Wednesday, 19 October 2016

On Being 'Close Enough'

‘Oh well - close enough.’  I’ve dealt with this issue in these pages before, as I recall.1  But it bears repeating; and especially at this time, of particularly crucial elections for the nation.  Just yesterday I came across this subject again when reading the postings of comments on some online article, where a poster made a couple of spelling errors in his contribution,2 and a responder called him on them, referring to his education, or lack thereof, and a couple of responders then called the responder on his response; telling him, in effect, to get lost, that they understood the original commenter’s points, and the complainer should get a life, with worse words to that effect.  And just so are we in the deep trouble that we are in today as a nation; with an ineligible occupant of the Oval Office, who is leading the nation into perdition.

How so.  Let me continue by setting up this notion.  Going back to at least some of its roots.  In the techniques employed ‘in our day’ by ‘educators’ - ideologues - in the teaching of reading.

I refer to the whole-word method of teaching reading (aka the ‘look-say’ method), rather than the phonics system, of teaching our children to sound out the individual letters that make up our words - learning to read by and for themselves; not by the shapes of words, that our ‘educators’ have set up for us as the way to learn to read, and read by.  Whereby they can control what we read, by our learning to read only those words that they want us to learn.  And thereby control what we think.3  

So, this notation is by way of pointing out how we have been taught not to look at the details of things, thus considering them unimportant, in the general scheme of things.   So what does that have to do with the presence of a usurper in the terribly important, and powerful, position of president of the strongest nation in and of ‘the Free World’?

Let me get into this subject by way of an imagined conversation; to wit:

‘What do you think the difference is between a ‘natural born’ citizen and just a citizen?’

‘Oh, that’s easy.  ‘Just a citizen’ could have been naturalized.  A ‘natural born’ citizen is one born here.’

‘Yes.  In part.’

‘Excuse me?’

‘Let me continue.  And, what do you think the difference is between a ‘natural born’ citizen and just a born citizen?’

‘What?  I don’t get it.  it’s the same thing.  Isn’t it?’

‘No.  As specifically attested to by the proposal by Alexander Hamilton at the Constitutional Convention, where he was one of the delegates, and in that position, proposed, when the subject of the eligibility requirements for the highest office in the land came up, that the president need only be, quote, “born a Citizen,” unquote.  And his proposal was specifically turned down in favor of the more stringent category of citizen, of a ‘natural born’ citizen.  Which was defined at the time - and which eligibility requirement for that particular office still stands, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary - as a person, quote, “born in the country, of parents who are citizens,” unquote.  The whole point of the exercise on the part of those new-nation creators being to make sure - at least as sure as they could, in their time - that the occupant of that particular office, who would as well, then, become the Commander in Chief of the nation’s military forces - the main point of consideration in their thinking; as the historical recored also attests to - had no dual or otherwise conflicting loyalties or allegiances or influences.  Had sole allegiance to the United States.  For obvious purposes and reasons.’ 4

‘Oh.  Well. Come on.  Get a life.  Close enough.’

No; it’s not ‘close enough’.  It makes a great deal of difference.  Especially sometimes.

As we have learned.  

The hard way.

Or have we??  Yet???…

This goes to the next point that I want to make: how our erstwhile masters have ‘primed the pump’ for their New World Order takeover of this country by quietly withdrawing the teaching of the subject of Western Civilization in our schools of higher learning.

A personal note on this matter.

I really enjoyed my Freshman-year required course on ‘Western Civ’ at Stanford University.  (Known at the time as ‘the Harvard of the West;’ which I attended on a scholarship, not having the money otherwise to attend such a prestigious university.)  And I was saddened to hear, some time after having left my studies there early - in my Junior year - to go out on a search for ultimate truths (another story), that it had been discontinued as a requirement for all incoming students.  Why? I wondered; and heard it ‘argued,’ in a newsletter to alumni, that it was because Stanford was getting more and more students from other countries - particularly from the East - and ‘they’ decided that it was not fair to those students to have to learn/be exposed to ‘our ways’ - to Western history. That sounded suspicious to me at the time.  And that suspicion has grown over the years, the more I have looked into what is going on in the world (rather than what life is all about in its larger context).

