In reading over my blog of a couple of days ago, I realise than I can sound awfully sure of myself/come across that way. I'm not, really. I just have strong feelings about some things in particular, and am not shy about opening my mouth and sharing my perspectives. I can remember in junior high and high school (and even in pre-med-drenched university) having strong feelings about some issues that put me at odds with many of those classmates around me. (Injustices - even if only perceived injustices - in particular tend to set me off.) But that was just the way it was. I wasn't going to keep quiet just for the sake of 'keeping the peace'. Not in my nature. In that regard, I can also relate to something I read in the Bible - more precisely the New Testament - during a time in my life when I was intensively studying the religions of the world - trying to gain the benefit of the best of humanity's thinking on such subjects - when Jesus is reported there as saying to some of his disciples something like, "I come not to bring peace but with a sword". I understand, compadre.* If the emperor is not wearing any clothes, call him on it. It's shakeup time.
Something else I have strong feelings about is the nominal presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, and the process of his ascension to that august office. I have written previously in these pages of my feelings in this regard - how there is all manner of evidence, some direct, some circumstantial, that he has usurped that office; with the assistance of some very powerful people, who have continued to work behind the scenes to keep that fact from breaking out far enough into the open to elicit a major response from the body politic. There is a lot of griping going on about this matter on the Internet, but the incense has not reached the nostrils of a critical enough mass of the citizenry to produce a satisfactory result, from the point of view of those who feel strongly that an injustice has been committed - a major injustice; not just a minor quibble over legalistic definitions ("No Person except a natural born Citizen,,,"). And major also, because of the direction that Obama is trying to take the nation - or at least, would seem to be trying to take it. Which is into big-government (by definition) socialism; and as part of a New World Order of the Left.
As opposed to a (big-government) New World Order of the Right, as other shadowy powers would very much appear to be trying to take the country, and the world's now-globalised body of nation-states (and nascent regions).
But which, in actuality, is a process controlled by the same parties at the top of the pyramid of power.
And which, in further actuality, could well be an example of how 'God moves in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform'.
Where to begin, in an exegesis of all this, beyond where I started these musings...
Let me go back there, and share a posting I made on a site carrying an article titled 'the Doctor, the President, and the Birth Certificate'. The article was about a medical doctor in the military who is facing court-martial for refusing to follow orders to be reassigned to duty in iraq until he can be assured that they are legal orders, ie, that they come, via the chain of command, ultimately from his commander in chief who is in that position legally. It has to do with questions about Obama's birth, in relation to the legal definition of a 'natural born citizen'. In his defense, his lawyer has called for 'discovery', ie, his right to evidence in relation to his case. (The military judge has so far not allowed him discovery, saying the trial is only a matter of whether he has failed to obey an order or not. 'But your Honor, the whole point is to ascertain whether it is a lawful order or not.' 'No it isn't.' Yes it is.) One of the posters expressed his anger thusly: "What this tells me or should I say, SHOWS me is that NOTHING in America is sacred and that a foreigner can take control of the highest office in the land in violation of the Constitution because of money in the right places and control of the news media by the left!" My reply to his response:
"All well put, B.J. Just one thing: when you say this sort of thing shows what can happen due to 'money in the right places and control of the news media by the left', you left out one of the most important factors. That is the failure of the Republicans, and the right-wing media, to do their job.
"And why was that.
"If America truly had a two-party system, the Republicans would have been all over the question of Obama's eligibility to run for POTUS like a rash - and ESPECIALLY after McCain's eligibility was subjected to such scrutiny.
"As I say: And why was that.
"All together now:
"Because the fix is in at the top
"Has been for years.
"Because there are people of the Dark who are trying to take over rulership of the Earth for their own malign purposes. And they find individuals like Obama to do their bidding.
"Barack Hussein Obama. Aka Barry Soetoro. Who should also be called Leon, as in chameleon. With a narcissistic personality if there ever was one. To whom, on some level, this has all been a joke, at Whitey's expense. A sick, sick, drug-addled joke."**
So I'm looking at this matter in a very serious way; right? Big issues in play here, considering both the Light and the Dark. Heavy stuff. Feeling Obama is being used by dark forces, and so forth; and being very incensed about it. And then along comes the likes of Matthew, and his spiritual friend Hatonn.*** The latter of whom is quoted on Matthew's channelling of l0/l0/l0 thusly:
" All souls at Matthew's station are highly spiritually evolved, and as their spokesperson, he relays their unified feelings about souls on Earth. They love all equally and send healing light to all. They are able to honor all people as parts of God and separate that from their ungodly thoughts and actions.
10. We are physical civilizations. We don't have the capacity for that extent of unity and unconditional love. As part of our own evolutionary progress, we are in service to God by helping lower density worlds evolve when they ask for assistance. Some among you don't want anything changed, but Earth does — that's why we have been helping you technologically and many of us are living on the planet to help in other ways. We're spiritually and intellectually advanced too, so we know your thoughts, we know what you're feeling and see what you're doing. But unlike the souls at Matthew's station, we do get anxious, angry, discouraged, impatient and frustrated by some of what's going on. We have differing opinions and ideas just like you do, but we resolve the differences on the basis of what best serves all of us as a universal family.
11. Then there's your civilization. By your admission — and certainly it's obvious! — your world is in a mess, but instead of doing something to fix it, too many are just watching TV or are gung-ho about sports, "Yay for my team!" There's complaining and bickering about problems instead of solving them and criticism about those who are trying to. I'm going to speak about the one whose circumstances most concern us and why.
12. Generally speaking, people know US president Barack Obama only by what he says and what your media report. Most don't have clue about what goes on "behind closed doors." You see stubborn partisan politics. We see Obama's powerful enemies within and far beyond the government who are determined to smash to smithereens his attempts at reform. You see him looking worried and know some call him weak and say he's leading his country in the wrong direction. We feel his pain as his efforts to improve the lives of all who are downtrodden are scuttled by a few self-servers. You see him trying to end foreign conflicts and think he should stay home and fix what's wrong in his own country. We feel his discouragement and exhaustion as the dark ones keep stirring up trouble to dash his efforts everywhere.
13. The folks you call "pundits" speculate whether voters will give Obama a second term in office. We sing his praises for staying the course day after day! He has to deal with some of the very ones who threaten his life and his family's, yet his intention to keep working for a peaceful world without poverty anywhere remains firm. You know that he and his family are protected by the Christed light grid around them, but Obama doesn't know that. You know that he is a major part of the Golden Age master plan, but he doesn't know that either. He acts on his convictions, principles, aspirations and innate experience as an honored leader in a highly evolved civilization who agreed to serve Earth in the most demanding position on the planet. If everyone could know this soul as we do, all the doubts and carping about him would come to a screeching halt and you would thank God for this man's courage, wisdom, spiritual and moral integrity and his willingness to persevere!
14. You know that your thoughts create what happens in your life, in your world, and everything you do affects everything else in this universe. So if any of you are among the carpers and doubters, stop that and start helping Obama to succeed! He's working for you — do the same for him, yourselves, your world and our universe! You don't have to become political activists. Just keep your hearts and minds in the right place and help others do it too. We're in the trenches with you and we need your help—we have more than enough hindrance from the dark ones on Earth!
15. I know I've sounded harsh, but sometimes people don't respond until it's "tough love" time, and it is with love for you that I've spoken. And not just for myself and my people. I'm representing countless others who feel the same but don't have a forum like this to express it."
So - if only as food for thought (and as one of those "carpers and doubters") - can I have been so wrong in my so rightness (read also: so self-righteousness)?
Can this be the true aspect of, more correct take on, the matter, and mine be so far off??
I don't think so.
But...
So: questions, questions. What i do know is some advice given to me in my university days by my Freshman English instructor, when, during my Junior year, I wrote him (he had moved away by that time) and told him of my decision to drop out and go on a search for Truth. He wrote back, and, though expressing that he wasn't "surprised" to hear it, gave me the aforementioned bit of advice. Saying (as I recall) it was from some South American writer and philosopher ("Calderon, I think"), he quoted: "Of all sure things, the surest is to doubt." Fair enough. Don't, to say, take any wooden nickels. Check it out. Keep an open mind. (Still with you, Barney.)
What I do allow is this business of 'God moving in mysterious ways' sometimes. I see those people who are working for their own interests, in wanting to run the world their way - the Rothschilds and Rockefellers and so forth (and Soros and Chomsky et all on the Left) - as just being part of the larger Plan, that is helping humanity, in a Hegelian, thesis-antithesis working-out way, get to a process-place of Completion, where we can take off for Ascension - complete the long, painful, learning-filled historical process in a pyramid-capping synthesis stage, where humanity can dwell in 'a thousand years of peace' - for not creating, on that level, antithetical reactions from having imbalanced aspects ('contradictions', in the analytical terms of dialectical materialism; which make a lot of sense) needing balancing; needing further outworking. But Obama?
I see him as just part of the outworking picture; and not a very savory part at that. I am insulted (particularly from my sensitivity to injustice; but also, very possibly, from a past-life investment; at least that's the way such affronts to the founding of this nation feel like to me, sometimes) that he has - very possibly - conned his way into the presidency (with the help of a lot of people who have a lot to answer for). I certainly don't see him as a major player of and from 'the Light", incarnating at this time to help out in this key, history-culminating process.
Can something good come out of something bad?? (No original birth certificate; no school records; no passport records; dodgy Social Security records; errors of fact in his books; evidence that he didn't even write them...What all is he hiding...mutter mutter...)
Well - I guess we have to cut a LOT of slack in this one. Because the whole process, on some level, could be seen, and considered, as a part of something 'bad'; with all the wars and such involved. And injustices...
So I guess I shouldn't be so ready to look at things as all black or all white.
Like that self-confessed mutt, Obama.
---
* I also understand that there is considerable evidence that The Bible is not as it is made out to be; that it is not historicity so much as human manipulation. (See the research of, among others, Tony Bushy and Ralph Ellis.) But interesting, and valuable, thoughts can come from various sources. It pays not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, in life.
** I continued:
"Congratulations to westernjournalism.com and worldnetdaily.com for keeping this issue alive - and hopefully seeing it through to a successful conclusion. Successful, as in a return in America to moral standards, in an age of widespread immorality, occasioned by relativists. Who may not be fully aware of the principalities and powers that are using them for their own ends - having gained access to their mentalities because they have fallen out of fellowship with the Light.
"P.S. This article was by one David Kupelian, over at WND. Check out his credits, as in his two recent books. He's got a good handle on this sort of thing: of what we are up against.
"In our time and place.
'To do something about.
"And, like, now."
[Kupelian's books are 'The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom', and 'How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America'. Good themes. Even if there is, ultimately, no 'evil' per se. Just grist for the mill.]
And N.B.: Not to go into the details here of my/the charges, about Obama. Why I call him a chameleon, eg. Although I will point the curious reader in the direction of a blog at National Review Online by one Andrew McCarthy, who reviewed Obama's statements about various matters against his actions, and found the latter rather wanting; Obama caught out tailoring his position time and again. And the "drug-addled joke" business comes from videos on the Internet showing Obama as a student at Occidental College, engaging in a life of drugs and messing around. And if one objects to that 'take', cutting him some slack from his college years - like many of his classmates, experiencing counter-culture 'freedom' - I refer that person to reports at the same YouTube source of Obama's drugs-and-sex dealings, years later on in his mysterious life, with one Larry Sinclair while a Chicago state politician. A charge that has never been followed up on by the MSM. Never independently verified. But never disproved, either.
(As to the latter point: Sinclair is said to have taken a polygraph test that he failed. But it turns out the the 'expert' holding the session had falsified his background; also had spent considerable time with the Obama-supporting sponsors of the test privately beforehand. Who knows the truth at this point.
Two people. Obama. And Sinclair.
Easy choice? One's a grifter? And one's...what, precisely??
Who - and what - IS Obama, really???)
*** Matthew, for those who don't know, is - purports to be - the discarnate son of a woman (named Suzie Ward) who feeds her reports, and observations, from his 'station' in the afterworld. And Hatonn is a spiritual friend of his on this side of the veil.
Careful of judging these sorts of things too soon. Yes, there can be delusion involved in these things. Yes, there can be 'lower astral entities' playing trickster, and so forth. But a good rule of thumb, for anyone, is to 'judge them by their fruits'. Take the material in. See how it feels, for you. Make up your own mind. 'Matthew', for me, makes a lot of sense, often. But I have a particularly hard time with his positive spin on Obama. And that of his buddy Hatonn. Read on...
Monday, 11 October 2010
Saturday, 9 October 2010
Beyond the Welfare State
As usual, the Guardian national newspaper here in the UK has failed to print one of my Letters to the Editor. As usual, it may well have been at least to some extent due to my penchant for prolixity. But in this case, it may well have been simply due to our fundamentally differing takes on things political.*
The subject had to do with a newly-announced policy of the new coalition government - led by the Tories (Conservatives) - for the state to stop automatically paying for those on welfare to have children. Shock! Horror! My letter:
"Dear Editor,
"At last, some common sense in this country around its benefits policies (Anger and alarm as Tory minister attacks benefit claimants who have large families, 8 October). 'The number of children that you have is a choice...It's not going to be the role of the state to finance those choices': Hear, hear. 'It's absolutely wrong to go down the line of saying only rich people or better-off people should be parents': No, no.
"No one has any business having children that they can't provide for properly. It is immoral in its unfairness to those children. The creation of generations of people on welfare is something that the state should never have entered into. The state can provide contraception information and even, in more straitened financial circumstances, materials to its citizenry. But it never should have put itself in the position of enticing females to have children on the taxpayers' shilling.
"Campaigners against child poverty need to reconsider their position, and realise the importance and value of the principle of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. To cause children to be born into poverty circumstances, and to force wage-earning families to pay for other people to have children when they often can't afford even to have their own is, and has been, a monstrous double-barrelled injustice. It's time and past that that affront to common sense was dealt with. And if it had to take a major economic crisis to bring it to a head, then at least the matter, and the opportunity to bite this particular bullet, is finally facing us.
"Yours sincerely, (etc)"
As should be obvious, I feel very strongly about this sort of thing. No socialist or communist, I. (The article went on to comment on this fundamental challenge to the idea of the state no longer being willing to meet its citizens' "needs". Little had I realised how far into socialism this welfare state had sunk - all the way into the full-blown communist territory of 'From each according to his ability, To each according to his need'.) My 'philosophy', such as it is: the state can certainly help individuals get on their feet, if they clearly have no family support; but not to the point of creating more poverty conditions, by assisting - in very effect, paying - young females in straitened economic circumstances to have babies, thus creating a dependent, welfare class. It is unfair to the child/children. It is unfair to the citizenry at large. It needs to stop.
But then, the whole system needs to stop.
And I don't mean the welfare-state system. I mean the market system.
I mean the capitalist system.
I mean the money system.
And now we start looking beyond the welfare state, and its various siblings.
Consider. The whole current system of social life on the planet hinges on consumption; on the creation of demand. I've got a better idea - especially now, when we need to look to preserve our planetary resources (not just live in greater harmony with the natural world). So does the Venus Project/Zeitgeist team; but there is a huge difference between our positions, even though they appear the same superficially. Those folks are secular humanists; they feel that people will create a viable moneyless system because, well, just because. Because it would be ever so much better if they did. Well; yes, and. That's what Marx thought, too. Missing piece to the equation: proper motivation.
If there is no 'God' - and all that that 'concept' implies; especially a Plan in and Purpose to 'the universe': to life, beyond just in and for itself only - then nothing really matters anyway, and one might as well live exclusively for oneself, independent of the effect of that pursuit on others, as not; for the end of the closed system of life can, then, as easily be seen as that as anything else, a presumed evolutionary advantage for acting cooperatively, or whatever. If there is, however, then certain things follow. For one thing, it follows - as touched on above - that life has meaning. And with meaning comes the intrinsic value of 'doing unto others as you would have them do unto you'. And there we have our principle, to live our lives by. Our principle, and our motivation, for giving of our best to one another, in the way of contributing goods and services and ingenuity to one another: out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning.
Out of, in a word, Love.
How short-sighted we are, not to see the ramifications of paying females to have babies on the taxpayers' shilling, and thus create a welfare class, in perpetual poverty. And how near-sighted we are, not to see the ramifications of being 'spiritual beings having a human experience'; whereby, blessed with clearer sight and vision, could we create a better way of living together on planet Earth, with that mentality. And all we have to do to get there is to do away with the one thing standing in our way, dividing us from one another: money.
However, we're getting there.
With Necessity being the Mother of Invention.
P.S. A further, more complete word on the communist model - which, like its other -ism buddies, has to do with all-powerful (or at the least, highly powerful) governments, and the citizenry having to toe the top-down line. I would put people first, in the sense of autonomous individuals responsible for their own spiritual development, via the concept of free will: each person responsible for their own soul's development. So: such extremes, such command-and-control mentalities, to be avoided. Although the communist concept - rather like the yin-yang 'concept' - contains the seeds of something of value, of its mirror opposite: the value of the sense of freely-given cooperation, not competition. Of all of us being One, not, in higher Truth, separate autonomous beings.
We are experiencing division - from each other, from our common Source - for a reason: for the learning, and subsequent consciousness-raising. But there comes a time when we are ready - have readied ourselves - to return home, in at least a sense, here on this physical level. To come back to Oneness; the richer for the experience of separation. Of free will occasioning further growth of the One of which we are all a part. Sparks of divinity returning to Source. With gratitude.
With - as I say - in a word: Love.
What did the poet say?
'We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.' (T.S. Eliot)
The First Time. The Zep Tepi of the Egyptians; and the Alchemists...It's a small world.
---
* Which doesn't answer why, some years ago - in 2005 - they failed even to acknowledge receipt of a detailed letter of mine, not to the Letters Editor but to the Editor of the paper himself, regarding that summer's 'terrorist' bombing primarily in the London Underground, wherein I outlined, with seven or eight clear bullet points, the case for serious questions regarding the event which were not being dealt with by the mainstream media. (One of which involved one of their own reporters, covering an eyewitness story indicating that in at least one of the subway trains involved, the explosion was reported as coming from underneath the carriage, not within it. Thus indicating advanced placement. And who would have had access to and for that planting? Well, well. The man in charge of the subway system at that time had come from New York City - and had a role to play in that city's confrontation with 'terrorists', on 9/11, as well. As I say: Well, well. And had a background in the U.S.'s intelligence agencies as well. Well, well, well.) And I got the same response when I followed it up some weeks later with a couple more serious questions regarding the attack. (The presumed suicide bombers couldn't have caught the particular commuter train they were said to have caught into London, because there was no such train that day; etc etc.) If I had taken the trouble to outline all these points in a letter to the London Times, for example, I might have expected such a response, or to say non-response; because the implication of it all was that the atrocity was not really the work of some Muslim extremists, bent on revenge for the West going into Muslim countries and causing mayhem, but was a false flag operation, by shadowy forces bent on creating police states in the West, depriving the citizenry of their civil liberties, etc etc. The Guardian was, and is, a left-wing publication, normally very ready to challenge the government on such issues; why would they not wish to follow up on this highly intriguing story?
Well; indeed. And the question still stands, even after all this time; hanging in the air, like a putrid smell. A smell of high skulduggery. Not the whiff of minor players in the drama.
The subject had to do with a newly-announced policy of the new coalition government - led by the Tories (Conservatives) - for the state to stop automatically paying for those on welfare to have children. Shock! Horror! My letter:
"Dear Editor,
"At last, some common sense in this country around its benefits policies (Anger and alarm as Tory minister attacks benefit claimants who have large families, 8 October). 'The number of children that you have is a choice...It's not going to be the role of the state to finance those choices': Hear, hear. 'It's absolutely wrong to go down the line of saying only rich people or better-off people should be parents': No, no.
"No one has any business having children that they can't provide for properly. It is immoral in its unfairness to those children. The creation of generations of people on welfare is something that the state should never have entered into. The state can provide contraception information and even, in more straitened financial circumstances, materials to its citizenry. But it never should have put itself in the position of enticing females to have children on the taxpayers' shilling.
"Campaigners against child poverty need to reconsider their position, and realise the importance and value of the principle of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. To cause children to be born into poverty circumstances, and to force wage-earning families to pay for other people to have children when they often can't afford even to have their own is, and has been, a monstrous double-barrelled injustice. It's time and past that that affront to common sense was dealt with. And if it had to take a major economic crisis to bring it to a head, then at least the matter, and the opportunity to bite this particular bullet, is finally facing us.
"Yours sincerely, (etc)"
As should be obvious, I feel very strongly about this sort of thing. No socialist or communist, I. (The article went on to comment on this fundamental challenge to the idea of the state no longer being willing to meet its citizens' "needs". Little had I realised how far into socialism this welfare state had sunk - all the way into the full-blown communist territory of 'From each according to his ability, To each according to his need'.) My 'philosophy', such as it is: the state can certainly help individuals get on their feet, if they clearly have no family support; but not to the point of creating more poverty conditions, by assisting - in very effect, paying - young females in straitened economic circumstances to have babies, thus creating a dependent, welfare class. It is unfair to the child/children. It is unfair to the citizenry at large. It needs to stop.
But then, the whole system needs to stop.
And I don't mean the welfare-state system. I mean the market system.
I mean the capitalist system.
I mean the money system.
And now we start looking beyond the welfare state, and its various siblings.
Consider. The whole current system of social life on the planet hinges on consumption; on the creation of demand. I've got a better idea - especially now, when we need to look to preserve our planetary resources (not just live in greater harmony with the natural world). So does the Venus Project/Zeitgeist team; but there is a huge difference between our positions, even though they appear the same superficially. Those folks are secular humanists; they feel that people will create a viable moneyless system because, well, just because. Because it would be ever so much better if they did. Well; yes, and. That's what Marx thought, too. Missing piece to the equation: proper motivation.
If there is no 'God' - and all that that 'concept' implies; especially a Plan in and Purpose to 'the universe': to life, beyond just in and for itself only - then nothing really matters anyway, and one might as well live exclusively for oneself, independent of the effect of that pursuit on others, as not; for the end of the closed system of life can, then, as easily be seen as that as anything else, a presumed evolutionary advantage for acting cooperatively, or whatever. If there is, however, then certain things follow. For one thing, it follows - as touched on above - that life has meaning. And with meaning comes the intrinsic value of 'doing unto others as you would have them do unto you'. And there we have our principle, to live our lives by. Our principle, and our motivation, for giving of our best to one another, in the way of contributing goods and services and ingenuity to one another: out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning.
Out of, in a word, Love.
How short-sighted we are, not to see the ramifications of paying females to have babies on the taxpayers' shilling, and thus create a welfare class, in perpetual poverty. And how near-sighted we are, not to see the ramifications of being 'spiritual beings having a human experience'; whereby, blessed with clearer sight and vision, could we create a better way of living together on planet Earth, with that mentality. And all we have to do to get there is to do away with the one thing standing in our way, dividing us from one another: money.
However, we're getting there.
With Necessity being the Mother of Invention.
P.S. A further, more complete word on the communist model - which, like its other -ism buddies, has to do with all-powerful (or at the least, highly powerful) governments, and the citizenry having to toe the top-down line. I would put people first, in the sense of autonomous individuals responsible for their own spiritual development, via the concept of free will: each person responsible for their own soul's development. So: such extremes, such command-and-control mentalities, to be avoided. Although the communist concept - rather like the yin-yang 'concept' - contains the seeds of something of value, of its mirror opposite: the value of the sense of freely-given cooperation, not competition. Of all of us being One, not, in higher Truth, separate autonomous beings.
We are experiencing division - from each other, from our common Source - for a reason: for the learning, and subsequent consciousness-raising. But there comes a time when we are ready - have readied ourselves - to return home, in at least a sense, here on this physical level. To come back to Oneness; the richer for the experience of separation. Of free will occasioning further growth of the One of which we are all a part. Sparks of divinity returning to Source. With gratitude.
With - as I say - in a word: Love.
What did the poet say?
'We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.' (T.S. Eliot)
The First Time. The Zep Tepi of the Egyptians; and the Alchemists...It's a small world.
---
* Which doesn't answer why, some years ago - in 2005 - they failed even to acknowledge receipt of a detailed letter of mine, not to the Letters Editor but to the Editor of the paper himself, regarding that summer's 'terrorist' bombing primarily in the London Underground, wherein I outlined, with seven or eight clear bullet points, the case for serious questions regarding the event which were not being dealt with by the mainstream media. (One of which involved one of their own reporters, covering an eyewitness story indicating that in at least one of the subway trains involved, the explosion was reported as coming from underneath the carriage, not within it. Thus indicating advanced placement. And who would have had access to and for that planting? Well, well. The man in charge of the subway system at that time had come from New York City - and had a role to play in that city's confrontation with 'terrorists', on 9/11, as well. As I say: Well, well. And had a background in the U.S.'s intelligence agencies as well. Well, well, well.) And I got the same response when I followed it up some weeks later with a couple more serious questions regarding the attack. (The presumed suicide bombers couldn't have caught the particular commuter train they were said to have caught into London, because there was no such train that day; etc etc.) If I had taken the trouble to outline all these points in a letter to the London Times, for example, I might have expected such a response, or to say non-response; because the implication of it all was that the atrocity was not really the work of some Muslim extremists, bent on revenge for the West going into Muslim countries and causing mayhem, but was a false flag operation, by shadowy forces bent on creating police states in the West, depriving the citizenry of their civil liberties, etc etc. The Guardian was, and is, a left-wing publication, normally very ready to challenge the government on such issues; why would they not wish to follow up on this highly intriguing story?
Well; indeed. And the question still stands, even after all this time; hanging in the air, like a putrid smell. A smell of high skulduggery. Not the whiff of minor players in the drama.
Sunday, 3 October 2010
Of Mice and Men and Different Drummers
I step to the beat of a different drummer than most of those around me. Always have. I remember as a child not being terribly interested in childish things. What was going on here? I wondered. Why do people do the things they do - fight, and stuff? It all seemed rather silly. I kept my eyes and ears open, but went my separate way. No way was I going to buy into a lot of what went on around me. Something was - wrong, with it, all. I didn't know what, precisely. But I determined to find out. And then just got on with my life.
This went on until I hit university, and had 'a spiritual experience' in my Junior year. I had been accepted provisionally into its medical school starting the following year - subject to completing satisfactorily my undergraduate course of study to that point - and, having accomplished that major life goal, took a break from my exclusively pre-med studies and enrolled in a short-story writing class. I had become interested in writing during my high school years - along with my penchant for reading - and had also been inspired by my Freshman English instructor to continue with this aspect of my self-expression, somehow. During the course of the short-story class I found myself getting engrossed in a storyline that started taking on a life of its own, the form becoming something of a novella. I took it to my instructor, asking her what she thought, and should I 'cease and desist' and get back to the basic exercises. She read my growing manuscript, felt it was a valid exercise, and let me run with it. Which I did, slowly to the detriment of some of my other classes; that daily life focus receding to the back of my seeker's mind. (The story was about a young Resident surgeon triggered to go seeking for some answers within life, the search leading to questions about life itself.)
One night, working on it in a small airless room in the basement of the Men's dormitory where I lived, I found myself getting restless, and feeling blocked; uneasy. I got up and walked around the room a bit and then started in again, on my old second-hand Royal portable typewriter; but something was not quite right. I couldn't concentrate, or break through. So I went out for a walk. It was a dark and stormy night -no; beg pardon. A little joke there, that you will either get or not; it doesn't matter. No big deal. Nor was my restlessness; it just was. I wore my windbreaker - this was February of that year, and in northern California, so it had to be somewhat cold - but it was, as I recall, a gentle evening. After ten o'clock. Not too much movement on the campus; some people returning to their living quarters from having spent the evening studying in the Main Libe, or in nearly empty classrooms on The Quad, as I had done myself many a time. This time I found myself wanting some privacy, and something prompted me to go to the outdoor amphitheater on the edge of the campus. It was a large natural amphitheater, set in a grove of trees; and though there were no lights there, I knew the space well enough to make my way through the trees to it. (It was used mostly for our annual Spring Sing, when all the fraternities and other living units and other groups would compete in choirs. I remember one Spring Sing where the Nursing School cohort filed down to the stage in raingear to perform 'Singin' In the Rain', in the middle of which it started actually to rain, gently, briefly, and then stopped before they ended the piece. I kid you not.) Inside the secluded space, I sat down - finding myself, after my eyes had adjusted to the dark, about halfway up the tiers - and tried to collect my thoughts, wondering what was going on for me; in me. The first thing that came to me was how dark, and silent, it was in there. I could hear nothing, see nothing - except a night sky wall-to-wall with stars. Not a cloud; no moon. Nothing, except me and the universe.
And then two things happened to me. The first was my mind taking on the idea of how small and insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things. I felt as though I were in the bottom of a well, looking up at the immensity of the universe, and feeling a bit foolish, about my, and man's, puny plans. The second thing that happened to me was as if in answer to my unspoken thought: Something very large came whooshing out of that immensity, and hit me in my heart area, and knocked me back onto the cool grass; where I lay for some minutes, tingling and, strangely, sobbing uncontrollably. And then 'it' passed; and I sat back up, and my left brain kicked in, and I asked myself, pre-med analytically, 'Now what was that all about?' And I got an answer. No voice; just a clear message in my head, that: the Universe has purpose, and that purpose is Good.
And I have not doubted it ever since.
And that knowing has brought me to this time and place; when we, as a race, of 'spiritual beings having a human experience', are going to bring the drama process to an end, for a new stage of life on Earth to kick in: the stage of culmination. Singularity. Transcendence, to a new kind of being. Living higher in our consciousnesses than heretofore. Cutting the karmic load, and getting on with it. 'It': embodying more of our spiritual natures in our daily lives.
And the key to the transition is to do away with money.
Which is something else that came to me, in my subsequent life, when I put away childish things, and decided to just get on with it.
'It': the process.
Of life. Wherein life is a school; and the purpose is to graduate.
P.S. A couple of footnotes:
(1) My amphitheater experience, I realized later, was very much as though I had entered into a sensory deprivation chamber, isolated and alone with nothing but my mind. Years later, when I came across the work of John C. Lilly, I knew what he was talking about, and realized more fully the assistance I had been given on my path in life that fateful night at Stanford.
(2) I want also to recognize, and appreciate, the role that my short-story writing instructor played in my life's journey. She also told me, in a note in reply to one of mine wherein I told her I was dropping out of her class and school itself, to go on a search in life for answers: "And now your work begins."
Did it ever.
And while I'm at it, in this frame of mind, I would like to acknowledge the influence of my Freshman English instructor in this whole unfolding story. At the end of that year's classes with him, he asked me to wait behind a bit, and, as the other students drifted off, gifted me with a copy of the works of John Donne (which he inscribed, simply: 'To Duane Stanfield, from his English instructor, 1952-53'). My favorite part of Donne's musings became, not the well-known part of his XVIIth Meditation - the For Whom the Bell Tolls quote - but earlier on in that particular stream of thought, where he says (something like; this is from memory): 'The bell doth toll for him who thinkes it doth; and though it intermit againe, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God.'
Indeed.
As for the sobbing I experienced in my isolation tank that eventful night at university: I think it was from feeling so cut off from my roots. So far, far away from home. In a sector of the creation where the inhabitants had such a long, long way to go.
But we're getting there.
Slow. But sure.
As sure as the bell that tolls for us all.
Regardless of our best-laid plans...
This went on until I hit university, and had 'a spiritual experience' in my Junior year. I had been accepted provisionally into its medical school starting the following year - subject to completing satisfactorily my undergraduate course of study to that point - and, having accomplished that major life goal, took a break from my exclusively pre-med studies and enrolled in a short-story writing class. I had become interested in writing during my high school years - along with my penchant for reading - and had also been inspired by my Freshman English instructor to continue with this aspect of my self-expression, somehow. During the course of the short-story class I found myself getting engrossed in a storyline that started taking on a life of its own, the form becoming something of a novella. I took it to my instructor, asking her what she thought, and should I 'cease and desist' and get back to the basic exercises. She read my growing manuscript, felt it was a valid exercise, and let me run with it. Which I did, slowly to the detriment of some of my other classes; that daily life focus receding to the back of my seeker's mind. (The story was about a young Resident surgeon triggered to go seeking for some answers within life, the search leading to questions about life itself.)
One night, working on it in a small airless room in the basement of the Men's dormitory where I lived, I found myself getting restless, and feeling blocked; uneasy. I got up and walked around the room a bit and then started in again, on my old second-hand Royal portable typewriter; but something was not quite right. I couldn't concentrate, or break through. So I went out for a walk. It was a dark and stormy night -no; beg pardon. A little joke there, that you will either get or not; it doesn't matter. No big deal. Nor was my restlessness; it just was. I wore my windbreaker - this was February of that year, and in northern California, so it had to be somewhat cold - but it was, as I recall, a gentle evening. After ten o'clock. Not too much movement on the campus; some people returning to their living quarters from having spent the evening studying in the Main Libe, or in nearly empty classrooms on The Quad, as I had done myself many a time. This time I found myself wanting some privacy, and something prompted me to go to the outdoor amphitheater on the edge of the campus. It was a large natural amphitheater, set in a grove of trees; and though there were no lights there, I knew the space well enough to make my way through the trees to it. (It was used mostly for our annual Spring Sing, when all the fraternities and other living units and other groups would compete in choirs. I remember one Spring Sing where the Nursing School cohort filed down to the stage in raingear to perform 'Singin' In the Rain', in the middle of which it started actually to rain, gently, briefly, and then stopped before they ended the piece. I kid you not.) Inside the secluded space, I sat down - finding myself, after my eyes had adjusted to the dark, about halfway up the tiers - and tried to collect my thoughts, wondering what was going on for me; in me. The first thing that came to me was how dark, and silent, it was in there. I could hear nothing, see nothing - except a night sky wall-to-wall with stars. Not a cloud; no moon. Nothing, except me and the universe.
And then two things happened to me. The first was my mind taking on the idea of how small and insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things. I felt as though I were in the bottom of a well, looking up at the immensity of the universe, and feeling a bit foolish, about my, and man's, puny plans. The second thing that happened to me was as if in answer to my unspoken thought: Something very large came whooshing out of that immensity, and hit me in my heart area, and knocked me back onto the cool grass; where I lay for some minutes, tingling and, strangely, sobbing uncontrollably. And then 'it' passed; and I sat back up, and my left brain kicked in, and I asked myself, pre-med analytically, 'Now what was that all about?' And I got an answer. No voice; just a clear message in my head, that: the Universe has purpose, and that purpose is Good.
And I have not doubted it ever since.
And that knowing has brought me to this time and place; when we, as a race, of 'spiritual beings having a human experience', are going to bring the drama process to an end, for a new stage of life on Earth to kick in: the stage of culmination. Singularity. Transcendence, to a new kind of being. Living higher in our consciousnesses than heretofore. Cutting the karmic load, and getting on with it. 'It': embodying more of our spiritual natures in our daily lives.
And the key to the transition is to do away with money.
Which is something else that came to me, in my subsequent life, when I put away childish things, and decided to just get on with it.
'It': the process.
Of life. Wherein life is a school; and the purpose is to graduate.
P.S. A couple of footnotes:
(1) My amphitheater experience, I realized later, was very much as though I had entered into a sensory deprivation chamber, isolated and alone with nothing but my mind. Years later, when I came across the work of John C. Lilly, I knew what he was talking about, and realized more fully the assistance I had been given on my path in life that fateful night at Stanford.
(2) I want also to recognize, and appreciate, the role that my short-story writing instructor played in my life's journey. She also told me, in a note in reply to one of mine wherein I told her I was dropping out of her class and school itself, to go on a search in life for answers: "And now your work begins."
Did it ever.
And while I'm at it, in this frame of mind, I would like to acknowledge the influence of my Freshman English instructor in this whole unfolding story. At the end of that year's classes with him, he asked me to wait behind a bit, and, as the other students drifted off, gifted me with a copy of the works of John Donne (which he inscribed, simply: 'To Duane Stanfield, from his English instructor, 1952-53'). My favorite part of Donne's musings became, not the well-known part of his XVIIth Meditation - the For Whom the Bell Tolls quote - but earlier on in that particular stream of thought, where he says (something like; this is from memory): 'The bell doth toll for him who thinkes it doth; and though it intermit againe, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God.'
Indeed.
As for the sobbing I experienced in my isolation tank that eventful night at university: I think it was from feeling so cut off from my roots. So far, far away from home. In a sector of the creation where the inhabitants had such a long, long way to go.
But we're getting there.
Slow. But sure.
As sure as the bell that tolls for us all.
Regardless of our best-laid plans...
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Before the Paradigm Shift
Until we move up in consciousness on this planet and eliminate money, for our next steps, into a planetary society (to begin to prepare us for engaging with our material dimension in a further way than ever heretofore), we need to deal with our terrestrial situation as it is. I feel drawn here and now to look at some aspects of that challenge.
Item. Occasioned by the recent (and still current) banking crisis, the new UK government is looking at a major slashing of public spending, to bring the national debt under control. That review has surfaced a number of atrocious spending facts, including in the widely circulated story of one fecund teenager who has been spreading his seed around liberally to all nubile comers, of whom there have been quite a few. Most of whom have no income, except for the largesse of the welfare system (and hence their willingness, and even, it would appear, eagerness); both in direct child support (and housing benefits; and...and), and indirectly with a pittance deducted from our NEET's own welfare support.* For yes, our young Lothario has no job either. And many such young women come from generations of females who have had neither jobs nor partner support.
How has the matter - the matter, stripped to its bare bones, of a welfare underclass - come to this? Out of a misguided sense of sympathy. Can't let the child bear the burden of mistakes of its parents.
Sorry; not good enough of an excuse in the creation of generations of people trapped in poverty.
The word 'entitlement' would appear to bear a lot of the responsibility here. The UK welfare system has led some - too many - of its citizens to believe they are 'entitled' to child support, housing benefits, etc etc. Excuse me? Fact of life: No one is, or should be, 'entitled' as a matter of right to the earnings of any other person. Taxes are for social basics: roads, education, and in this exampled country, health care. But it is immoral to force taxpayers to pay for other people's children - in many cases, for their lifetimes - especially when often they can't even afford to have their own children.
People can give support to other people out of a sense of charity. But this business of 'entitlements' should stop. It has spawned generations of feckless citizens.
The state can legitimately provide monies for contraception advice and even, in particularly straitened circumstances, materials. But should spend not one cent for tribute. If someone wants to have a child, they need to be able to provide for it (or with the help of their own family). Full stop.**
Item. There is a move afoot in the US to call for what is called, in the Constitution, a constitutional convention, for the announced purpose of passing an amendment forcing the federal government to live within a balanced budget. This brings up a couple of issues in particular.
(1) Some citizens fear that this can be an excuse to break open the Constitution for further amending - as happened in the creation of the present Constitution itself, after some years of the fledgling country living under something called Articles of Confederation, and some of the political leaders of the time feeling the need for a better working arrangement. Their response to this, to-them dangerous initiative: The US citizens already have all the amending process they need: the ballot box. Stop electing irresponsible spenders of the people's money.
(Not a bad point. But it overlooks the power of the corporate world in today's America. Money talks big time; and to the folks on both sides of the political aisle. There is a Grand Turning needed here; not just a little tinkering around the edges.)
(2) The US citizenry need to face a particular fact of political life in the country, regarding the Constitution. And that is that there are many people - and of much political substance - who have already left the Constittuion behind, in their minds, and so are not bovvered with its terms anyway. So, playing with the amending process misses the essential point: that the liberal intelligentsia in particular already ignore the Constitution.*** Already amend the Constitution constantly. They call it recognizing it as 'a living document'. Subject to interpretation by the Wise Beings sitting on the Supreme Court, and bringing socio-economic-political policies up to date by virtue of applying to the law their own personal socio-economic-political proclivities. So a formal amending process would be superfluous. To them. And they have the momentum, now; with a man sitting in the presidential seat**** who has already appointed two new members of that august body who believe in this 'living document' persiflage.
Hear ye, hear ye: The Constitution of the US - like any constitution - is a contract (in this case, between the States and the federal government). It cannot be amended from its original intent except by virtue of its formal amending process. Otherwise there is no rule of law. There is only rule of men. Oligarchs.
Despots.
The people have been led to believe that there are two legitimate judicial perspectives in this matter: those who believe in 'original intent' - aka 'originalists' - and those who believe in whatever sophistry the relativists try to slip by the public. (N.B. They seem also to be known as 'legal positivists'. Whatever that phrase means, precisely.) This is all also encompassed by the debate-point terms 'strict construction' vs.'broad construction'.
It's time for this farce to be brought to an end.
Either the Constitution is a contract or it is not. Either its terms mean what was meant by and to those who entered into the process of making inclusions into the contract - and then getting the necessary quota of States to agree to those contractual terms - or they do not. If they do not, then the law has become an arbitrary and capricious weapon, to be employed by those in power to achieve their ends, irrespective of the means employed.
By, in a word: despots.
They can appear all emollient. But appearances can be deceiving. Don't trust them. Bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution - as one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, specifically warned all subsequent generations of Americans about.
That includes us.
In spades.
You have been warned.
---
* Not In Eduction, Employment or Training
** It is a measure of the mental attitude in the country that no one, not even the Toriest of the Tories, has called for a major, root-and-branch reform of the welfare system. They fear the wrath of 'the people'. (And taunts like 'Thatcher Thatcher milk snatcher'.) I've got news for them. 'The people' will follow an intelligent lead in this matter. Because 'the people' can see the system as is is not working. If the state will crack down on the 'spivs and gamblers' in The City who caused the economic meltdown, and thereby shows its commitment to fairness, 'the people' will trust them to do a proper cleanup. Otherwise, it's simply a matter of one end of the town against the other, and each looking out for its own interests. So the key to a change for the better is honesty, and sincerity, and fairness - across the board.
*** Not to overlook George W. Bush's purported expression of the Constitution as being "just a damn piece of paper". So 'the Right' is not exempt from this critique. People can be totalitarians from either the Right or the Left of the political aisle.
**** Notice I did not say 'the president'. The man in that position today has not proved his eligibility to have run for that particular office in the first place. But I have dealt with this matter elsewhere. (A shame it hasn't been dealt with. Yet.)
Item. Occasioned by the recent (and still current) banking crisis, the new UK government is looking at a major slashing of public spending, to bring the national debt under control. That review has surfaced a number of atrocious spending facts, including in the widely circulated story of one fecund teenager who has been spreading his seed around liberally to all nubile comers, of whom there have been quite a few. Most of whom have no income, except for the largesse of the welfare system (and hence their willingness, and even, it would appear, eagerness); both in direct child support (and housing benefits; and...and), and indirectly with a pittance deducted from our NEET's own welfare support.* For yes, our young Lothario has no job either. And many such young women come from generations of females who have had neither jobs nor partner support.
How has the matter - the matter, stripped to its bare bones, of a welfare underclass - come to this? Out of a misguided sense of sympathy. Can't let the child bear the burden of mistakes of its parents.
Sorry; not good enough of an excuse in the creation of generations of people trapped in poverty.
The word 'entitlement' would appear to bear a lot of the responsibility here. The UK welfare system has led some - too many - of its citizens to believe they are 'entitled' to child support, housing benefits, etc etc. Excuse me? Fact of life: No one is, or should be, 'entitled' as a matter of right to the earnings of any other person. Taxes are for social basics: roads, education, and in this exampled country, health care. But it is immoral to force taxpayers to pay for other people's children - in many cases, for their lifetimes - especially when often they can't even afford to have their own children.
People can give support to other people out of a sense of charity. But this business of 'entitlements' should stop. It has spawned generations of feckless citizens.
The state can legitimately provide monies for contraception advice and even, in particularly straitened circumstances, materials. But should spend not one cent for tribute. If someone wants to have a child, they need to be able to provide for it (or with the help of their own family). Full stop.**
Item. There is a move afoot in the US to call for what is called, in the Constitution, a constitutional convention, for the announced purpose of passing an amendment forcing the federal government to live within a balanced budget. This brings up a couple of issues in particular.
(1) Some citizens fear that this can be an excuse to break open the Constitution for further amending - as happened in the creation of the present Constitution itself, after some years of the fledgling country living under something called Articles of Confederation, and some of the political leaders of the time feeling the need for a better working arrangement. Their response to this, to-them dangerous initiative: The US citizens already have all the amending process they need: the ballot box. Stop electing irresponsible spenders of the people's money.
(Not a bad point. But it overlooks the power of the corporate world in today's America. Money talks big time; and to the folks on both sides of the political aisle. There is a Grand Turning needed here; not just a little tinkering around the edges.)
(2) The US citizenry need to face a particular fact of political life in the country, regarding the Constitution. And that is that there are many people - and of much political substance - who have already left the Constittuion behind, in their minds, and so are not bovvered with its terms anyway. So, playing with the amending process misses the essential point: that the liberal intelligentsia in particular already ignore the Constitution.*** Already amend the Constitution constantly. They call it recognizing it as 'a living document'. Subject to interpretation by the Wise Beings sitting on the Supreme Court, and bringing socio-economic-political policies up to date by virtue of applying to the law their own personal socio-economic-political proclivities. So a formal amending process would be superfluous. To them. And they have the momentum, now; with a man sitting in the presidential seat**** who has already appointed two new members of that august body who believe in this 'living document' persiflage.
Hear ye, hear ye: The Constitution of the US - like any constitution - is a contract (in this case, between the States and the federal government). It cannot be amended from its original intent except by virtue of its formal amending process. Otherwise there is no rule of law. There is only rule of men. Oligarchs.
Despots.
The people have been led to believe that there are two legitimate judicial perspectives in this matter: those who believe in 'original intent' - aka 'originalists' - and those who believe in whatever sophistry the relativists try to slip by the public. (N.B. They seem also to be known as 'legal positivists'. Whatever that phrase means, precisely.) This is all also encompassed by the debate-point terms 'strict construction' vs.'broad construction'.
It's time for this farce to be brought to an end.
Either the Constitution is a contract or it is not. Either its terms mean what was meant by and to those who entered into the process of making inclusions into the contract - and then getting the necessary quota of States to agree to those contractual terms - or they do not. If they do not, then the law has become an arbitrary and capricious weapon, to be employed by those in power to achieve their ends, irrespective of the means employed.
By, in a word: despots.
They can appear all emollient. But appearances can be deceiving. Don't trust them. Bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution - as one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, specifically warned all subsequent generations of Americans about.
That includes us.
In spades.
You have been warned.
---
* Not In Eduction, Employment or Training
** It is a measure of the mental attitude in the country that no one, not even the Toriest of the Tories, has called for a major, root-and-branch reform of the welfare system. They fear the wrath of 'the people'. (And taunts like 'Thatcher Thatcher milk snatcher'.) I've got news for them. 'The people' will follow an intelligent lead in this matter. Because 'the people' can see the system as is is not working. If the state will crack down on the 'spivs and gamblers' in The City who caused the economic meltdown, and thereby shows its commitment to fairness, 'the people' will trust them to do a proper cleanup. Otherwise, it's simply a matter of one end of the town against the other, and each looking out for its own interests. So the key to a change for the better is honesty, and sincerity, and fairness - across the board.
*** Not to overlook George W. Bush's purported expression of the Constitution as being "just a damn piece of paper". So 'the Right' is not exempt from this critique. People can be totalitarians from either the Right or the Left of the political aisle.
**** Notice I did not say 'the president'. The man in that position today has not proved his eligibility to have run for that particular office in the first place. But I have dealt with this matter elsewhere. (A shame it hasn't been dealt with. Yet.)
Saturday, 18 September 2010
Neither Left Nor Right But Up
...subtitled: 'Nancy Pelosi: Are we serious? Are we serious? Er, Yes.'
The 17th of September was an anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution. It established a federal system of government with a central government of limited and delegated powers; "few and defined," in the Federalist Papers' words of 'the Father of the Constitution,' James Madison. Time has passed, and there have been attacks on that principle, by people wanting a stronger central government to rule the country from that center. But the 9th and 10th Amendments still hold, against such a potential encroachment, now made manifest, and in spades, at a key historical juncture, between 'capitalism' and 'socialism' - between those roughly aligned with the idea of 'natural rights' and a dispensation of such by a caring Creator God, and those roughly aligned with the idea of rights derived from the state, in order to establish government reflecting the values of a rejection of religion, and the substitutive enthronement of the philosophy of secular humanism (or just simply outright despotisms). And hence Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's comment, to someone querying the constitutional rationale for a central-government healthcare system mandating health insurance: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" A typical atheistic socialist's attitude, and retort. Occasioning this response from me, on the Comments thread of an article, honoring Constitution Day, on a constitutionalist (and very capitalist) web site, that of the Heritage Foundation:
"[17/9]
John Rossi @11:12am says:
"Let us stand as a nation and retake our country and end this tyranny that Oblama has begun and reverse the course of history."
I don't see it as a need for a reversal, John. I see it as a pushing through to a new level of civilization on fair Earth. Consider:
The socio-economic order has gone global. That is putting pressure on nation states to follow suit (see, in its regional way, the EU). But that level of power and control creates tensions between democratic and authoritarian elements - the difference between top-down and bottom-up government. The top-down types made a move in America, under the latter Bush administration in particular (as part of the process I am positing), to take control of and weaken civil rights (the Patriot Acts, etc.). Obama came along and promised 'change' - but appears to be bent on delivering 'change' from the left with the same commitment to authoritarianism as had been raised on the right. I'll see you, and raise you. So far, so thesis-antithesis.
Enter the Opportunity of a Turning Point, that will resolve the contradictions of both sides of the civilizatory equation, and add the ingredient that can lift the process out of the level of its problem and take it up a notch: the spiritual fact of life. That is, that life is more than merely material. Given that factor - the God factor, as it were - we can see our way out of our current dilemma.
Neither side of the current equation has the answer en toto. The answer is to eliminate money as it has become - ie, an end in itself; via the seductive effects of interest-bearing money and fractional-reserve banking - and replace the profit motive with a higher motive: the motive of giving our best to one another, in the providing of goods and services and ingenuity, out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning.
It is the answer that evaded the monkey with his fist in the jar of goodies. It is time we moved out of our monkey stage as a species, and inherited our higher identity, as spiritual beings having a human experience. And if we will, all else will be added unto us.
Until then, indeed we should honor the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and keep a solid system of checks and balances between the three branches of government: that America does not fall under the sway of tyrants, of any stripe. And remains steadfast in its spiritual potential, until the new, higher stage of government on the planet can come into being.
So not in reverse, John. But full speed ahead. So that we can get through the rough patch leading up to the promised land; on another level of consciousness than we inhabit, in large part, today."*
So: a Turning Point time. THE Turning Point?
We will see.
But 'it' has all the earmarks of being so. And I think here not only of the general subject of '2012', and the dangers of nuclear holocaust occasioned by present-day unresolved geopolitical factors. But of the likes of the damage wrought by the Gulf Oil spill on the Gulf Stream Current. If there is even one left, to be so named.
Clearly: a major time in the history of human life on Earth.
Ah, to be alive then. To say: now.
In Our Time.
To use our free will for good. Or ill.
It is up to us.
Choose, friend.
And choose wisely.
Much depends on it.
Including your personal journey, as a spark of the One.
P.S. As for the philosophy of secular humanism: I really don't get how professors of that philosophy think that it can prevail, anymore than the communist experiment in Cuba prevailed (its demise as recently announced) - an experiment in living a merely materialistic existence, sufficient unto itself for its meaning and purpose. Think: If there is no 'God' - and all that that implies; a meaning to life beyond its boundaries** - then nothing really matters anyway, and one might as well live simply for oneself, independent of the effect of that pursuit on others, as not; for the end of the closed system of life can, then, as easily be seen as that as anything else, a presumed 'social gene' gracing one with a concern for the welfare of others, or whatever.
Now I know that, eg, Prof Richard Dawkins claims that in the natural world, a sense of social consciousness - or a perceived 'altruism' - helps in the natural selection process; that nature selects for those individuals who give to and receive from a social construct, out of the protection that it brings. But there is something far larger going on in life than this simple mammalian template can account for. And I encourage secular humanists - who presume to have a scientific mind, and to be guided by that consciousness - to look at the whole picture of evidence, and not just select those parts of such that agree with their current philosophy. A philosophy that might well owe much to mere reaction against the bearer's upbringing in what they come to perceive as an unenlightened familial situation. This is a warning, to say, not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We are conditioned. We are also capable of releasing our conditioning, and seeing the larger picture. For we are, in essence, 'spiritual beings having a human experience'. Not merely a species of great ape. We are, then, coded for a far greater outcome than simply ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. And it is this coding that gives rise to moral impulses. Otherwise we would, indeed, return to our animal natures, if given half a chance. To that part of our nature. Which extends far beyond just it. And, as part of that deal: in having been given free will - set free to do as we will - we are far more dangerous to ourselves and our environment than animals operating solely from their coding for instinct. We are, in short, capable of what can be called 'evil'.
But, being phototropic beings, we will turn to the light in the end.
All, of us.
Just some sooner than others.
Which brings up the subject of 2012. But of that, another time...
---
* Actually, for some reason my comment never appeared on that thread. It may have been due to faulty technology - on my part or theirs - or the decision of the moderator. Such is life. At least them's my thoughts.
(N.B. I tried again later, very carefully and dutifully this time. Same result. I can only conclude that the Heritage Foundation does not want to support looking outside of their given paradigm. Fair enough, in a sense. They are, after all, constituted to honor the American heritage. I would only wish that they would consider to look at that deeper heritage. The primacy of the individual, yes. But in its spiritual context, in a social construct. Landing the fullness of the Golden Rule.)
** And I'm not talking about a 'fear of God's wrath'. I'm talking about the clear gift of a Plan to and Purpose in life, as reflected in such indicators thereby as the evidence of a reincarnational path leading upwards in consciousness, whereby indeed our efforts are 'rewarded' - but not in a crude sense, ie, by a God passing out merit or demerit badges. We are our own judges.
The 17th of September was an anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution. It established a federal system of government with a central government of limited and delegated powers; "few and defined," in the Federalist Papers' words of 'the Father of the Constitution,' James Madison. Time has passed, and there have been attacks on that principle, by people wanting a stronger central government to rule the country from that center. But the 9th and 10th Amendments still hold, against such a potential encroachment, now made manifest, and in spades, at a key historical juncture, between 'capitalism' and 'socialism' - between those roughly aligned with the idea of 'natural rights' and a dispensation of such by a caring Creator God, and those roughly aligned with the idea of rights derived from the state, in order to establish government reflecting the values of a rejection of religion, and the substitutive enthronement of the philosophy of secular humanism (or just simply outright despotisms). And hence Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's comment, to someone querying the constitutional rationale for a central-government healthcare system mandating health insurance: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" A typical atheistic socialist's attitude, and retort. Occasioning this response from me, on the Comments thread of an article, honoring Constitution Day, on a constitutionalist (and very capitalist) web site, that of the Heritage Foundation:
"[17/9]
John Rossi @11:12am says:
"Let us stand as a nation and retake our country and end this tyranny that Oblama has begun and reverse the course of history."
I don't see it as a need for a reversal, John. I see it as a pushing through to a new level of civilization on fair Earth. Consider:
The socio-economic order has gone global. That is putting pressure on nation states to follow suit (see, in its regional way, the EU). But that level of power and control creates tensions between democratic and authoritarian elements - the difference between top-down and bottom-up government. The top-down types made a move in America, under the latter Bush administration in particular (as part of the process I am positing), to take control of and weaken civil rights (the Patriot Acts, etc.). Obama came along and promised 'change' - but appears to be bent on delivering 'change' from the left with the same commitment to authoritarianism as had been raised on the right. I'll see you, and raise you. So far, so thesis-antithesis.
Enter the Opportunity of a Turning Point, that will resolve the contradictions of both sides of the civilizatory equation, and add the ingredient that can lift the process out of the level of its problem and take it up a notch: the spiritual fact of life. That is, that life is more than merely material. Given that factor - the God factor, as it were - we can see our way out of our current dilemma.
Neither side of the current equation has the answer en toto. The answer is to eliminate money as it has become - ie, an end in itself; via the seductive effects of interest-bearing money and fractional-reserve banking - and replace the profit motive with a higher motive: the motive of giving our best to one another, in the providing of goods and services and ingenuity, out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning.
It is the answer that evaded the monkey with his fist in the jar of goodies. It is time we moved out of our monkey stage as a species, and inherited our higher identity, as spiritual beings having a human experience. And if we will, all else will be added unto us.
Until then, indeed we should honor the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and keep a solid system of checks and balances between the three branches of government: that America does not fall under the sway of tyrants, of any stripe. And remains steadfast in its spiritual potential, until the new, higher stage of government on the planet can come into being.
So not in reverse, John. But full speed ahead. So that we can get through the rough patch leading up to the promised land; on another level of consciousness than we inhabit, in large part, today."*
So: a Turning Point time. THE Turning Point?
We will see.
But 'it' has all the earmarks of being so. And I think here not only of the general subject of '2012', and the dangers of nuclear holocaust occasioned by present-day unresolved geopolitical factors. But of the likes of the damage wrought by the Gulf Oil spill on the Gulf Stream Current. If there is even one left, to be so named.
Clearly: a major time in the history of human life on Earth.
Ah, to be alive then. To say: now.
In Our Time.
To use our free will for good. Or ill.
It is up to us.
Choose, friend.
And choose wisely.
Much depends on it.
Including your personal journey, as a spark of the One.
P.S. As for the philosophy of secular humanism: I really don't get how professors of that philosophy think that it can prevail, anymore than the communist experiment in Cuba prevailed (its demise as recently announced) - an experiment in living a merely materialistic existence, sufficient unto itself for its meaning and purpose. Think: If there is no 'God' - and all that that implies; a meaning to life beyond its boundaries** - then nothing really matters anyway, and one might as well live simply for oneself, independent of the effect of that pursuit on others, as not; for the end of the closed system of life can, then, as easily be seen as that as anything else, a presumed 'social gene' gracing one with a concern for the welfare of others, or whatever.
Now I know that, eg, Prof Richard Dawkins claims that in the natural world, a sense of social consciousness - or a perceived 'altruism' - helps in the natural selection process; that nature selects for those individuals who give to and receive from a social construct, out of the protection that it brings. But there is something far larger going on in life than this simple mammalian template can account for. And I encourage secular humanists - who presume to have a scientific mind, and to be guided by that consciousness - to look at the whole picture of evidence, and not just select those parts of such that agree with their current philosophy. A philosophy that might well owe much to mere reaction against the bearer's upbringing in what they come to perceive as an unenlightened familial situation. This is a warning, to say, not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We are conditioned. We are also capable of releasing our conditioning, and seeing the larger picture. For we are, in essence, 'spiritual beings having a human experience'. Not merely a species of great ape. We are, then, coded for a far greater outcome than simply ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. And it is this coding that gives rise to moral impulses. Otherwise we would, indeed, return to our animal natures, if given half a chance. To that part of our nature. Which extends far beyond just it. And, as part of that deal: in having been given free will - set free to do as we will - we are far more dangerous to ourselves and our environment than animals operating solely from their coding for instinct. We are, in short, capable of what can be called 'evil'.
But, being phototropic beings, we will turn to the light in the end.
All, of us.
Just some sooner than others.
Which brings up the subject of 2012. But of that, another time...
---
* Actually, for some reason my comment never appeared on that thread. It may have been due to faulty technology - on my part or theirs - or the decision of the moderator. Such is life. At least them's my thoughts.
(N.B. I tried again later, very carefully and dutifully this time. Same result. I can only conclude that the Heritage Foundation does not want to support looking outside of their given paradigm. Fair enough, in a sense. They are, after all, constituted to honor the American heritage. I would only wish that they would consider to look at that deeper heritage. The primacy of the individual, yes. But in its spiritual context, in a social construct. Landing the fullness of the Golden Rule.)
** And I'm not talking about a 'fear of God's wrath'. I'm talking about the clear gift of a Plan to and Purpose in life, as reflected in such indicators thereby as the evidence of a reincarnational path leading upwards in consciousness, whereby indeed our efforts are 'rewarded' - but not in a crude sense, ie, by a God passing out merit or demerit badges. We are our own judges.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
And Closer We Get to Ascension
So a major review of the western banking system, and the relationships of the governments of the US and the UK in particular to it, has this week been completed. And the result is: a damp squib.
More of the same.
Business as usual.
And even better, for the corrupt in place. For they have now established that they can get away with the likes of creating a major crisis in the economic system, for personal gain, and they can blackmail governments to use 'their' money - ie, the taxpayers' money, to bail them out, and then give themselves bonuses with this largesse, and loan some of it back to its original owners, with interest. Or not loan it, as they see fit; in order to build up their reserves, so that they can engage in the sort of fancy 'financial products' shenanigans that got them in trouble in the first place. And left the taxpayers holding the bag.
Oh, but now they need to hold 'over three times what they used to!' in reserves, to cover possible contingencies? Right. From 2% to 7%.
And over a comfortable period of time at that...
I don't know about you, but I am reminded of Br'er Rabbit and the briar patch. And, of course, no wonder the stock market jumped at the news.
Of a slap on the wrist.
And a slap in the face of the public.
The long-suffering public.
Who don't have to suffer long much longer.
Because change is afoot.
Brought about by just such 'internal contradictions' as this response by the capitalist system to the Crisis it created.
Whereby the people are mad as hell, and are not going to take it any longer.
As well they should be; and nor should they have to.
Because there's something new under the sun.
Brought about by the civilizational process, and a level of technology that can now help humanity live at a higher level than it has heretofore.
And thereby now do away with the 'likes' of war.
As I wrote recently in a comment on a blog talking about the ineffectual (or worse: intentional) response of Barack Obama to the economic problem in the US - where his attempts to deal with the matter will just exacerbate it:
"Well spotted and commented on, Delores.+ But let's step back a little further, and look at the even larger picture here.
* The Right was getting too extreme, heading for unbridled corporatism, aka fascism. (Surveillance, loss of civil rights in general, etc.) On a global scale, now. (Hence, something new under the sun.)
* The Left saw its opportunity, and denounced that 'change' as bad. Which it was. And charismatic Obama pounded it home, offering a better 'change'.
* But in actuality, he was just offering the same change only from the Left. Aka totalitarianism.++
* Through this whole dialectical process, of thesis-antithesis, the missing piece is 'up' - ie, spirituality (in a word). The process itself is just on a materialistic level: Who's in control. But the outcome can be a synthesis, of the best features of each 'camp': the development of a community spirit from the left, caring for 'the commons', and the importance of the individual from the right, and his/her free will.
I see this whole process leading to a major Opportunity for breakthrough, on to a new level of civilization on the planet, where we do away with money - ie, the motivation of personal aggrandizement - and give to each other of our best, in goods and serves and ingenuity, out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning.
Ah. But that would require us to realize fully, and accept fully, that we are, first and foremost, 'spiritual beings having a human experience'?
Well; yes. But that's where we're at.
The civilizational process has got us here.
It's time to recognize it. 'It': the fact that neither the 'left' nor the 'right' has the complete answer. The answer is to transcend the level of the dichotomy, moving to a higher level.
There, we can meet.
And only there.
To say: We've run out of wriggle room, as it were, in exploring the further limits of free will.
It's time to recognize the Truth of our situation.
And act accordingly.
And then: Watch us fly.
Together.
As One.
And give thanks in doing so.
And thus endeth the lesson.
The lesson, of separation.
Seeming, separation."
And in this context, I note, with respect, the quote that Daniel Pinchbeck puts at the beginning of his important book '2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl':+++
'Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.' 1 Corinthians 13:8
He dedicated his book: 'For my daughter.'
I dedicate this blog to all those who have ears to hear.
---
+ The person, one Delores Smith, had posted a comment - on a blog by one Bobby Eberle, titled 'Obama's Titanic About to Hit Iceberg' (GOPUSA Eagle 9 September) - pointing out how Obama's strategy fit precisely the model recommended by a couple of his Columbia University professors (known as the Cloward-Piven strategy) to overload the system so that it would collapse, and allow a socialist takeover. Thus their support for mass agitation by groups like ACORN for welfare handouts, and for policies like forcing the loaning of 'government' mortgage money to people who would not be able to keep up their payments. Anything to bring things to a head. Which has now happened. And in more ways than one...
++ Check the writings of his advisors. Very statist.
+++ "...the Mesoamerican deity...'Sovereign Plumed Serpent', depicted in sculptures and temple friezes as a fusion of bird and snake, representing the union of spirit and matter. Mexican archaeologist Enrique Florescano writes: 'Quetzalcoatl is the god who hands down civilization, reveals time, and discerns the movement of the stars and human destiny.'..."
More of the same.
Business as usual.
And even better, for the corrupt in place. For they have now established that they can get away with the likes of creating a major crisis in the economic system, for personal gain, and they can blackmail governments to use 'their' money - ie, the taxpayers' money, to bail them out, and then give themselves bonuses with this largesse, and loan some of it back to its original owners, with interest. Or not loan it, as they see fit; in order to build up their reserves, so that they can engage in the sort of fancy 'financial products' shenanigans that got them in trouble in the first place. And left the taxpayers holding the bag.
Oh, but now they need to hold 'over three times what they used to!' in reserves, to cover possible contingencies? Right. From 2% to 7%.
And over a comfortable period of time at that...
I don't know about you, but I am reminded of Br'er Rabbit and the briar patch. And, of course, no wonder the stock market jumped at the news.
Of a slap on the wrist.
And a slap in the face of the public.
The long-suffering public.
Who don't have to suffer long much longer.
Because change is afoot.
Brought about by just such 'internal contradictions' as this response by the capitalist system to the Crisis it created.
Whereby the people are mad as hell, and are not going to take it any longer.
As well they should be; and nor should they have to.
Because there's something new under the sun.
Brought about by the civilizational process, and a level of technology that can now help humanity live at a higher level than it has heretofore.
And thereby now do away with the 'likes' of war.
As I wrote recently in a comment on a blog talking about the ineffectual (or worse: intentional) response of Barack Obama to the economic problem in the US - where his attempts to deal with the matter will just exacerbate it:
"Well spotted and commented on, Delores.+ But let's step back a little further, and look at the even larger picture here.
* The Right was getting too extreme, heading for unbridled corporatism, aka fascism. (Surveillance, loss of civil rights in general, etc.) On a global scale, now. (Hence, something new under the sun.)
* The Left saw its opportunity, and denounced that 'change' as bad. Which it was. And charismatic Obama pounded it home, offering a better 'change'.
* But in actuality, he was just offering the same change only from the Left. Aka totalitarianism.++
* Through this whole dialectical process, of thesis-antithesis, the missing piece is 'up' - ie, spirituality (in a word). The process itself is just on a materialistic level: Who's in control. But the outcome can be a synthesis, of the best features of each 'camp': the development of a community spirit from the left, caring for 'the commons', and the importance of the individual from the right, and his/her free will.
I see this whole process leading to a major Opportunity for breakthrough, on to a new level of civilization on the planet, where we do away with money - ie, the motivation of personal aggrandizement - and give to each other of our best, in goods and serves and ingenuity, out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning.
Ah. But that would require us to realize fully, and accept fully, that we are, first and foremost, 'spiritual beings having a human experience'?
Well; yes. But that's where we're at.
The civilizational process has got us here.
It's time to recognize it. 'It': the fact that neither the 'left' nor the 'right' has the complete answer. The answer is to transcend the level of the dichotomy, moving to a higher level.
There, we can meet.
And only there.
To say: We've run out of wriggle room, as it were, in exploring the further limits of free will.
It's time to recognize the Truth of our situation.
And act accordingly.
And then: Watch us fly.
Together.
As One.
And give thanks in doing so.
And thus endeth the lesson.
The lesson, of separation.
Seeming, separation."
And in this context, I note, with respect, the quote that Daniel Pinchbeck puts at the beginning of his important book '2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl':+++
'Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.' 1 Corinthians 13:8
He dedicated his book: 'For my daughter.'
I dedicate this blog to all those who have ears to hear.
---
+ The person, one Delores Smith, had posted a comment - on a blog by one Bobby Eberle, titled 'Obama's Titanic About to Hit Iceberg' (GOPUSA Eagle 9 September) - pointing out how Obama's strategy fit precisely the model recommended by a couple of his Columbia University professors (known as the Cloward-Piven strategy) to overload the system so that it would collapse, and allow a socialist takeover. Thus their support for mass agitation by groups like ACORN for welfare handouts, and for policies like forcing the loaning of 'government' mortgage money to people who would not be able to keep up their payments. Anything to bring things to a head. Which has now happened. And in more ways than one...
++ Check the writings of his advisors. Very statist.
+++ "...the Mesoamerican deity...'Sovereign Plumed Serpent', depicted in sculptures and temple friezes as a fusion of bird and snake, representing the union of spirit and matter. Mexican archaeologist Enrique Florescano writes: 'Quetzalcoatl is the god who hands down civilization, reveals time, and discerns the movement of the stars and human destiny.'..."
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Fings Ain't Always Wot They Seem Ta Be
News item of a couple of days ago:
The (Glasgow) Herald, 28/8/10 -'Swine flu drug is linked with sleep disorder'
"A flu vaccine widely distributed in Scotland is under review over a possible link to narcolepsy, it has been announced.
"The European Medicines Agency is investigating the swine flu drug Pandemrix after a number of those who received the vaccination in Sweden and Finland reported symptoms of the sleeping disorder.
"On Tuesday, Finland's National Institute for Health and Welfare recommended that vaccination with Pandemrix be stopped until the suspected link with narcolepsy had been thoroughly evaluated.
"As there have been no such cases reported in the UK so far, use of the drug will not be suspended in Scotland..."
Ah, yes. The old no-cases-have-been-reported-in-the-UK-so-far, so-use-of-the-drug-will-not-be-suspended-in-Scotland routine... That is to say: if it hasn't been reported...
That is to say: We only know what we've been told. Or actually, we only really know what we've experienced personally. All else has to come to us through various filters. And even our senses are filters...
Where am I going with this. Let me go there through telling a little story.
'So, Mr. Stardust, you've called a press conference here at the National Press Club, on 'Changes in the Status Quo', and a couple of us at least have turned up; what is it you would like to say to us?'
