Saw a film last night (on DVD) on A Course in Miracles, produced by the main holding group of that initiative. ACIM, to explain briefly for newcomers to this school of thought, is a set of material ( 'a self-study curriculum') dealing with life and its purpose(s), which came through a woman in the U.S. some 40 years ago, and is presented as coming from the entity known to history as Jesus.* The key aspects of it are: that life is an illusion; that nothing unreal exists in reality; and that the point of the life exercise - ie, life as we know it - is to release it and get back to Unity, with Source; where we actually already are, since Time is an illusion also; is part of the matrix that we are embedded in. Or some such wording of the concepts. I'm not a student of the material (tried to get into it years ago, but felt a block, for whatever reason(s)), but I have read in Gary Renard's 'Disappearance of the Universe', and much of his 'Your Immortal Reality', and so 'get the drift' of the material.
What do I think of it.
I think that, although it feels to me basically valuable, even 'correct', I sense an emphasis in it that doesn't sit quite right with me. It is very much about the Buddhist concept of releasing desire, getting off the wheel of rebirth that has us trapped in life after life. So far, so fair enough. But there's another element to life that is as important as that truism about it. And that is, that life - far from some sort of error, with such a negative connotation to it - is for a purpose. Not to mislead us, by some sort of evil daemon or whatever for nefarious purposes. But to give us an opportunity for growth.
So that, yes: Life, as we experience it here on this material plane, is 'a snare and a delusion' - is maya, the Buddhist concept of illusion. So ultimately it needs to be released. But it also needs to be appreciated, for what it more fully is: the vehicle for us individually to gain in consciousness, grow in awareness, and engage in evolution; what is, ultimately, spiritual evolution. And since we are part of a larger Whole, the Whole engages in evolution as well - through us; through ours. So 'God' - the Elohim; the Source; whatever Source is - benefits by our acting thus.**
And that's the ultimate lesson. Not just to understand that the way to get TO that goal is through release of guilt, and practice of forgiveness. Both, the qualities that will release us from the wheel of rebirth; dipping us, over and over, into life, into we get 'it'.
Enough for now. Have to go to attend to material things.
Except just to mention, that it is that quality, of appreciation for the experience and 'substance' of life, that should inform our treatment of that substance. (The environmental movement a part of that attitude.) It may, in essence, be illusion. But it is a reflection of our gratitude for the life experience - for the possibility of growth - how we treat 'nature'.
It is every bit as holy as we are.
Honour it. Your life - your immortal life - depends on it.
---
* There is considerable question whether there really was an individual by that name and history, as handed down to our day and (very interesting) age through the Christian tradition. But that's for another blog. (See the research especially of Tony Bushby and Ralph Ellis in this regard, according to my personal experience. There are others. It's no secret, to the seeker.)
** the Law of One material - also material channelled through an individual; but also through a group, holding a group energy field - speaks of coming from 'a social memory complex'. I can imagine that there is something else higher up the ladder of spiritual evolution than individual souls, sparks of divinity, making their way individually back to Source, from their sojourn in the learning wilderness of perceived separation.
At this point, let me clarify: Do I believe everything that comes through individuals as chanelled material? The answer is No, but: No, but I like to keep an open mind to any information that comes my way; process it, and see what I think of it. As one of the founders of the community where I have spent, off and on, nearly thirty years of my life liked to put it: 'The proof of the pudding is in the eating.'
A community founded, by the way, in part by a woman who also channelled material; from what she felt as a higher source, and which she felt was 'God'.
Who knows. Who cares. Read, reflect, digest, and see what comes out of your own inner process. That's all, really, any of us can do; in our attempts in the physical to resonate to & with our highest potential.
Friday, 12 November 2010
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
On Appreciating the Detail of Things
I'm feeling the impulse to make a comment on the need and value of 'looking at the detail of things', in the many ways of that sentiment. I'll start with spelling.
Spelling seems to have become a lost art. Well; strike that: It's more than an art. It has to do with our daily lives, and how we live them. Let me start this 'essay' into this area with an observation. I keep track of a lot of e-newsletters and blogs and their Comments threads, originating both in the US and here in the UK. And I am appalled at the level of what at least used to be called illiteracy. There are a number of strands to that condition - how to express oneself in sentence structure, etc etc - but the main piece of the pitiful picture is incorrect spelling.
It's obvious that much of this comes from a lack, in the schooling of the last generation or so, of a commitment to proper spelling. It's too widespread to be just a local phenomenon. To confirm that impression, I would love to visit some elementary schools, and see how much classroom time is dedicated to this aspect of learning how to use one's language to express oneself. I suspect the worst. Other subjects have been deemed more important. 'Oh well; they'll pick it up as they go along. The important thing is to let them express themselves in a way that's comfortable for them.' Well, no and no. They WON'T just 'pick it up'. That's the attitude that has resulted in far too many kids just sent on in their classes without a basic education, in learning to read, eg, or do 'rithmetic. Because they'll 'pick it up as they go along'. Sorry. Doesn't happen much. Too many other things to take up their time. 'They' have been deprived of a decent education, because of this attitude. And as for being 'comfortable': That would be fine if they didn't have to make their way in life with others - with others involved in their being vetted for jobs, say.
We don't live isolated in our own little bubbles. We live in a society, with others; interact with others. That requires some communication skills.
But let me get on with the main point I want to make about this matter. And that is to claim that: To learn how to spell correctly is to honour the value of looking at the detail of things.* It trains the mind. What am I talking about. I'm talking about the likes of 'the fine print' to contracts: needs an eye for the details. I'm talking about the laws of physics, and such. Equations that don't balance are NOT 'good enough'. Medicines (organic chemistry), inventions, hinge on details. 'Close enough' is good enough in washing a car, but not in designing one. It's like Robert Frost said of free verse: It's like playing tennis with the net down. I hope I've made my point. Poor spelling is indicative of, symptomatic of, sloppy thinking. Now, yes: the spelling of words can change over the years, via usage. But the process needs to be conscious. Not just from sloppy thinking, that it's 'close enough'...'good enough'...**
We come now to the further point I want to make with this. And that is to bring up the subject of the contractual nature of the U.S. Constitution. I will refer here specifically to the 14th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and to Barack Obama's apparent ineligibility for the office of the president of the United States - due to 'the detail' of things like words and their meanings.
First, the 14th Amendment. Most people -and, apparently, including some constitutional scholars - don't realise how it has been perverted into turning the Constitution on its head, and changing it from a contractual document applying from the States to the federal government, into a wet noodle applying from the federal government to the States. Coming in the wake of the Civil War, it had a number of features. One was that it established that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This made full citizens of the former slaves, who did not have such full citizenry before this. The amendment goes on to say: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." I submit that any commonsense reading of this clause would take it as meaning (and the 'original intention' can be checked on this) that the States could not treat their citizens (now citizens of the U.S. as well) arbitrarily, had to abide by the rule of law. But lo and behold, this clause has been used by liberal law-school professors and other likeminded people to drive a coach and horses through the Constitution: to create a 'doctrine' of what is called 'incorporation' - that is, that the terms of the Bill of Rights were now to apply, as I said above, from the federal government to the States; that the Bill of Rights was all 'incorporated' into/by this statement, thereby making the States subject to the rulings of the (federal) Supreme Court.
This is a nonsense. This is a playing with words, to make them come out to mean what the beholder wants them to mean. This is known as the Humpty Dumpty argument; who said: 'Words mean what I say they mean - neither more nor less." And thus has been born the rule of activist judges, interpreting the Constitution according to their personal sociopolitical proclivities.
Two things. (1) The necessity of looking at the detail of things has been perverted here, in a major way; and (2) It turns out that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified anyway. So it is, according to the detail of things, null and void.
its pronouncements can, of course, be legalised - ironically, by "due process of law", to put the matter in the 14th's own words. Not in its manufactured meanings.
Next, the 16th Amendment, aka the 'Income Tax' Amendment. Neither was it properly ratified. That little detail needs revisiting as well; again, if we're going to live by the rule of law, rather than by the rule of tyrants.
And finally, the question of Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the land. This little matter hinges on the definition of "a natural born citizen", as understood by the Framers of the Constitution.
What did it mean to them, in their minds. There are several historical clues to this, all leading to the most logical understanding that it meant that such a person/candidate had to be a citizen by 'blood' and by 'soil' - had to born on the soil (or its equivalent) by parents who were both citizens. That the person to hold that special and specific office could not have dual loyalties - and especially not to the British Empire, from whom they had just declared their independence.
It doesn't matter where, precisely, Obama was born, if words are to have any real meaning. If his father was, indeed, Barack Obama Sr., his eligibility for that office fell at that first hurdle.
And I say, 'If" here, because there is some question about his parentage, as passed down to him in oral history form from his mother and maternal grandparents. This anomaly in the story of his birth would account for why the Hawaiian authorities have been so 'legalistic' in their statements regarding his original, long-form birth certificate on file. Yes, they may have seen it. And yes, he may indeed be a "natural born citizen" - but of different parentage than we have all been led to believe.
And was it this that his maternal grandmother might have talked to him about, on her deathbed, when he visited her during his campaign for the office? And is this why he has refused to let his original birth record be made public? And why he has refused to let any of his other official records be made public - because they may also bring up questions about his eligibility, which investigation might all lead ineluctably back to his original birth certificate, and a serious questioning of who he is really? And perhaps also answer why Speaker of the House and Chair of the Democratic National Convention, Nancy Pelosi, made some curious statements on the nominating forms to the States, about this matter of his eligibility??
Things get curiouser, and curiouser, and curiouser, the more one goes down this rabbit hole -
the rabbit hole in particular of Obama's eligibility and background, and in general of what has been going down in America for some time, regarding the rule of law, and attention - or not - to detail..
Which brings me back to the bedrock of the matter: the Constitution of the United States, and the honoring thereof, as a legal document.
To sum up: How it is interpreted now is to miss the point. If you want to change the meaning of a legal contract, you must come to an agreement of the parties to the contract.
So, in sum: Yes, spelling of words can change over the years.
But the meaning stays the same.
Unless or until it is changed.
Legally. Or, in certain words: according to "due process".
Which has not been accorded to changes in the Constitution.
And needs to be.
Or we are living under the rule of tyrants.
Who must not be allowed to stand on our necks, any longer.
For we have a higher destiny to fulfill, than being their minions.
We have a change of consciousness to be ushered into consciousness.
In order that our potential can be fulfilled.
Our potential, as 'spiritual beings having a human experience'.
Paying attention to the detail of things.
Not simply accepting things as they are; as 'good enough'.
Or, like, not understanding what primarily has caused the breakdown of the nuclear family. Which was not because of the rise of 'feminism' (except tangentially, as part of the same agenda; of people who wanted more people to be taxed, so they could make more money off them, via the 16th Amendment, and its partner in crime, the concomitant establishing of the Federal Reserve System). But because of inflation. Causing the value of the money to be surreptitiously lowered. Aka stolen. By people who knew precisely what they were doing, and why.
And who got away with it, to the current point of - almost - collapse of the system; of the current paradigm (that does not give them all the power they would like to have; especially with that damnable Constitution in the way).
Because the public was lulled, by the opiate of entertainment, into not noticing what was going on, all around them.
Because they weren't paying enough attention to the detail of things.
Got your attention now, didn't they.
When it's almost - almost - too late.
Except that they have a surprise in store for them.
The surprise that God moves in mysterious ways.
And has a different outcome in store, for us all.
If we will choose it.
Which we have had all along.
Choice.
The choice to look at the detail of things - like life itself - or not.
And learn from our experiences.
Of life as a school.
The purpose being to graduate.
To learn our lessons. And move on.
A minor detail to some.
Obviously; the way they are acting.
And note the word, 'acting'.
As we are all playing parts, in a drama, created to catch our consciences.
Ultimately.
All.
As One.
And then we won't need things like written words to communicate with ourselves.
We will just Be.
Having - again; to underscore the point - learned our lessons.
And the biggest lesson of all.
That We Are All One.
A heckuva detail, that one.
---
* And I used the word 'honour' here on purpose, to acknowledge that there is a difference in spelling in the English language between the British version and the American version. But at least it's consistent; is not all over the place, just what seems to be good enough to convey one's point. Read on.
** I'm also aware of the research that has found that the human eye can 'read' a word if only the first and last letters are correct, and the middle is even gobbledegook (or, equally, gobbledygook). But that's also why so many children can't read: because they never learned, via the 'whole word' method of reading, to decipher the code of the alphabet, 'get' that a particular letter stands for a particular sound. This has also been a bane to our educational existence for some time now; kids having to (learn to) read by memorizing the shape of the word, rather than being able to sound it out for themselves, get it for themselves. I remember, when researching this whole business of Why Johnny Can't Read, reading a 'whole word' reading primer whereby the children were taught, eg, to recognise the word 'monkey' by a picture alongside the word showing a monkey hanging by its tail on the 'y' at the end. This is Egyptian pictography stuff; not civilization since the invention of the Arabic alphabet.***
*** There's more to this story than this; having to do with brain damage, primarily via vaccines, since the late 1940s-50s, leaving many children with such as dyslexia (and dyspraxia, and ADD, and ADHD, and...and.....). But that's another blog.
Spelling seems to have become a lost art. Well; strike that: It's more than an art. It has to do with our daily lives, and how we live them. Let me start this 'essay' into this area with an observation. I keep track of a lot of e-newsletters and blogs and their Comments threads, originating both in the US and here in the UK. And I am appalled at the level of what at least used to be called illiteracy. There are a number of strands to that condition - how to express oneself in sentence structure, etc etc - but the main piece of the pitiful picture is incorrect spelling.
It's obvious that much of this comes from a lack, in the schooling of the last generation or so, of a commitment to proper spelling. It's too widespread to be just a local phenomenon. To confirm that impression, I would love to visit some elementary schools, and see how much classroom time is dedicated to this aspect of learning how to use one's language to express oneself. I suspect the worst. Other subjects have been deemed more important. 'Oh well; they'll pick it up as they go along. The important thing is to let them express themselves in a way that's comfortable for them.' Well, no and no. They WON'T just 'pick it up'. That's the attitude that has resulted in far too many kids just sent on in their classes without a basic education, in learning to read, eg, or do 'rithmetic. Because they'll 'pick it up as they go along'. Sorry. Doesn't happen much. Too many other things to take up their time. 'They' have been deprived of a decent education, because of this attitude. And as for being 'comfortable': That would be fine if they didn't have to make their way in life with others - with others involved in their being vetted for jobs, say.
We don't live isolated in our own little bubbles. We live in a society, with others; interact with others. That requires some communication skills.
But let me get on with the main point I want to make about this matter. And that is to claim that: To learn how to spell correctly is to honour the value of looking at the detail of things.* It trains the mind. What am I talking about. I'm talking about the likes of 'the fine print' to contracts: needs an eye for the details. I'm talking about the laws of physics, and such. Equations that don't balance are NOT 'good enough'. Medicines (organic chemistry), inventions, hinge on details. 'Close enough' is good enough in washing a car, but not in designing one. It's like Robert Frost said of free verse: It's like playing tennis with the net down. I hope I've made my point. Poor spelling is indicative of, symptomatic of, sloppy thinking. Now, yes: the spelling of words can change over the years, via usage. But the process needs to be conscious. Not just from sloppy thinking, that it's 'close enough'...'good enough'...**
We come now to the further point I want to make with this. And that is to bring up the subject of the contractual nature of the U.S. Constitution. I will refer here specifically to the 14th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and to Barack Obama's apparent ineligibility for the office of the president of the United States - due to 'the detail' of things like words and their meanings.
First, the 14th Amendment. Most people -and, apparently, including some constitutional scholars - don't realise how it has been perverted into turning the Constitution on its head, and changing it from a contractual document applying from the States to the federal government, into a wet noodle applying from the federal government to the States. Coming in the wake of the Civil War, it had a number of features. One was that it established that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This made full citizens of the former slaves, who did not have such full citizenry before this. The amendment goes on to say: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." I submit that any commonsense reading of this clause would take it as meaning (and the 'original intention' can be checked on this) that the States could not treat their citizens (now citizens of the U.S. as well) arbitrarily, had to abide by the rule of law. But lo and behold, this clause has been used by liberal law-school professors and other likeminded people to drive a coach and horses through the Constitution: to create a 'doctrine' of what is called 'incorporation' - that is, that the terms of the Bill of Rights were now to apply, as I said above, from the federal government to the States; that the Bill of Rights was all 'incorporated' into/by this statement, thereby making the States subject to the rulings of the (federal) Supreme Court.
This is a nonsense. This is a playing with words, to make them come out to mean what the beholder wants them to mean. This is known as the Humpty Dumpty argument; who said: 'Words mean what I say they mean - neither more nor less." And thus has been born the rule of activist judges, interpreting the Constitution according to their personal sociopolitical proclivities.
Two things. (1) The necessity of looking at the detail of things has been perverted here, in a major way; and (2) It turns out that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified anyway. So it is, according to the detail of things, null and void.
its pronouncements can, of course, be legalised - ironically, by "due process of law", to put the matter in the 14th's own words. Not in its manufactured meanings.
Next, the 16th Amendment, aka the 'Income Tax' Amendment. Neither was it properly ratified. That little detail needs revisiting as well; again, if we're going to live by the rule of law, rather than by the rule of tyrants.
And finally, the question of Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the land. This little matter hinges on the definition of "a natural born citizen", as understood by the Framers of the Constitution.
What did it mean to them, in their minds. There are several historical clues to this, all leading to the most logical understanding that it meant that such a person/candidate had to be a citizen by 'blood' and by 'soil' - had to born on the soil (or its equivalent) by parents who were both citizens. That the person to hold that special and specific office could not have dual loyalties - and especially not to the British Empire, from whom they had just declared their independence.
It doesn't matter where, precisely, Obama was born, if words are to have any real meaning. If his father was, indeed, Barack Obama Sr., his eligibility for that office fell at that first hurdle.
And I say, 'If" here, because there is some question about his parentage, as passed down to him in oral history form from his mother and maternal grandparents. This anomaly in the story of his birth would account for why the Hawaiian authorities have been so 'legalistic' in their statements regarding his original, long-form birth certificate on file. Yes, they may have seen it. And yes, he may indeed be a "natural born citizen" - but of different parentage than we have all been led to believe.
And was it this that his maternal grandmother might have talked to him about, on her deathbed, when he visited her during his campaign for the office? And is this why he has refused to let his original birth record be made public? And why he has refused to let any of his other official records be made public - because they may also bring up questions about his eligibility, which investigation might all lead ineluctably back to his original birth certificate, and a serious questioning of who he is really? And perhaps also answer why Speaker of the House and Chair of the Democratic National Convention, Nancy Pelosi, made some curious statements on the nominating forms to the States, about this matter of his eligibility??
Things get curiouser, and curiouser, and curiouser, the more one goes down this rabbit hole -
the rabbit hole in particular of Obama's eligibility and background, and in general of what has been going down in America for some time, regarding the rule of law, and attention - or not - to detail..
Which brings me back to the bedrock of the matter: the Constitution of the United States, and the honoring thereof, as a legal document.
To sum up: How it is interpreted now is to miss the point. If you want to change the meaning of a legal contract, you must come to an agreement of the parties to the contract.
So, in sum: Yes, spelling of words can change over the years.
But the meaning stays the same.
Unless or until it is changed.
Legally. Or, in certain words: according to "due process".
Which has not been accorded to changes in the Constitution.
And needs to be.
Or we are living under the rule of tyrants.
Who must not be allowed to stand on our necks, any longer.
For we have a higher destiny to fulfill, than being their minions.
We have a change of consciousness to be ushered into consciousness.
In order that our potential can be fulfilled.
Our potential, as 'spiritual beings having a human experience'.
Paying attention to the detail of things.
Not simply accepting things as they are; as 'good enough'.
Or, like, not understanding what primarily has caused the breakdown of the nuclear family. Which was not because of the rise of 'feminism' (except tangentially, as part of the same agenda; of people who wanted more people to be taxed, so they could make more money off them, via the 16th Amendment, and its partner in crime, the concomitant establishing of the Federal Reserve System). But because of inflation. Causing the value of the money to be surreptitiously lowered. Aka stolen. By people who knew precisely what they were doing, and why.
And who got away with it, to the current point of - almost - collapse of the system; of the current paradigm (that does not give them all the power they would like to have; especially with that damnable Constitution in the way).
Because the public was lulled, by the opiate of entertainment, into not noticing what was going on, all around them.
Because they weren't paying enough attention to the detail of things.
Got your attention now, didn't they.
When it's almost - almost - too late.
Except that they have a surprise in store for them.
The surprise that God moves in mysterious ways.
And has a different outcome in store, for us all.
If we will choose it.
Which we have had all along.
Choice.
The choice to look at the detail of things - like life itself - or not.
And learn from our experiences.
Of life as a school.
The purpose being to graduate.
To learn our lessons. And move on.
A minor detail to some.
Obviously; the way they are acting.
And note the word, 'acting'.
As we are all playing parts, in a drama, created to catch our consciences.
Ultimately.
All.
As One.
And then we won't need things like written words to communicate with ourselves.
We will just Be.
Having - again; to underscore the point - learned our lessons.
And the biggest lesson of all.
That We Are All One.
A heckuva detail, that one.
---
* And I used the word 'honour' here on purpose, to acknowledge that there is a difference in spelling in the English language between the British version and the American version. But at least it's consistent; is not all over the place, just what seems to be good enough to convey one's point. Read on.
** I'm also aware of the research that has found that the human eye can 'read' a word if only the first and last letters are correct, and the middle is even gobbledegook (or, equally, gobbledygook). But that's also why so many children can't read: because they never learned, via the 'whole word' method of reading, to decipher the code of the alphabet, 'get' that a particular letter stands for a particular sound. This has also been a bane to our educational existence for some time now; kids having to (learn to) read by memorizing the shape of the word, rather than being able to sound it out for themselves, get it for themselves. I remember, when researching this whole business of Why Johnny Can't Read, reading a 'whole word' reading primer whereby the children were taught, eg, to recognise the word 'monkey' by a picture alongside the word showing a monkey hanging by its tail on the 'y' at the end. This is Egyptian pictography stuff; not civilization since the invention of the Arabic alphabet.***
*** There's more to this story than this; having to do with brain damage, primarily via vaccines, since the late 1940s-50s, leaving many children with such as dyslexia (and dyspraxia, and ADD, and ADHD, and...and.....). But that's another blog.
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Of 'Progressives' and Progression
There was an excellent blog on a website called American Thinker by one Paul Curtis on 4 November (linked at Vision to America on 5 November), entitled ‘”Progressive” is a Funny Name for Poverty’. In it he made a compelling case for the failure of socialism as an economic system, and extolled capitalism for its unparallelled success, which has bought us to the level of human satisfaction where we are today. Well, I overegg the ingredients there a little bit; as a subtle hint as to where I’m going with this blog; but that’s the general drift of the article. Now, it’s true that the more that people depend on the state for their living, the more they will support the state - regardless of what it does to its people, in terms of curtailing their autonomous rights; besides demonstrably affecting, in a perverse way (at least from Eastern Europe’s experience and perspective), their standard of living. But there’s a larger picture going on here. Mr. Curtis’s blog elicited this response from me:
"Some good thoughts here, in both the article itself and this thread. But I feel a false dichotomy is being created, with one side all 'bad', and the other side all 'good'. Life doesn't really work that way. (Do you REALLY think it was a good idea to put our lives in the hands of short-term-gain Masters of the Universe??)
"May we consider a What if: What if we truly were "spiritual beings having a human experience" - and started acting like we were, from that truth. We could reach a crowning Synthesis stage from the dialectical historical processes going on (each 'thesis' having generated an antithetical reaction: the excesses of capitalism generating communism; fundamentalist and intolerant religious belief generating 'scientific' rejection of any idea of a higher Power across the board; etc). Both the religious-oriented capitalist and the secular-humanist socialist systems function on the philosophy of power; the first on the power of the few (the individual and the owner class) over the many, the latter on the power of the many (the collective) over the individual. A spiritual system, instead, would function on Love - and would get the money changers out of the picture; so that an exchange of goods and services between individuals can happen based on love, ie, freely transpiring. Not based on the training-wheels motive of a 'profit' (and the humiliating 'incentive' of interest-bearing money, and its odious, perpetual debt-creating partner, fractional-reserve banking). Recognizing fundamentally who and what we are; and living our lives from that awareness - out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning. Reflecting that gratitude in giving of our best - giving, in a word, service - to one another, as mutual sparks of the Divine.
"And when we do, we solve the problems inherent in our current dilemmic situation, of, eg, needing continual growth (and its 'planned obsolescence') at a time when we need to conserve resources; can move to alternative sources of energy (including cosmic, 'Zero Point' energy) instead of continuing to base our civilization on a terribly environmentally-polluting reliance on fossil fuels; operating and living in a system where the economy is healthier the sicker we are as individuals; and so forth.
"In a word: an evolution.
"Won't work? Ah. But we're there.
"And in our (globalized) time.
"A time we have chosen to incarnate in, and help make it happen.
"Don't believe it?
"Keep listening, inside. You'll get there.
"Sooner. Or later.
"Your choice."
I can imagine some responses to my comment.
Q: I don’t get what you were getting at. The Left sounded pretty ‘bad’ to its core to me, in your presentation.
A: This was neither the time nor place to go into all this in detail. I admit I left the argument hanging a litle. The key piece I perhaps should have inserted into this ‘puzzle’ was how the classic Left champions cooperation over the Right’s classic ‘piece’ of competition. My point: It’s time to ‘bridge our differences’, and come together. The old Left-Right paradigm is a game of ping pong. But it’s just that: a game. An historical process; but a game nevertheless. It’s time to resolve the things that separate us, and come to unity. Because, in the words of the playwright: 'Affairs are now soul sized' - ie, we have come to globalisation.
Q: Speaking of a presumed ‘historical process’: you seem to be a Marxist, or at least buy into the idea of ‘dialectical materialism’, a dialectical process.
A: I am saying that there a definite element of truth in his analysis of the economic process. He just missed the capstone; the missing piece that creates the Synthesis to the process: that there is Plan in and Purpose to life, beyond just in and for itself. It is that missing piece that will bring both sides of the dynamic equation together. Because it addresses the matter of motive.
Q: Ah yes; motive. Why do you emphasize the ‘badness’ of money so much? We humans have always had money.
A: Because ‘money’ - that concept - is standing in the way of human progress, above and beyond the level of the problem.
You - we - don’t need money. All you need is a motive, to give of your best to one another, in the providing of goods and services, and your human ingenuity. And I submit that the highest motive is Love - is out of gratitude to your Creator for life with meaning, and love for one another as sparks off the same divine Being. In truth: We are one another. In further truth: We are One.
Q: It sounds...pretty; but getting back to reality: Human nature being what it is, some people are just lazy. Why should the productive carry the unproductive?
A: Because we are all in this together; for better or for worse. Because our level of technology allows us to produce abundance; and abundance in the midst of lack is obscene, indicates a malfunctioning system. (I think of the phenomenon of food mountains adjacent to starving peoples, eg.) Because example is the best teacher. Give of your best, and leave others to heaven. (Remember: there is a Plan in all this.)
Now, obviously, there is not enough of everything for everybody. Beyond a basic level of support, you can create a system of credits, whereby the more you contribute, put into the process, the more credit you receive. (This could be purely electronically calculated and recorded; like current LETS systems.) But don’t make the mistake of doing something FOR the goodies you get out of doing it. In my earlier years I came across a bit of what I perceived even then as good advice. Quote: ‘Do, not for the fruit but for the sake.’ Just as money transmogrified in human consciousness into an end in itself, rather than the means to an end that it started out as - as simply a medium of exchange, and easier to exchange, than either cattle or coins - so can the credit system take on a life of its own. There lie dragons.*
Q: Well. Sounds...nice...
A: But it’ll never happen?
Q: Yeah.
A: Don’t underestimate the power of Spirit in affecting human consciousness. We are phototropic beings: we are being constantly called up out of ourselves by the power of the Light.
Welcome to Emergence.
In our time.
* The same as in getting caught up in life itself. Life - as we know it; on this level, this material plane of existence -is properly a means to an end, not an end in itself.
I have summarized this somewhere else, in/with the words: Life is a school. The purpose is to graduate. To experience separation from Source, learn lessons, and move on.
There may well be a kernel of truth in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve, wherein Eve ‘tempted’ Adam to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. ‘God’ may well have sighed and said, ‘Oh Man - are you in for it now.’ And waited patiently for the Prodigal Son to come back home from his explorations. This seems to be the essence of the philosophy of dualism - ie, that there is Good and there is Evil, and Life is the kingdom of Evil; essentially a snare and a delusion. But there is also the possibility that ‘God’ (Whomever/Whatever; maybe a composite Being, beyond our current capabiity of understanding) is continuing to grow in consciousness as we the Children of the process do. I like to think that the latter is closer to the full truth of the matter than the former - that we are growing God as we grow ourselves; for - altogether now: We are One. Are all of the same Essence.
"Some good thoughts here, in both the article itself and this thread. But I feel a false dichotomy is being created, with one side all 'bad', and the other side all 'good'. Life doesn't really work that way. (Do you REALLY think it was a good idea to put our lives in the hands of short-term-gain Masters of the Universe??)
"May we consider a What if: What if we truly were "spiritual beings having a human experience" - and started acting like we were, from that truth. We could reach a crowning Synthesis stage from the dialectical historical processes going on (each 'thesis' having generated an antithetical reaction: the excesses of capitalism generating communism; fundamentalist and intolerant religious belief generating 'scientific' rejection of any idea of a higher Power across the board; etc). Both the religious-oriented capitalist and the secular-humanist socialist systems function on the philosophy of power; the first on the power of the few (the individual and the owner class) over the many, the latter on the power of the many (the collective) over the individual. A spiritual system, instead, would function on Love - and would get the money changers out of the picture; so that an exchange of goods and services between individuals can happen based on love, ie, freely transpiring. Not based on the training-wheels motive of a 'profit' (and the humiliating 'incentive' of interest-bearing money, and its odious, perpetual debt-creating partner, fractional-reserve banking). Recognizing fundamentally who and what we are; and living our lives from that awareness - out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning. Reflecting that gratitude in giving of our best - giving, in a word, service - to one another, as mutual sparks of the Divine.
"And when we do, we solve the problems inherent in our current dilemmic situation, of, eg, needing continual growth (and its 'planned obsolescence') at a time when we need to conserve resources; can move to alternative sources of energy (including cosmic, 'Zero Point' energy) instead of continuing to base our civilization on a terribly environmentally-polluting reliance on fossil fuels; operating and living in a system where the economy is healthier the sicker we are as individuals; and so forth.
"In a word: an evolution.
"Won't work? Ah. But we're there.
"And in our (globalized) time.
"A time we have chosen to incarnate in, and help make it happen.
"Don't believe it?
"Keep listening, inside. You'll get there.
"Sooner. Or later.
"Your choice."
I can imagine some responses to my comment.
Q: I don’t get what you were getting at. The Left sounded pretty ‘bad’ to its core to me, in your presentation.
A: This was neither the time nor place to go into all this in detail. I admit I left the argument hanging a litle. The key piece I perhaps should have inserted into this ‘puzzle’ was how the classic Left champions cooperation over the Right’s classic ‘piece’ of competition. My point: It’s time to ‘bridge our differences’, and come together. The old Left-Right paradigm is a game of ping pong. But it’s just that: a game. An historical process; but a game nevertheless. It’s time to resolve the things that separate us, and come to unity. Because, in the words of the playwright: 'Affairs are now soul sized' - ie, we have come to globalisation.
Q: Speaking of a presumed ‘historical process’: you seem to be a Marxist, or at least buy into the idea of ‘dialectical materialism’, a dialectical process.
A: I am saying that there a definite element of truth in his analysis of the economic process. He just missed the capstone; the missing piece that creates the Synthesis to the process: that there is Plan in and Purpose to life, beyond just in and for itself. It is that missing piece that will bring both sides of the dynamic equation together. Because it addresses the matter of motive.
Q: Ah yes; motive. Why do you emphasize the ‘badness’ of money so much? We humans have always had money.
A: Because ‘money’ - that concept - is standing in the way of human progress, above and beyond the level of the problem.
You - we - don’t need money. All you need is a motive, to give of your best to one another, in the providing of goods and services, and your human ingenuity. And I submit that the highest motive is Love - is out of gratitude to your Creator for life with meaning, and love for one another as sparks off the same divine Being. In truth: We are one another. In further truth: We are One.
Q: It sounds...pretty; but getting back to reality: Human nature being what it is, some people are just lazy. Why should the productive carry the unproductive?
A: Because we are all in this together; for better or for worse. Because our level of technology allows us to produce abundance; and abundance in the midst of lack is obscene, indicates a malfunctioning system. (I think of the phenomenon of food mountains adjacent to starving peoples, eg.) Because example is the best teacher. Give of your best, and leave others to heaven. (Remember: there is a Plan in all this.)
Now, obviously, there is not enough of everything for everybody. Beyond a basic level of support, you can create a system of credits, whereby the more you contribute, put into the process, the more credit you receive. (This could be purely electronically calculated and recorded; like current LETS systems.) But don’t make the mistake of doing something FOR the goodies you get out of doing it. In my earlier years I came across a bit of what I perceived even then as good advice. Quote: ‘Do, not for the fruit but for the sake.’ Just as money transmogrified in human consciousness into an end in itself, rather than the means to an end that it started out as - as simply a medium of exchange, and easier to exchange, than either cattle or coins - so can the credit system take on a life of its own. There lie dragons.*
Q: Well. Sounds...nice...
A: But it’ll never happen?
Q: Yeah.
A: Don’t underestimate the power of Spirit in affecting human consciousness. We are phototropic beings: we are being constantly called up out of ourselves by the power of the Light.
Welcome to Emergence.
In our time.
* The same as in getting caught up in life itself. Life - as we know it; on this level, this material plane of existence -is properly a means to an end, not an end in itself.
I have summarized this somewhere else, in/with the words: Life is a school. The purpose is to graduate. To experience separation from Source, learn lessons, and move on.
There may well be a kernel of truth in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve, wherein Eve ‘tempted’ Adam to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. ‘God’ may well have sighed and said, ‘Oh Man - are you in for it now.’ And waited patiently for the Prodigal Son to come back home from his explorations. This seems to be the essence of the philosophy of dualism - ie, that there is Good and there is Evil, and Life is the kingdom of Evil; essentially a snare and a delusion. But there is also the possibility that ‘God’ (Whomever/Whatever; maybe a composite Being, beyond our current capabiity of understanding) is continuing to grow in consciousness as we the Children of the process do. I like to think that the latter is closer to the full truth of the matter than the former - that we are growing God as we grow ourselves; for - altogether now: We are One. Are all of the same Essence.
Monday, 1 November 2010
Clarifying the U.S. Constitution
This morning during my shower I felt the need to write a Letter to the Editor of one of the magazines I take - The New American; a right-wing magazine produced by the John Birch Society, a staunch conservative organisation in the States - regarding a somewhat recent article of theirs (in the August 16 issue) that I have just gotten around to reading fully, occasioned by a letter to the Editor in the most recent issue that I have received (October 11). It has to do with a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Second Amendment (the 'right to keep and bear arms' amendment). In my life, one of the main areas of interest that I had developed was the 'issue' of the U.S. Constitution, and the proper reading thereof. (I hesitate to use the word 'interpretation', as will become clear further in this blog.) With U.S. mid-term elections coming up tomorrow, and with things going on in the country since the Obama election what they are, it seems fitting to be dealing with this subject.+ My subsequent letter:
"November 1 2010
"Dear Editor:
"Although I found Dennis Behreandt's article on the McDonald Decision (August 16) a valuable read, I am still in a bit of a quandary over this constitutional matter. Maybe TNA and/or its readers can help me out. Let me first lay out my take on it.
"The due process clause of the 14th Amendment is just that, and that only: a straight-forward judicial statement. Quote: No State can deprive its citizenry (now, in terms of the 14th Amendment, also citizens of the United States) of life, liberty, or property, "without due process of law..." That is to say (according to my reading, and reasoning), the law cannot be arbitrary or capricious; the States must abide by the rule of law - and furthermore, must now treat the former slaves as full citizens, entitled now to the full protection of judicial due process (what they did not have before that; as per the Dred Scott decision). And furthermore, according to the terms of the 14th, the State laws could not be selective: "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That was, and is, to say, the law must be, in effect - taking the issue at the time - color blind (that determination was gotten around by the Southern States for some time, but that is another matter); all US citizens are equal before the law. Again, the rule of law is paramount in constitutional processes - and a good thing, too; given the human proclivity to fudge things according to personal socio-political taste.
"I go into [all] this to lay my case for the rightful application of the Bill of Rights. That was an addendum to the proposed Constitution, designed to 'tie the federal government down from mischief' as clearly as possible.* The people had their (bills of) rights secured by their state constitutions - or not. Example: the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment was only applied to the States themselves by the 14th Amendment ("..nor shall any State deprive..."). Yes, there were "natural rights pre-existing the Constitution" (Behreandt's words); but they needed to be secured in law.
"My point: There may well be an assumption that the terms of the Bill of Rights applied to the several States; but unless they were secured in law via the several States's constitutions, they were just that: assumptions. And if you start dealing with the world of assumptions, you start dealing with the world of activist judges - judges making decisions based on their 'assumptions' of the law, rather than the law itself. A dangerous business; as we have found out, in spades. So, my conclusion: the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government. If the people of Illinois, say, choose to have a different take on the matter of the right of their citizenry to bear ams, that is their business, as stated in their constitution and laws passed [pursuant] thereto.
"Now yes, there is the matter of the 14th Amendment's making them as well citizens of the United States. But (1) we've dealt with a couple of those ramification points above; and (2) the 14th Amendment, despite the sleight-of-hand business of the 'principle' of what has come to be known as 'incorporation',** does not turn the Constitution upside down wholesale. That is to say: Nowhere in it does it either say or imply such an amendment to the Constitution as, eg: 'The powers formerly reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, shall now reside in the federal government.'
"Try to get that one passed, liberals; and see how far you get without sophistry employed to attain your ends.***
"P.S. And of course there is also the little point made by your correspondent Pastor James Riddle, in the Letters column of your October 11 issue, whereby he makes an intriguing - compelling? - case for the 14th Amendment having been illegally enacted, "by Radicals in the Republican Party". So both sides of the political aisle have something to answer for, in the mess we find ourselves in in our day and time, regarding living by - trying our best to live by - the rule of law. Not of Men.
"Yours sincerely," [etc.]
+ As for those elections, and my attitude: A pox on both their houses. If the Republicans are justifiably concerned about the socialistic tendencies of the Obama administration and its Democratic Congress (with their ideological attitude of the state riding roughshod over the individual), the Democrats are justifiably concerned about the Republican tendencies to take advantage of lax regulation and think primarily of themselves and their well-being. 'Liberty' all too often seems to mean license to them. There's got to be a better way.
And there is. But that subject is not in the scope of this blog.
* As to that intent: The 'Father of the Constitution', James Madison, in The Federalist Papers presciently warned that adding a Bill of Rights could be dangerous in that it might lend to an illusion, make it appear that the federal government had the power to do anything it wanted except for the rights spelled out in such a Bill (which is in reality just an example of such undelegated rights and powers; the federal government being (or at least intended to be) one of limited and delegated powers - "few and defined", in Madison's unequivocal words). Hence the catch-all addition to those specifically enumerated rights and powers of the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
** This is the 'principle' - merely a notion, really - that the statement in the 14th Amendment, that "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" somehow conferred on the federal government and its Supreme Court the power to turn the Constitution on its head and apply the Bill of Rights as issuing from the federal government to the States. Absurd, and shocking. But they got away with it...
*** Simply, to clarify, and underscore: The federal government does not have the power to order the States to do anything but in terms of its power derived from a reasonable reading of the Constitution and the intent of its terms.
In sum: This socio-political business that has grown up in the country, of declaring: "I know my rights"..."my/our constitutional rights" has been, and is, a bit misleading. It has helped lead to the unclarity that exists in the country today - the unclarity that could lead a liberal Supreme Court, in William O. Douglas's time there, to find a 'right to privacy' in the 'penumbras' 'implied' in the Bill of Rights, which led ineluctably to the Roe v. Wade decision, for example. The Supreme Court should have been kept out of the arena of determining such 'rights', full stop.
The ambiguity crept in slowly, slowly on Fabian paw prints over the years (mostly involving 'commerce clause' decisions), and then more blatantly in around 1941, when the Supreme Court ruled for federal jurisdiction in a First Amendment, freedom-of-speech case (regarding the burning of the U.S. flag as a political statement). And it has been downhill ever since, in the sense of departing from 'original intention', and entering Humpty Dumpty land, where 'A word means what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less'.++ Or as newly-installed Justice Elena Kagan's "judicial hero", Israeli Judge Aharon Barak, would say (and has): "A judge may give a statute new meaning, a dynamic meaning, that seeks to bridge the gap between the law and life's changing reality." So, away with the legislative branch of government! Not needed. Hello Plato's benevolent despots. Or not so...
The country needs to return to the rule of law, or it risks being taken over by either the Left or the Right; socialism or fascism. Arise, the spirit of the Founding Fathers of the American experiment in self-government. Kings need not apply; philosophers or otherwise, individuals or oligarchs.
As I say: A pox on both your houses.
And when we have cleaned up our act, and learnt our lessons as well as we can, we can enter a new era; and leave our training wheels behind. Or as the Judeo-Christian Bible puts it: "When I was a child..."
---
P.S. The Letter to the Editor referred to, regarding the 14th Amendment's enactment:
[headed: 'Fraudulent Basis in Law']
"Dennis Behreandt as usual wrote a fine article, this time on gun control in the August 16 issue of TNA ('The McDonald Decision & the Second Amendment'). However, he did not point out what very few constitutionalists dare to point out. The 14th Amendment was illegally enacted by Radicals in the Republican Party.
"Dr. Larry McDonald, the late leader of the John Birch Society, put it simply in his fine book We Hold These Truths:
'Two-thirds of both chambers did not vote for the resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment, as must be done under the Constitution for legal passage of such a resolution. The Radical Republican majority resolved that the resolution did pass, and submitted it to the states for ratification. Three-fourths of the states did not ratify the proposed amendment, as required by the Constitution; but the Radical Republican majority in Congress had the Secretary of State proclaim it ratified anyway on July 20, 1868.'
"McDonald further states: 'Even if legally proposed and legally adopted, the Fourteenth Amendment would have foredoomed freedom under constitutional law, because it conflicts so sharply with the rest of the Constitution.'..."
He was, perhaps, a little too pessimistic in that take on the matter. But it is true that the Fourteenth Amendment has caused a serious weakening of the American form of government, as a constitutional republic with a federal form of government.
It would be helpful to get that form back. Helpful, in the sense of keeping the nation free from being taken over from either the Left or the Right, as a de facto centralized form of government. The states, then, need to reclaim their power, that they allowed to leach away, into hands that cannot be trusted with such power, for not having a proper, spiritual take on what all is involved here. Primarily, the working out of human free will, to a point where humanity can ascend to a higher level of civilization on our beloved planet Earth.
If we so choose.
And that's the point of this whole exercise in living:
Choice.
Which is it to be, friend.
Your choice.
---
++ "The question is," said Alice, "whether your can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
"November 1 2010
"Dear Editor:
"Although I found Dennis Behreandt's article on the McDonald Decision (August 16) a valuable read, I am still in a bit of a quandary over this constitutional matter. Maybe TNA and/or its readers can help me out. Let me first lay out my take on it.
"The due process clause of the 14th Amendment is just that, and that only: a straight-forward judicial statement. Quote: No State can deprive its citizenry (now, in terms of the 14th Amendment, also citizens of the United States) of life, liberty, or property, "without due process of law..." That is to say (according to my reading, and reasoning), the law cannot be arbitrary or capricious; the States must abide by the rule of law - and furthermore, must now treat the former slaves as full citizens, entitled now to the full protection of judicial due process (what they did not have before that; as per the Dred Scott decision). And furthermore, according to the terms of the 14th, the State laws could not be selective: "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That was, and is, to say, the law must be, in effect - taking the issue at the time - color blind (that determination was gotten around by the Southern States for some time, but that is another matter); all US citizens are equal before the law. Again, the rule of law is paramount in constitutional processes - and a good thing, too; given the human proclivity to fudge things according to personal socio-political taste.
"I go into [all] this to lay my case for the rightful application of the Bill of Rights. That was an addendum to the proposed Constitution, designed to 'tie the federal government down from mischief' as clearly as possible.* The people had their (bills of) rights secured by their state constitutions - or not. Example: the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment was only applied to the States themselves by the 14th Amendment ("..nor shall any State deprive..."). Yes, there were "natural rights pre-existing the Constitution" (Behreandt's words); but they needed to be secured in law.
"My point: There may well be an assumption that the terms of the Bill of Rights applied to the several States; but unless they were secured in law via the several States's constitutions, they were just that: assumptions. And if you start dealing with the world of assumptions, you start dealing with the world of activist judges - judges making decisions based on their 'assumptions' of the law, rather than the law itself. A dangerous business; as we have found out, in spades. So, my conclusion: the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government. If the people of Illinois, say, choose to have a different take on the matter of the right of their citizenry to bear ams, that is their business, as stated in their constitution and laws passed [pursuant] thereto.
"Now yes, there is the matter of the 14th Amendment's making them as well citizens of the United States. But (1) we've dealt with a couple of those ramification points above; and (2) the 14th Amendment, despite the sleight-of-hand business of the 'principle' of what has come to be known as 'incorporation',** does not turn the Constitution upside down wholesale. That is to say: Nowhere in it does it either say or imply such an amendment to the Constitution as, eg: 'The powers formerly reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, shall now reside in the federal government.'
"Try to get that one passed, liberals; and see how far you get without sophistry employed to attain your ends.***
"P.S. And of course there is also the little point made by your correspondent Pastor James Riddle, in the Letters column of your October 11 issue, whereby he makes an intriguing - compelling? - case for the 14th Amendment having been illegally enacted, "by Radicals in the Republican Party". So both sides of the political aisle have something to answer for, in the mess we find ourselves in in our day and time, regarding living by - trying our best to live by - the rule of law. Not of Men.
"Yours sincerely," [etc.]
+ As for those elections, and my attitude: A pox on both their houses. If the Republicans are justifiably concerned about the socialistic tendencies of the Obama administration and its Democratic Congress (with their ideological attitude of the state riding roughshod over the individual), the Democrats are justifiably concerned about the Republican tendencies to take advantage of lax regulation and think primarily of themselves and their well-being. 'Liberty' all too often seems to mean license to them. There's got to be a better way.
And there is. But that subject is not in the scope of this blog.
* As to that intent: The 'Father of the Constitution', James Madison, in The Federalist Papers presciently warned that adding a Bill of Rights could be dangerous in that it might lend to an illusion, make it appear that the federal government had the power to do anything it wanted except for the rights spelled out in such a Bill (which is in reality just an example of such undelegated rights and powers; the federal government being (or at least intended to be) one of limited and delegated powers - "few and defined", in Madison's unequivocal words). Hence the catch-all addition to those specifically enumerated rights and powers of the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
** This is the 'principle' - merely a notion, really - that the statement in the 14th Amendment, that "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" somehow conferred on the federal government and its Supreme Court the power to turn the Constitution on its head and apply the Bill of Rights as issuing from the federal government to the States. Absurd, and shocking. But they got away with it...
*** Simply, to clarify, and underscore: The federal government does not have the power to order the States to do anything but in terms of its power derived from a reasonable reading of the Constitution and the intent of its terms.
In sum: This socio-political business that has grown up in the country, of declaring: "I know my rights"..."my/our constitutional rights" has been, and is, a bit misleading. It has helped lead to the unclarity that exists in the country today - the unclarity that could lead a liberal Supreme Court, in William O. Douglas's time there, to find a 'right to privacy' in the 'penumbras' 'implied' in the Bill of Rights, which led ineluctably to the Roe v. Wade decision, for example. The Supreme Court should have been kept out of the arena of determining such 'rights', full stop.
The ambiguity crept in slowly, slowly on Fabian paw prints over the years (mostly involving 'commerce clause' decisions), and then more blatantly in around 1941, when the Supreme Court ruled for federal jurisdiction in a First Amendment, freedom-of-speech case (regarding the burning of the U.S. flag as a political statement). And it has been downhill ever since, in the sense of departing from 'original intention', and entering Humpty Dumpty land, where 'A word means what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less'.++ Or as newly-installed Justice Elena Kagan's "judicial hero", Israeli Judge Aharon Barak, would say (and has): "A judge may give a statute new meaning, a dynamic meaning, that seeks to bridge the gap between the law and life's changing reality." So, away with the legislative branch of government! Not needed. Hello Plato's benevolent despots. Or not so...
The country needs to return to the rule of law, or it risks being taken over by either the Left or the Right; socialism or fascism. Arise, the spirit of the Founding Fathers of the American experiment in self-government. Kings need not apply; philosophers or otherwise, individuals or oligarchs.
As I say: A pox on both your houses.
And when we have cleaned up our act, and learnt our lessons as well as we can, we can enter a new era; and leave our training wheels behind. Or as the Judeo-Christian Bible puts it: "When I was a child..."
---
P.S. The Letter to the Editor referred to, regarding the 14th Amendment's enactment:
[headed: 'Fraudulent Basis in Law']
"Dennis Behreandt as usual wrote a fine article, this time on gun control in the August 16 issue of TNA ('The McDonald Decision & the Second Amendment'). However, he did not point out what very few constitutionalists dare to point out. The 14th Amendment was illegally enacted by Radicals in the Republican Party.