Briefly: I hadn’t thought about the matter - of a ‘Western Civilization’ - quite that clearly before: how - in a nutshell - the Greeks emphasized ‘vox populi’ - the voice of the people - whereas the Persians emphasized - ‘stood for’ - kingship, with ‘the people’ being merely obedient subjects.  To king, cleric, or state - in the form of oligarchy or outright despot.  And that’s what your erstwhile masters would love to reduce you to: the role of; so that they - your rightful masters; at least in their eyes - can control you to within an inch of your obedient lives, to be their servants.  And they have tried to take over the whole world to that end.5  Which sort of thing it was the whole point of the American experiment in self-governance to help avoid.

And not to just establish vox populi.  Our Founding Fathers, having studied history, and learning thereby the dangers of unfettered democracy - including the development of a mass consciousness, to say mob mentality, capable of being manipulated, by devious agents of such as erstwhile masters of the masses - decided on the governing form of a republic for their new nation, with - by definition - elected representatives of The People, who could have the time to more consciously and reflectively study the issues.  In - cough cough - their details.  And with a mind to their potential effects.  In the manner of awareness of the consequences of their actions.

See how it works???...

Oh - and as to why ‘kingship’ is such a strong notion in us?  Because it is - as is about to be lowered on Earth - a facsimile of

the real thing.  

In a universe governed by Laws from on high, emanating from 

our Creator Source.  With a hierarchy of development, based on our consciousness of and alignment with our Creator Source; and that Will.

It’s in our genes.  So to say.

The Individual.  And the Collective.  Both necessary, in our spiritual evolution.  Back to



1 I remember at least commenting on it in a Comments thread, because I remember someone in response appreciating me for my perceptive observation, on the value of training one’s mind to look at the details of things, not treat the details lightly.

2 Now, I understand that sometimes our computers make these mistakes, not us; but we still have the opportunity to correct the errors before posting our comments.

3 This scam was introduced, and gotten away with, by our socialist Controllers (for that is who has been behind this scam, ever since the ’30s especially; another story) employing the idea of reading ’comprehension’.  Not wanting children to be able to read well on their own - and thus having the ability, and inclination, to access ‘dangerous’ material.  That is to say, material dangerous to ‘the state’.  
   But to continue.  

4 And thus a main reason why the ‘progressives’ have tried through the years to make of the Constitution ‘a living document,’ rather than the contract that it is, between the several States and the federal government; subject to a proper amending process - of all the parties to the contract involved - and interpretation based on the ’original intent’ of the contents and contractees.  Not on the personal socio-econo-political proclivities of the nation’s federal judges.  Including those sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States.  Who are about to have a great fall, for their chicanery and deceit in this regard.
   But to continue.

5 Who are ‘they’?    
   The literature on the subject, and commentary on the Internet, is replete with names and families/bloodlines. Briefly: The wealthy families (who want to secure their positions and wealth), like the Mellons, the Carnegies, the Harrimans; the international bankers (the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the J.P. Morgans, the Goldman Sachs crowd; that lot) and multinational corporate honchos; the Iranian dynastic families; the Jesuits; the Zionist Jews (believers in themselves being The Chosen People, and thus continually getting themselves and others into trouble); those behind the various Foundations - Ford, etc. - shifting monies to revolutionaries; the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission; the higher degrees of various secret societies; the list goes on.
   Power corrupts.


    The Call

The American people
      had an early
      wakeup call
When some soldiers
                  at a base
In southern California
         were asked,
Years ago, now,
                     if they
            would fire
On American civilians.
                   Now what
                  was that
All about???  

‘Oh, just checking.  
                You know.
                In case
        of looting, after
       a hurricane
       and so forth.’

         I know.
         And so
      a lot
Of Americans,
With the likes
Of foreign soldiers
On our soil
‘Dissident extraction’
          and brutal
    And so forth.

       We know,

Or at least
A lot of us
To turn the tide?

  That remains
    to be seen.

   The Ides
   of March
Are upon us.
   So to speak.
   In our peak
  of cosmic

No comments: