law"--one can only imagine what that means.  Socialists can do whatever they want.  Their only concern is with getting caught.  This ethic of nihilism is the governing ethic of the Democrat Party here in the US and explains everything they do.  It explains all their contradictions, all their failures and all their denials.  Nothing matters to such revolutionaries except Will, which puts them into the same company as Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler.
Steve Bergeron Added Jan 6, 2018 - 10:21am
George Kocan, wise post.  You hit the nail on the head.  Unfortunately, our youth have been sold on socialism through the Utopian lies of humanities professors in almost all our colleges and universities.  And because they haven't been given the tools to think through this stuff, they buy it hook, line, and sinker.  That's why most of them vote Democrat.  When we're gone, they'll probably vote socialism/communism in and the country will quickly decline into a third world country.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 6, 2018 - 10:39am
 
George
 
"I put 'liberal' in quotation marks because I am tired of the term and it really misses the mark.  The discussion at hand is really about socialism. "
 
 Agreed. Much of the problem with "liberals" is the  tautological notion that they can create equality in economic terms by government policy.  This has been soundly defeated since 1919 and beyond. All  their revolutions by the proletariat have failed along with phony land distributions, under the phony guise as a 'reform'. 
 
Steve
 
"Unfortunately, our youth have been sold on socialism through the Utopian lies of humanities professors in almost all our colleges and universities. "
 
A political system using propaganda of the most crude sort.
 
Steve Bergeron Added Jan 6, 2018 - 11:06am
Those looking to destroy our America way of life have been very well organized and effective.  Their long-term plan required them to do the following:
 
1.  Take over the educational system in this country, especially universities and colleges, in order to indoctrinate the youth into accepting Marxism in all its flavors (socialism, communism, etc.).  Couple this with no longer teaching critical thinking skills to the youth, so that they can think these Utopian doctrines through to their logical end.  Done!
 
2.  Take over the national media and Hollywood in order to spread Marxist propaganda to reinforce what they were told in the educational system and to brainwash the rest of the populace into believing that Marxism was a worthy method of government. Done!
 
3.  Take over at least one of the major political parties and have it promote and support Marxist values including rejection of religious freedom, destruction of the country's moral and ethical code, etc.  Done!
 
4.  Once 3 is done, weaken the military as far as possible to make the country vulnerable for military takeover by a stronger foreign power.  In progress...
Doug Plumb Added Jan 6, 2018 - 11:36am
Good analysis. But its been done before Marxism has been deconstructed.
  Plato does it perfectly in Book 4 of the Republic.
  Christ said that his only commandment was essentially the common law. The common law (equal before the law) is essentially opposed to equality of outcome.
  The Romans developed common law as a basis for the system of laws and their legal system. All the smart people went to Rome to become lawyers for a thousand years. The West is defined by this system of common law.
  USA built the most successful and free country the world has ever seen on common law. USA has been a huge supporter of The Good as well as The Bad (Jewish central banks).
  Kant, the most influential philosopher that ever lived (he is everywhere and being forgotten slowly) and he wrote a clear and logical metaphysical basis for the common law. University grads don't know Kant and high school grads don't know Plato. The beauty of Plato is that you can read it in grade 8 or do a Phd on it.
  Someone has to sit above the Emperor for true common law and that is why religion is needed. Kant explains that Christianity is the best map of human consciousness and to create laws we need a written word. (The written word is above the emperor and gives us a yardstick from which to measure the emperor)
I say we need to re construct Western thought.
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 6, 2018 - 1:10pm
Doug P.,  how is America doing on common law (equal before the law)?  Not so good, Hillary Clinton and her associates is a prime example of failure of universal common law and the rise of common law within a class.   That brings us back to Plato's republic, the latter half of the Roman Empire, and Islam Caliphates, Roman Catholic Church and the monarchs of the Holy Roman Empire and the other assorted kingdoms, all blessed by the Catholic Church.  It brings us back to all the present western democratic governments that are now based on class based laws, political, and economic power.  
 