"Dr. Larry McDonald, the late leader of the John Birch Society, put it simply in his fine book We Hold These Truths:
'Two-thirds of both chambers did not vote for the resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment, as must be done under the Constitution for legal passage of such a resolution. The Radical Republican majority resolved that the resolution did pass, and submitted it to the states for ratification. Three-fourths of the states did not ratify the proposed amendment, as required by the Constitution; but the Radical Republican majority in Congress had the Secretary of State proclaim it ratified anyway on July 20, 1868.'
"McDonald further states: 'Even if legally proposed and legally adopted, the Fourteenth Amendment would have foredoomed freedom under constitutional law, because it conflicts so sharply with the rest of the Constitution.'..."
He was, perhaps, a little too pessimistic in that take on the matter. But it is true that the Fourteenth Amendment has caused a serious weakening of the American form of government, as a constitutional republic with a federal form of government.
It would be helpful to get that form back. Helpful, in the sense of keeping the nation free from being taken over from either the Left or the Right, as a de facto centralized form of government. The states, then, need to reclaim their power, that they allowed to leach away, into hands that cannot be trusted with such power, for not having a proper, spiritual take on what all is involved here. Primarily, the working out of human free will, to a point where humanity can ascend to a higher level of civilization on our beloved planet Earth.
If we so choose.
And that's the point of this whole exercise in living:
Choice.
Which is it to be, friend.
Your choice.
---
++ "The question is," said Alice, "whether your can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Sunday, 31 October 2010
And so? What Are You Going To Do About It??
I'm feeling, on this Day of Rest (not a bad idea, that; to slow down from the daily frenetic pace and allow some quality time for reflection), a need to tell it like it is, for me, in response to a number of issues in particular. One is the subject of fluoridation. Another is the subject of vaccines, and the full extent of their side effects. The common denominator of these subject areas: the power over The People of the corporate-government complex, and its bottom-line mentality.*
Item. The current e-newsletter of a fluoridation-information site that I take (Fluoride Action Network) informs its readers that FAN is now involved in a campaign in Canada to get a community there to pay attention to the dangers of fluoridated water, specifically, in this instance, to babies; thus, their campaign's recommended statement to the public:
"Your public water supply is fluoridated. Fluoridated water should not be used or added to infant formula, foods, or drinks intended for babies 12 months of age or younger in order to avoid dental fluorosis."
Even the American Dental Association has (grudgingly, it would appear, from the historical record) recommended this policy. Question: Why has it taken so long to get even this far in this matter? Well, we know by now...
Two things. (1) It reminded me of a campaign I took part in in Los Angeles many years ago (the early '70s) when the PTB made their move to try to fluoridate L.A.'s water supply. By then I had read a fair amount of material on the subject, and engaged heavily in the battle to educate the public to the matter. We won that battle. But The People have, still, not won the war. (Well; they have in most of Europe. But in the UK - my adopted country - and in the US - my home country - and in Australia - my resident country for a time - the corporate overlords still rule the day. As they do in so many other areas.) (2) It prompted me to go to a couple of links at their website, and review the information available in our current time as to the dangers of this ill-begotten enterprise.** In looking over those reviews - '10 Facts About Fluoridation', and '50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation' - it all came back squarely into my face again, of the appalling nature of the control over the mind of Man of the corporate-government complex: a few people making huge amounts of money by treating a large number of people like cattle, or sheep to be sheared.
It is all I can do to retain a belief in and loyalty to the rightness of a Plan of Life based on free will, in the face of such callous disregard of the rights of individuals.
Which brings me to my second
Item. I have been slowly getting through a book by one Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield (entitled the above-mentioned expression, 'Callous Disregard' - used by him ironically, as one of the charges levied against him). It is his side of the story of his being censured by the UK's General Medical Council for leading an investigation into purported gut damage to several children associated, temporally at the least, with their MMR vaccines. I had gotten through Chapter Three - entitled 'The Dean's Dilemma' - and was waiting to get into Chapter Four - entitled 'The Whistleblower' - when I had more time. I finally decided, today, to take the time to get further into his book.*** His Chapter Four is a mindblower. It is the account of his encounter with a man who had been involved in the UK government's immunization oversight committee, as an expert in the field, and who became appalled and disillusioned when he found out that the committee was 'stacked', in regards to questions about the safety of the MMR shot being considered for the UK. The bottom line in this instance: The People are cannon fodder to these overlords of ours.
Well; no more.
Not if I have anything to do with it.
And I do.
And so do you.
And it's time now to get to our work.
What we came here for, TO do.
At - this - time.
To help shift humanity onto a higher turn of the spiral, of consciousness evolution. Leaving our childish stage behind, and going for the gold of graduation.
For that is what this life business is all about.
Certainly not to get stuck in it, and lost in the thicket of materialism.
Bottom line: Life is a school. The purpose is to graduate.
---
* And there's that bugbear again: Money.
Happy Hollowe'en.
** Which came about when the US government was secretly developing the A-bomb, a side effect of which was the poisoning of the cattle and land around the production site by fluoride; triggering some research into how to get around the problem. Hey presto: The metering into the water supply of a supposed wondrous substance against tooth decay, accompanied by an advertising campaign selling it to the public like 'they' sold cigarettes, complete with white-coated 'doctors', or at least people made out to be experts. And in our day, the scam continues, allowing the likes of the artificial fertilizer and aluminum industries to get rid of a toxic by-product of their manufacturing processes and make money on it to boot. Sweet.
*** Occasioned, at least in part, by my happening to put a couple of books back in my bookshelf that I didn't need out for reference any longer, and, scanning for a place to put one of them back, noticed one that I haven't gotten into for some time. entitled 'Vaccination and Behavioral Disorders: A Review of the Controversy', it is a summation of the research done by a parent, Greg Wilson, after his elder daughter's adverse reaction to the 'triple antigen', DPT shot. With a Foreword by Harris L. Coulter, PhD - arguably the US's foremost medical historian - it is a harrowing read, in more ways than one.
(Dr. Coulter is associated with two other excellent books in this field: 'DPT: A Shot In the Dark' with Barbara Loe Fisher (1985), and 'Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain' (1990). It is this latter, 'behavioral disorder' subject area that Mr. Wilson's book goes into in some substantial detail.)
Item. The current e-newsletter of a fluoridation-information site that I take (Fluoride Action Network) informs its readers that FAN is now involved in a campaign in Canada to get a community there to pay attention to the dangers of fluoridated water, specifically, in this instance, to babies; thus, their campaign's recommended statement to the public:
"Your public water supply is fluoridated. Fluoridated water should not be used or added to infant formula, foods, or drinks intended for babies 12 months of age or younger in order to avoid dental fluorosis."
Even the American Dental Association has (grudgingly, it would appear, from the historical record) recommended this policy. Question: Why has it taken so long to get even this far in this matter? Well, we know by now...
Two things. (1) It reminded me of a campaign I took part in in Los Angeles many years ago (the early '70s) when the PTB made their move to try to fluoridate L.A.'s water supply. By then I had read a fair amount of material on the subject, and engaged heavily in the battle to educate the public to the matter. We won that battle. But The People have, still, not won the war. (Well; they have in most of Europe. But in the UK - my adopted country - and in the US - my home country - and in Australia - my resident country for a time - the corporate overlords still rule the day. As they do in so many other areas.) (2) It prompted me to go to a couple of links at their website, and review the information available in our current time as to the dangers of this ill-begotten enterprise.** In looking over those reviews - '10 Facts About Fluoridation', and '50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation' - it all came back squarely into my face again, of the appalling nature of the control over the mind of Man of the corporate-government complex: a few people making huge amounts of money by treating a large number of people like cattle, or sheep to be sheared.
It is all I can do to retain a belief in and loyalty to the rightness of a Plan of Life based on free will, in the face of such callous disregard of the rights of individuals.
Which brings me to my second
Item. I have been slowly getting through a book by one Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield (entitled the above-mentioned expression, 'Callous Disregard' - used by him ironically, as one of the charges levied against him). It is his side of the story of his being censured by the UK's General Medical Council for leading an investigation into purported gut damage to several children associated, temporally at the least, with their MMR vaccines. I had gotten through Chapter Three - entitled 'The Dean's Dilemma' - and was waiting to get into Chapter Four - entitled 'The Whistleblower' - when I had more time. I finally decided, today, to take the time to get further into his book.*** His Chapter Four is a mindblower. It is the account of his encounter with a man who had been involved in the UK government's immunization oversight committee, as an expert in the field, and who became appalled and disillusioned when he found out that the committee was 'stacked', in regards to questions about the safety of the MMR shot being considered for the UK. The bottom line in this instance: The People are cannon fodder to these overlords of ours.
Well; no more.
Not if I have anything to do with it.
And I do.
And so do you.
And it's time now to get to our work.
What we came here for, TO do.
At - this - time.
To help shift humanity onto a higher turn of the spiral, of consciousness evolution. Leaving our childish stage behind, and going for the gold of graduation.
For that is what this life business is all about.
Certainly not to get stuck in it, and lost in the thicket of materialism.
Bottom line: Life is a school. The purpose is to graduate.
---
* And there's that bugbear again: Money.
Happy Hollowe'en.
** Which came about when the US government was secretly developing the A-bomb, a side effect of which was the poisoning of the cattle and land around the production site by fluoride; triggering some research into how to get around the problem. Hey presto: The metering into the water supply of a supposed wondrous substance against tooth decay, accompanied by an advertising campaign selling it to the public like 'they' sold cigarettes, complete with white-coated 'doctors', or at least people made out to be experts. And in our day, the scam continues, allowing the likes of the artificial fertilizer and aluminum industries to get rid of a toxic by-product of their manufacturing processes and make money on it to boot. Sweet.
*** Occasioned, at least in part, by my happening to put a couple of books back in my bookshelf that I didn't need out for reference any longer, and, scanning for a place to put one of them back, noticed one that I haven't gotten into for some time. entitled 'Vaccination and Behavioral Disorders: A Review of the Controversy', it is a summation of the research done by a parent, Greg Wilson, after his elder daughter's adverse reaction to the 'triple antigen', DPT shot. With a Foreword by Harris L. Coulter, PhD - arguably the US's foremost medical historian - it is a harrowing read, in more ways than one.
(Dr. Coulter is associated with two other excellent books in this field: 'DPT: A Shot In the Dark' with Barbara Loe Fisher (1985), and 'Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain' (1990). It is this latter, 'behavioral disorder' subject area that Mr. Wilson's book goes into in some substantial detail.)
Thursday, 21 October 2010
The Kingdom of Heaven: It's About Time
Steve Bhaerman is an interesting fellow. With a blog called notesfromthetrail, he also writes under the nom de plume of Swami Beyondananda, in a very clever way; full of humor, and making a point at the same time. Just this week he weighed into the November elections subject, and made -or that is, tried to make - a case for voting for Democratic Party candidates. (As "a No-Bahrainer," a dig at the information that "the chief financier for the Republican election efforts, the 'U.S. Chamber of Commerce', has its offices in Bahrain."
"Huh?
"Well, it kind of makes sense. If we're going to outsource all of our jobs, why not outsource governance itself?
"If there has been any doubt that the 'new world order' intends to turn the world into one big third world country with the ruling elites safe in gated communities, this should put that doubt to rest. One can only hope that those social conservatives who habitually vote Republican for patriotic reasons will join the upwising and awaken to the realization that Tea Party or not, putting the Republicans back in power will reinforce government of, by and for the power of money - and not necessarily American money.")
I felt drawn to respond; thusly:
"Thoughtful stuff, Steve. But I'm not sure that voting Democratic is the answer. It sends the wrong signal; stays on the more-of-the same level. We the People need to put pressure on the Powers that Be to put a None of the Above choice on the ballot. Of course, people can already do that by voting with their feet, and refusing to play the game; but that just leaves the same old gang in charge (as you say, the corporate state). So, more needs to be done.
"A voting spot for None of the Above is one answer. Another is to follow up on your 'Bucky' initiative,* and provide The People with a First Party alternative, by spelling the choice out more clearly. To say: We are on the cusp of major change. The Western political system, at the least, is corrupt; the global economic system is corrupt, and about to collapse, under the weight of its internal contradictions (long-term pain for short-term gain; a socio-economic philosophy of growth and planned obsolescence at a critical time of need for conservation of resources; etc. etc.). And about time. About time: It's time to go neither Left nor Right but up, to a new level. You are alluding to it; but look at it more closely.
"Consider where we are at in terms of the insightful Hegelian dialectic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis: the Right has championed individualism/competition with a religious aspect; the Left has championed collectivism/cooperation with an anti-religious aspect; the latter believing (by and large) that we can get to a better world via cooperation, a big state with a big stick, and a secular humanistic philosophy; the former believing (by and large. Humor me here. You're good at that) that we can get to a better world via free individuals, a small state by definition, and a religious perspective. Never the twain shall meet? Maybe not on the historical level of the process; but if we take the process up a notch...we are talking the equivalent of the kingdom of heaven on earth. And lo and behold: We have the technological ability to accomplish such a munificent state of affairs. In our time.
"The secular humanistic philosophy - that is, basically, the Marxian philosophy - is not sufficient for this process to achieve its end. Trying to force recalcitrants to be Good via the power of the state is a losing cause; it gives people no real reason for being, except in and for itself. Dreary stuff. It also does not do away with money, which is a requirement for the proper kingdom to 'land' on earth, because it's a faulty motivator. People have become conditioned, with interest-bearing money (and fractional-reserve banking, the other training wheel we have been using on our social vehicle), to do things for the money involved (ie, as an end rather than as a means). The kingdom of heaven lands when we give of our best, in the exchange of goods and services, and the exercise of individual & collective ingenuity, out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning - reflecting that we are, first and foremost, 'spiritual beings having a human experience'; and thus that there is Plan in and Purpose to 'the universe' - to life, beyond just in and for itself.
"As for the evidences for such a continuum, that's for another blog. Just, for now, to say that:
"it's time. And well done for recognizing that. And for recognizing that inside yourself.
"As more and more will, and are."
And thus the prime reason to be Good: for our individual spiritual evolution, back into Oneness with our Source. Overriding the materialist philosophy of secular humanism: the belief that there is nothing more than Man; that Man is the be-all and end-all of existence. A belief that is liable to come crashing down soon, as Man makes contact with extraterrestrial races, and finds out what their belief systems are in this regard...
Anyway, the main point I want to make on this blog is that, even with the sorts of people who have a positive vision for the future, they don't seem to understand the central role of money in the blocking of the transformation up to a new level of being on our lovely planet Earth. Why do i say that? Because Steve - even a soul enamored of the positive vision for the future of a Buckminster Fuller - did not print my posting. Now that could, of course, have been out of discomfort with my calling it like I sees it (and it is): the 'kingdom of heaven on earth'. But, based on my experience with other blog sites, where I have not used that specific reference, I think the stumbling block here is that people just can't see beyond the conditioned pull of the concept of money. Heck, we've ALWAYS had something like money; right? Well; not always. And especially not like interest-bearing money; which has compounded (play on words intended) our problem, of seeing beyond the concept. Some peoples have shared amongst themselves simply out of love.
All you need is a common cause; a common heart connection. A common belief system. A common vision.
And I say we have that, in the recognition - the common-cause recognition, now, that we have a divine Source. And it's time - because of the historical, big-Crisis/big-Opportunity circumstances we find ourselves in - to honor that Source, in the best way we can: in trust.
Its really very simple. If there is not 'a God', then certain things follow; main among which is the understanding that nothing really matters anyway, and one might as well live exclusively for oneself, independent of the effect of that pursuit on others, as not. Nothing matters but Me, in such a cosmology. If there is 'a God', however, then certain things follow from that premise as well; as I remarked on in my posting. The bottom line: We should be acting as if there were 'a God' - something more than Man - not as if there were not, as we are doing at present.
And the key to acting as if there were, is to stop being under the power and control of the moneychangers; who are acting like gods, to whom we must show deference.
Not.
In God we trust. And we demonstrate that by loving our neighbors. And the result is that all else will be added unto us.
---
N.B. For the record: Steve did, in fact, print my comment later' with a gentle caveat.
*This is a reference to a previous blog wherein he extolled the vision of Buckminster Fuller, seeing a future world blessed, rather than cursed, by technology
"Huh?
"Well, it kind of makes sense. If we're going to outsource all of our jobs, why not outsource governance itself?
"If there has been any doubt that the 'new world order' intends to turn the world into one big third world country with the ruling elites safe in gated communities, this should put that doubt to rest. One can only hope that those social conservatives who habitually vote Republican for patriotic reasons will join the upwising and awaken to the realization that Tea Party or not, putting the Republicans back in power will reinforce government of, by and for the power of money - and not necessarily American money.")
I felt drawn to respond; thusly:
"Thoughtful stuff, Steve. But I'm not sure that voting Democratic is the answer. It sends the wrong signal; stays on the more-of-the same level. We the People need to put pressure on the Powers that Be to put a None of the Above choice on the ballot. Of course, people can already do that by voting with their feet, and refusing to play the game; but that just leaves the same old gang in charge (as you say, the corporate state). So, more needs to be done.
"A voting spot for None of the Above is one answer. Another is to follow up on your 'Bucky' initiative,* and provide The People with a First Party alternative, by spelling the choice out more clearly. To say: We are on the cusp of major change. The Western political system, at the least, is corrupt; the global economic system is corrupt, and about to collapse, under the weight of its internal contradictions (long-term pain for short-term gain; a socio-economic philosophy of growth and planned obsolescence at a critical time of need for conservation of resources; etc. etc.). And about time. About time: It's time to go neither Left nor Right but up, to a new level. You are alluding to it; but look at it more closely.
"Consider where we are at in terms of the insightful Hegelian dialectic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis: the Right has championed individualism/competition with a religious aspect; the Left has championed collectivism/cooperation with an anti-religious aspect; the latter believing (by and large) that we can get to a better world via cooperation, a big state with a big stick, and a secular humanistic philosophy; the former believing (by and large. Humor me here. You're good at that) that we can get to a better world via free individuals, a small state by definition, and a religious perspective. Never the twain shall meet? Maybe not on the historical level of the process; but if we take the process up a notch...we are talking the equivalent of the kingdom of heaven on earth. And lo and behold: We have the technological ability to accomplish such a munificent state of affairs. In our time.
"The secular humanistic philosophy - that is, basically, the Marxian philosophy - is not sufficient for this process to achieve its end. Trying to force recalcitrants to be Good via the power of the state is a losing cause; it gives people no real reason for being, except in and for itself. Dreary stuff. It also does not do away with money, which is a requirement for the proper kingdom to 'land' on earth, because it's a faulty motivator. People have become conditioned, with interest-bearing money (and fractional-reserve banking, the other training wheel we have been using on our social vehicle), to do things for the money involved (ie, as an end rather than as a means). The kingdom of heaven lands when we give of our best, in the exchange of goods and services, and the exercise of individual & collective ingenuity, out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning - reflecting that we are, first and foremost, 'spiritual beings having a human experience'; and thus that there is Plan in and Purpose to 'the universe' - to life, beyond just in and for itself.
"As for the evidences for such a continuum, that's for another blog. Just, for now, to say that:
"it's time. And well done for recognizing that. And for recognizing that inside yourself.
"As more and more will, and are."
And thus the prime reason to be Good: for our individual spiritual evolution, back into Oneness with our Source. Overriding the materialist philosophy of secular humanism: the belief that there is nothing more than Man; that Man is the be-all and end-all of existence. A belief that is liable to come crashing down soon, as Man makes contact with extraterrestrial races, and finds out what their belief systems are in this regard...
Anyway, the main point I want to make on this blog is that, even with the sorts of people who have a positive vision for the future, they don't seem to understand the central role of money in the blocking of the transformation up to a new level of being on our lovely planet Earth. Why do i say that? Because Steve - even a soul enamored of the positive vision for the future of a Buckminster Fuller - did not print my posting. Now that could, of course, have been out of discomfort with my calling it like I sees it (and it is): the 'kingdom of heaven on earth'. But, based on my experience with other blog sites, where I have not used that specific reference, I think the stumbling block here is that people just can't see beyond the conditioned pull of the concept of money. Heck, we've ALWAYS had something like money; right? Well; not always. And especially not like interest-bearing money; which has compounded (play on words intended) our problem, of seeing beyond the concept. Some peoples have shared amongst themselves simply out of love.
