Even in the Spiritual Community, people trade upon their experiences – by comparing stories and anecdotes it is determined who seems to have the most expertise. In the monasteries that could make all the difference between slaving away in the Kitchen all one’s life or finally being promoted up to tending the dusty scrolls in the library. In the private field of Spirituality, our experiences serve not only to fulfill our sense of self-esteem, but serve as reference points and milestones. If others are talking of various experiences which we are not having, then we suspect that a greater level of activity is being expected of us.
But whenever Experience is at such a premium – when the rewards can be so important – self-esteem and perceived status within one’s Community – it is unavoidable that IF there are any shortcuts, that people will be inclined to take them.
Are there Spiritual Shortcuts?
Well, yes. The most easy one is simply to hold your breath. For instance, if you can hold your breath for only about 3 and a half minutes, you will almost certainly attain to a Near Death Experience – The Bright White Light, Jesus, a sense that one is enveloped by an All Knowingness and a Complete Serenity. All of which may be very very true. However, it comes from nearly killing one’s self. Maybe brains cells give off a great deal of energy as they go from being living to dead. All of Yoga’s Deep Breathing exercises play upon this same effect – to make the Practitioner faint away into a moment of Bliss. The Drug Addicts call this a “rush”. Now, if the Drug Addicts are trading in the same product, then how important could it possibly be?
One can also Fast. What fasting does is it depletes minerals, particularly potassium, so that the feeling of lightheadedness becomes almost constant. Indeed, I have noticed that when I am fasting for more than several days, any brisk exercise or even the moderate use of ‘Breathing Exercises’ will pass me out onto the floor with very little warning. One needs to be careful with both Breathing Exercises and Fasting, as it is not really that difficult to break out one’s teeth as to have a Satori Experience.
One should learn to do without these ‘shortcuts’. The experiences they bring are simply ‘flash’ and have no intrinsic value. One can brag about them, but those in the know see that there really isn’t any substantial content behind them.
Now, deep and conscious breathing is good for one’s health. And a cleansing Fast can even be good for one’s health (at times I find myself overweight, and while systematic dieting would perhaps be better, I find that a good fast simply knocks off the excess poundage). But in regards to one’s Spiritual Development, one should concentrate upon one’s Moral Bearing, one’s Spiritual Orientation toward the Universe, and go about with one’s normal Meditations. Oh, and then there are Dreams. No, I am not a Dreaming fanatic, but if one pays attention to one’s Dreams, then one must certainly realize that messages are being passed along. In many cases we are being shown our Flaws and where we are going astray. If we take enough note of our Dreams to fix these problems, then the Dreams move forward. This makes Dreaming a wonderful Tool for our Spiritual Development. But it is no ‘shortcut’. Dreams follow Life’s ordinary pace. Dreams address problems that take time to solve, and they ordinarily wait for one problem to be solved before they will address another. But the advantage to Dreams is that they are nearly universal. I can’t prove it, but I think Dreaming is everybody’s connection to the same Collective Consciousness and Higher Guiding Being.
Meditation is equally good or better, but depends upon about the same mechanism as Dreaming. The REM cycle in Dreaming starts at about 90 minutes and shortens throughout the night. Well, has any experienced Meditater ever put a stopwatch on his Meditations to see when they get interesting and revelatory? Its about 90 minutes, isn’t it, but the ‘episodes’ within the Meditation then come closer together as the Mediation progresses. The conclusion here is that Meditation is much like Dreaming with the exception that one learns to hold the ‘thread of consciousness’ up over the threshold of actually falling asleep, while still being physically quiet enough so that the mechanism of REM Dreaming is not interfered with.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Zoroastrianism, The Sufi Religion, The World’s Best Religion
Well, first, the bar is not set very high regarding comparative religion. Christianity uses Human Sacrifice to justify free sin. Islam uses the Sword to spread a Religion that worships a big black rock in Saudi Arabia. Jews think its all about a War God giving them rights to Holy Land Real Estate. Hinduism is institutionalized racism (if you bother to look the Brahmins are White Aryans while the other people in India are colored – the word ‘Caste’ means color). Buddhism, as it originated was purely just Stoicism, a system that asked people to turn their backs on the world and everyone in it for the sake of their precious individual Peace of Mind. So, really, to be the Best of the World Religions, simply not horribly screwing up on the basics might be quite enough to take away first prize.
I found a good set of Sites on Zoroastrianism. http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/universal_religion.html
Zoroastrianism was a very influential force for advancing the idea of Morality, awareness of Good and Evil, and in advocating for Goodness. If one looks at Pre-Zoroastrian Mythologies, well, there simply was almost no conception at all of Goodness and Evil. The Gods and Man were largely amoral. In the Barbarian Epic Poems we find Loyalty and Duty extolled as Virtues, but this was so Warrior Chieftains could consolidate their Power by systematically subjugating their underlings with the propaganda of Noble Loyalty and Duty. But in all other terms both Man and God were most basely selfish, barbaric, even evil. For the most part Loyalty and Duty were put into the service of widespread rape and pillage. Only with the rise of Zoroastrianism, during one of the World’s most cosmopolitan of times, when ideas traveled afar, did there arise a Consciousness of Moral Responsibility, enabling the development of Higher Civilization.
The problem with Zoroastrianism is we can hardly find its detailed History. You see, Zoroastrianism grew up in Ancient Persia, and Persia has not been very lucky in History. In the 12th Century the Mongols genocided the entire region, and then just two centuries later Timerlane did much the same thing. Well, what happens when one burns down every metropolitan area in order to kill everybody is that libraries are lost. And when everyone is killed, even the well known facts carried by oral traditions are lost. Today there are not that many actual Zoroastrians left… there are some small communities in India. And Scholars are left not even knowing the exact Millennium when Zoroastrianism, that is, it’s Founder Zarathushtra appeared on the scene.
Mostly Zoroastrianism lives on in its influences. Any moral element in Judaism sources from Zoroastrianism. Scholars have found that the Sermon of the Mount came from materials preached by Zoroastrian Preachers and Monks – Sufis. The Sufi Religious Orders are survivals from Zoroastrianism. Now, most Sufis will say they are Muslim, but this is only because they mostly live in Islamic Regions and we all know how that goes. You say you are Muslim or you die. But looking at the Muslim History of persecuting the Sufi Religious Orders we can see that while the Sufis might say they are Muslim, the Muslims themselves rather deny it from their own side of the equation. Besides, History tells us of Sufi Religious Orders predating Mohamed. If they were around before Islam, then they’re not Islamic, are they? Or not entirely anyway.
These Zoroastrian Sufis were and are a wonderful influence on Cultures with whom they mingle. Muslim Intolerance propelled quite a drift of Sufis out of their former homelands and across the boundaries of both Christianity into Europe and Hinduism and Buddhism in India. In Catholic Europe they well agreed with the virtual Goddess Worship of the Virgin Mary, and contributed to the traditions of Troubadourism and Chivalry. For instance, one of the most mystical and magical of Catholic Saints, Bernard, had a fascination with the “Songs of Solomon”, ostensibly erotic, but part and parcel of the Sufi tendency to use sexual tension as a metaphor for Spiritual Aspiration. It may be an odd coincidence of History, but Catholicism in Europe survived only in the regions that had been penetrated by the Sufis. In Germany and England, where the Sufis had not yet reached, Barbarism had complete reign and Protestantism took over bringing a new Dark Age upon the World (with America’s Religious Right chanting that Greed is Good while voting for War after War after War).
As mentioned earlier, Zoroastrianism affected Early Christianity even in the Teachings of Christ and so any moral influence Christianity may have had in its first several centuries, and then later with Catholic Civilization, might be attributed to Zoroastrianism, as it certainly doesn’t come from the purely Hebrew Traditions of killing goats for Sin and slaughtering Canaanites for Land. Oh, and it might be mentioned, that Scholars have puzzled on the fact that they can find no documented sign of Moses in Judaism before the Babylonian Captivity, and that some cynics actually believe that the Jews taken to Babylon were fascinated by and so simply latched onto the Moses Legends there and brought them home to Judah later after their Persian Liberation (it would explain the scriptural references to finding “Lost” scrolls after the return from Babylon… it may have been the first time that these ‘People of David and Solomon’ had ever heard of Moses). If this is the case, then the Moses Legend may be sourced from some favorite Sufi Tales, supported by the modern scholarship that shows that the very name “Moses” and that certain place names from the Biblical Moses legends come not from the Holy Land region, but from the Kashmir, in Northern India, an old Sufi stomping ground.
The moral influence of Zoroastrianism on Buddhism was important. You see, original Buddhism, well, there is nothing religious about it, either spiritually or morally. It was merely Stoicism of the “Nero fiddled while Rome burned” variety – Buddha had not even been original, but was simply repeating Stoic Philosophy as it had been brought to Northern India by the Alexandrian Conquests. And at least Rome had fiddles. The Stoicism of Buddha was so much dryer. But it was popular with Buddha’s Merchant Class Sponsors – those City Slickers rebelling against the Brahmin Sovereignty in the Countryside, and using Stoic Buddhism as their excuse to thumb their noses at Religion and any Moral Responsibility or Civic Duty. Buddhism, like Protestantism, was simply a Tax Dodge against established Religious Institutions that were trying to maintain Civil Authority. But the influx of Sufi and Christian Moral influence uplifted Buddhism until there was a shift to a Higher Moral Mahayana Buddhism. It is odd today, but there are people about who actually insist that Original Buddhism, for the sake of its originality, is actually BETTER than Moral Buddhism. It must actually hurt these people’s brains to think, or one would have to wonder how they could possibly believe such a stupid thing.
In India proper, the Home of Hinduism, Sufi Zoroastrianism added to the Religious and Philosophical dialogue. Unlike in the Christian and Islamic Zones of Civilization, India was Philosophically wide open. The effective paradox of Chaste Separation and Segregation was that the Philosopher Caste was left to itself to discuss whatever it liked and nobody could possibly think it their responsibility to interfere. And the Sufis, like other outsiders who would visit India, found themselves fortunately outside of the Chaste System, allowing them also a wide degree of tolerance, but also exempting them from “Untouchable” status, being in a sort of a Chaste ‘No Man’s Land’, so that they could mingle with the Philosopher Brahmins at every time but meal time. Ideas were shared.
It was in India that something of a competition grew up between the Sufi Mystics, the Fakirs as they were called, and the native Hindu Mystics with their various Meditation Cults and Yoga Schools. This is important in the sense that no True Religion can base all of its credentials entirely on just its intellectual assertions, however morally informed. There has to be some Spirituality, that is, an almost visceral appeal to fundamental human psychology down to the deepest conscious and subconscious levels. And there has to be some Supernaturalism. Let’s face it, one cannot talk about God without a Miracle being in the mix somewhere. The Catholic Religious Orders, where they overlapped Zoroastrian influence, documented Miracles. And the Hindu Yogas and Mediation Cults also documented miracles, likewise in territories that overlapped Zoroastrian influence.
So the conclusion is unmistakable, that while Zoroastrianism as a religious entity in itself has almost disappeared into complete obscurity, its influences may still be the most important factor in all of the Higher Moral Religions and Philosophies that continue to exist today.
I found a good set of Sites on Zoroastrianism. http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/universal_religion.html
Zoroastrianism was a very influential force for advancing the idea of Morality, awareness of Good and Evil, and in advocating for Goodness. If one looks at Pre-Zoroastrian Mythologies, well, there simply was almost no conception at all of Goodness and Evil. The Gods and Man were largely amoral. In the Barbarian Epic Poems we find Loyalty and Duty extolled as Virtues, but this was so Warrior Chieftains could consolidate their Power by systematically subjugating their underlings with the propaganda of Noble Loyalty and Duty. But in all other terms both Man and God were most basely selfish, barbaric, even evil. For the most part Loyalty and Duty were put into the service of widespread rape and pillage. Only with the rise of Zoroastrianism, during one of the World’s most cosmopolitan of times, when ideas traveled afar, did there arise a Consciousness of Moral Responsibility, enabling the development of Higher Civilization.
The problem with Zoroastrianism is we can hardly find its detailed History. You see, Zoroastrianism grew up in Ancient Persia, and Persia has not been very lucky in History. In the 12th Century the Mongols genocided the entire region, and then just two centuries later Timerlane did much the same thing. Well, what happens when one burns down every metropolitan area in order to kill everybody is that libraries are lost. And when everyone is killed, even the well known facts carried by oral traditions are lost. Today there are not that many actual Zoroastrians left… there are some small communities in India. And Scholars are left not even knowing the exact Millennium when Zoroastrianism, that is, it’s Founder Zarathushtra appeared on the scene.
Mostly Zoroastrianism lives on in its influences. Any moral element in Judaism sources from Zoroastrianism. Scholars have found that the Sermon of the Mount came from materials preached by Zoroastrian Preachers and Monks – Sufis. The Sufi Religious Orders are survivals from Zoroastrianism. Now, most Sufis will say they are Muslim, but this is only because they mostly live in Islamic Regions and we all know how that goes. You say you are Muslim or you die. But looking at the Muslim History of persecuting the Sufi Religious Orders we can see that while the Sufis might say they are Muslim, the Muslims themselves rather deny it from their own side of the equation. Besides, History tells us of Sufi Religious Orders predating Mohamed. If they were around before Islam, then they’re not Islamic, are they? Or not entirely anyway.
These Zoroastrian Sufis were and are a wonderful influence on Cultures with whom they mingle. Muslim Intolerance propelled quite a drift of Sufis out of their former homelands and across the boundaries of both Christianity into Europe and Hinduism and Buddhism in India. In Catholic Europe they well agreed with the virtual Goddess Worship of the Virgin Mary, and contributed to the traditions of Troubadourism and Chivalry. For instance, one of the most mystical and magical of Catholic Saints, Bernard, had a fascination with the “Songs of Solomon”, ostensibly erotic, but part and parcel of the Sufi tendency to use sexual tension as a metaphor for Spiritual Aspiration. It may be an odd coincidence of History, but Catholicism in Europe survived only in the regions that had been penetrated by the Sufis. In Germany and England, where the Sufis had not yet reached, Barbarism had complete reign and Protestantism took over bringing a new Dark Age upon the World (with America’s Religious Right chanting that Greed is Good while voting for War after War after War).
As mentioned earlier, Zoroastrianism affected Early Christianity even in the Teachings of Christ and so any moral influence Christianity may have had in its first several centuries, and then later with Catholic Civilization, might be attributed to Zoroastrianism, as it certainly doesn’t come from the purely Hebrew Traditions of killing goats for Sin and slaughtering Canaanites for Land. Oh, and it might be mentioned, that Scholars have puzzled on the fact that they can find no documented sign of Moses in Judaism before the Babylonian Captivity, and that some cynics actually believe that the Jews taken to Babylon were fascinated by and so simply latched onto the Moses Legends there and brought them home to Judah later after their Persian Liberation (it would explain the scriptural references to finding “Lost” scrolls after the return from Babylon… it may have been the first time that these ‘People of David and Solomon’ had ever heard of Moses). If this is the case, then the Moses Legend may be sourced from some favorite Sufi Tales, supported by the modern scholarship that shows that the very name “Moses” and that certain place names from the Biblical Moses legends come not from the Holy Land region, but from the Kashmir, in Northern India, an old Sufi stomping ground.
The moral influence of Zoroastrianism on Buddhism was important. You see, original Buddhism, well, there is nothing religious about it, either spiritually or morally. It was merely Stoicism of the “Nero fiddled while Rome burned” variety – Buddha had not even been original, but was simply repeating Stoic Philosophy as it had been brought to Northern India by the Alexandrian Conquests. And at least Rome had fiddles. The Stoicism of Buddha was so much dryer. But it was popular with Buddha’s Merchant Class Sponsors – those City Slickers rebelling against the Brahmin Sovereignty in the Countryside, and using Stoic Buddhism as their excuse to thumb their noses at Religion and any Moral Responsibility or Civic Duty. Buddhism, like Protestantism, was simply a Tax Dodge against established Religious Institutions that were trying to maintain Civil Authority. But the influx of Sufi and Christian Moral influence uplifted Buddhism until there was a shift to a Higher Moral Mahayana Buddhism. It is odd today, but there are people about who actually insist that Original Buddhism, for the sake of its originality, is actually BETTER than Moral Buddhism. It must actually hurt these people’s brains to think, or one would have to wonder how they could possibly believe such a stupid thing.
In India proper, the Home of Hinduism, Sufi Zoroastrianism added to the Religious and Philosophical dialogue. Unlike in the Christian and Islamic Zones of Civilization, India was Philosophically wide open. The effective paradox of Chaste Separation and Segregation was that the Philosopher Caste was left to itself to discuss whatever it liked and nobody could possibly think it their responsibility to interfere. And the Sufis, like other outsiders who would visit India, found themselves fortunately outside of the Chaste System, allowing them also a wide degree of tolerance, but also exempting them from “Untouchable” status, being in a sort of a Chaste ‘No Man’s Land’, so that they could mingle with the Philosopher Brahmins at every time but meal time. Ideas were shared.
It was in India that something of a competition grew up between the Sufi Mystics, the Fakirs as they were called, and the native Hindu Mystics with their various Meditation Cults and Yoga Schools. This is important in the sense that no True Religion can base all of its credentials entirely on just its intellectual assertions, however morally informed. There has to be some Spirituality, that is, an almost visceral appeal to fundamental human psychology down to the deepest conscious and subconscious levels. And there has to be some Supernaturalism. Let’s face it, one cannot talk about God without a Miracle being in the mix somewhere. The Catholic Religious Orders, where they overlapped Zoroastrian influence, documented Miracles. And the Hindu Yogas and Mediation Cults also documented miracles, likewise in territories that overlapped Zoroastrian influence.
So the conclusion is unmistakable, that while Zoroastrianism as a religious entity in itself has almost disappeared into complete obscurity, its influences may still be the most important factor in all of the Higher Moral Religions and Philosophies that continue to exist today.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Benazir Bhutto Murder Engineered by the West
Yes, it’s so terrible and deplorable, isn’t it?... the murder of Benazir Bhutto. But once again we see that the West is submerged in the most deceptive propaganda. Just a few weeks ago can anybody even name a single Politician in the West who WASN’T absolutely demanding the end of the State of Emergency in Pakistan that was implemented primarily to protect Benazir Bhutto? Can we honestly believe the Journalists have forgotten all that? Certainly they are not that stupid! And yet, now, when the obvious question to EVERY politician is “Well, did it NOT occur to you that in lifting the State of Emergency, as you had insisted upon, that it was virtually determining that an assassination could not be avoided… it was tantamount to tossing her to the wolves?”
But, no, not a single journalist asked the question or even pretended to recognize the dynamics of what had just occurred, or their own role in what had happened, as wasn’t it the Western Media that lead the chant for lifting the State of Emergency, forcing the hands of the politicians.
But all we hear from the Media is their insinuating that General Musharraf either directly had something to do with the murder, or that he allowed security to slacken off. Well, there it is with the Media… first too much security and then not enough!
And regarding Musharraf…. IF he had wanted to harm Bhutto, well, he couldn’t have done it while he was guaranteeing her safety, with his State of Emergency, now could he? But if the entire West insisted that such measures for safety be suspended, then does that NOT leave him entirely in the clear? It is exactly as though the West virtually signed her Death Warrant.
Well, yes, Miss Bhutto must have had a suicide wish all her own, as she too, after having just allowed about 200 of her followers to die from a bomb intended for herself several weeks ago at the Airport, she could not wait to go back out to attract even further manifestations of violence. We should be glad, I suppose that so few other people died along with Bhutto, but how many were there? 16. All dead to for these so many reasons including to satisfy Bhutto’s obvious taste for martyrdom. Or perhaps what was going on was this, that she was delusional to the point of supposing that Destiny, or God or Something like That was protecting her for her service to the World – she was mislead by the coincidence that nothing had managed to kill her before into believing that her luck would therefore continue. Well, for all of her admirable qualities, no one has yet thought to eulogize her for her brains or her savvy. Among the States Women of the World she was the one ‘dumb chick’ that somehow must be necessary in every group of more than a few hens. But even if she was practically begging to die, many smarter people than she had the Moral Responsibility to simply not allow it.
Now, let’s consider WHY. Why does the West, in almost a single voice, demand the radical destabilization of Pakistan? Isn’t General Musharraf practically our only friend in the entire Country? Yes, Bhutto too wanted to align with Western Interests, but the West as much as engineered her execution and then is allowing the repercussions to drag down Musharraf. And not just Bush and his idiot Neo-Conservative lunatics. All of the Corporate Owned Media is pushing this Conspiracy.
It can only be concluded that there really is something of a Crusade going on, not just of Western Governments plotting against Islamic Civilization, but all the Powers supporting Western Corporate Power is throwing in, pushing first for and then for War.
Oh, yes, they now say Al-Qaeda did it, and yes, they probably did, but we need to remember that Bin Laden WAS a CIA Agent, that they never considered it much of a priority to catch Bin Laden, and that the West uses the very existence of Al-Qaeda to overthrow every legitimate Islamic Government. So, really, if so much of the West’s Policy toward the Middle East and South Asia centers upon it relationship with Al-Qaeda, then, most probably, Bin Laden still is CIA. It does sound implausible, but we need to place this in the context of History where we know for a fact that the German General Staff, at the time of the First World War, funded Communist Party under Lenin, supposing that he would destabilize Russia under the Czar and thus hurt the Russian War Effort. So, the West sponsoring Al-Qaeda in order to de-stabilize the Near East and South Asia, in preparation for Conquest, is certainly not beyond the same Western Tradition of Imperial Politics.
What should be done? Well, it might be too late, but remember the Ottoman Empire? It was disbanded after the First World War, and taken over by the English and the French who after only 20 years found they could not deal with it and let it all go to Hell. Well, give it back. Give all of the Near East and Islamic South Asia to Turkey – a Turkish Secular Ottoman Empire reborn. That area needs to be stabilized, and the best way of going about it would be in terms of appealing to their own Pre-Colonial History. And Turkey is as Secular a state as could ever be hoped for in that region of Fundamentalist Fanatics. If Turkey were to be given Empire Jurisdiction, then, in the interests of everybody concerned, Media Attention would have to be withdrawn. It would not be a pretty sight to see, how Turkey would have establish a Secular State amidst so many dense pockets of cultural-tribal fanaticism and ignorance. When the Turks first took possession of the Regions of the East, entire cities were decimated. Well, History may not offer that many choices about such things. To establish Order it is necessary to deal with those who would inevitably oppose such Order. Perhaps it is as universal a Truth for History as it is for breakfast, that one can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. In the sense that an Islamic Power would be more acceptable to the vast numbers of the Population involved, it would save perhaps millions of lives to allow Turkey to establish Order than to leave the task of Genocide to America and its Colonies Israel and Britain who seems to be pushing hardest for the job.
But, no, not a single journalist asked the question or even pretended to recognize the dynamics of what had just occurred, or their own role in what had happened, as wasn’t it the Western Media that lead the chant for lifting the State of Emergency, forcing the hands of the politicians.
But all we hear from the Media is their insinuating that General Musharraf either directly had something to do with the murder, or that he allowed security to slacken off. Well, there it is with the Media… first too much security and then not enough!
And regarding Musharraf…. IF he had wanted to harm Bhutto, well, he couldn’t have done it while he was guaranteeing her safety, with his State of Emergency, now could he? But if the entire West insisted that such measures for safety be suspended, then does that NOT leave him entirely in the clear? It is exactly as though the West virtually signed her Death Warrant.
Well, yes, Miss Bhutto must have had a suicide wish all her own, as she too, after having just allowed about 200 of her followers to die from a bomb intended for herself several weeks ago at the Airport, she could not wait to go back out to attract even further manifestations of violence. We should be glad, I suppose that so few other people died along with Bhutto, but how many were there? 16. All dead to for these so many reasons including to satisfy Bhutto’s obvious taste for martyrdom. Or perhaps what was going on was this, that she was delusional to the point of supposing that Destiny, or God or Something like That was protecting her for her service to the World – she was mislead by the coincidence that nothing had managed to kill her before into believing that her luck would therefore continue. Well, for all of her admirable qualities, no one has yet thought to eulogize her for her brains or her savvy. Among the States Women of the World she was the one ‘dumb chick’ that somehow must be necessary in every group of more than a few hens. But even if she was practically begging to die, many smarter people than she had the Moral Responsibility to simply not allow it.
Now, let’s consider WHY. Why does the West, in almost a single voice, demand the radical destabilization of Pakistan? Isn’t General Musharraf practically our only friend in the entire Country? Yes, Bhutto too wanted to align with Western Interests, but the West as much as engineered her execution and then is allowing the repercussions to drag down Musharraf. And not just Bush and his idiot Neo-Conservative lunatics. All of the Corporate Owned Media is pushing this Conspiracy.
It can only be concluded that there really is something of a Crusade going on, not just of Western Governments plotting against Islamic Civilization, but all the Powers supporting Western Corporate Power is throwing in, pushing first for and then for War.
Oh, yes, they now say Al-Qaeda did it, and yes, they probably did, but we need to remember that Bin Laden WAS a CIA Agent, that they never considered it much of a priority to catch Bin Laden, and that the West uses the very existence of Al-Qaeda to overthrow every legitimate Islamic Government. So, really, if so much of the West’s Policy toward the Middle East and South Asia centers upon it relationship with Al-Qaeda, then, most probably, Bin Laden still is CIA. It does sound implausible, but we need to place this in the context of History where we know for a fact that the German General Staff, at the time of the First World War, funded Communist Party under Lenin, supposing that he would destabilize Russia under the Czar and thus hurt the Russian War Effort. So, the West sponsoring Al-Qaeda in order to de-stabilize the Near East and South Asia, in preparation for Conquest, is certainly not beyond the same Western Tradition of Imperial Politics.
What should be done? Well, it might be too late, but remember the Ottoman Empire? It was disbanded after the First World War, and taken over by the English and the French who after only 20 years found they could not deal with it and let it all go to Hell. Well, give it back. Give all of the Near East and Islamic South Asia to Turkey – a Turkish Secular Ottoman Empire reborn. That area needs to be stabilized, and the best way of going about it would be in terms of appealing to their own Pre-Colonial History. And Turkey is as Secular a state as could ever be hoped for in that region of Fundamentalist Fanatics. If Turkey were to be given Empire Jurisdiction, then, in the interests of everybody concerned, Media Attention would have to be withdrawn. It would not be a pretty sight to see, how Turkey would have establish a Secular State amidst so many dense pockets of cultural-tribal fanaticism and ignorance. When the Turks first took possession of the Regions of the East, entire cities were decimated. Well, History may not offer that many choices about such things. To establish Order it is necessary to deal with those who would inevitably oppose such Order. Perhaps it is as universal a Truth for History as it is for breakfast, that one can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. In the sense that an Islamic Power would be more acceptable to the vast numbers of the Population involved, it would save perhaps millions of lives to allow Turkey to establish Order than to leave the task of Genocide to America and its Colonies Israel and Britain who seems to be pushing hardest for the job.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Effective Rule Vs. Checks and Balances
American propaganda has always held it up as a grand virtue that its Government was horribly inefficient, clumsy, and lacking in coherent cooperation. They called it “checks and balances” that every branch and office of government would operate at cross purposes to every other branch and office.
We see what can happen from the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” – that America’s left hand often has no idea what its right hand is doing (not when everything is always Top Secret and everybody either doesn’t know or is not allowed to talk about ANYTHING). The Soviet Union, as a civilizing and stabilizing force in the World was torpedoed without the least reflective thought or plan regarding future consequences.
And nowadays there is in place an Executive Branch that was elected on the promise that it would be the sworn enemy of ordinary American Government. What would ordinarily be considered High Treason was an election promise, and it has certainly been delivered on. These politicians, elected to destroy their Government will leave it effectively bankrupt, and in a World whose stability they had utterly destroyed.
Well, how did all this come about? We might consider that when America once did have a relatively effective central government, no measures were taken to protect it from hostile propaganda. Treason was ALLOWED TO BE an election promise. Lies were allowed to be printed and broadcast. Parties who openly campaigned AGAINST government were not outlawed from joining the Government which they had sworn to sabotage.
Well, Americans claim that this is all part of FREEDOM, which they claim is the highest good… claiming even that young American men should be glad to martyr themselves for Freedom, persuading them to join the Military so that America may have the means of expanding its Military Empire. Every dead solder is praised for having consciously died for Freedom, deliberate martyrdom just the same as with any Crazy Muslim, it never being suggested that the real concerns which sent American Solders into harm’s way were for certain Commodity Prices to benefit only those privileged few who had managed to buy an Election.
But is Freedom and all its subsequent chaos, wars and Class Exploitation really of the Highest Consequence? We have only to look at the Prosperity of certain Authoritarian Nations to see that stability in Government produces some rather practical benefits.
While America is sliding into Decline, and Russia and China grow grow grow, America persists in insisting its Way is better. Yes, regarding its efforts to Compete, it would be in America’s interest to slow down and destroy the gains that Russia and China have been accruing, and so America never tires of pushing Freedom as an ideal, and its model of Government by Checks and Balances.
We see what can happen from the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” – that America’s left hand often has no idea what its right hand is doing (not when everything is always Top Secret and everybody either doesn’t know or is not allowed to talk about ANYTHING). The Soviet Union, as a civilizing and stabilizing force in the World was torpedoed without the least reflective thought or plan regarding future consequences.
And nowadays there is in place an Executive Branch that was elected on the promise that it would be the sworn enemy of ordinary American Government. What would ordinarily be considered High Treason was an election promise, and it has certainly been delivered on. These politicians, elected to destroy their Government will leave it effectively bankrupt, and in a World whose stability they had utterly destroyed.
Well, how did all this come about? We might consider that when America once did have a relatively effective central government, no measures were taken to protect it from hostile propaganda. Treason was ALLOWED TO BE an election promise. Lies were allowed to be printed and broadcast. Parties who openly campaigned AGAINST government were not outlawed from joining the Government which they had sworn to sabotage.
Well, Americans claim that this is all part of FREEDOM, which they claim is the highest good… claiming even that young American men should be glad to martyr themselves for Freedom, persuading them to join the Military so that America may have the means of expanding its Military Empire. Every dead solder is praised for having consciously died for Freedom, deliberate martyrdom just the same as with any Crazy Muslim, it never being suggested that the real concerns which sent American Solders into harm’s way were for certain Commodity Prices to benefit only those privileged few who had managed to buy an Election.
But is Freedom and all its subsequent chaos, wars and Class Exploitation really of the Highest Consequence? We have only to look at the Prosperity of certain Authoritarian Nations to see that stability in Government produces some rather practical benefits.
While America is sliding into Decline, and Russia and China grow grow grow, America persists in insisting its Way is better. Yes, regarding its efforts to Compete, it would be in America’s interest to slow down and destroy the gains that Russia and China have been accruing, and so America never tires of pushing Freedom as an ideal, and its model of Government by Checks and Balances.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Nobody Reads Essays Anymore
What short stories are to Novels, essays are to … well, all non-fiction.
I am approaching being almost a Century old, and so my tastes may be somewhat outdated, but they ought not to be. But my literary tastes grew up reading essays – Johnson’s “Rambler” and “Idler” and the essays of Addison and Steel, and then the translations from the French, as the Age of Enlightenment overwhelmed us with essays. Then I found that all modern Newspaper Editorials were written in the same old Essay Format… maybe a minute or two shorter, but not by much.