You tell us that America is based on common law and yet you uplift a philosopher that was not important to those American founders.  "

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who is a central figure in modern philosophy. Kant argued that the human mind creates the structure of human experience, that reason is the source of morality, that aesthetics arises from a faculty of disinterested judgment, that space and time are forms of human sensibility, and that the world as it is "in-itself" is independent of man's concepts of it.More at Wikipedia


Born:Apr 22, 1724, Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia)
Died:12, 1804, Königsberg, Prussia"
 
The founders instead chose "John Locke was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "Father of Liberalism" [classic not today's modern]. Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Sir Francis Bacon, he is equally important to social contract theory.More at Wikipedia

Born:29 August 1632, Wrington, Somerset, England
Died:28 October 1704 (aged 72), High Laver, Essex, England
Nationality:English"  and "social activist concerned primarily with governance, political theory, epistemology, [studies the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge and belief.]and religious tolerance. His political writings provide a pivotal philosophical defense for modern democratic institutions. As a philosopher, he was an early proponent of Empiricism. . . .  Locke's emphasis on the role of the individual and his questioning of the Divine role of the monarchy serve to this day as key underpinnings of modern democracy."   
 
"Empiricism contrasts with rationalist philosophical positions that emphasize the role of innate ideas, or a priori knowledge. Kant and others sought to integrate empiricism with rationalism, conceiving that knowledge is constituted by the collation of preexisting concepts within the mind and information gained through the
Doug Plumb Added Jan 6, 2018 - 3:08pm
Thomas: Kant gives the clearest metaphysical proof of a reasoned ethic that is common law. It is better than Locks blank slate theory. Its not surprising that Bacon is a figure of American law.
  Kant has a system, metaphysics Of Morals that is very much like the USA, but his time was when the USA was forming so he wouldn't be prominent in the doctrine that created the constitution. He does however explain what my be wrong. He was against secret societies.
  If we were able to re formulate the West we would do it better than it was done two hundred years ago. The problem of secret societies is well understood.
The problem with the states is that its voters aren't educated well enough to have that common law yardstick from which to judge leaders. The voters are communists. They vote along economic lines.
 People get the laws they deserve.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 6, 2018 - 3:27pm
My point really was that these different ideas and systems hover around the same basic idea. The idea behind the West has always been common law. Law does not actuate itself but there are mechanisms for the public to throw out objectional leaders. There are grand juries. I haven't learned much about the motion side of law, but will, I'm taking the bank to court and the law and facts are already established for the case. I was able to establish the facts and  the law for this case  because bankers don't know about common law. The Gentiles still have the courts. We just have to use them, they won't use themselves, in fact it would be against their ethic to do so.
  We have the tools, all we have to do is learn how to use them.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 6, 2018 - 3:31pm
Doug,
 
"The problem with the states is that its voters aren't educated well enough to have that common law yardstick from which to judge leaders. The voters are communists. They vote along economic lines. People get the laws they deserve."
 
I have to agree here. 
 
That is the problem and it appears to be intractable given the force of demagoguery, which destroyed democracy in Athens.
 
Hobbs, Locke and Kant had theories that required something akin to what we noted from Plato: The Philosopher King. The problem here is/was the definition and enforcement of justice, which eludes us and has for some 3000 years. We conflate justice with revenge. 
 
Socrates used Temperance, Wisdom, and Courage and Justice as the Four Cardinal Virtues, for which we cannot seem to integrate them into any of our societies. 
 
Plato did not offer a process to identify or educate a Philosopher King, leaving us hanging in metaphysical space.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 6, 2018 - 5:37pm
It cracks me up when I see Trumplings and conservatives wax so wise about “liberals” and “liberals.”  They go with the most radical liberals and socialists they can find and say “See, that’s what I mean, every liberal believes exactly that!!!!!!”
 
That’s like me picking out those ass-hat racists and neo-Nazis that marched at Charlottesville and saying, “See, those people represent every Republican!!!!”
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 6, 2018 - 5:43pm
Doug before progressives/ modern liberals took over education at all levels this was not true, "The problem with the states is that its voters aren't educated well enough to have that common law yardstick from which to judge leaders. The voters are communists. "  Up until about 1900 and even before FDR, the school system required learning about the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and required studying the Federalist papers and Washington's farewell address.  The principles stated in the Declaration which is the foundation of common law was covered.   
 
The part that Kent misses with reason is the source of morality is that man made laws can be argued are based on  reason and thus is a source of morality.  The King of England, Hitler, Stalin, etc. all used reason and would say they created laws that were moral.  Now you would say I am foolish.  But Kent is saying that man is the judge so reason so as time changes then the conclusion of reason can also change.  That is the foundation of progressivism and modern liberalism.  Man places himself at par with God, gnosticism.   
 