'Well, first of all, I'd like to appreciate you, and your organizations, for your turning up. I note that the turnout is a couple of reporters less than those who turned up for Larry Sinclair's press conference in this same venue; but I realise that there are many pressing issues of the day, and we all have to set our priorities. So let's begin.
'The purpose of this press conference is, firstly, to announce that the medical-pharmaceutical-government complex has two weeks to engage in some Confession-stroke-Reconciliation activity, particularly, but not exclusively, with respect to the damage done by vaccines, and then we will go from there.
'This has been occasioned by - '
'Hold it, hold it. What do you mean, "And then we'll go from there"?'
'I mean that I want to emphasize the Reconciliation process, not an assigning of blame. I want all those individuals who have had concerns about these matters - this particular matter, and others to be addressed - to have an announced window of opportunity to share their concerns. To set the historical record straight. Before our societal next steps.'
'I...see. I think. Are you meaning to do this sort of thing in a lot of other areas, too? This - Confession-time stuff?''
'Yes.'
'I...see. And, why would anybody...take you up on it?'
'Because it's time.'
'...It's time for......?'
'For moving on.'
'...For moving on, from...what; precisely?'
'From a way of being that is not serving humanity any longer, and needs to give way, to a larger, more honest, more holistic way of being.'
'...Because... - '
'It's time.'
' - it's time; right....Can you back this up a bit, and give me - us here - a little more background, as to what you're on about?'
'Okay. Let's take fluoridation.'
'...Fluoridation. As in...'
'As in propaganda. The big sell. Back in the '40s it was proving to be rather a major problem, both as a toxic waste by-product of industry - particularly the aluminum and artificial fertilizer industries - but in particular to the secret atom bomb-developing project, known as the Manhattan Project. It was causing cattle to be ill and dying downwind from the atomic manufacturing plants, and farmers were starting to sue for their losses of income. The government authorities hushed the matter up as long as they could; but it all triggered some brain-storming as to what to do about the problem. A scientist hired by the aluminum industry hit on the idea of metering it into the water supply - because fluoride, albeit in a different form in nature, was at least there - and so its toxic form could be smuggled into the environment that way, rather than being emitted in the direct way, which was going to cost these various corporate sources a lot of money to clean it up before it polluted the environment. And 'the industry' even slipped one of their lawyers in to the federal government to head the US Public Health Service, to steer government policy in the 'right' direction. Which is how things are run down to our day as well.
'So the Big Sell started; as part, incidentally, of the new Public Relations 'science' that had started to be developed, looking into ways to sell people on things; products and ideas. The Nazis took it on. And so did shadowy corporate forces in America. And one of their great successes - right along with TV ads of doctors smoking Chesterfields - was the TV ad campaign for fluoridation of the public water supplies. People saw a respectable man in a white coat - obviously a scientist - explaining to an interviewer about this new substance being added to the water supplies, to cut the number of cavities in the American children's teeth. Never mind that what the fluoride was really doing, as an enzyme disrupter, was delaying the eruption of the children's teeth, so that it was a statistical chimera that made it look as though there were fewer cavities at a given age in children in the treated city, as opposed to those in the control city.'
'You're saying...'
'Fewer teeth, fewer cavities.'
'Yes, I thought that was what you were getting at.'
'What I was really getting at, with this example, of how we get our information in life, was how little we really know about life, from personal experience. And, how easily we can be persuaded to believe things that aren't actually so.
'Take the Kennedy assassination. - '
'Hold it! - Where are we going now?'
'To Dallas. On that fateful day. A good example of what I'm getting at is from a book on that event, entitled Best Evidence, wherein the author soon realized that he needed to apply the philosophy of 'checking one's premises'. He - we all - had a premise that the body as seen in the Emergency operating room at Parkland Hospital in Dallas was the same, that is, in the same condition, as that seen later the same day (evening by then) in the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital outside Washington, D.C. Well of course it was, you might say.'
'Yes...And you don't?'
'I'm saying: Not necessarily. We jump to conclusions too soon in life, often. Especially when there are factors involved, that should cause us to be a little more cautious. As in the fact that there was a lot of corporate interest in selling the American public on the wondrous virtues of fluoride. When people have an agenda - or even just a possible agenda - the public should take care, that they are possibly being sold something. The way they were sold a pig in a poke for their president in the last election.
'But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. - '
'Ah - yes. Yes, that would...You were talking about Kennedy's body...'
'Yes. The lesson here - the point I'm making, is: don't always believe what you 'saw with your own eyes', quote.
'The public saw, on their TV screens - this flat version of history, with its projected images - a casket being taken out of Parkland Hospital in Dallas, and then being loaded onto Air Force One at Love Field; and then sometime later - in the night - that casket - or at least a similar-looking one - being unloaded at Andrews Air Force Base, into an ambulance; and then, sometime later - it was about forty-five minutes later, as I recall the chronological report - an ambulance unloading a casket at the dock at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Now, did you notice my change of words?'
'...Tell.'
' We saw 'an' ambulance, and 'a' casket at Bethesda. But the premise was that it was 'the' ambulance, and 'the' casket. That's all it was. A premise.'
'...You're saying...'
'I'm saying that there is good reason to believe that it was not necessarily the same ambulance, and - shockingly - not the same casket. That something happened between the time the public saw a casket coming off the plane at Andrews, and then saw, some forty-five minutes later, a casket coming off an ambulance at Bethesda, and sitting on the dock briefly.
'I won't go into all that in detail here. But the author of the book does an excellent job of walking this matter through its possible permutations. Including how the switch could have happened, that allowed the perpetrators - and you can spell that with a t-r-a-i-t-o-r-s at the end if you want - time to smuggle the body itself, in a body bag, out of the far-side front door of the plane, while all the cameras and lighting were trained on the near back door, where the casket had been loaded onto the plane and then came out from. It is even part of the historical record that there was a bogey ambulance that night, ostensibly to keep the reporter pack from being too intrusive in this sensitive matter, which led them on a wild goose chase, while the 'real' one delivered the body to Bethesda. But the 'best evidence' is that it was delivered elsewhere first, in a body bag, for a quick operation to try to 'fix' the facts to fit the policy - do you recall where you have heard that sort of expression, in our day and age?'
' - What? Wait - I was trying to follow you. You said...'
'That there is evidence that the body was taken first to another hospital, the caper under the control of the (very politically powerful) perps,* and operated on - to make it look as though there were only rear-entry wounds, in order to assign the assassination to Oswald and only Oswald - then zipped back up in its body bag, loaded into a casket, and sent on its not-so merry way. Just a couple of problems here, for the perps.'
'Being...'
'Being that the body was not in a body bag when it left Parkland Hospital in Dallas. And that the casket on the loading dock at Bethesda was not the clearly-identifiable bronze casket that left Parkland, and came off of Air Force One at Andrews.'
'Can this all be? Both factors? Body bag, and casket?'
'Read the literature. Not that of the scoffers. They play a game with their readers. It's an old lawyer's trick: If you can't argue the facts - the true facts, as opposed to the facts that you distort for your adversarial argument - engage in bluster. Don't buy into it. Painstakingly follow the evidence; including the evidence that the wounds seen at Bethesda didn't match those reported by the surgeons at Parkland.
'And don't ever take anything in life for granted. Especially not the evidence simply of your senses. Or the information that is fed to you in your mainstream media. You may not be getting a true picture of things. And especially not, when there are forces at wok, to get you to believe certain things, because they have an agenda.'
'Which is...'
'To enslave you. Into believing what they want you to believe About a lot of things.'
'...So...What does one do.'
'There's only one thing you can do, to be certain.'
'And that is...'
'Go inside.
'And even that is not certain.'
'...So...'
'So: Do your best. Check your premises. Doubt anything given to you to believe. Listen deeply. And you'll get there. Sooner or later.'
'...And in the meantime...'
'Know that it's time, for a major shaking of the status quo, for a brighter tomorrow to come out of the whole process. With just one basic motivation, and intention.'
'..Which is...'
'To give of your best, to each other, out of gratitude to your Creator for life with meaning.
'And if you do, all else will be added unto you. Including knowledge, finally, of the truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth.
'Now, about the rest of the changes in the status quo that are about to take place...'
'Hold it! I'm still just trying to digest the fact that such key details about the Kennedy assassination could have been overlooked at the time and in all these years. It's..outrageous.'
'If you think that's outrageous, let's look at what we were led to believe about 9/11. A cover-up right before our very eyes. Well, that is, images on our TV sets; and commentary to suit an agenda. Including from supposedly random eyewitnesses.'
'Are you linking the two events?'
'Not necessarily. Except through the common denominator of events that were not what they appeared to be. Or were sold to us to be.
'Think for yourself, friend. Collect all the information you can about a subject, before making up your mind. And even then, keep an open mind. New information may come along. And actually, it usually does.
'But back to what we've been sold about vaccines...'
(N.B. A little on that subject, to close this blog with. These comments of mine, on a Comments thread to an online article in the UK Guardian headed 'MMR -The vaccine damage myth that will not die':
kibitzer
1 September 2010 11:26PM
matstuff:
"There are two approaches: vaccinate, or don't vaccinate."
Rather oversimplified, wouldn't you really say? Do you really not understand that another "approach" is to acknowledge the adverse effects of various vaccines - the true total, as near as can honestly be determined - and respond by making them safer? And another being to acknowledge said adverse effects, and do the research to understand why some children are genetically predisposed to be damaged by vaccines - and so should be excused from having to take that risk?
Some such research has already been done - triggered by parents determined to try to get the bottom of the damage done to their children by various vaccines; no thanks to the health authorities, who have tried to stonewall this eminently sensible approach to this matter from the beginning - and it has been found eg that some children have a genetic polymorphism to be low in glutathione. Thus they can't clear heavy metals/toxins as readily as other children; thus they should be spared being injected with these substances. And so forth.
'And so forth' also means the disturbing information that the UK government gave the MMR provider immunity from liability; so the parents of those cases trying for justice for their children in the courts didn't realise that they were trying to sue the wrong party. And what does such an arrangement say about the responsible government bodies being impartial in this matter?
In sum - and to paraphrase Dr. Peter Fletcher, former CSO [Chief Science Officer]: 'This is a scandal of major proportions.' It needs to be aired, and as quickly as possible. Justice deferred is injustice.
kibitzer
2 September 2010 7:58PM
tilliesmom:
Good points, but in relation to peanut allergies et al, it is not a matter of our immune systems "attacking harmless food proteins". It is attacking them because either they themselves are in various vaccines - and so the body is just doing its job BY attacking them, along with the vaccine's other immune-system-triggering substances, all recognized as 'foreign' - or there are similar-weighted proteins in them, that the body attacks because of a recognizing process called molecular mimicry.
What in heaven's name are they doing in vaccines? Good point. The same question, and comment, as using squalene in vaccines; which is a substance found in the body. So the body is going to attack itself with its presence in a vaccine. The same as myelin basic protein (MBP) found as a contaminant in the MMR, via the chick embryo cells that the measles component is cultured on. And on. And on. And on.
Vaccines are hardly the product they have been touted as. They are extremely dangerous. This is what I meant, in my comment above, about a 'scandal of major proportions'.
But we're getting there. Thanks to so many parents, who are not going to give up the battle for justice to be served for the damage done to their children - autoimmunological and neurological - without a fight.
---
* See the testimony of LBJ's mistress on YouTube video.
The (Glasgow) Herald, 28/8/10 -'Swine flu drug is linked with sleep disorder'
"A flu vaccine widely distributed in Scotland is under review over a possible link to narcolepsy, it has been announced.
"The European Medicines Agency is investigating the swine flu drug Pandemrix after a number of those who received the vaccination in Sweden and Finland reported symptoms of the sleeping disorder.
"On Tuesday, Finland's National Institute for Health and Welfare recommended that vaccination with Pandemrix be stopped until the suspected link with narcolepsy had been thoroughly evaluated.
"As there have been no such cases reported in the UK so far, use of the drug will not be suspended in Scotland..."