All pithy and, at their best, humorous documents that could be easily read in one sitting. They were the half-hour Sitcoms of the Pre-TV Age.
But nobody wants to read for even a few minutes nowadays.
Perhaps the Brave New World Propagandists had won. By instilling tastes in literature that prohibit the expansion of any thought for longer than 3 minutes, well, The Simplistic View of Republicanism and Toryism (as the Nazis had triumphed before on much the same model) certainly will prevail. Oh, not that the Atheist Left does not want to profit likewise… as they also favor a format that favors an Assertion of Attack… not requiring more than 50 words, which is assumed to be at least the equivalent of a Revealed Religion from a God in which they no longer believe, but from whom they are still willing to suppose gives them a sense for Absolute Truth, whereby assertions are free to fly without the least concern for elaboration.
So it is that people give short opinions – what they ‘think’ without bothering to tell us how they ‘think’ at all. We get Conclusions without being told how such conclusions were arrived at. It all leads one to suspect that these conclusions are not conclusions at all, but mere assertions… what people WISH to believe.
But Essays used to keep people honest. There they could not confuse the positions of Assertion and Conclusion. But those people who, today, argue against the Essay Format, well, it is entirely in their interest that assertion and conclusion SEEM to be the same thing. They would want you to think that anything they say is True without having to explain why.
I am approaching being almost a Century old, and so my tastes may be somewhat outdated, but they ought not to be. But my literary tastes grew up reading essays – Johnson’s “Rambler” and “Idler” and the essays of Addison and Steel, and then the translations from the French, as the Age of Enlightenment overwhelmed us with essays. Then I found that all modern Newspaper Editorials were written in the same old Essay Format… maybe a minute or two shorter, but not by much.
All pithy and, at their best, humorous documents that could be easily read in one sitting. They were the half-hour Sitcoms of the Pre-TV Age.
But nobody wants to read for even a few minutes nowadays.
Perhaps the Brave New World Propagandists had won. By instilling tastes in literature that prohibit the expansion of any thought for longer than 3 minutes, well, The Simplistic View of Republicanism and Toryism (as the Nazis had triumphed before on much the same model) certainly will prevail. Oh, not that the Atheist Left does not want to profit likewise… as they also favor a format that favors an Assertion of Attack… not requiring more than 50 words, which is assumed to be at least the equivalent of a Revealed Religion from a God in which they no longer believe, but from whom they are still willing to suppose gives them a sense for Absolute Truth, whereby assertions are free to fly without the least concern for elaboration.
So it is that people give short opinions – what they ‘think’ without bothering to tell us how they ‘think’ at all. We get Conclusions without being told how such conclusions were arrived at. It all leads one to suspect that these conclusions are not conclusions at all, but mere assertions… what people WISH to believe.
But Essays used to keep people honest. There they could not confuse the positions of Assertion and Conclusion. But those people who, today, argue against the Essay Format, well, it is entirely in their interest that assertion and conclusion SEEM to be the same thing. They would want you to think that anything they say is True without having to explain why.
The Ongoing Saga of Ram Bomjon, the Buddha Boy, Part Two
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon
There was a Video I found from Wikipedia that showed an awkward young man addressing a huge crowd, many of whom came to listen just to him.
It was sad to see that so many people, so willing to be overwhelmed, were obviously bored. People were fidgeting, getting up to leave, chatting with one another.
And our Young Buddha was obviously uncomfortable with Public Speaking.
I was embarrassed for him.
I am sure the translators of his speech did their best to punch it up, but it becomes obvious that the ‘translated’ speech is a mere fraction of the ramble fest that our Young Buddha must have delivered. Apparently, instead of planning what he was to say and rehearsing his speech, he decided that he would be Divinely Inspired at the last moment.
Saints have never been particularly smart unless they applied themselves to the Intellectual Disciplines the same as everybody else.
Now it would have made so much more sense for, lets say, an 8 year old to apply himself to six years of Meditation. He’d be done with it by 14 and still have some time for his Higher Education. But apparently Ram Bomjon quit school at 16 to do his Meditation, before he attained even the necessary skills to plan a speech.
The sad thing is that while this Young Buddha may attain to the Highest Spiritual Knowledge, if he remains tongue-tied and awkward in regards to the worldly matters of Language, then all of his mission will be to naught.
There was a Video I found from Wikipedia that showed an awkward young man addressing a huge crowd, many of whom came to listen just to him.
It was sad to see that so many people, so willing to be overwhelmed, were obviously bored. People were fidgeting, getting up to leave, chatting with one another.
And our Young Buddha was obviously uncomfortable with Public Speaking.
I was embarrassed for him.
I am sure the translators of his speech did their best to punch it up, but it becomes obvious that the ‘translated’ speech is a mere fraction of the ramble fest that our Young Buddha must have delivered. Apparently, instead of planning what he was to say and rehearsing his speech, he decided that he would be Divinely Inspired at the last moment.
Saints have never been particularly smart unless they applied themselves to the Intellectual Disciplines the same as everybody else.
Now it would have made so much more sense for, lets say, an 8 year old to apply himself to six years of Meditation. He’d be done with it by 14 and still have some time for his Higher Education. But apparently Ram Bomjon quit school at 16 to do his Meditation, before he attained even the necessary skills to plan a speech.
The sad thing is that while this Young Buddha may attain to the Highest Spiritual Knowledge, if he remains tongue-tied and awkward in regards to the worldly matters of Language, then all of his mission will be to naught.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
A Better Understanding of God
Western Civilizations conception of God has been largely polluted by the philosophy of the Greeks, who saw theology as something to argue about during their drunken dinner parties, but they never seemed themselves to take it very seriously, as no tradition comes down to us of Greek Mystics or even of Greek ascetics. They talked about it but never actually did anything. Greek Theology comes from Greek Intellectuals, and from them, only after Happy Hour. Oh, in defense of the Greeks, as a complete Culture, they DID have their own Mystery Religions, but these were kept secret.
The big problem with Greek Philosophy was that they desired everything to fit into some Systematic Model, which necessitated a bare-bones simplicity. God was to be Absolute in all things – All Powerful, All Knowing, Eternal, blah blah blah. In other words, God was only supposed to be some logical counterpoint to the Material World, the other end of some simplistic equation. God was never much more fleshed out than just any clever point being made in a drunken debate.
Now, from actual Spiritual and Mystical Cultures, where some experience was deemed an asset when engaged in Religious Speculation, then we find not Intellectual Traditions of Theology but Revealed Traditions. Revelation is much different from sitting around and thinking of how to be clever in one’s religious arguments. Revelation involves keeping some Historical account of Mystical and Miraculous experiences and occurrences. Of course, regarding these, we may suppose some distortion as regards to normal tendencies for people to exaggerate, and then we may suppose that people may often come to wrong conclusions regarding the meaning of what they see and hear, but at the very basis, there are some actual experiences and actual events. To come to some correct understanding of God, we must consult such experiences and events.
So the best references for Religious Study should come from the Saints and the Mystics, particularly those who evince some miraculous occurrences, as those Spiritualists known only for their inspirational poetry are as little to be trusted as the intellectuals, it needing to be decided whether we should trust logic more than aesthetics when it hasn’t been decided whether either is really much closer to the core of Spirituality. The Truth of Religion should not be entirely entrusted to Taste.
But where Miracles are concerned, supernatural occurrences show a definite Other-Worldliness which may lead us to God more surely than just isolated mental cogitation or isolated mental imagination – Philosophy and Poetry.
The first set of conclusions we can encounter when evaluating the Saints is that miracles tend to operate only within their vicinity or connection. Yet the Saints, for the most part, attribute these Miracles only to God. Well, here we should consider that we have only the testimony of Saints who had not been instantly put to death for espousing heretical doctrines. Then there is the testimony of Saints whose testimony is allowed to lapse because it may not be doctrinally pure. And then again, even in relatively tolerant Societies, the Saints seem to have been careful to attribute miraculous occurrences entirely to God, but still we might expect any Saint from anywhere to be careful as to what he says, it being something of a Universal Truth that of all subjects, it is perhaps most easy to offend others when we speak of Religion, and so the Saints, perhaps from their life experiences, learned to put forward a studied humility. We only have to refer to the Life of Christ – for thirtythree years he thrived while being humble, but in just one week after leading his own parade, even on just a donkey, he was dead.
So, once we discount what the Saints may be telling us out of caution or coercion, we have a paradigm in which miracles closely follow certain Saints. Now, when they do tell us anything regarding the mechanics of these miracles, we are told of helping spirits from the ‘other side’ – Angels, or other Saints though deceased, or we hear of low or dark miracles being accomplished with the help of demons or earth spirits. While the Saints speak of God, when we look at the actual dynamics, there is always some Agent or intermediary. We’ve never seen God in His Fullness. Even Moses, who spoke of God Himself, only saw a bush.
Considering nobody had ever experienced God acting directly, it seems a miracle of incredulity that the Greeks could ever have arrived at the Doctrine of Divine Absolute Power, when in every instance, God had been limited by whoever or whatever was His Agent or Angel.
So, what do we have so far? We have miracles sourcing from certain ‘Saints’ and these saints are being provided for by certain Angels, whose power, though supernatural enough, still seems to have been entirely finite. While being able to do a lot, by ordinary human standards, we have not seen anything extensive enough to suggest Omnipotence. And where events had seemed tremendous, as in the case of The Miracle of Fatima, there we can suppose many more Angels were involved than only just one or two. Then we can distinguish certain saints by the qualities of their Miracles. It seems obvious that different Saints are supported by different Angels.
Well, then, if even the Saints themselves have had only any direct contact with Angels, than why such emphasis on God? Perhaps a more practical Religion would involve attention to the Realm of Angels. There it is commonly argued that loyalty to God assures the solicitude of the Angels. However, we have some certain Religious Doctrines that completely reject any Angelic Intercession. For instance, do not the Protestants insist upon a “personal relationship with Christ”? When examined in detail, what we see of the Spiritual World is a Realm consisting of Hierarchies and Principalities of Angels and Saints that pile upward and upward, eventually reaching up to God. Man is at the bottom of this Hierarchy. And yet Protestants suppose they can jump over everybody and everything and be Best Friends with the very Guy whom they endorsed for Murder so they could enjoy free guiltless sin. Well, if Christ is anything close to what he had claimed to be – the Incarnate Commander of All the Angels, then there are quite a few levels between Him and any of us. So any Personal Relationship seems at best implausible.
In the battles we face while living in the World, we can hardly expect The Most Supreme Heavenly General to come himself and follow in our tracts, fighting each of our small skirmishes personally. A General will send a solder to deal with such things. Jesus will send Angels.
This brings us to Free Will. While experience tells us clearly that we have Free Will, it may also be that Angels have Free Will in regards to the actions of their Agency. God might not be micro-managing everything. However, there is some experiential evidence indicating that we may suppose that God is entirely informed, as well as the Angels. It seems to be part of the Mystical Experience to be All Knowing, or rather, to think at the time of the experience that one is All Knowing. Now, when coming out of the All Knowing Experience, there is a problem with the limited human brain REMEMBERING much of the mind boggling details, but essentially what we are told regarding the Experience of All Knowing is that, at the time, EVERYTHING is or seems to be revealed. So it is probably very likely that the Angels, with the background of this All Knowing, act in such a way as to approach closer to whatever Perfection this All Knowingness may be envisioning. This can best be described as the Conscious Evolution of the Universe.
Its often said that “reasonable people can reasonably differ”, which is said to promote a degree of tolerance and civility where argument and debate can often get quite heated. But, honestly, where some Mystical Knowledge can seem to approach some experiential absolute, can there really be a problem with Mystics coming to significantly different conclusions and choices. After a certain point does not a preponderance of Knowledge forestall Free Will. It is perhaps like being pushed off a cliff, the only real choice is to fall.
But as far as the Experience goes, the choices are being made locally and while the choices may seem obvious or even determined by a correctness that seems absolutely certain, they are Free choices in the sense that God is leaving the decisions up to the Agents and Beings out on the Scene, out in the Field, so to speak. This combines with the problem of the Saints having slim actual memory of anything that may have overwhelmed them during their Mystical Experiences, and so we can account for the variations of behaviors we see among the Saints. And then, what they do remember may be largely influenced by their traditions and pre-dispositions. The Mystical Experience may serve to illuminate aspects of one’s Knowledge that corresponds in some way with Actual Truth, or which is close enough to catch some manner of Light. But in instances where some Simple Minded Saint had never given anything a single Thought, than the Enlightening Experience may have very little to shine upon.
The big problem with Greek Philosophy was that they desired everything to fit into some Systematic Model, which necessitated a bare-bones simplicity. God was to be Absolute in all things – All Powerful, All Knowing, Eternal, blah blah blah. In other words, God was only supposed to be some logical counterpoint to the Material World, the other end of some simplistic equation. God was never much more fleshed out than just any clever point being made in a drunken debate.
Now, from actual Spiritual and Mystical Cultures, where some experience was deemed an asset when engaged in Religious Speculation, then we find not Intellectual Traditions of Theology but Revealed Traditions. Revelation is much different from sitting around and thinking of how to be clever in one’s religious arguments. Revelation involves keeping some Historical account of Mystical and Miraculous experiences and occurrences. Of course, regarding these, we may suppose some distortion as regards to normal tendencies for people to exaggerate, and then we may suppose that people may often come to wrong conclusions regarding the meaning of what they see and hear, but at the very basis, there are some actual experiences and actual events. To come to some correct understanding of God, we must consult such experiences and events.
So the best references for Religious Study should come from the Saints and the Mystics, particularly those who evince some miraculous occurrences, as those Spiritualists known only for their inspirational poetry are as little to be trusted as the intellectuals, it needing to be decided whether we should trust logic more than aesthetics when it hasn’t been decided whether either is really much closer to the core of Spirituality. The Truth of Religion should not be entirely entrusted to Taste.
But where Miracles are concerned, supernatural occurrences show a definite Other-Worldliness which may lead us to God more surely than just isolated mental cogitation or isolated mental imagination – Philosophy and Poetry.
The first set of conclusions we can encounter when evaluating the Saints is that miracles tend to operate only within their vicinity or connection. Yet the Saints, for the most part, attribute these Miracles only to God. Well, here we should consider that we have only the testimony of Saints who had not been instantly put to death for espousing heretical doctrines. Then there is the testimony of Saints whose testimony is allowed to lapse because it may not be doctrinally pure. And then again, even in relatively tolerant Societies, the Saints seem to have been careful to attribute miraculous occurrences entirely to God, but still we might expect any Saint from anywhere to be careful as to what he says, it being something of a Universal Truth that of all subjects, it is perhaps most easy to offend others when we speak of Religion, and so the Saints, perhaps from their life experiences, learned to put forward a studied humility. We only have to refer to the Life of Christ – for thirtythree years he thrived while being humble, but in just one week after leading his own parade, even on just a donkey, he was dead.
So, once we discount what the Saints may be telling us out of caution or coercion, we have a paradigm in which miracles closely follow certain Saints. Now, when they do tell us anything regarding the mechanics of these miracles, we are told of helping spirits from the ‘other side’ – Angels, or other Saints though deceased, or we hear of low or dark miracles being accomplished with the help of demons or earth spirits. While the Saints speak of God, when we look at the actual dynamics, there is always some Agent or intermediary. We’ve never seen God in His Fullness. Even Moses, who spoke of God Himself, only saw a bush.
Considering nobody had ever experienced God acting directly, it seems a miracle of incredulity that the Greeks could ever have arrived at the Doctrine of Divine Absolute Power, when in every instance, God had been limited by whoever or whatever was His Agent or Angel.
So, what do we have so far? We have miracles sourcing from certain ‘Saints’ and these saints are being provided for by certain Angels, whose power, though supernatural enough, still seems to have been entirely finite. While being able to do a lot, by ordinary human standards, we have not seen anything extensive enough to suggest Omnipotence. And where events had seemed tremendous, as in the case of The Miracle of Fatima, there we can suppose many more Angels were involved than only just one or two. Then we can distinguish certain saints by the qualities of their Miracles. It seems obvious that different Saints are supported by different Angels.
Well, then, if even the Saints themselves have had only any direct contact with Angels, than why such emphasis on God? Perhaps a more practical Religion would involve attention to the Realm of Angels. There it is commonly argued that loyalty to God assures the solicitude of the Angels. However, we have some certain Religious Doctrines that completely reject any Angelic Intercession. For instance, do not the Protestants insist upon a “personal relationship with Christ”? When examined in detail, what we see of the Spiritual World is a Realm consisting of Hierarchies and Principalities of Angels and Saints that pile upward and upward, eventually reaching up to God. Man is at the bottom of this Hierarchy. And yet Protestants suppose they can jump over everybody and everything and be Best Friends with the very Guy whom they endorsed for Murder so they could enjoy free guiltless sin. Well, if Christ is anything close to what he had claimed to be – the Incarnate Commander of All the Angels, then there are quite a few levels between Him and any of us. So any Personal Relationship seems at best implausible.
In the battles we face while living in the World, we can hardly expect The Most Supreme Heavenly General to come himself and follow in our tracts, fighting each of our small skirmishes personally. A General will send a solder to deal with such things. Jesus will send Angels.
This brings us to Free Will. While experience tells us clearly that we have Free Will, it may also be that Angels have Free Will in regards to the actions of their Agency. God might not be micro-managing everything. However, there is some experiential evidence indicating that we may suppose that God is entirely informed, as well as the Angels. It seems to be part of the Mystical Experience to be All Knowing, or rather, to think at the time of the experience that one is All Knowing. Now, when coming out of the All Knowing Experience, there is a problem with the limited human brain REMEMBERING much of the mind boggling details, but essentially what we are told regarding the Experience of All Knowing is that, at the time, EVERYTHING is or seems to be revealed. So it is probably very likely that the Angels, with the background of this All Knowing, act in such a way as to approach closer to whatever Perfection this All Knowingness may be envisioning. This can best be described as the Conscious Evolution of the Universe.
Its often said that “reasonable people can reasonably differ”, which is said to promote a degree of tolerance and civility where argument and debate can often get quite heated. But, honestly, where some Mystical Knowledge can seem to approach some experiential absolute, can there really be a problem with Mystics coming to significantly different conclusions and choices. After a certain point does not a preponderance of Knowledge forestall Free Will. It is perhaps like being pushed off a cliff, the only real choice is to fall.
But as far as the Experience goes, the choices are being made locally and while the choices may seem obvious or even determined by a correctness that seems absolutely certain, they are Free choices in the sense that God is leaving the decisions up to the Agents and Beings out on the Scene, out in the Field, so to speak. This combines with the problem of the Saints having slim actual memory of anything that may have overwhelmed them during their Mystical Experiences, and so we can account for the variations of behaviors we see among the Saints. And then, what they do remember may be largely influenced by their traditions and pre-dispositions. The Mystical Experience may serve to illuminate aspects of one’s Knowledge that corresponds in some way with Actual Truth, or which is close enough to catch some manner of Light. But in instances where some Simple Minded Saint had never given anything a single Thought, than the Enlightening Experience may have very little to shine upon.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Jesus is Not God
Now, no other Religion in the World would consider it as some kind of an affront to question of validity of supposing that some Man was NOT God. Most Religions consider it most essential to the very nature of Religion that God be very specifically defined as being Most Transcendent, above the world, and above anything at all material. For them the supposition that any Man could be God is akin to idolatry – worshipping something that is material as though it is God. Indeed, much of the success of the Islamic Reaction and Conquest was owing to their easily being able to attack Christianity on the grounds that it was essentially a Religion of Idolatry, and a violation of Monotheism… while Judaism and then Islam thought it paramount to claim only One God, Christianity insisted, stupidly, on a Trinity of Three Gods.
You know, it was not as though each and every Christian had always believed in the idiocy of supposing a man could be God. Indeed, there were a great many believers and even a great many Bishops who at one time believed otherwise. They come down to us from History as those of the Arian Heresy (if you don’t want to be a heretic, then don’t lose a Religious War). These Heretics were not absolute villains – they believed Jesus was the Messiah, that he was a great Saint, that he had perfect Mystical Knowledge and even some Absolute Mystical Unity with God. They made every possible Religion Assertion EXCEPT that of saying that Jesus was one and the same as God. For them it was simply a matter of definition. A man COULDN’T be God, and that was that. If they had won the argument, there would not have been an Islamic Conquest, because the Muslims would have been deprived of any motivating argument, or at least nothing as sufficiently powerful as idolatry.
As a religious person it often saddens me when I look back upon Religious History and see that God did very little to assure that only the most correct Religions would win out. What actually seems to happen is that the most stupid and cruel factions who seem to allow for the most violence win the Religious Wars. When one thinks about it for a moment, it really isn’t very surprising, is it? And then, when the idiots win their Wars, their argument is that God MIRACULOUSLY supports only Religious Correctness. Even today the Christian Argument for the Divine Holiness of All Scripture, an argument they apply only toward Judaic Christian Scriptures, consists entirely in that it has SURVIVED. If God did not want us to read it, then it would have been lost some time or another like everything else (then we need to wonder why it is that God must seem to want us to have some special regard for the Dialogues of Plato, the Plays of Euripides, and the Legend of Gilgamesh, as those works have also survived down to us. And then, what of the Heretical Red Sea Scrolls… why did God decide to suddenly just dig them up now? ). Essentially the Argument for Divinely Inspired Scripture is based on the Absolute All Powerfulness of God with the correlate that God exercises His complete power on the World, if not in anything else, then perhaps only in seeing that Scripture is perfectly correct. Plagues, Famines, Wars, and Bureaucratic Corruption may sweep the continents, but the Publication of Religious Literature is going to be Exact. God knows His what’s really important, doesn’t He?
Anyway, at about the 8th Century, a faction of Knights in France, siding with the Wealthiest of the Bishops who believed in the Divinity of Christ, a belief that came with the benefit of supposing that they could sin with impunity… oh, by the way, it was Theologically Necessary to make Jesus equal to God so that His Death could be considered as Potent Enough to allow for the Forgiveness of Sin. The Forgiveness of Sin allowed the Bishops who believed it to be Corrupt, and that Corruption allowed them to be Rich, and that Wealth allowed them to support a Powerful Militia of French Knights. Well, though there had been fighting for centuries prior, there was something of a tipping point, and the “Jesus is God” Faction was able to fully take all of Western Europe. Catholicism was handed over to Corruption.
The problem with any Religious Mistake is that it can lead to further error. Once Jesus was made into God, then the next step was to make Paul into God. As Jesus had to be made into a God to give him the power to forgive Sin, well, Paul had to be made a God because Paul was the actual author of every major Christian Doctrine. He never even quoted Jesus, not even once. Everything was straight out of Paul’s own imagination. He never even listened to any of the Real Apostles, and his own letters, and the book of Acts indicates the extent of his arguments against them. He even killed one of them. Anyway, first the Catholic Bishops and then the Protestants thought it absolutely essential that Paul be given some Divine Credentials. The Catholics first created the fiction that Peter was the First Pope, because Peter had sponsored Paul into the Church (it being ignored that Paul had murdered Peters rival for power in the new Church, giving Peter not the purest of motives in giving somebody a job in return for a big favor). Peter’s empowerment would have the effect of legitimizing Paul. But the Protestants, having to go further after they had to denounced Peter in order to cast down Peter’s Church, created the Doctrine of ‘Word of God’ Scripture… that every word of Scripture is the virtual Word of God. This Doctrine is almost entirely directed toward establishing the Letters of Paul as Divinely Inspired to a Perfect Degree. Indeed, in the formulation of Christian Doctrine, almost every word of Christ is swept aside, while Paul is the recognized authority in all matters of Faith. In the Christian Pantheon, so to speak, Paul is more God than even Jesus. You see, that is what happens when you go down that road. Who will be God next? Pat Robertson. I guess George Bush thought he himself was.
It seems I’m picking on Christianity, but Islam is not any better. While the Christians make the mistake of overtly claiming Christ to be God, the Muslims are tacit on the point of asserting that Mohamed is actually God, but they certainly treat him with Absolute Respect, and indeed treat every aspect of their Religion with Absolute Divine Respect. Now, it should be a matter of Faith to them that Only Allah is Allah. But when you examine their behavior, they seem to treat a great many things with the Same Respect that should ONLY be accorded to Allah. They kill people for drawing a funny picture of a Man they know, Mohamed. If that’s what they do for a Man, then what extra do they keep aside for respect to God? Obviously nothing. While the Muslims accuse everyone else of Idolatry, they are as guilty as everyone else, and a bunch of crazy cut-throat sword-dancers besides.
And, no, certainly the Jews are no better than anybody. While it has been claimed that the Jews, at some time or another had ever been Monotheistic, when one examines the body of their History, that assertion only goes so far as denying other People’s Tribal War Gods while asserting only their own particular Tribal War God. This is not really a belief in God but a belief in a Demi-God, or Spirit King, and a very Local Parochial one at that. Indeed much of the Ancient World classified the Jews rather as atheists because they are remembered for denying more Gods than they ever bothered to support. Yes, when the Jewish Prophets had to kiss up to their Babylonian Captures and then apologize to their Persian Saviors, they hit the note of Religious Universalism, but does anybody ever really mean the flattery they dish out to Bosses and Patrons? We can see in recent European History that again Jewish Philosophers had begun to strike the note of Religious Universalism, but how long did that last? Today when we look at the Jewish Religion in Practice, it has returned to its origins as a Tribal Religion of Old, and their God is again merely a local territorial Spirit out to help them Kill their neighbors for Land. The “God” before whom they bow is simply a Big Real Estate Demon – not exactly the same as a Universal and Transcendent God. And a Religion that worships a Real Estate Demon really isn’t a Religion, is it? Oh, and this is if all the persecutions, tortures and killings did not already disqualify them. Hmmmm, maybe American Protestantism needs to review themselves, because they are doing everything the Jews are. Oh, I forgot… the Christians think that their Sins are forgiven… perhaps their biggest problem.
You know, it was not as though each and every Christian had always believed in the idiocy of supposing a man could be God. Indeed, there were a great many believers and even a great many Bishops who at one time believed otherwise. They come down to us from History as those of the Arian Heresy (if you don’t want to be a heretic, then don’t lose a Religious War). These Heretics were not absolute villains – they believed Jesus was the Messiah, that he was a great Saint, that he had perfect Mystical Knowledge and even some Absolute Mystical Unity with God. They made every possible Religion Assertion EXCEPT that of saying that Jesus was one and the same as God. For them it was simply a matter of definition. A man COULDN’T be God, and that was that. If they had won the argument, there would not have been an Islamic Conquest, because the Muslims would have been deprived of any motivating argument, or at least nothing as sufficiently powerful as idolatry.
As a religious person it often saddens me when I look back upon Religious History and see that God did very little to assure that only the most correct Religions would win out. What actually seems to happen is that the most stupid and cruel factions who seem to allow for the most violence win the Religious Wars. When one thinks about it for a moment, it really isn’t very surprising, is it? And then, when the idiots win their Wars, their argument is that God MIRACULOUSLY supports only Religious Correctness. Even today the Christian Argument for the Divine Holiness of All Scripture, an argument they apply only toward Judaic Christian Scriptures, consists entirely in that it has SURVIVED. If God did not want us to read it, then it would have been lost some time or another like everything else (then we need to wonder why it is that God must seem to want us to have some special regard for the Dialogues of Plato, the Plays of Euripides, and the Legend of Gilgamesh, as those works have also survived down to us. And then, what of the Heretical Red Sea Scrolls… why did God decide to suddenly just dig them up now? ). Essentially the Argument for Divinely Inspired Scripture is based on the Absolute All Powerfulness of God with the correlate that God exercises His complete power on the World, if not in anything else, then perhaps only in seeing that Scripture is perfectly correct. Plagues, Famines, Wars, and Bureaucratic Corruption may sweep the continents, but the Publication of Religious Literature is going to be Exact. God knows His what’s really important, doesn’t He?
Anyway, at about the 8th Century, a faction of Knights in France, siding with the Wealthiest of the Bishops who believed in the Divinity of Christ, a belief that came with the benefit of supposing that they could sin with impunity… oh, by the way, it was Theologically Necessary to make Jesus equal to God so that His Death could be considered as Potent Enough to allow for the Forgiveness of Sin. The Forgiveness of Sin allowed the Bishops who believed it to be Corrupt, and that Corruption allowed them to be Rich, and that Wealth allowed them to support a Powerful Militia of French Knights. Well, though there had been fighting for centuries prior, there was something of a tipping point, and the “Jesus is God” Faction was able to fully take all of Western Europe. Catholicism was handed over to Corruption.
The problem with any Religious Mistake is that it can lead to further error. Once Jesus was made into God, then the next step was to make Paul into God. As Jesus had to be made into a God to give him the power to forgive Sin, well, Paul had to be made a God because Paul was the actual author of every major Christian Doctrine. He never even quoted Jesus, not even once. Everything was straight out of Paul’s own imagination. He never even listened to any of the Real Apostles, and his own letters, and the book of Acts indicates the extent of his arguments against them. He even killed one of them. Anyway, first the Catholic Bishops and then the Protestants thought it absolutely essential that Paul be given some Divine Credentials. The Catholics first created the fiction that Peter was the First Pope, because Peter had sponsored Paul into the Church (it being ignored that Paul had murdered Peters rival for power in the new Church, giving Peter not the purest of motives in giving somebody a job in return for a big favor). Peter’s empowerment would have the effect of legitimizing Paul. But the Protestants, having to go further after they had to denounced Peter in order to cast down Peter’s Church, created the Doctrine of ‘Word of God’ Scripture… that every word of Scripture is the virtual Word of God. This Doctrine is almost entirely directed toward establishing the Letters of Paul as Divinely Inspired to a Perfect Degree. Indeed, in the formulation of Christian Doctrine, almost every word of Christ is swept aside, while Paul is the recognized authority in all matters of Faith. In the Christian Pantheon, so to speak, Paul is more God than even Jesus. You see, that is what happens when you go down that road. Who will be God next? Pat Robertson. I guess George Bush thought he himself was.
It seems I’m picking on Christianity, but Islam is not any better. While the Christians make the mistake of overtly claiming Christ to be God, the Muslims are tacit on the point of asserting that Mohamed is actually God, but they certainly treat him with Absolute Respect, and indeed treat every aspect of their Religion with Absolute Divine Respect. Now, it should be a matter of Faith to them that Only Allah is Allah. But when you examine their behavior, they seem to treat a great many things with the Same Respect that should ONLY be accorded to Allah. They kill people for drawing a funny picture of a Man they know, Mohamed. If that’s what they do for a Man, then what extra do they keep aside for respect to God? Obviously nothing. While the Muslims accuse everyone else of Idolatry, they are as guilty as everyone else, and a bunch of crazy cut-throat sword-dancers besides.
And, no, certainly the Jews are no better than anybody. While it has been claimed that the Jews, at some time or another had ever been Monotheistic, when one examines the body of their History, that assertion only goes so far as denying other People’s Tribal War Gods while asserting only their own particular Tribal War God. This is not really a belief in God but a belief in a Demi-God, or Spirit King, and a very Local Parochial one at that. Indeed much of the Ancient World classified the Jews rather as atheists because they are remembered for denying more Gods than they ever bothered to support. Yes, when the Jewish Prophets had to kiss up to their Babylonian Captures and then apologize to their Persian Saviors, they hit the note of Religious Universalism, but does anybody ever really mean the flattery they dish out to Bosses and Patrons? We can see in recent European History that again Jewish Philosophers had begun to strike the note of Religious Universalism, but how long did that last? Today when we look at the Jewish Religion in Practice, it has returned to its origins as a Tribal Religion of Old, and their God is again merely a local territorial Spirit out to help them Kill their neighbors for Land. The “God” before whom they bow is simply a Big Real Estate Demon – not exactly the same as a Universal and Transcendent God. And a Religion that worships a Real Estate Demon really isn’t a Religion, is it? Oh, and this is if all the persecutions, tortures and killings did not already disqualify them. Hmmmm, maybe American Protestantism needs to review themselves, because they are doing everything the Jews are. Oh, I forgot… the Christians think that their Sins are forgiven… perhaps their biggest problem.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
“Enchanted”, a Wonderful Movie
Wow, who ever expected an intelligent Screen Play from Hollywood, or even that great Production Number in the Park (which is arguably the best Production Number in the History of Film)?
What we have is Platonic Philosophy laid out before us. The Animated Characters are Ideals – figures from the Pure Logos. Their being drawn in 2-dimensions simply accentuates their Perfection – they are not complex – they are Perfect, and a certain simplicity goes along with that.
Also, on another level, the Movie contrasts Animated Moral Ideals with the shady grey ethics of the Real World.
What makes the Movie so interesting is that there are seven main characters, and non of them are left out in terms of Dramatic Composition – they are all measured morally and existentially against the standards of both Reality and the Platonic Perfection of the Animated Fantastic ‘Logos’. If one pays attention then most of these characters have a distinct ‘Epiphany’ – a deep transformation in their moral-existential relationship to both themselves and the World. And then we have the first actions as a new being – the Characters are Changed and then we see the products of this change.
The Patrick Dempsey character was pessimistic and materialistic, but almost from the first was attracted to idealism, though feeling a great deal of emotional inertia in not relinquishing his hopelessness. We see his epiphany when he finally sings to the Girl, and his first New Action in giving himself to “true love”.
Patrick Dempsey’s original ‘girl friend’ was in her heart a born ‘idealist’ though cognizant of all the disappointments of the Real World, which it was in her very nature to forgive and forget. She had been forced by circumstances to accept a flawed world and a flawed boyfriend, but found something better by the end.
The Prince was Perfect. He was a moral ideal, and upheld Goodness. He was aware of Evil, but not from within himself. He had sword and drew it against Evil, or what he thought was evil, at every opportunity. But his problem was narcissism – he related everything to himself. What the Movie did with this, as a dramatic device, was it made the Prince understand the Shattering Chipmunk only in terms of himself, and therefore wrongly. Only when the Prince was able to perceive Empathetically and Sympathetically beyond himself, was he able to understand the Chipmunk. The portrayal of the Prince was rather touching. He DID love the Girl, and his only shortfall from True Love was that it was not requited. But it was this Love for the Girl that awoke his Empathy and which brought him out of what had been a virtually perfect Narcissistic Autism. Even as Patrick Dempsey’s kiss was proving True Love with his fiancé, he was smiling in true relief that she was okay and going to be happy. Not only was he an Ideal Guy, but he was a nice guy.
The Queen’s Lacky was an interesting character. In the Animated Logos he was apparently content to be the Servant of Evil Forces – in a Black and White realm, he was black and accepted it unreflectively. But in the Real World he recognized his Moral inferiority to the Prince, whom he was assigned to shadow.
The Girl’s Character is perhaps the most complex, and her transformation perhaps most surprising. You see, she had been entirely happy and unified in a state of unblemished Goodness. At first she did not even have the capacity to suspect Evil or even ill-intent. So Her Story is the Creation Story – the Garden of Eden all over again, but this time her Knowledge of Good and Evil were hailed a good thing. Her ability to Discern Good and Evil were seen as a Plus. But being able to Perceive Evil, still she was able to keep her original Moral Center. She did not become Evil for being able to see Evil.
The little Chipmunk. A great character. In every case the power and effect generated by that little creature were out of all proportion to its relatively small size. So this made that little Chipmunk the Angel Figure – the Divine Element – the Holy Spirit of the Story. Oh, in the middle of the movie, the little Chipmunk was even shown as the Crucified Christ. In the dynamics of the Movie’s Plot, the shattering of the little Chipmunk had been used as the measure of each Characters Moral and Spiritual Discernment – those who understood the Squirrel, well, that told us of their Moral Development.
And the Musical Score was wonderful. My foot is still tapping and I’m still whistling my head off.
What we have is Platonic Philosophy laid out before us. The Animated Characters are Ideals – figures from the Pure Logos. Their being drawn in 2-dimensions simply accentuates their Perfection – they are not complex – they are Perfect, and a certain simplicity goes along with that.
Also, on another level, the Movie contrasts Animated Moral Ideals with the shady grey ethics of the Real World.
What makes the Movie so interesting is that there are seven main characters, and non of them are left out in terms of Dramatic Composition – they are all measured morally and existentially against the standards of both Reality and the Platonic Perfection of the Animated Fantastic ‘Logos’. If one pays attention then most of these characters have a distinct ‘Epiphany’ – a deep transformation in their moral-existential relationship to both themselves and the World. And then we have the first actions as a new being – the Characters are Changed and then we see the products of this change.
The Patrick Dempsey character was pessimistic and materialistic, but almost from the first was attracted to idealism, though feeling a great deal of emotional inertia in not relinquishing his hopelessness. We see his epiphany when he finally sings to the Girl, and his first New Action in giving himself to “true love”.
Patrick Dempsey’s original ‘girl friend’ was in her heart a born ‘idealist’ though cognizant of all the disappointments of the Real World, which it was in her very nature to forgive and forget. She had been forced by circumstances to accept a flawed world and a flawed boyfriend, but found something better by the end.
The Prince was Perfect. He was a moral ideal, and upheld Goodness. He was aware of Evil, but not from within himself. He had sword and drew it against Evil, or what he thought was evil, at every opportunity. But his problem was narcissism – he related everything to himself. What the Movie did with this, as a dramatic device, was it made the Prince understand the Shattering Chipmunk only in terms of himself, and therefore wrongly. Only when the Prince was able to perceive Empathetically and Sympathetically beyond himself, was he able to understand the Chipmunk. The portrayal of the Prince was rather touching. He DID love the Girl, and his only shortfall from True Love was that it was not requited. But it was this Love for the Girl that awoke his Empathy and which brought him out of what had been a virtually perfect Narcissistic Autism. Even as Patrick Dempsey’s kiss was proving True Love with his fiancé, he was smiling in true relief that she was okay and going to be happy. Not only was he an Ideal Guy, but he was a nice guy.
The Queen’s Lacky was an interesting character. In the Animated Logos he was apparently content to be the Servant of Evil Forces – in a Black and White realm, he was black and accepted it unreflectively. But in the Real World he recognized his Moral inferiority to the Prince, whom he was assigned to shadow.
The Girl’s Character is perhaps the most complex, and her transformation perhaps most surprising. You see, she had been entirely happy and unified in a state of unblemished Goodness. At first she did not even have the capacity to suspect Evil or even ill-intent. So Her Story is the Creation Story – the Garden of Eden all over again, but this time her Knowledge of Good and Evil were hailed a good thing. Her ability to Discern Good and Evil were seen as a Plus. But being able to Perceive Evil, still she was able to keep her original Moral Center. She did not become Evil for being able to see Evil.
The little Chipmunk. A great character. In every case the power and effect generated by that little creature were out of all proportion to its relatively small size. So this made that little Chipmunk the Angel Figure – the Divine Element – the Holy Spirit of the Story. Oh, in the middle of the movie, the little Chipmunk was even shown as the Crucified Christ. In the dynamics of the Movie’s Plot, the shattering of the little Chipmunk had been used as the measure of each Characters Moral and Spiritual Discernment – those who understood the Squirrel, well, that told us of their Moral Development.
And the Musical Score was wonderful. My foot is still tapping and I’m still whistling my head off.
State Secrecy Stifling Saving Technologies
All the Secrecy already embedded within the Modern National Security State (people don’t like saying ‘Fascist’ anymore) have already destroyed the benefits of Free Speech… while corporate Whistle Blowers may still hope for some legal protections, the Whistle Blowers within Government, or contracted to Government (and that is nearly everybody these days), risk imprisonment for ever speaking of anything that is Job Related. Being fired goes without saying. Is there anything in Government that isn’t secret these days? No. Simply apply for almost any information using the Freedom of Information Act and you will find that if you do not know it already, then it is Secret. It certainly helps Government keep a lid on anything that is either corrupt or illegal. We can never hope to lift this broad curtain of State Secrecy, because if we ever knew what they know, then they know they would be sent off to Prison for everything it was so important that they keep Secret. So it is that every State Functionary now fights to support State Secrecy as though they are fighting for their very lives. They probably are.
But some corruption may be involved also. Regarding Technology, for instance. The Government can steal patents, make them Secret and not have to pay for the intellectual rights to them. Also, we see that Government has a habit of seeing every Technology in terms of its Military Potential. So, new Technologies are taken off the Free Market, and put behind the veil of Secrecy, ‘just in case’. Even in this Age of Global Warming when Carbon Free Nuclear Energy is perhaps the only truly substantial option that could free us from Carbon Based Power, the Governments are still willing to go War in order to keep most countries on a Petroleum Basis.
What Technologies have Governments robbed us of, with their Secret expropriations? Well, that’s a secret, but we can guess. Years ago I heard that in an experiment at some major University they used the interference patterns of laser light to stop a particle dead in its tracks, which, in terms of physics was tantamount to taking it down to absolute zero in temperature. Nice trick, huh. But try looking it up now. Its gone, but where did it go? I can only guess, but I suppose it is now lost within the veils of Government Secrecy.
What could it do anyway? Well, if one can knock down the temperature of gas particles just by passing them through manipulated waves of light, then it would take care of the largest problem preventing Hydrogen Cars, which is how one can store enough hydrogen. If it could be cheaply frozen, then one would not need huge monstrously heavy tanks required now to store it under very dangerous pressures. If hydrogen could be cheaply kept on ‘ice’, so to speak, then we could have hydrogen cars tomorrow.
Can we make an educated guess on how this Technology might work. Sure. Right now we know of Interference Patterns that waves can add together in the peaks of their wavelength cycles to increase the sum of their Energy, or they can subtract from each other during their null phases. What I read about years ago was even before they had 35 nanometer transistor junctions. Considering that Visible Light is 400 to 700 nanometers, and that UV is just over 300 nm, then what we now have that we did not have before is Transistors with the physical resolution to switch on and off within the wavelength of single periods of light. This means that we THEORETICALLY have the ability of selecting either Peak Interference, or Null Interference. Before in Light Interference Experiments, the Peaks and the Nulls would cancel each other out. But now the Phenomena can be focused – acceleration or retardation at the atomic level can be selected with the flick of a switch. We should be able to read all about it, right? Well, wrong. It must be secret.
Why is this so bad? Well, I’ve told you what Particle Nulling could do for us in terms of Gas Storage, but Particle Peaking, well THAT is really a splendid Potential. You see, modulated light could be used to speed particles up – gases could be expanded, just as they are now, but without having to burn carbon fuels. What’s more, using my imagination, particles could not just be speeded up incrementally, but actually latched onto and thrown in a controlled manner, not using any more energy than that required to switch transistors on and off. Add a few mirrors into a Tube and we have a Poor Man’s Particle Accelerator. Considering that perhaps the largest source of Carbon Pollution comes from Jet Engines, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could replace Jet Engines with these non-carbon burning Accelerator Tubes. But, do I hear the words “military application” anywhere?. Hmmmm? Can anybody guess why certain Secret Bomber Airplanes do not leave a plume of Carbon Exhaust Heat behind them?
The World will end because the Military Industrial Complex can’t get beyond playing their silly War Games, while they keep to themselves, for applications of Mass Murder, the very technologies that could save all of our lives.
But some corruption may be involved also. Regarding Technology, for instance. The Government can steal patents, make them Secret and not have to pay for the intellectual rights to them. Also, we see that Government has a habit of seeing every Technology in terms of its Military Potential. So, new Technologies are taken off the Free Market, and put behind the veil of Secrecy, ‘just in case’. Even in this Age of Global Warming when Carbon Free Nuclear Energy is perhaps the only truly substantial option that could free us from Carbon Based Power, the Governments are still willing to go War in order to keep most countries on a Petroleum Basis.
What Technologies have Governments robbed us of, with their Secret expropriations? Well, that’s a secret, but we can guess. Years ago I heard that in an experiment at some major University they used the interference patterns of laser light to stop a particle dead in its tracks, which, in terms of physics was tantamount to taking it down to absolute zero in temperature. Nice trick, huh. But try looking it up now. Its gone, but where did it go? I can only guess, but I suppose it is now lost within the veils of Government Secrecy.
What could it do anyway? Well, if one can knock down the temperature of gas particles just by passing them through manipulated waves of light, then it would take care of the largest problem preventing Hydrogen Cars, which is how one can store enough hydrogen. If it could be cheaply frozen, then one would not need huge monstrously heavy tanks required now to store it under very dangerous pressures. If hydrogen could be cheaply kept on ‘ice’, so to speak, then we could have hydrogen cars tomorrow.
Can we make an educated guess on how this Technology might work. Sure. Right now we know of Interference Patterns that waves can add together in the peaks of their wavelength cycles to increase the sum of their Energy, or they can subtract from each other during their null phases. What I read about years ago was even before they had 35 nanometer transistor junctions. Considering that Visible Light is 400 to 700 nanometers, and that UV is just over 300 nm, then what we now have that we did not have before is Transistors with the physical resolution to switch on and off within the wavelength of single periods of light. This means that we THEORETICALLY have the ability of selecting either Peak Interference, or Null Interference. Before in Light Interference Experiments, the Peaks and the Nulls would cancel each other out. But now the Phenomena can be focused – acceleration or retardation at the atomic level can be selected with the flick of a switch. We should be able to read all about it, right? Well, wrong. It must be secret.
Why is this so bad? Well, I’ve told you what Particle Nulling could do for us in terms of Gas Storage, but Particle Peaking, well THAT is really a splendid Potential. You see, modulated light could be used to speed particles up – gases could be expanded, just as they are now, but without having to burn carbon fuels. What’s more, using my imagination, particles could not just be speeded up incrementally, but actually latched onto and thrown in a controlled manner, not using any more energy than that required to switch transistors on and off. Add a few mirrors into a Tube and we have a Poor Man’s Particle Accelerator. Considering that perhaps the largest source of Carbon Pollution comes from Jet Engines, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could replace Jet Engines with these non-carbon burning Accelerator Tubes. But, do I hear the words “military application” anywhere?. Hmmmm? Can anybody guess why certain Secret Bomber Airplanes do not leave a plume of Carbon Exhaust Heat behind them?
The World will end because the Military Industrial Complex can’t get beyond playing their silly War Games, while they keep to themselves, for applications of Mass Murder, the very technologies that could save all of our lives.
Friday, November 30, 2007
The Truth Is The Jews Hate Us
Now if all of us said that WE were the Chosen People of God and that the Jews were to be slaughtered, man woman and child, taking no survivors, as is endorsed by the Holy Bible whenever God picks his enemies (the very Old God of the Tribal Pastoralists… a coincidence, surely, that a Warlike People should have a Warlike God) then it could be said that WE hate the Jews if it were us going after them. But that is exactly NOT how it is. The way it is presented in the Scriptures is that the Jews have been ordered (that is, they have God’s explicit permission) to annihilate us all and to take all of our Land. For themselves. Everything is okay as long as the Chosen People are happy.
But who is exploiting who?
Who is now victimizing who?
Why is it that Nazis were wrong to be the Master Race, that Caucasians are wrong to be White Supremacists, but it is totally fine for Zionists to be the Chosen People of God. If looking down is ‘hatred’ then how much clearer could it be? Who can’t see that “Chosen” means good and that everybody else must be inferior by comparison.
If the Jews present circumstances are the measure of being hated, then it would be a virtual blessing for any Nation or Ethnic Group to be ‘hated’ as much as the Jews. Such ‘hatred’ would guarantee that America would bestow more money upon them than America even spends upon their own Education or Health Care. And such Hatred would assure that the World, at large, would blink their eyes at ‘God Chosen’ aggressions while approving of the severest of murderous crackdowns whenever the victims of the Chosen People’s aggression so much as squirmed even in the least. The Occupied Peoples really should just smile and hand over the deeds to their property to the People who have decided to describe themselves as the Chosen People of God. I’m sure the Jews have copywrited it by now. After all, the Nazis wouldn’t have used “Master Race” if they could have gotten “Chosen People of God”.
Back in 1975 the Israelis minted a coin for general distribution, a part of their currency… for cigarette machines… for making change…. It was to be in everybody’s pockets, it was worth about twenty five U.S. pennies… it was to be everywhere… anyway, on the back of that coin was a map labeled “Greater Israel” and it showed a boundary starting at the Mediterranean where we understand that Israel now starts, but it went on Eastward to subsume the entire territories that we now should think of as Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. Israel was practically declaring War in ever so clear a way. On their money. Is there anything else they take more seriously than their money?
And all this time they have been complaining that people hate them.
I guess they confuse fear for hate.
And since most Powerful America has volunteered to be the most virtually enslaved Colony of Israel (the Fundamentalist Protestants think that God will favor them for it), it has become very reasonable to fear the Jews. When it is the Truth of Truths that no American President, or damned few Senators or Congressmen, can be elected without the support of the Jewish-Zionist Lobby, then it is tantamount to concluding that it is not America that is the World’s last and most powerful Super Power, but the Jews, who have a strangle hold upon the American Government.
So, no, nobody hates the Jews. Or they are too afraid to admit it.
But who is exploiting who?
Who is now victimizing who?
Why is it that Nazis were wrong to be the Master Race, that Caucasians are wrong to be White Supremacists, but it is totally fine for Zionists to be the Chosen People of God. If looking down is ‘hatred’ then how much clearer could it be? Who can’t see that “Chosen” means good and that everybody else must be inferior by comparison.
If the Jews present circumstances are the measure of being hated, then it would be a virtual blessing for any Nation or Ethnic Group to be ‘hated’ as much as the Jews. Such ‘hatred’ would guarantee that America would bestow more money upon them than America even spends upon their own Education or Health Care. And such Hatred would assure that the World, at large, would blink their eyes at ‘God Chosen’ aggressions while approving of the severest of murderous crackdowns whenever the victims of the Chosen People’s aggression so much as squirmed even in the least. The Occupied Peoples really should just smile and hand over the deeds to their property to the People who have decided to describe themselves as the Chosen People of God. I’m sure the Jews have copywrited it by now. After all, the Nazis wouldn’t have used “Master Race” if they could have gotten “Chosen People of God”.
Back in 1975 the Israelis minted a coin for general distribution, a part of their currency… for cigarette machines… for making change…. It was to be in everybody’s pockets, it was worth about twenty five U.S. pennies… it was to be everywhere… anyway, on the back of that coin was a map labeled “Greater Israel” and it showed a boundary starting at the Mediterranean where we understand that Israel now starts, but it went on Eastward to subsume the entire territories that we now should think of as Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. Israel was practically declaring War in ever so clear a way. On their money. Is there anything else they take more seriously than their money?
And all this time they have been complaining that people hate them.
I guess they confuse fear for hate.
And since most Powerful America has volunteered to be the most virtually enslaved Colony of Israel (the Fundamentalist Protestants think that God will favor them for it), it has become very reasonable to fear the Jews. When it is the Truth of Truths that no American President, or damned few Senators or Congressmen, can be elected without the support of the Jewish-Zionist Lobby, then it is tantamount to concluding that it is not America that is the World’s last and most powerful Super Power, but the Jews, who have a strangle hold upon the American Government.
So, no, nobody hates the Jews. Or they are too afraid to admit it.
Short Essay or Long Essays
As they say, damned if you do, damned you don’t.
If you write an all inclusive essay that incorporates all human and metaphysical knowledge into a System that answers all things and provides all Knowledge and reconciles to all Wisdom, but it takes more than 200 words, then you are derided as being a boring windbag. But if you are brief and don’t completely nail down the entire physical and spiritual universe, then you are called stupid. Like I said, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The answer is “Moderation in all things”. For an introduction, simply make your assertive point. What are you going to present? For the relatively short body of your essay simply state the bare outline of your evidence. If anybody takes the bait… that is, if anybody pursues your Thread, then you can expand on your evidence. But you do not want to drown people with detail all at once. Perhaps there is no wiser aphorism than to not give one’s advise until it is asked for.
If you write an all inclusive essay that incorporates all human and metaphysical knowledge into a System that answers all things and provides all Knowledge and reconciles to all Wisdom, but it takes more than 200 words, then you are derided as being a boring windbag. But if you are brief and don’t completely nail down the entire physical and spiritual universe, then you are called stupid. Like I said, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The answer is “Moderation in all things”. For an introduction, simply make your assertive point. What are you going to present? For the relatively short body of your essay simply state the bare outline of your evidence. If anybody takes the bait… that is, if anybody pursues your Thread, then you can expand on your evidence. But you do not want to drown people with detail all at once. Perhaps there is no wiser aphorism than to not give one’s advise until it is asked for.
Really Stupid People
What they say of insanity is this, that a true lunatic will not suspect that he is crazy. So a genuine schizophrenic will never doubt the voices he hears. So here we find an instance of a true contradiction, that is, that if you think you are crazy, you’re not. I think they have called that a logical catch.
The same must be true of really stupid people, that they do not suspect themselves of being stupid.
Well, one might ask, how do these extremely stupid people account for a World that must to them make no sense? What do they make of people who talk in complexities that they themselves cannot possibly follow? Well, they have a surprising method for dealing, and I’ve seen it again and again from stupid people. They turn it around and say that the Smart People are the ones who are not making any sense. They say the World isn’t making sense. They revert to simplistic philosophies of self justification and insist that all of the effete intellectuals and the overly complex societies are the real problems. Everything is really simple and easy but the effete eggheads are only trying to muddy the waters.
If it all went no further than indulging their self-delusion, than it would not be much of a problem. But they are allowed to vote.
The Solution for this Problem? Well, yes, certainly, we could do something. Everybody should be made to take some objective universal test and and then, depending upon the results, they should wear hats or arm bands that signify the band of their IQ Ranking. White for 150 and above. Gray – 140 to 150. Purple 130 to 140. Blue 120 to 130. Green 110 to 120. yellow 100 to 110. Orange 90 to 100. Red 80 to 90. Brown 70 to 80. Black absolute bottom – duh! Online one would be obliged to affix a signature indicative of one’s intelligence color code…. As though we don’t already know who’s stupid.
Once we know how smart people are, then we could identify who we could really take seriously. Oh, and yes, people with less than a 130 IQ should not be allowed to vote.
Oh, yes, and the good news for stupid people – they should not be considered as being capable of Moral Responsibility. No stupid person, that is, no person with an IQ of less than 110 should ever be sent to jail… what good would it do anyway? Certainly we can’t speak of “teaching them a lesson”? But the bad news is that there would have to be some institutional monitoring of stupid people. No matter how nice the Zoo is, they still don’t leave the cage doors open.
The same must be true of really stupid people, that they do not suspect themselves of being stupid.
Well, one might ask, how do these extremely stupid people account for a World that must to them make no sense? What do they make of people who talk in complexities that they themselves cannot possibly follow? Well, they have a surprising method for dealing, and I’ve seen it again and again from stupid people. They turn it around and say that the Smart People are the ones who are not making any sense. They say the World isn’t making sense. They revert to simplistic philosophies of self justification and insist that all of the effete intellectuals and the overly complex societies are the real problems. Everything is really simple and easy but the effete eggheads are only trying to muddy the waters.
If it all went no further than indulging their self-delusion, than it would not be much of a problem. But they are allowed to vote.
The Solution for this Problem? Well, yes, certainly, we could do something. Everybody should be made to take some objective universal test and and then, depending upon the results, they should wear hats or arm bands that signify the band of their IQ Ranking. White for 150 and above. Gray – 140 to 150. Purple 130 to 140. Blue 120 to 130. Green 110 to 120. yellow 100 to 110. Orange 90 to 100. Red 80 to 90. Brown 70 to 80. Black absolute bottom – duh! Online one would be obliged to affix a signature indicative of one’s intelligence color code…. As though we don’t already know who’s stupid.
Once we know how smart people are, then we could identify who we could really take seriously. Oh, and yes, people with less than a 130 IQ should not be allowed to vote.
Oh, yes, and the good news for stupid people – they should not be considered as being capable of Moral Responsibility. No stupid person, that is, no person with an IQ of less than 110 should ever be sent to jail… what good would it do anyway? Certainly we can’t speak of “teaching them a lesson”? But the bad news is that there would have to be some institutional monitoring of stupid people. No matter how nice the Zoo is, they still don’t leave the cage doors open.
Democracy Is Dictatorship
To hear the universal propaganda, one would think that Democracy was the most recent of revealed religions. But we need to see it clearly in terms of the results of elections, even fair elections, where there are winners who are represented by Government, and where we have the losers who are disenfranchised and become powerless victims to unresponsive policies set to target and exploit them.
We see it time and time again. The new French President, What’s His Name, who isn’t even French (and neither was Napoleon …it seems that the French rather take to non-French Dictators) – with the recent transportation strike he pretended to be surprised that a great many people were almost violently opposed to his extremist programs designed to make them work more for less for the benefit of those who, receiving the benefits of the newly transferred Wealth, would now get more for doing less. He argued that he had told the Voters exactly what he would do. Well, were the Losers supposed to be happy about it? The Election was NOT a landslide, and almost half of France lost that Election. Perhaps there should be a law that only the Winners of Elections should be the victims of the New Policies. Voting NO should be enough to shield you from the Government. Its not really Democracy if half the people aren’t represented, is it?
The United States presents the best example of Democracy’s abuses. Bush, who did not even win a majority of the popular vote, who won only when the Conservatively packed Supreme Court manipulated the Electoral Vote (a vestige from the American Constitution that never trusted the vote of the Common Man but would rather elections be decided by the Party Power Brokers back in the smoky rooms). Bush announced that he would assume he had a Full Mandate to impose an extreme rightwing political agenda. He won, everyone else lost. Losers simply deserve no consideration, and in point of fact, who can argue? To him it was simple. Dictatorship always is.
But Americans are not overly fastidious when it comes to consistency, as the Right Wing argues for Winners only when it is they who win. When they don’t like the elections they see in the rest of the World, they scream that the Winners are Dictators and Terrorists, and then force the U.N. and all of America’s Allies to withdraw diplomatic recognition and impose Sanctions that destroy entire economies and societies. America claims that both Venezuela and Palestine were dictatorships, the one under democratically elected Chavez and the other under the democratically elected Hamas Party.
But really, democracy has much the same problems whether the Right Wing or the Left Wing win. In either case a great many ‘losers’ are violated of their representation.
Then we can see empirically that democracies tend to reward complete idiots. The only person in the entire world that may be any stupider than George Bush might be Hugo Chavez, that moron in Venezuela. One a Right Wing imbecile, and the other a Left Wing imbecile. The second thing they have in common is that they are both electable. I wonder what it is about stupid people that makes them so electable… I guess it is that the majority of voters are stupid and suppose they are best represented by Stupidity. Then the elections swing from Right to Left and Left to Right more or less by fad.
Or maybe not. The Right Wing believes a bit more in Self Help. The News Media does not spell it out very well, but the Right Wing wins mostly by assassination. The Nazis assassinated all of the popular Socialist Politicians, leaving an open field for the Nazi candidates. In Japan it was not organized, but crazy fanatical lieutenants were shooting all of the moderate and reasonable legislatures in their Government until only the extreme Right Wing remained. In America there was actual corporal assassination and then the Media was used to engineer character assassination. In Israel they had to shoot Rabin before the Zionists could charge off on the policy of Settling the Occupied Territories and establishing a Greater Israel.
Is Democracy really fair when the Right Wing really does shoot many more people than the Left. It is ironic that it was Mao who said that “Democracy comes out of the barrel of a gun”. Most of the bullets being fired come from the Right.
Then we have the problem of Wealthy and Powerful Corporations being willing to funnel corrupt bribes and ‘contributions’ to the Right than to the Left. Look at Germany. Hitler was a big hit among the big companies.
Well, if people would ever really vote for their own self interest, then the Left, with its advantage in sheer numbers, could perhaps make up for the deficit they have in Will to Kill and Money for Corruption that is clearly the Domain of the Fascist Right Wing. There are indeed so many more Poor People than Rich People. But then stupidity comes into play, and money directed toward Brain Washing Propaganda does indeed get what it pays for. For instance, in America more than 80% of the people who voted for George Bush, because he said he would cut ‘their’ taxes, are actually paying out more than before (as local taxation and price structures had to devolve to compensate – somebody has to Pay and if it isn’t the Rich, than it will be the Poor… more and more), and Bush only cut taxes and funneled Wealth to the smallest minority of the Super Rich (his Texas buddies in the Oil Business… their Oil has now gone up in value 300%, and that in addition to being exempted from Taxes). Oh, and this brings up a point, often used by the Propaganda Perpetrators, that Average Wealth is Going Up. What they mean is that the Total Wealth of Everybody that is divided by the number of Everybody is Going Up. They make it sound like the Average Guy is getting more money. What it really means is that they are counting Bill Gates with his 50 Billion Dollars in the same category as a Walmart Clerk who is only making Minimum Wage. Bill Gates is 20% Richer every year while the Walmart Clerk stays the same, oh, while paying twice as much for gas. When Statistics only track Poverty, we get a more realistic picture… that Poverty is expanding along in the same proportions as the trends toward Concentration of Wealth – the money going to make the Rich even Richer must be coming from somewhere. The Rich say they hate Distribution of Wealth, unless of course it is they who benefit by it.
Anyway, the stupid and victimized 80% are so stupid they still don’t know they’ve been screwed, and will likely vote Republican again. Its never said, but mostly I suppose the American Vote is mostly White against Black. As Woodrow Wilson said, Democracy resolves to Ethnic Self-Determinism. All other things being equal, Democracy will be a fight for power between competing ethnic groups or race. And those type of Political Parties are all Right Wing Extremist Nuts with guns. Hitler is not only our Past, but our future. People conveniently forget that Hitler didn’t usurp power. He was elected….well, no, not fairly, but neither was George Bush. We need to remember that Cheating also seems to be an integral part of Democracy, as we know it.
Anyway, what it comes down to is that Democracy gives us for Leaders the bought and paid for stupid survivors of continuous gun battles where Minorities can never hope to ever be represented. Not a very good Religion is it, for all of the Media Worship it receives.
This brings up another point – Media’s overwhelming support of Democracy. It might have something to do with the practical matter that every major political faction will support its own network of media outlets. For the Media democracy is simply good business. And they do not print the Truth. Like lawyers, they print what they are paid to print. Right Wing papers print Right Wing crap, and Left Wing papers print, well, the Truth, but they dumb it down a lot so that the largest number of poor uneducated idiots will go along with it. But in either case, the mendacious propaganda from the Right and the simplistic sloganeering from the Left is not exactly what we have been promised by the Free Press. Would Government Bulletins from a politically neutral Bureaucratic Meritocracy really be much worse than a Corporate or Party Media?
When will people begin to examine the possibility of setting up a Government by Law and Professional Civil Service, positions being determined by objective merit and consensus between candidates. Yes, not every profoundly intelligent person, good at taking tests, can be a practical and pragmatic administrator and statesman, but a system could be set up where, let’s say, the hundred most objectively intelligent political scientists in a Political Jurisdiction are locked into a room and are not allowed out until they select an Executive and an Executive Committee.
We see it time and time again. The new French President, What’s His Name, who isn’t even French (and neither was Napoleon …it seems that the French rather take to non-French Dictators) – with the recent transportation strike he pretended to be surprised that a great many people were almost violently opposed to his extremist programs designed to make them work more for less for the benefit of those who, receiving the benefits of the newly transferred Wealth, would now get more for doing less. He argued that he had told the Voters exactly what he would do. Well, were the Losers supposed to be happy about it? The Election was NOT a landslide, and almost half of France lost that Election. Perhaps there should be a law that only the Winners of Elections should be the victims of the New Policies. Voting NO should be enough to shield you from the Government. Its not really Democracy if half the people aren’t represented, is it?
The United States presents the best example of Democracy’s abuses. Bush, who did not even win a majority of the popular vote, who won only when the Conservatively packed Supreme Court manipulated the Electoral Vote (a vestige from the American Constitution that never trusted the vote of the Common Man but would rather elections be decided by the Party Power Brokers back in the smoky rooms). Bush announced that he would assume he had a Full Mandate to impose an extreme rightwing political agenda. He won, everyone else lost. Losers simply deserve no consideration, and in point of fact, who can argue? To him it was simple. Dictatorship always is.
But Americans are not overly fastidious when it comes to consistency, as the Right Wing argues for Winners only when it is they who win. When they don’t like the elections they see in the rest of the World, they scream that the Winners are Dictators and Terrorists, and then force the U.N. and all of America’s Allies to withdraw diplomatic recognition and impose Sanctions that destroy entire economies and societies. America claims that both Venezuela and Palestine were dictatorships, the one under democratically elected Chavez and the other under the democratically elected Hamas Party.
But really, democracy has much the same problems whether the Right Wing or the Left Wing win. In either case a great many ‘losers’ are violated of their representation.
Then we can see empirically that democracies tend to reward complete idiots. The only person in the entire world that may be any stupider than George Bush might be Hugo Chavez, that moron in Venezuela. One a Right Wing imbecile, and the other a Left Wing imbecile. The second thing they have in common is that they are both electable. I wonder what it is about stupid people that makes them so electable… I guess it is that the majority of voters are stupid and suppose they are best represented by Stupidity. Then the elections swing from Right to Left and Left to Right more or less by fad.
Or maybe not. The Right Wing believes a bit more in Self Help. The News Media does not spell it out very well, but the Right Wing wins mostly by assassination. The Nazis assassinated all of the popular Socialist Politicians, leaving an open field for the Nazi candidates. In Japan it was not organized, but crazy fanatical lieutenants were shooting all of the moderate and reasonable legislatures in their Government until only the extreme Right Wing remained. In America there was actual corporal assassination and then the Media was used to engineer character assassination. In Israel they had to shoot Rabin before the Zionists could charge off on the policy of Settling the Occupied Territories and establishing a Greater Israel.
Is Democracy really fair when the Right Wing really does shoot many more people than the Left. It is ironic that it was Mao who said that “Democracy comes out of the barrel of a gun”. Most of the bullets being fired come from the Right.
Then we have the problem of Wealthy and Powerful Corporations being willing to funnel corrupt bribes and ‘contributions’ to the Right than to the Left. Look at Germany. Hitler was a big hit among the big companies.
Well, if people would ever really vote for their own self interest, then the Left, with its advantage in sheer numbers, could perhaps make up for the deficit they have in Will to Kill and Money for Corruption that is clearly the Domain of the Fascist Right Wing. There are indeed so many more Poor People than Rich People. But then stupidity comes into play, and money directed toward Brain Washing Propaganda does indeed get what it pays for. For instance, in America more than 80% of the people who voted for George Bush, because he said he would cut ‘their’ taxes, are actually paying out more than before (as local taxation and price structures had to devolve to compensate – somebody has to Pay and if it isn’t the Rich, than it will be the Poor… more and more), and Bush only cut taxes and funneled Wealth to the smallest minority of the Super Rich (his Texas buddies in the Oil Business… their Oil has now gone up in value 300%, and that in addition to being exempted from Taxes). Oh, and this brings up a point, often used by the Propaganda Perpetrators, that Average Wealth is Going Up. What they mean is that the Total Wealth of Everybody that is divided by the number of Everybody is Going Up. They make it sound like the Average Guy is getting more money. What it really means is that they are counting Bill Gates with his 50 Billion Dollars in the same category as a Walmart Clerk who is only making Minimum Wage. Bill Gates is 20% Richer every year while the Walmart Clerk stays the same, oh, while paying twice as much for gas. When Statistics only track Poverty, we get a more realistic picture… that Poverty is expanding along in the same proportions as the trends toward Concentration of Wealth – the money going to make the Rich even Richer must be coming from somewhere. The Rich say they hate Distribution of Wealth, unless of course it is they who benefit by it.
Anyway, the stupid and victimized 80% are so stupid they still don’t know they’ve been screwed, and will likely vote Republican again. Its never said, but mostly I suppose the American Vote is mostly White against Black. As Woodrow Wilson said, Democracy resolves to Ethnic Self-Determinism. All other things being equal, Democracy will be a fight for power between competing ethnic groups or race. And those type of Political Parties are all Right Wing Extremist Nuts with guns. Hitler is not only our Past, but our future. People conveniently forget that Hitler didn’t usurp power. He was elected….well, no, not fairly, but neither was George Bush. We need to remember that Cheating also seems to be an integral part of Democracy, as we know it.
Anyway, what it comes down to is that Democracy gives us for Leaders the bought and paid for stupid survivors of continuous gun battles where Minorities can never hope to ever be represented. Not a very good Religion is it, for all of the Media Worship it receives.
This brings up another point – Media’s overwhelming support of Democracy. It might have something to do with the practical matter that every major political faction will support its own network of media outlets. For the Media democracy is simply good business. And they do not print the Truth. Like lawyers, they print what they are paid to print. Right Wing papers print Right Wing crap, and Left Wing papers print, well, the Truth, but they dumb it down a lot so that the largest number of poor uneducated idiots will go along with it. But in either case, the mendacious propaganda from the Right and the simplistic sloganeering from the Left is not exactly what we have been promised by the Free Press. Would Government Bulletins from a politically neutral Bureaucratic Meritocracy really be much worse than a Corporate or Party Media?
When will people begin to examine the possibility of setting up a Government by Law and Professional Civil Service, positions being determined by objective merit and consensus between candidates. Yes, not every profoundly intelligent person, good at taking tests, can be a practical and pragmatic administrator and statesman, but a system could be set up where, let’s say, the hundred most objectively intelligent political scientists in a Political Jurisdiction are locked into a room and are not allowed out until they select an Executive and an Executive Committee.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Legalism vs. Morality
Ancient China had a number of intellectual schools which vied for political influence. The Confucian Schools sided with Morality, the idea that people should be encouraged to appreciate an intuition regarding what is Righteous and what is not, and then to abide by what they thought to be Right. The Legalists, on the other hand, complained that Morality was too subjective, that goodness dodged rigorous classification… who could definitively decide what was right or wrong? The Legalists rather proposed that laws be legislated as regards to social and political utility. In this sense morality would be replaced by codified ethics. No shades of grey but the black and white of thing either being legal or illegal.
The Moralists insisted that while no strict definitions could be asserted that could entirely encompass what was meant by Righteousness, still, many hundreds or even thousands of particular examples could be put forward which could provide people with a sufficient idea of how Righteousness worked in real world practice. By being acquainted with a sufficient lexicon of Righteousness it could be expected that people would be good, for all practical purposes, even if not perfectly so. Confucian Literature gives us an example of numerous anecdotes of goodness while not attempting any precise moral definitions.
The Legalists thought that their Legal Codifications would eliminate the moral uncertainty, and people would only have to worry about obeying the Law. This approach proved then, and still proves now, to be very naïve. Today every Secular Society in the World depends upon Legalist Institutions – legislating ethics while hoping or assuming that these laws would be automatically obeyed. But in practice the Legalistic Institutions rely upon saturating their societies with observers and enforcers – spies and police. The Legalistic States resolve into Police States. In America today there are more police than nurses, and more lawyers than doctors. No wonder there is no national health care. Incidentally, there are nearly more prison guards than teachers, and mostly they are paid better.
Today’s secularists suppose that the worst evils known to the World must of course source from Societies convinced of Religious Morality, but it must be admitted that to the degree in which the people are convinced of Religious Morality, the need for spies and police are far diminished. The people are good because they are self-motivated to be good, and not because they are afraid they might be caught breaking some law or another.
Ancient China was a special case in that the choices between Morality and Legality were intellectually evaluated and discussed in depth. Today that is not always the case, and so we have people doing all sorts of contradictory crap. We have Believers in Religious Morality who would legislate their Morality into Legality. This would not really be the best of both worlds, but the worst. Both Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists, ignorant farmers in both cases, wish to impose a Religious Morality by Legalistic means. This gives us situations where violence and duress are being utilized to advance essentially Religious Morality, which really should pose a contradiction in more minds than just mine.
Now, yes, Legalistic Institutions where they regard only practical and pragmatic details of social commerce – speeding laws, taxes and such – have their place. So also it is useful to have laws regarding the protection of property rights and public safety. But issues of morality should be matters of social indoctrination. If left to Legality then it would be necessary that every second person in Society be either a policeman or somebody who squeals to policemen.
But to be intellectually honest, today, where Information Technology could really possibly monitor every person, everywhere, twenty-four hours a day, we must concede that a totally Legalistic Society could become a more and more practical consideration. An All Knowing Information Technology can very much become an All Knowing Secular God. But still, it would not so much be a Society full of Goodness, as simply devoid of Crime. People would refrain from evil for fear of certainly getting caught. But there would still be no positive incentive for doing Good unless Society also encouraged positively Moral Institutions.
The Moralists insisted that while no strict definitions could be asserted that could entirely encompass what was meant by Righteousness, still, many hundreds or even thousands of particular examples could be put forward which could provide people with a sufficient idea of how Righteousness worked in real world practice. By being acquainted with a sufficient lexicon of Righteousness it could be expected that people would be good, for all practical purposes, even if not perfectly so. Confucian Literature gives us an example of numerous anecdotes of goodness while not attempting any precise moral definitions.
The Legalists thought that their Legal Codifications would eliminate the moral uncertainty, and people would only have to worry about obeying the Law. This approach proved then, and still proves now, to be very naïve. Today every Secular Society in the World depends upon Legalist Institutions – legislating ethics while hoping or assuming that these laws would be automatically obeyed. But in practice the Legalistic Institutions rely upon saturating their societies with observers and enforcers – spies and police. The Legalistic States resolve into Police States. In America today there are more police than nurses, and more lawyers than doctors. No wonder there is no national health care. Incidentally, there are nearly more prison guards than teachers, and mostly they are paid better.
Today’s secularists suppose that the worst evils known to the World must of course source from Societies convinced of Religious Morality, but it must be admitted that to the degree in which the people are convinced of Religious Morality, the need for spies and police are far diminished. The people are good because they are self-motivated to be good, and not because they are afraid they might be caught breaking some law or another.
Ancient China was a special case in that the choices between Morality and Legality were intellectually evaluated and discussed in depth. Today that is not always the case, and so we have people doing all sorts of contradictory crap. We have Believers in Religious Morality who would legislate their Morality into Legality. This would not really be the best of both worlds, but the worst. Both Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists, ignorant farmers in both cases, wish to impose a Religious Morality by Legalistic means. This gives us situations where violence and duress are being utilized to advance essentially Religious Morality, which really should pose a contradiction in more minds than just mine.
Now, yes, Legalistic Institutions where they regard only practical and pragmatic details of social commerce – speeding laws, taxes and such – have their place. So also it is useful to have laws regarding the protection of property rights and public safety. But issues of morality should be matters of social indoctrination. If left to Legality then it would be necessary that every second person in Society be either a policeman or somebody who squeals to policemen.
But to be intellectually honest, today, where Information Technology could really possibly monitor every person, everywhere, twenty-four hours a day, we must concede that a totally Legalistic Society could become a more and more practical consideration. An All Knowing Information Technology can very much become an All Knowing Secular God. But still, it would not so much be a Society full of Goodness, as simply devoid of Crime. People would refrain from evil for fear of certainly getting caught. But there would still be no positive incentive for doing Good unless Society also encouraged positively Moral Institutions.
Elitist Gentlemen Racists vs Fair Minded Failures
There are a number of ways people can sell their souls for some material benefit – and usually people realize at some level that they are acting from over on the dark side, as business men and mobsters apologize by saying “its just business”. But sometimes evil is more insidious, especially the sin of Pride. Indeed, a lot of people think pride is a good thing.
But, concerning Pride, perhaps no other sin has such a great pay off. You see, nearly all access to great wealth involves having some ease with exploiting others, and in this regards, pride can be a great asset, a great lubricant. If one is sincerely convinced of one’s superiority over others, then placing one’s self in charge is no reach at all. One may even see taking charge as one’s responsibility. For instance, European World Conquest was once seen, by Europeans at least, as “the White Man’s burden”. They honestly thought they were doing everybody a big favor.
Also, this sin of pride, and the material advantages thereof, accrue to Cultures as a whole. Where it becomes a matter of cultural identity for people to suppose themselves better than the rest of humanity in general, then, perhaps not surprisingly, this increases expectations and actual performance. Where pride is ingrained into Character, people automatically tend to live up to it and become people that one can have pride in.
Inversely, where it becomes a cultural priority to notify all people, even the children, or especially the children, that everybody is a blend of the same bland mix of mediocrity, then it can’t help but to relax expectations. If nobody is conditioned to believe themselves superior, then nobody will act in a superior manner. ‘Good enough’ really isn’t good enough and it tends to continually spiral downwards, lower and lower.
Examining pride, we can take a look at Jewish Culture for a first ‘for instance’ – Jews are taught on their mother’s lap that they are the Chosen People of God, the rest of the World to be eliminated by genocide whenever convenient and their Lands usurped, being annexed to an ever expanding Promised Land. As dangerous and violent as this Ethnic Pride is manifesting, still, on the other hand we have to admit that they do very well in school and then push into almost any career field most comfortably snatching every bit of other people’s Free Will that may come within their reach. But Jews are not alone in this, while many Nations teach their children that they are inherently superior to everybody else. Or within homogenous cultures, certain Classes of the population condition themselves to a superiority of self expectations – in England, for instance, where all people are ‘Englishmen’, we have an Aristocracy that is convinced of their superior ‘breeding’.
Conditioned Superiority can lead to serious conflicts, especially in cases where two ‘Superior’ Groups collide, the best example here might be to mention the collision between the Nazi Master Race and the Jewish Chosen People of God. God did not prove to be overly supportive of His Chosen People, but somehow nobody’s faith had been terribly shaken. The Master Race might have been more humbled if it were not for the fact that they were stopped only by their own ethnic cousins (Aryan Germans defeated by Aryan Russians and Aryan Anglo/Americans… demonstrating only that Aryans must have some War God Religion of their own). Also, in the Far East it has been a problem where each Nation, convinced of their own superiority find it difficult to extend diplomatic equality to any of the others. It seems that Superior Groups more or less expect that the other groups will automatically accept the inferior role that is projected upon them, and calculations are seldom made in quantifying the opposing culture’s own collective Self Esteem. Zionist Jews are surprised when Palestinians are not happy to lie down and die at their feet, willingly handing over the deeds to their land as their last dying gesture. When the Japanese invaded China they were puzzled when they were met with contempt and condescension as well as with armed resistance.