Kent has it wrong, the foundation of morality is the Law of Nature and Nature's God .   One statement of that law that is written for humans since we posses reason is the Ten Commandments.  There are others since many religions have a similar foundation.   They meet Kent's requirement of reason, but so have the community of man with common agreement.   common law let millions of Jews and other groups be murdered by the Nazi government with the full consent of law.   USSR, communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and abortion in western governments murdered millions of people with the application of common law for there time.  You may say this is not common law.  What is common is reason is the only measure is the response of the citizens.  They didn't some the murder so it is reasonable, common law.   
Dino Manalis Added Jan 6, 2018 - 7:29pm
Conservatives should force liberals to come to reality with centrist initiatives on all issues.
Thomas Napers Added Jan 7, 2018 - 4:00am
Wayne, Steve and Ryck – It’s over the top rhetoric like that which gives conservatives a bad name.  The Left’s intentions are morally sound.  Once you give them the respect that they mean well, you might be able to convince them of how the laws of economics don’t support their objectives.  For example, explain to them how the lowering of capital gains taxes result in an increased desire to invest.  This investment from the private sector creates jobs and helps the poor achieve the things they desire.  However, when you folks start equating them to murderous regimes or claiming they desire to “destroy our American way of life,” the Left immediately stops listening and I don’t blame them for doing so. 
Doug Plumb Added Jan 7, 2018 - 5:59am
Ryck re " We conflate justice with revenge. " Justice is based on revenge. The laws are so that men do not take matters into their own (usually cruel) hands.
 
@Thomas re "reason is the source..." Kant believed that everyone had a natural sense of right and wrong and that reason was the faculty to judge law. The categorical imperative is reasoned from the idea that man has freewill. Any creature with freewill would adapt that imperative.
  His works are much better than anyone who tries to restate them. He is a high precision writer.
  There are two kinds of laws, man made and God made. Man made laws must have reason at the root. Lucifer (matter) does rule the world in terms of man made laws.
  re " There are others since many religions have a similar foundation."  Not the major ones competing with Christianity. Atheism has that the end justifies the means, Islamics and Judaics both believe they have the god given right to tax or kill Christians.
  re "common law let millions of Jews and other groups be murdered by the Nazi government with the full consent of law. " No, it didn't. Real solid verifiable mainstream history shows that Hitler was the best friend the Jews ever had. He even had the star of David on one side of some coins. He was instrumental in the creation of Israel.  No prisoner of war from the allies ever had a complaint about treatment by the NAZI's. No actual evidence exists for that holocaust aside from eyewitness and the eyewitnesses that counter the official version won't be heard from in Hollywood.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 7, 2018 - 7:58am
Doug, I do not have to say anything more.  You just proved my point.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 7, 2018 - 10:30am
Kant isn't saying that man is the judge at all. Its a universal part of human consciousness - he says it's a-priori - not quite a-priori but a product of practical reason with NO EMPIRICAL input, but not prior to experience.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 7, 2018 - 8:15pm
Doug experience is that human defined morals turns into law is totalitarian states that suppression of opposition up and until the death of that opposition.  This is the history of man's laws that peppers strongly the written and even verbal history of man.
A. Jones Added Jan 7, 2018 - 9:26pm
Wow, that’s a lot.  How does that break down?
 
Approximately like this:
 
30 million murdered in the Soviet Union;
70 million murdered in communist China;
= 100 million
 
Then another 2 million murdered in Cambodia;
At least 1 million murdered in North Korea;
At least 10,000 murdered in Cuba.
 
Total = ~ 103,010,000 murdered by leftist, Marxist governments in the 20th century.
 
For starter's, download this PDF of "The Black Book of Communism."
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 8, 2018 - 1:26pm
 
"= 100 million"
 
Walter Duranty supplies an adequate answer to this necessary action
 
. “ He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death.".
Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Union which only history could judge.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
 
The holy writ of the left authorized by the NYT
 
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 8, 2018 - 1:27pm
Thomas S
 
"that human defined morals turns into law "
 
What else should determine laws?
Doug Plumb Added Jul 14, 2018 - 10:12pm
Let's put a holohoax museum in every city to remember all of this 8-)
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 15, 2018 - 1:23pm
Agreed.
Ken Added Jul 15, 2018 - 1:26pm
classical liberalism isn't actually a bad thing.  You need to differentiate between progressivism and classical liberalism...
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jul 15, 2018 - 1:30pm
“Approximately like this:
 
30 million murdered in the Soviet Union;
70 million murdered in communist China;
= 100 million
 
Then another 2 million murdered in Cambodia;
At least 1 million murdered in North Korea;
At least 10,000 murdered in Cuba.
 
Total = ~ 103,010,000 murdered by leftist, Marxist governments in the 20th century.”
 
Ridiculously high.
 
It breaks down like this:
 
for deaths specific to Stalin, approximately 8-9 million
 
For Mao, from all actions, about 40 million
 
I have no problems with the other numbers but come on....
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 15, 2018 - 2:37pm
A great synopsis of left-wing dictatorial government. 
 
"for deaths specific to Stalin, approximately 8-9 million"
 
Some think he murdered some 5-8 million Kulaks as well 
 
Stalin was a pig .
Doug Plumb Added Jul 15, 2018 - 2:40pm
To establish Stalin numbers, an upper limit would be the number of Christians in government added with the number of lower level revolutionaries, who get killed in the process ( no longer useful, know too much). That could be an upper limit.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 15, 2018 - 2:41pm
Not Christians just in government, but Christians as a whole.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jul 15, 2018 - 4:01pm
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
”A great synopsis of left-wing dictatorial government.”
 
Great synopsis of a right-wing Government:
Hitler:
about six million Jews
approximately 3.5 Red Army POWS
250,000 mentally disabled
Started a world war 
 
"for deaths specific to Stalin, approximately 8-9 million"
 
“Some think he murdered some 5-8 million Kulaks as well”
 
They would be wrong.
 

 
“Stalin was a pig .”
 
Yep.
 
Ken Added Jul 15, 2018 - 5:06pm
jeffrey, absolutely moronic argument.  Hitler headed the National SOCIALIST party, hence the name.  Socialism and Communism - everything marxists is on the LEFT side if the spectrum, not the right.  And he kill close to 20 million all told.  Please learn what you are talking about before you make yourself look so stupid.
A. Jones Added Jul 15, 2018 - 7:56pm
Why Does Joseph Stalin Matter? (part I)
 
Stalin: Waiting for Hitler (part 2)

A two-part interview with Stephen Kotkin, a professor of history at Princeton University, who has just completed the 2nd volume of a projected 3-volume biography of Joseph Stalin.

Among other things, Kotkin discusses in great detail Stalin's genocide against the Kulaks during the collectivization program.

Kotkin calls Stalin "the gold-standard of despots."
Dave Dubya Added Jul 15, 2018 - 9:10pm
Espresso for the amygdala:
 
Liberalism>disease>dishonest>communism>Cambodia>North Korea>mass murder.
 
All the answers, and demonization, in two paragraphs, with zero facts. 
 
Plus a little "Animal Farm" theft from Orwell, a socialist. Quaint.
 
Goebbels would be proud. 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jul 15, 2018 - 11:17pm
@Ken:
”jeffrey, absolutely moronic argument.”
 
This should be good.
 
“Hitler headed the National SOCIALIST party, hence the name.”
 
Actually it was the National Socialist German Workers' Party or in German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
 
“Socialism and Communism - everything marxists is on the LEFT side if the spectrum, not the right.”
 
I see.
 
“And he kill close to 20 million all told.  Please learn what you are talking about before you make yourself look so stupid.”
 