All you need is a common cause; a common heart connection. A common belief system. A common vision.
And I say we have that, in the recognition - the common-cause recognition, now, that we have a divine Source. And it's time - because of the historical, big-Crisis/big-Opportunity circumstances we find ourselves in - to honor that Source, in the best way we can: in trust.
Its really very simple. If there is not 'a God', then certain things follow; main among which is the understanding that nothing really matters anyway, and one might as well live exclusively for oneself, independent of the effect of that pursuit on others, as not. Nothing matters but Me, in such a cosmology. If there is 'a God', however, then certain things follow from that premise as well; as I remarked on in my posting. The bottom line: We should be acting as if there were 'a God' - something more than Man - not as if there were not, as we are doing at present.
And the key to acting as if there were, is to stop being under the power and control of the moneychangers; who are acting like gods, to whom we must show deference.
Not.
In God we trust. And we demonstrate that by loving our neighbors. And the result is that all else will be added unto us.
---
N.B. For the record: Steve did, in fact, print my comment later' with a gentle caveat.
*This is a reference to a previous blog wherein he extolled the vision of Buckminster Fuller, seeing a future world blessed, rather than cursed, by technology
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Truth and Reconciliation
Minutes of Truth & Reconciliation Meeting No. 4 - March 15, 2012
Transcript of illegal tape from early noughts made legal retrospectively by the terms of the new Patriot Act of 2012
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Okay folks, listen up. We've gotta lotta business to cover in this meeting. So stay with me. But first: What are we here for?
MANY VOICES: Money!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: When do we want it?
MANY VOICES: Now! (chuckles heard in the bg and fg)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Okay. And don't you forget it. And boy, do we have grist for your mill today. Or something like that; whatever the expression is. Because I'm here to tell you of a great new deal - hey. FDR had nothing on us.
(Sound of nervous titters; or something like that. Dutiful??)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: This great new deal is courtesy of our federal government, too. I don't know if any of you have been keeping up with what's been going on of a political nature lately - and how could you have, you've been so busy out there on the road...
(Sound of chuckles; more positive than the previous Response)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: But to sum it up: The federal government wants us to put as many people as possible into homes. Their own homes. Not retirement homes. We haven't taken them for all they're worth yet, for that.
(Sound of chuckles; more like the first Response)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: So boy, are we gonna do it. Right?
RESPONSE FROM THE AUDIENCE: Right!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Because that's what we're here for. Right?
RESPONSE: Right!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: I couldn't hear that.
RESPONSE (louder): RIGHT! (chuckles)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Okay, I heard that. And now, you hear this. (False voice-like, as over a loudspeaker:) NOW HEAR THIS.
(Dutiful-like chuckles from audience, and a couple clearly nearer the mike)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: I want you to go out there and do that. Put as many people as possible into their own homes. All kindsa people. The lame, the halt, the blind...
(Dutiful-like chuckles, even louder in the fg)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: And don't worry about nothin'. You got that? Are we on the same page here?
RESPONSE (a little more hesitantly than previously); Right!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Just do it. Get their signatures where you know to get'em. And walk away. Because our brothers and sisters in the fraternity - the fraternity of making money...
(RESPONSE: ditto)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: ...have come up with some fancy new doodads, some gizmos - sorry, Blanche; some 'financial instruments', called...something or other. What was that, Blanche? Oh, I remember: 'credit default swaps', and something else called 'collaterized debt obligations' - I think it is. And they are gonna make us all a lotta money. Because what they do, is - what's it called? They 'diffuse the signal', or some such. What is gonna happen here, is our brothers and sisters in the fraternity are gonna package these mortgages we're gonna give'em - these tons and tons of mortgages we're gonna give'em - right?
RESPONSE: Right!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: - and bundle'em all up, and slice 'n dice them, and have some of the weaker ones all tied up with the better - the more solid ones, and the signal disappears from the, you know, weaker ones, and they are great potential money earners. Are gonna be great money spinners. Because, as you are all aware, anything that looks like it's gonna be guaranteed by the guvmint is gonna be a mint for us. Got it?
RESPONSE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: I said: Got it?
RESPONSE (louder): RIGHT!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: A place from where we can mint our own money. Lotsa money. And that's what this business is all about; right?
RESPONSE (a little hesitantly): Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: This business of making money. What we're in the business OF. Right?
RESPONSE: (a little weaker): Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: What we're in business FOR. Right?
RESPONSE (weaker...): Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: I didn't get that.
RESPONSE (stronger): Right!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Absolutely. Now before I go into some details, of bonuses and quotas and the like: Any questions?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 2: Excuse me, sir. With all due respect: Isn't this a little like a Ponzi scheme? New money to cover the other, and all that?
(Silence. Long silence.)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Excuse me, sir. With all due respect: What is your name?
(Silence. Growing.)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 2: I think I got it, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Good. We are all on the same page, here. Right? And I wanna believe that.
RESPONSE (thunderous): RIGHT!
(With a nod of debt to Rob Long)
We need - the system needs - 'gimmicks' to stimulate business. Buying and selling; it's the name of the game. If you don't have a gimmick - something to entice buyers with; something of perceived value - you don't have a sale, and therefore you don't have business. And therefore you don't have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Right?
Wrong.
Correction: It's all relative. In your system of socio-economic structure, yes. But - puh-leez...
In all the long march of history, where are we. It appears to be: still on a primitive level.
We can do better than this.
Let's be about it.
Time, and its circumstances, are forcing us to, anyway.
So let's all get on the same page. And sing a song of -
not sixpence. But of incandescent harmony. As One united Being. Living in alignment with our highest potential, as 'spiritual beings having a human experience'.
And making the most of it.
Transcript of illegal tape from early noughts made legal retrospectively by the terms of the new Patriot Act of 2012
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Okay folks, listen up. We've gotta lotta business to cover in this meeting. So stay with me. But first: What are we here for?
MANY VOICES: Money!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: When do we want it?
MANY VOICES: Now! (chuckles heard in the bg and fg)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Okay. And don't you forget it. And boy, do we have grist for your mill today. Or something like that; whatever the expression is. Because I'm here to tell you of a great new deal - hey. FDR had nothing on us.
(Sound of nervous titters; or something like that. Dutiful??)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: This great new deal is courtesy of our federal government, too. I don't know if any of you have been keeping up with what's been going on of a political nature lately - and how could you have, you've been so busy out there on the road...
(Sound of chuckles; more positive than the previous Response)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: But to sum it up: The federal government wants us to put as many people as possible into homes. Their own homes. Not retirement homes. We haven't taken them for all they're worth yet, for that.
(Sound of chuckles; more like the first Response)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: So boy, are we gonna do it. Right?
RESPONSE FROM THE AUDIENCE: Right!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Because that's what we're here for. Right?
RESPONSE: Right!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: I couldn't hear that.
RESPONSE (louder): RIGHT! (chuckles)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Okay, I heard that. And now, you hear this. (False voice-like, as over a loudspeaker:) NOW HEAR THIS.
(Dutiful-like chuckles from audience, and a couple clearly nearer the mike)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: I want you to go out there and do that. Put as many people as possible into their own homes. All kindsa people. The lame, the halt, the blind...
(Dutiful-like chuckles, even louder in the fg)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: And don't worry about nothin'. You got that? Are we on the same page here?
RESPONSE (a little more hesitantly than previously); Right!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Just do it. Get their signatures where you know to get'em. And walk away. Because our brothers and sisters in the fraternity - the fraternity of making money...
(RESPONSE: ditto)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: ...have come up with some fancy new doodads, some gizmos - sorry, Blanche; some 'financial instruments', called...something or other. What was that, Blanche? Oh, I remember: 'credit default swaps', and something else called 'collaterized debt obligations' - I think it is. And they are gonna make us all a lotta money. Because what they do, is - what's it called? They 'diffuse the signal', or some such. What is gonna happen here, is our brothers and sisters in the fraternity are gonna package these mortgages we're gonna give'em - these tons and tons of mortgages we're gonna give'em - right?
RESPONSE: Right!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: - and bundle'em all up, and slice 'n dice them, and have some of the weaker ones all tied up with the better - the more solid ones, and the signal disappears from the, you know, weaker ones, and they are great potential money earners. Are gonna be great money spinners. Because, as you are all aware, anything that looks like it's gonna be guaranteed by the guvmint is gonna be a mint for us. Got it?
RESPONSE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: I said: Got it?
RESPONSE (louder): RIGHT!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: A place from where we can mint our own money. Lotsa money. And that's what this business is all about; right?
RESPONSE (a little hesitantly): Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: This business of making money. What we're in the business OF. Right?
RESPONSE: (a little weaker): Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: What we're in business FOR. Right?
RESPONSE (weaker...): Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: I didn't get that.
RESPONSE (stronger): Right!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Absolutely. Now before I go into some details, of bonuses and quotas and the like: Any questions?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 2: Excuse me, sir. With all due respect: Isn't this a little like a Ponzi scheme? New money to cover the other, and all that?
(Silence. Long silence.)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Excuse me, sir. With all due respect: What is your name?
(Silence. Growing.)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 2: I think I got it, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE 1: Good. We are all on the same page, here. Right? And I wanna believe that.
RESPONSE (thunderous): RIGHT!
(With a nod of debt to Rob Long)
We need - the system needs - 'gimmicks' to stimulate business. Buying and selling; it's the name of the game. If you don't have a gimmick - something to entice buyers with; something of perceived value - you don't have a sale, and therefore you don't have business. And therefore you don't have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Right?
Wrong.
Correction: It's all relative. In your system of socio-economic structure, yes. But - puh-leez...
In all the long march of history, where are we. It appears to be: still on a primitive level.
We can do better than this.
Let's be about it.
Time, and its circumstances, are forcing us to, anyway.
So let's all get on the same page. And sing a song of -
not sixpence. But of incandescent harmony. As One united Being. Living in alignment with our highest potential, as 'spiritual beings having a human experience'.
And making the most of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)