Ah, yes. The old no-cases-have-been-reported-in-the-UK-so-far, so-use-of-the-drug-will-not-be-suspended-in-Scotland routine... That is to say: if it hasn't been reported...
That is to say: We only know what we've been told. Or actually, we only really know what we've experienced personally. All else has to come to us through various filters. And even our senses are filters...
Where am I going with this. Let me go there through telling a little story.
'So, Mr. Stardust, you've called a press conference here at the National Press Club, on 'Changes in the Status Quo', and a couple of us at least have turned up; what is it you would like to say to us?'
'Well, first of all, I'd like to appreciate you, and your organizations, for your turning up. I note that the turnout is a couple of reporters less than those who turned up for Larry Sinclair's press conference in this same venue; but I realise that there are many pressing issues of the day, and we all have to set our priorities. So let's begin.
'The purpose of this press conference is, firstly, to announce that the medical-pharmaceutical-government complex has two weeks to engage in some Confession-stroke-Reconciliation activity, particularly, but not exclusively, with respect to the damage done by vaccines, and then we will go from there.
'This has been occasioned by - '
'Hold it, hold it. What do you mean, "And then we'll go from there"?'
'I mean that I want to emphasize the Reconciliation process, not an assigning of blame. I want all those individuals who have had concerns about these matters - this particular matter, and others to be addressed - to have an announced window of opportunity to share their concerns. To set the historical record straight. Before our societal next steps.'
'I...see. I think. Are you meaning to do this sort of thing in a lot of other areas, too? This - Confession-time stuff?''
'Yes.'
'I...see. And, why would anybody...take you up on it?'
'Because it's time.'
'...It's time for......?'
'For moving on.'
'...For moving on, from...what; precisely?'
'From a way of being that is not serving humanity any longer, and needs to give way, to a larger, more honest, more holistic way of being.'
'...Because... - '
'It's time.'
' - it's time; right....Can you back this up a bit, and give me - us here - a little more background, as to what you're on about?'
'Okay. Let's take fluoridation.'
'...Fluoridation. As in...'
'As in propaganda. The big sell. Back in the '40s it was proving to be rather a major problem, both as a toxic waste by-product of industry - particularly the aluminum and artificial fertilizer industries - but in particular to the secret atom bomb-developing project, known as the Manhattan Project. It was causing cattle to be ill and dying downwind from the atomic manufacturing plants, and farmers were starting to sue for their losses of income. The government authorities hushed the matter up as long as they could; but it all triggered some brain-storming as to what to do about the problem. A scientist hired by the aluminum industry hit on the idea of metering it into the water supply - because fluoride, albeit in a different form in nature, was at least there - and so its toxic form could be smuggled into the environment that way, rather than being emitted in the direct way, which was going to cost these various corporate sources a lot of money to clean it up before it polluted the environment. And 'the industry' even slipped one of their lawyers in to the federal government to head the US Public Health Service, to steer government policy in the 'right' direction. Which is how things are run down to our day as well.
'So the Big Sell started; as part, incidentally, of the new Public Relations 'science' that had started to be developed, looking into ways to sell people on things; products and ideas. The Nazis took it on. And so did shadowy corporate forces in America. And one of their great successes - right along with TV ads of doctors smoking Chesterfields - was the TV ad campaign for fluoridation of the public water supplies. People saw a respectable man in a white coat - obviously a scientist - explaining to an interviewer about this new substance being added to the water supplies, to cut the number of cavities in the American children's teeth. Never mind that what the fluoride was really doing, as an enzyme disrupter, was delaying the eruption of the children's teeth, so that it was a statistical chimera that made it look as though there were fewer cavities at a given age in children in the treated city, as opposed to those in the control city.'
'You're saying...'
'Fewer teeth, fewer cavities.'
'Yes, I thought that was what you were getting at.'
'What I was really getting at, with this example, of how we get our information in life, was how little we really know about life, from personal experience. And, how easily we can be persuaded to believe things that aren't actually so.
'Take the Kennedy assassination. - '
'Hold it! - Where are we going now?'
'To Dallas. On that fateful day. A good example of what I'm getting at is from a book on that event, entitled Best Evidence, wherein the author soon realized that he needed to apply the philosophy of 'checking one's premises'. He - we all - had a premise that the body as seen in the Emergency operating room at Parkland Hospital in Dallas was the same, that is, in the same condition, as that seen later the same day (evening by then) in the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital outside Washington, D.C. Well of course it was, you might say.'
'Yes...And you don't?'
'I'm saying: Not necessarily. We jump to conclusions too soon in life, often. Especially when there are factors involved, that should cause us to be a little more cautious. As in the fact that there was a lot of corporate interest in selling the American public on the wondrous virtues of fluoride. When people have an agenda - or even just a possible agenda - the public should take care, that they are possibly being sold something. The way they were sold a pig in a poke for their president in the last election.
'But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. - '
'Ah - yes. Yes, that would...You were talking about Kennedy's body...'
'Yes. The lesson here - the point I'm making, is: don't always believe what you 'saw with your own eyes', quote.
'The public saw, on their TV screens - this flat version of history, with its projected images - a casket being taken out of Parkland Hospital in Dallas, and then being loaded onto Air Force One at Love Field; and then sometime later - in the night - that casket - or at least a similar-looking one - being unloaded at Andrews Air Force Base, into an ambulance; and then, sometime later - it was about forty-five minutes later, as I recall the chronological report - an ambulance unloading a casket at the dock at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Now, did you notice my change of words?'
'...Tell.'
' We saw 'an' ambulance, and 'a' casket at Bethesda. But the premise was that it was 'the' ambulance, and 'the' casket. That's all it was. A premise.'
'...You're saying...'
'I'm saying that there is good reason to believe that it was not necessarily the same ambulance, and - shockingly - not the same casket. That something happened between the time the public saw a casket coming off the plane at Andrews, and then saw, some forty-five minutes later, a casket coming off an ambulance at Bethesda, and sitting on the dock briefly.
'I won't go into all that in detail here. But the author of the book does an excellent job of walking this matter through its possible permutations. Including how the switch could have happened, that allowed the perpetrators - and you can spell that with a t-r-a-i-t-o-r-s at the end if you want - time to smuggle the body itself, in a body bag, out of the far-side front door of the plane, while all the cameras and lighting were trained on the near back door, where the casket had been loaded onto the plane and then came out from. It is even part of the historical record that there was a bogey ambulance that night, ostensibly to keep the reporter pack from being too intrusive in this sensitive matter, which led them on a wild goose chase, while the 'real' one delivered the body to Bethesda. But the 'best evidence' is that it was delivered elsewhere first, in a body bag, for a quick operation to try to 'fix' the facts to fit the policy - do you recall where you have heard that sort of expression, in our day and age?'
' - What? Wait - I was trying to follow you. You said...'
'That there is evidence that the body was taken first to another hospital, the caper under the control of the (very politically powerful) perps,* and operated on - to make it look as though there were only rear-entry wounds, in order to assign the assassination to Oswald and only Oswald - then zipped back up in its body bag, loaded into a casket, and sent on its not-so merry way. Just a couple of problems here, for the perps.'
'Being...'
'Being that the body was not in a body bag when it left Parkland Hospital in Dallas. And that the casket on the loading dock at Bethesda was not the clearly-identifiable bronze casket that left Parkland, and came off of Air Force One at Andrews.'
'Can this all be? Both factors? Body bag, and casket?'
'Read the literature. Not that of the scoffers. They play a game with their readers. It's an old lawyer's trick: If you can't argue the facts - the true facts, as opposed to the facts that you distort for your adversarial argument - engage in bluster. Don't buy into it. Painstakingly follow the evidence; including the evidence that the wounds seen at Bethesda didn't match those reported by the surgeons at Parkland.
'And don't ever take anything in life for granted. Especially not the evidence simply of your senses. Or the information that is fed to you in your mainstream media. You may not be getting a true picture of things. And especially not, when there are forces at wok, to get you to believe certain things, because they have an agenda.'
'Which is...'
'To enslave you. Into believing what they want you to believe About a lot of things.'
'...So...What does one do.'
'There's only one thing you can do, to be certain.'
'And that is...'
'Go inside.
'And even that is not certain.'
'...So...'
'So: Do your best. Check your premises. Doubt anything given to you to believe. Listen deeply. And you'll get there. Sooner or later.'
'...And in the meantime...'
'Know that it's time, for a major shaking of the status quo, for a brighter tomorrow to come out of the whole process. With just one basic motivation, and intention.'
'..Which is...'
'To give of your best, to each other, out of gratitude to your Creator for life with meaning.
'And if you do, all else will be added unto you. Including knowledge, finally, of the truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth.
'Now, about the rest of the changes in the status quo that are about to take place...'
'Hold it! I'm still just trying to digest the fact that such key details about the Kennedy assassination could have been overlooked at the time and in all these years. It's..outrageous.'
'If you think that's outrageous, let's look at what we were led to believe about 9/11. A cover-up right before our very eyes. Well, that is, images on our TV sets; and commentary to suit an agenda. Including from supposedly random eyewitnesses.'
'Are you linking the two events?'
'Not necessarily. Except through the common denominator of events that were not what they appeared to be. Or were sold to us to be.
'Think for yourself, friend. Collect all the information you can about a subject, before making up your mind. And even then, keep an open mind. New information may come along. And actually, it usually does.
'But back to what we've been sold about vaccines...'
(N.B. A little on that subject, to close this blog with. These comments of mine, on a Comments thread to an online article in the UK Guardian headed 'MMR -The vaccine damage myth that will not die':
kibitzer
1 September 2010 11:26PM
matstuff:
"There are two approaches: vaccinate, or don't vaccinate."
Rather oversimplified, wouldn't you really say? Do you really not understand that another "approach" is to acknowledge the adverse effects of various vaccines - the true total, as near as can honestly be determined - and respond by making them safer? And another being to acknowledge said adverse effects, and do the research to understand why some children are genetically predisposed to be damaged by vaccines - and so should be excused from having to take that risk?
Some such research has already been done - triggered by parents determined to try to get the bottom of the damage done to their children by various vaccines; no thanks to the health authorities, who have tried to stonewall this eminently sensible approach to this matter from the beginning - and it has been found eg that some children have a genetic polymorphism to be low in glutathione. Thus they can't clear heavy metals/toxins as readily as other children; thus they should be spared being injected with these substances. And so forth.
'And so forth' also means the disturbing information that the UK government gave the MMR provider immunity from liability; so the parents of those cases trying for justice for their children in the courts didn't realise that they were trying to sue the wrong party. And what does such an arrangement say about the responsible government bodies being impartial in this matter?
In sum - and to paraphrase Dr. Peter Fletcher, former CSO [Chief Science Officer]: 'This is a scandal of major proportions.' It needs to be aired, and as quickly as possible. Justice deferred is injustice.
kibitzer
2 September 2010 7:58PM
tilliesmom:
Good points, but in relation to peanut allergies et al, it is not a matter of our immune systems "attacking harmless food proteins". It is attacking them because either they themselves are in various vaccines - and so the body is just doing its job BY attacking them, along with the vaccine's other immune-system-triggering substances, all recognized as 'foreign' - or there are similar-weighted proteins in them, that the body attacks because of a recognizing process called molecular mimicry.
What in heaven's name are they doing in vaccines? Good point. The same question, and comment, as using squalene in vaccines; which is a substance found in the body. So the body is going to attack itself with its presence in a vaccine. The same as myelin basic protein (MBP) found as a contaminant in the MMR, via the chick embryo cells that the measles component is cultured on. And on. And on. And on.
Vaccines are hardly the product they have been touted as. They are extremely dangerous. This is what I meant, in my comment above, about a 'scandal of major proportions'.
But we're getting there. Thanks to so many parents, who are not going to give up the battle for justice to be served for the damage done to their children - autoimmunological and neurological - without a fight.
---
* See the testimony of LBJ's mistress on YouTube video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)