LOL
 
Alrighty.  Well, I’ll address this more tomorrow.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jul 15, 2018 - 11:19pm
@A. Jones:
I have both of Kotkin’s books on order.  I’ve had several people tell me they are quite good.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 16, 2018 - 12:00am
Great post, rycK!
Lindsay Wheeler Added Jul 16, 2018 - 8:55am
"All men are created equal" has no basis in science, religion or philosophy!  It is an ideological screed. It is NOT based on Nature. Nor is it in the Bible. Liberalism is a form of Gnosticism; Gnosticism being a hatred of Nature, hatred of particularity which "egalitarianism" exhibits it, (Race and sex are particularities), hatred of history, syncretism (Eastern form), feelings of elitism. Its provenance is found in the Jewish race. (look it up at Wikipedia). Two of the three founders of Libertarianism are Jewish and the third was a Liberal. Libertarianism is a Jewish ideology. Liberalism is the forerunner to Marxism. When one sees a liberal one sees a soft Marxist. Anarchism is a form of Liberalism. They are all one and the same thing. 
Doug Plumb Added Jul 16, 2018 - 12:34pm
Good post overall rycK. Buts its a set of empirical observations which are quite (mostly) correct.
The error is your interpretation of "equality before the law" This means that the law judges all men equally, not that all men are equal in any way. The subjective part of law comes into judgement with the persons agency. This began with Roman law, a greater degree of agency means easier punishments, or none. You earn respect in court with your knowledge of law and the degree to which you take personal responsibility.
 
Lindsay, "All men are created equal" is an expression of the common law that has stayed with us since Rome and the days of Jupiter.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 16, 2018 - 12:42pm
Liberalism and Libertarianism are quite different, the way I understand it.
This has probably been one of the more interesting posts on WB, along with its comments and discussions.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 16, 2018 - 5:13pm
Doug Plumb
 
In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish "a government of laws and not of men." The influence of Britain, France and the United States contributed to spreading the principle of the rule of law to other countries around the world.
 
There is no reasonable alternative to a strict rule of law as we would then attempt to analyze motives, backgrounds, beliefs, add or subtract evidence and worse. The system is imperfect [an observation from being a juror five times] but I find nothing else that would work better. 
Wayne McMichael Added Jul 16, 2018 - 5:20pm
Lindsay Wheeler - "Liberalism is a form of Gnosticism; Gnosticism being a hatred of Nature" ...What a disgusting distortion of the truth. Gnosticism is simply a philosophy of "Knowing". As opposed to "Faith" or "Belief". It has no dogma except what you choose to attach to it. It is not religion or ideology, not even close:)
Doug Plumb Added Jul 16, 2018 - 5:48pm
Wayne, what is truth? Gnosticism says it exists and can be known by men, making men Gods.
Wayne McMichael Added Jul 16, 2018 - 5:55pm
Doug Plumb If you understand that all is Consciousness, and the Source of Consciousness IS God, it means you are god, not God, but a point of awareness on the infinite conscious field, which is God, all wisdom, all knowledge, all Love. You are quite literally the mind of God. Every thought is a prayer. This is ancient knowledge, not new age stuff. The other alternative is that God created the universe but is separate from it, which doesn't work with science and what we do know. That is what Gnosticism gets you. It is the religion, it is the process of discovery:)
Wayne McMichael Added Jul 16, 2018 - 5:57pm
ooops... It is NOT religion, it is the process of discovery:)
A. Jones Added Jul 16, 2018 - 6:18pm
"All men are created equal" has no basis in science, religion or philosophy!  It is an ideological screed. 
 
So is the statement, "All natural laws are uniform at every spot in the universe, and at any time in the universe (with the possible exception of the putative Big Bang up to its first nanosecond). "Uniformitarianism" is the underlying assumption of all western science, and there is zero demonstrative proof for it in science, religion, or philosophy. It's an "assumption of convenience". So far, it's worked quite well.
 
So has the assumption that all men are created equal.
Wayne McMichael Added Jul 16, 2018 - 6:20pm
A. Jones There was no big bang:) There was no beginning...
Doug Plumb Added Jul 16, 2018 - 6:31pm
I mean there is no truth in the empirical domain, there is rational truth, 1+1=2 and rational creatures adopt the common law. But once you go Gnostic you forget the rational because man becomes God.
But the idea that 1+1=2 does not come from my mind, it comes from the rational which is outside empiricism, has no mass, no dimensions. Hence God.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 16, 2018 - 6:39pm
re " This is ancient knowledge, not new age stuff. The other alternative is that God created the universe but is separate from it, which doesn't work with science and what we do know."
 
BS has been around a long time, longer than science. Science doesn't work in discerning truth, if it did we would have something better than the scientific method from which to do science. The scientific method nullifies hypothesis, that's all, it tells us what isn't true, not what is true.
A. Jones Added Jul 16, 2018 - 7:44pm
There was no big bang:) There was no beginning...
 
OK. If you say so. Please tell that to the astrophysics departments at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Oxford, Cambridge, et al. I know they'd be interested in your closely reasoned arguments and deep analysis.
 
You might want to explain the cause of the red shift that all observations of the universe reveal.
A. Jones Added Jul 16, 2018 - 7:51pm
there is no truth in the empirical domain
 
Yes there is. Kant was wrong about the dichotomy between analytic and synthetic truths and you are wrong, too. There is "empirical truth" and there is "rational truth". That the former is contingent and tied closely to context doesn't make it non-existent.
 
Aristotle understood that, which is the reason he is superior to Kant as a philosopher. He also understood in his treatise "De Anima" ("On the Soul") that knowledge is of two basic kinds: knowledge that comes to us via the senses ("contingent, contextual, empirical knowledge") and knowledge that comes to us via intellect alone ("necessary, rationalist knowledge"). Since both are knowledge of the world, both can make statements that embody truth.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 16, 2018 - 9:07pm
re "That the former is contingent and tied closely to context doesn't make it non-existent."
 
Its true that I had a cup of tea an hour ago, but that is not always true.
 
What about when rationalism and empiricism conflict ?
Doug Plumb Added Jul 16, 2018 - 9:09pm
Alex, physics assumes causality. What happened before causality? What caused causality? These physicists are snake oil salesmen - when they say they found the keys to reality IMO.
Science gets you a hot cup of coffee before work, that's it. Other than that its increased comfort and safety that it gives us only serves to corrupt us.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 16, 2018 - 9:12pm
Kant loved Aristotle, he called out charlatans and built up on the real stuff, from people like Hume, Rousseau, Aristotle, the theorists of Jurisprudence, and others. I would say most of his stuff was a clear restatement of what had been known, but collected in one place. He created epistemology.
A. Jones Added Jul 16, 2018 - 11:00pm
What about when rationalism and empiricism conflict ?
 
For example?
Doug Plumb Added Jul 17, 2018 - 12:35am
See my "Dialectic" on Youtube.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 17, 2018 - 10:49am
Doug Plumb
 
Kant erred greatly when he limited the use of reason by proscribing it around metaphysics. Later, and much before Kant, people reasoned in  the abstract thus defeating the key premise of Kant. 
 
Consider Einstein and others........
Doug Plumb Added Jul 17, 2018 - 12:47pm
Actually read Kant instead of someone else's opinion - who probably didn't read it either rycK. Lets talk about it in a few years
Doug Plumb Added Jul 17, 2018 - 12:48pm
re "Kant erred greatly when he limited the use of reason by proscribing it around metaphysics."
 
Thats absurd nonsense. Where did you get that? Can you post the link?
Doug Plumb Added Jul 17, 2018 - 12:49pm
re "Consider Einstein and others........  " It was Theordore Adorno who started that crap about Einstein disproving Kant.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 17, 2018 - 12:50pm
A. Jones, you might like Dr. Kenneth Young's lecture on youtube.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 17, 2018 - 1:44pm
"
Kant's faults[edit]
Fundamental error[edit]
Perceptions and concepts[edit]
He wanted to make the table of judgments the key to all knowledge. In so doing, he was concerned with making a system and did not think of defining terms such as perception and conception, as well as reason, understanding, subject, object, and others.
Fundamental error: Kant did not distinguish between the concrete, intuitiveperceptual knowledge of objects and the abstractdiscursive, conceptual, knowledge of thoughts.

Kant began his investigation into knowledge of perceived objects by considering indirect, reflective knowledge of concepts instead of direct, intuitive knowledge of perceptions.
For Kant, there is absolutely no knowledge of an object unless there is thought which employs abstract concepts. For him, perception is not knowledge because it is not thought. In general, Kant claimed that perception is mere sensation.

In accordance with Kant's claim, non-human animals would not be able to know objects. Animals would only know impressions on their sense organs, which Kant mistakenly called perception. Kant had erroneously asserted that full, perceived objects, not mere sensations, were given to the mind by the sense organs. Perception, however, according to Schopenhauer, is intellectual and is a product of the Understanding. Perception of an object does not result from the mere data of the senses. It requires the Understanding. Therefore, if animals do not have Understanding, in accordance with Kant, then they have only Sensation, which, Schopenhauer claimed, gives only raw sense data, not perceived objects.


Schopenhauer considered the following sentences on page A253 of the Critique of Pure Reason to encapsulate all of Kant's errors:

If all thought (by means of categories) is taken away from empirical knowledge, no knowledge of any object remains, because nothing can be thought by mere intuition or perception. The simple fact that there is within me an affection of my sensibility, establishes in no way any relation of such a representation to any object.
On page A253, Kant stated that no knowledge of any object would remain if all thought by means of categories was removed from empirical knowledge.

Schopenhauer claimed that perception occurs without conceptual thought.


On page A253, Kant stated that a concept without an intuition is not empty. It still has the form of thought.

Schopenhauer claimed that perceived representations are the content of a concept. Without them, the concept is empty."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Kantian_philosophy#Fundamental_error




rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 17, 2018 - 1:53pm
Kant is way out of date
 
Edward de Bono  has a detailed discussion of how Einstein's works debunked Kant. See p.120
 
GREATEST THINKERS: THE THIRTY MINDS THAT SHAPED OUR CIVILIZATION BY DE BONO, EDWARD
 
Greatest Thinkers: The Thirty Minds That Shaped Our Civilization
Author: De Bono, Edward
 
Language: English
Binding: Hardcover
Publisher: Littlehampton Book Services Ltd
Publication Date: 1976-09-30
Wayne McMichael Added Jul 17, 2018 - 2:24pm
A. Jones "There was no big bang:) There was no beginning...
 
OK. If you say so. Please tell that to the astrophysics departments at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Oxford, Cambridge, et al. I know they'd be interested in your closely reasoned arguments and deep analysis.
 
You might want to explain the cause of the red shift that all observations of the universe reveal."
 
I have had discussions with several astrophysicists. There is no scientific evidence for big bang. CMB or CBR was wrong in it's prediction, off as much as a factor of 10. Big bang died when telescopes revealed a universe too large for the big bang model. So they invented another unsubstantiated theory on top of the first unsubstantiated theory called "Rapid Expansion", which makes no predictions and no sense. They still can not rationalize it with math, and you can twist math to rationalize almost anything:) If you look at the rapid expansion myth you can see it, or part of it represents a segment of a sine wave. My theory is Infinite Wave Theory which makes a lot more sense, explains the expansion and the increased velocity of expansion, explains dark matter dark energy, black holes and everything we current;y know about the universe. Do you really think academia is going to readily abandon their pet theories, even when they make no sense at all?:) History has not shown that. Not all are closed minded however. The problem is, my theory is so simple it is embarrassing to physicists:) You have to get your nose off the billboard to read what it says, and big bang has our noses firmly fixed against the billboard:) When you realize the universe is infinite with no beginning, you begin to expand you own horizons. I got this from a professor in Illinois, below. I have embarrassed a number of astrophysicists:) I am not going to discuss the universe with people who don't even know what "they" are:) BTW, Truth builds on Truth...
I have been studying what happens to the energy of an open system , an element of a universe which is assumed to be an isolated system, as it slowly dissolves into the universe, by applying a simple mathematical model.
I see that it becomes a WAVE....
I just found your description and got very much interested in it.
Regards,
Suhrit Dey
Dr. Suhrit K. Dey, Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Mathematics & Computer Sc.
Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA
Doug Plumb Added Jul 17, 2018 - 4:23pm
Half these guys or more would say that the buildings on 9-11 collapsed due to fire (see wtc7)
Doug Plumb Added Jul 17, 2018 - 4:28pm
re "Kant is way out of date
 
Edward de Bono  has a detailed discussion of how Einstein's works debunked Kant. See p.120"
 
I've read it in Adorno. I've read Russells explanation in his book on relativity. If you actually read Kant you would see that, as Russell sees, the argument from physics against Kant is sophistry at best.
Be sceptical of anyone that says Kant was "wrong". He is the most respected philosopher that ever lived. He also has a lot of enemies, for the best articulation and argument for the common law that has ever been written. His IQ is estimated to be 175, as someone else (A. Jones??) pointed out on here.
I've spent too much time reading this to be persuaded by someone who hasn't even read the works, is your IQ anything like 175 rycK?
 
Doug Plumb Added Jul 17, 2018 - 4:30pm
re "He wanted to make the table of judgments the key to all knowledge. In so doing, he was concerned with making a system and did not think of defining terms such as perception and conception, as well as reason, understanding, subject, object, and others."
 
All of these terms or their equivalents, except conception, which is not defined as such, are very carefully defined by Kant. You are reading nonsense.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 17, 2018 - 4:32pm
re "f all thought (by means of categories) is taken away from target="_blank">empirical knowledge, no knowledge of any object remains, because nothing can be thought by mere intuition or perception. The simple fact that there is within me an affection of my sensibility, establishes in no way any relation of such a target="_blank">representation to any object."
 
Shoepenhauer is not Kant, no where near.
A. Jones Added Jul 17, 2018 - 5:12pm
Do you really think academia is going to readily abandon their pet theories, even when they make no sense at all?
 
Of course not.
 
I also don't think that individual cranks are going to readily abandon their pet theories, even when they make no sense at all. 
A. Jones Added Jul 17, 2018 - 5:14pm
See my "Dialectic" on Youtube.
 
I did. You failed to answer my question even in your YouTube clip.
 
Once more:
 
Cite an example in which rationalism and empiricism are in conflict. 
A. Jones Added Jul 17, 2018 - 5:15pm
Thats absurd nonsense. Where did you get that? Can you post the link?
 
Why should he post a link when you never do so yourself? It's on his YouTube video. Google it yourself.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 17, 2018 - 8:46pm
re "Cite an example in which rationalism and empiricism are in conflict. "
 
Two capacitor paradox.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 17, 2018 - 8:47pm
re "Why should he post a link when you never do so yourself? It's on his YouTube video. Google it yourself.  "
 
I asked rycK where he got that info on Kant, because its all completely wrong. He did not post a link to a video. Kant is grossly misrepresented by his enemies.
A. Jones Added Jul 17, 2018 - 10:18pm
Two capacitor paradox.
 
You're wrong. There is no paradox. When all of the relevant rationalist considerations are taken into account, rationalism and empiricism exactly coincide.
 
You've simply neglected to do some homework on this. That's why you're a fool.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 18, 2018 - 6:21am
Its never been resolved and the idea of energy conservation and Maxwell's equations are in direct conflict. I used to think you were a smart guy, now I see you are just a polemist.
The missing energy goes into the kinetic energy of the particles? Every year, for the last 200 years, someone comes along and says this has been resolved.  Have you seen the one with the water tanks?
Profs aren't encouraged to talk about this. Its a material world.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 18, 2018 - 6:35am
Where is the heat when the electrons put on the brakes? The whole point of the conflict is to show our models only work within the limits of observation. Science isn't reality.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 18, 2018 - 6:37am
I wonder why this PDF hasn't been published if it has resolved this paradox.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 18, 2018 - 7:12pm
Jones, you are not well studied. Anyone that tries to resolve the two capacitor paradox must assume that Q=CV is some kind of approximation, and not a definition. It is a cornerstone of Maxwell's equations and it is absolute truth inside observations. It is not absolute truth outside observation. The paradox is an empirical proof of Kants basic hypothesis.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 19, 2018 - 8:59am
Doug
 
"I asked rycK where he got that info on Kant, because its all completely wrong. He did not post a link to a video. Kant is grossly misrepresented by his enemies."
 
I posted criticisms of Kant. Kant's provincialism was amplified by his notion of having fixed filters. The only filters he knew were the ones he imposed on his self. None of my cited criticisms are 'wrong.'
 
Find your  own video if you cannot  read. 
Doug Plumb Added Jul 19, 2018 - 4:27pm
I have no doubt that Kant's categories are not perfect. I also do not know that anyone understands them since he suggests a worthwhile project to expand them, like tree logic, although Kant doesn't frame it that way. I've known three people who have clear signs of higher intelligence, all Phd's. None of them claim to fully understand Kant. "about 30%" is what I got from two of them.
rycK, I do not believe that you are stupid, in fact probably smarter than most, but you are not going to win at hockey playing against Wayne Gretsky.
Forgive me if I don't carefully dissect every statement that comes along saying "Kant was wrong". I do read criticisms of Kant and find them to be wrong, ie Shopenhauer and Adorno.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 19, 2018 - 4:28pm
No one has accepted Kant's project
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 19, 2018 - 5:51pm
Doug
 
"I have no doubt that Kant's categories are not perfect."
 
A tacit admission that rates some merit. Kant did not properly define his terms thus he mumbled.