Then we have cultures that are conditioned to inferiority. They have nothing to live up to, and they certainly don’t. Ethnic groups that had filled inferior places in society tend to stay down. We see this where slavery had once been endemic. We also see it in former Colonies, where the subjugated native ethnic groups continue on, well after their political liberation, in having no expectations for themselves. The problem of low expectations is largely self-perpetuating. Parents convinced of their own mediocrity will communicate no high level of expectations to their children. And the Teachers who are supposed to inculcate abilities and aptitudes, well, they are simply culturally conditioned to think that almost any level of performance is good enough. It is simply not in their cultural inventory to care whether the kids ever really do well or not. If one day follows the next without the roof falling in, they think they are doing fine. Indeed, abilities are often discouraged when high achieving students are reprimanded by their very Teachers for acting better than everybody else, and C level students are praised for so conscientiously fitting in, as though it took some great effort NOT to study.
But, yes, it does present a tricky ethical problem. Teach our children that they are all equal and that nobody is any better than anybody else, then we will have children with no will to succeed in a very competitive world, or who will not have sufficient skill or abilities to compete even if they wanted to. But condition children from their infancy to believe in either racial, ethnic or class superiority, then, at least in the World as we presently know it, they will succeed as though, well, as though they were conditioned to succeed. Do we want our kids to be good or do we want them to be successful?
It reminds me of India, where the mothers pray that their children NOT become Saints.
But, concerning Pride, perhaps no other sin has such a great pay off. You see, nearly all access to great wealth involves having some ease with exploiting others, and in this regards, pride can be a great asset, a great lubricant. If one is sincerely convinced of one’s superiority over others, then placing one’s self in charge is no reach at all. One may even see taking charge as one’s responsibility. For instance, European World Conquest was once seen, by Europeans at least, as “the White Man’s burden”. They honestly thought they were doing everybody a big favor.
Also, this sin of pride, and the material advantages thereof, accrue to Cultures as a whole. Where it becomes a matter of cultural identity for people to suppose themselves better than the rest of humanity in general, then, perhaps not surprisingly, this increases expectations and actual performance. Where pride is ingrained into Character, people automatically tend to live up to it and become people that one can have pride in.
Inversely, where it becomes a cultural priority to notify all people, even the children, or especially the children, that everybody is a blend of the same bland mix of mediocrity, then it can’t help but to relax expectations. If nobody is conditioned to believe themselves superior, then nobody will act in a superior manner. ‘Good enough’ really isn’t good enough and it tends to continually spiral downwards, lower and lower.
Examining pride, we can take a look at Jewish Culture for a first ‘for instance’ – Jews are taught on their mother’s lap that they are the Chosen People of God, the rest of the World to be eliminated by genocide whenever convenient and their Lands usurped, being annexed to an ever expanding Promised Land. As dangerous and violent as this Ethnic Pride is manifesting, still, on the other hand we have to admit that they do very well in school and then push into almost any career field most comfortably snatching every bit of other people’s Free Will that may come within their reach. But Jews are not alone in this, while many Nations teach their children that they are inherently superior to everybody else. Or within homogenous cultures, certain Classes of the population condition themselves to a superiority of self expectations – in England, for instance, where all people are ‘Englishmen’, we have an Aristocracy that is convinced of their superior ‘breeding’.
Conditioned Superiority can lead to serious conflicts, especially in cases where two ‘Superior’ Groups collide, the best example here might be to mention the collision between the Nazi Master Race and the Jewish Chosen People of God. God did not prove to be overly supportive of His Chosen People, but somehow nobody’s faith had been terribly shaken. The Master Race might have been more humbled if it were not for the fact that they were stopped only by their own ethnic cousins (Aryan Germans defeated by Aryan Russians and Aryan Anglo/Americans… demonstrating only that Aryans must have some War God Religion of their own). Also, in the Far East it has been a problem where each Nation, convinced of their own superiority find it difficult to extend diplomatic equality to any of the others. It seems that Superior Groups more or less expect that the other groups will automatically accept the inferior role that is projected upon them, and calculations are seldom made in quantifying the opposing culture’s own collective Self Esteem. Zionist Jews are surprised when Palestinians are not happy to lie down and die at their feet, willingly handing over the deeds to their land as their last dying gesture. When the Japanese invaded China they were puzzled when they were met with contempt and condescension as well as with armed resistance.
Then we have cultures that are conditioned to inferiority. They have nothing to live up to, and they certainly don’t. Ethnic groups that had filled inferior places in society tend to stay down. We see this where slavery had once been endemic. We also see it in former Colonies, where the subjugated native ethnic groups continue on, well after their political liberation, in having no expectations for themselves. The problem of low expectations is largely self-perpetuating. Parents convinced of their own mediocrity will communicate no high level of expectations to their children. And the Teachers who are supposed to inculcate abilities and aptitudes, well, they are simply culturally conditioned to think that almost any level of performance is good enough. It is simply not in their cultural inventory to care whether the kids ever really do well or not. If one day follows the next without the roof falling in, they think they are doing fine. Indeed, abilities are often discouraged when high achieving students are reprimanded by their very Teachers for acting better than everybody else, and C level students are praised for so conscientiously fitting in, as though it took some great effort NOT to study.
But, yes, it does present a tricky ethical problem. Teach our children that they are all equal and that nobody is any better than anybody else, then we will have children with no will to succeed in a very competitive world, or who will not have sufficient skill or abilities to compete even if they wanted to. But condition children from their infancy to believe in either racial, ethnic or class superiority, then, at least in the World as we presently know it, they will succeed as though, well, as though they were conditioned to succeed. Do we want our kids to be good or do we want them to be successful?
It reminds me of India, where the mothers pray that their children NOT become Saints.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The Evil Side of Grace
How can Divine Grace be a bad thing?
Well, we should begin to suspect it immediately when we find it is an integral part of Paulist Christian Doctrine. But first, let’s see an explanation. You see, for these Paulist Christians Grace is the mechanism which brings them Righteousness. When a Paulist says he or she is ‘born again’, well, it is Grace that had been doing the rebirthing. So far it sounds fine, doesn’t it, but the problem occurs when we discover that Grace must be entirely relied upon at the exclusion of Will.
You see, the Paulists insisted that no one could be saved by Works, that is, simply being good, or acting good, and doing good things, being moral – all that had no religious significance at all. In fact Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans quite denigrates Good Works as ‘cheap rags and boasts’ before God. I’ve often seen enough in Christian Propaganda that the other Religions of the World are damned simply because they believe in Salvation by Works, which apparently then are not a very good thing to Christians. Christian Doctrine was very precise in requiring that one be saved, and then transformed and purified only by Grace.
The problem I see with that is that so very few Paulists ever really get around to being purified by Grace – at their first confession of Faith, subsequently, or at any time in their lives. But they are ‘saved’. You see, for them, ‘Forgiveness’ of sins is quite enough to allow them into Heaven. That Grace never laid its transforming touch upon them is of little ultimate import to them.
If you think I exaggerate, well, I refer you to the Case of the Bishop Pelagius who in the early centuries, early enough for Saint Augustine to make his career in condemning him, had issued the Teaching that men should endeavor to do good and refrain from sin, and that each man could summon his will power to resist Evil. Now, that was exactly the Teaching the Catholic Church needed, then and now, especially if it wished to honestly address its problem with pedophilia and corruption. But that’s not how it went down. Pelagius was accused and then tried for heresy, lost his case and was forced to recant (oh, his Recantation was clever enough – he said that by recanting he was committing Evil and by committing Evil he was now well in line with the other Bishops and Augustine). He placed Works above Grace, and one can simply not do that in the Paulist Church.
I have a feeling that the True Intent of that Doctrine of Grace is a bit sinister, that the Ruling Paulists, the True Leaders and not the often well-meaning but idiot and ignorant followers, that they explicitly are avoiding any injunction to Moral Responsibility, or any Order that they use their Will Powers to be Righteous Men. You see, while they are simply Saved and can wait at God’s leisure for some Magical Transformation to Goodness by Grace, then they can do just as Augustine had done, and spend their entire lives rolling in the mud and slops of, well, fully deliberate sin. I guess they simply assume that if God wants to change their Sinful Nature, then He could do that whenever He pleased, and until then they could simply and guiltlessly let Nature run its course where All is Forgiven anyway. And this gives us a World of surprisingly Self Righteous Slave Traders and War Mongers, on the Protestant Side, and Fat Cat Corrupt pedophile Bishops on the other.
Now, MOST Catholics didn’t use to believe such, well, Evil. Remember that Catholicism had comprised a Working Civilization, it had been the Thousand Year Reign of Christ on Earth prophesized by Scripture, and Civilizations simply can’t work if Evil is too openly condoned. The Marian Religious Orders that had been the backbone of Catholic Civilization before the Reformation insisted upon the actual practice of Conversion – people were expected to repent of sin, atone for sin, and then convert to Righteousness. All of these things were a matter of act and especially Will. Indeed, that is why the Protestants, particularly Luther and Calvin had such a hard-on against the Catholics – for ignoring the explicit Teachings of Paul on Grace and Salvation by Faith Alone. The Catholics were accused then, and even now to some extant, for believing in Salvation by Works.
I would wish that Modern Catholicism was as morally centered as the Old Brand, but with what we see of all the Pedophilia, we know that isn’t true. But still, it is JUST the Bishops. The Religious Orders still mostly have it right. Yet it is that when you talk about Catholicism, people think you mean exclusively the Teachings of the Bishops – the Bishops being the first to agree on that point. The problem there is that the Bishops effectively surrendered to the Protestants during the Wars of the Reformation (oh the Protestants speak of Catholic lack of tolerance, but Protestants won those wars simply by going way beyond the appetite of any Catholic for murder and rapine). At the Council of Trent, soon after the Catholic Surrender the Catholic Bishops underscored their acquiescence to the Doctrine of Grace. They promised heartily that never again would any Catholic ever intentionally do Good. Well, as they still insisted upon behaving better than any Protestant, the Protestants never believed them. Oh, yes, the Protestants have their Pedophiles aplenty too, but suing a bunch of Scout Masters is like squeezing blood from stone. The Lawyers go after the Catholics because they have all those Hospitals and Schools to sell. Notice that nobody ever takes the Pedophiles to Criminal Court. It is always just about the Money.
Now, back to the point of Grace against Works, as I insist, it is ONLY the Bishops who PRETEND to speak for the entire Church, but it is obvious that the Monks and the Nuns believe no such thing, as they completely fill their lives with Intentional Good Works. It is only the Bishops and the Secular Clergy (the Priests who have no affiliation in any Religious Order) who have been involved in these horrid Sexual and Corruption Scandals. Or, wait, no, I do remember some old problems within the Religious Orders, but at least the Order Superiors had their hands free to exert Discipline and demand Moral Retribution. The Religious Orders never stood by doing nothing, waiting for Grace.
The Bishops, and especially the Paulist Protestants, if they would take seriously their Nominal Beliefs (so few people care to bother to know what they are actually supposed to Believe) really are backed into a corner when Caught in Scandal. As the Bishops had said repeatedly, they are supposed to Forgive. They are supposed to depend upon the Grace of God and not take Judgment (where they mean discipline and correction) into their own hands.
You see, where Protestants are mostly ignorant, the Bishops – even if they are Evil, well, at least they are Educated, and they KNOW about the history of the Bishop Pelagius and the Doctrines sourcing from Paul through Augustine which insist upon Grace over Will. Christian Doctrine being what it is, morally their hands are tied.
But Christ reminded us that we would know a Tree by its Fruit. Where ‘Grace’ is a pretty enough name for a Tree, we find that its fruit makes the Tree in every sense a tentacle sprouting up from the bowels of Hell to strangle any reasonable Hope for Righteousness in the World.
So, on the whole, Grace is not really a very good thing, is it?
Well, we should begin to suspect it immediately when we find it is an integral part of Paulist Christian Doctrine. But first, let’s see an explanation. You see, for these Paulist Christians Grace is the mechanism which brings them Righteousness. When a Paulist says he or she is ‘born again’, well, it is Grace that had been doing the rebirthing. So far it sounds fine, doesn’t it, but the problem occurs when we discover that Grace must be entirely relied upon at the exclusion of Will.
You see, the Paulists insisted that no one could be saved by Works, that is, simply being good, or acting good, and doing good things, being moral – all that had no religious significance at all. In fact Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans quite denigrates Good Works as ‘cheap rags and boasts’ before God. I’ve often seen enough in Christian Propaganda that the other Religions of the World are damned simply because they believe in Salvation by Works, which apparently then are not a very good thing to Christians. Christian Doctrine was very precise in requiring that one be saved, and then transformed and purified only by Grace.
The problem I see with that is that so very few Paulists ever really get around to being purified by Grace – at their first confession of Faith, subsequently, or at any time in their lives. But they are ‘saved’. You see, for them, ‘Forgiveness’ of sins is quite enough to allow them into Heaven. That Grace never laid its transforming touch upon them is of little ultimate import to them.
If you think I exaggerate, well, I refer you to the Case of the Bishop Pelagius who in the early centuries, early enough for Saint Augustine to make his career in condemning him, had issued the Teaching that men should endeavor to do good and refrain from sin, and that each man could summon his will power to resist Evil. Now, that was exactly the Teaching the Catholic Church needed, then and now, especially if it wished to honestly address its problem with pedophilia and corruption. But that’s not how it went down. Pelagius was accused and then tried for heresy, lost his case and was forced to recant (oh, his Recantation was clever enough – he said that by recanting he was committing Evil and by committing Evil he was now well in line with the other Bishops and Augustine). He placed Works above Grace, and one can simply not do that in the Paulist Church.
I have a feeling that the True Intent of that Doctrine of Grace is a bit sinister, that the Ruling Paulists, the True Leaders and not the often well-meaning but idiot and ignorant followers, that they explicitly are avoiding any injunction to Moral Responsibility, or any Order that they use their Will Powers to be Righteous Men. You see, while they are simply Saved and can wait at God’s leisure for some Magical Transformation to Goodness by Grace, then they can do just as Augustine had done, and spend their entire lives rolling in the mud and slops of, well, fully deliberate sin. I guess they simply assume that if God wants to change their Sinful Nature, then He could do that whenever He pleased, and until then they could simply and guiltlessly let Nature run its course where All is Forgiven anyway. And this gives us a World of surprisingly Self Righteous Slave Traders and War Mongers, on the Protestant Side, and Fat Cat Corrupt pedophile Bishops on the other.
Now, MOST Catholics didn’t use to believe such, well, Evil. Remember that Catholicism had comprised a Working Civilization, it had been the Thousand Year Reign of Christ on Earth prophesized by Scripture, and Civilizations simply can’t work if Evil is too openly condoned. The Marian Religious Orders that had been the backbone of Catholic Civilization before the Reformation insisted upon the actual practice of Conversion – people were expected to repent of sin, atone for sin, and then convert to Righteousness. All of these things were a matter of act and especially Will. Indeed, that is why the Protestants, particularly Luther and Calvin had such a hard-on against the Catholics – for ignoring the explicit Teachings of Paul on Grace and Salvation by Faith Alone. The Catholics were accused then, and even now to some extant, for believing in Salvation by Works.
I would wish that Modern Catholicism was as morally centered as the Old Brand, but with what we see of all the Pedophilia, we know that isn’t true. But still, it is JUST the Bishops. The Religious Orders still mostly have it right. Yet it is that when you talk about Catholicism, people think you mean exclusively the Teachings of the Bishops – the Bishops being the first to agree on that point. The problem there is that the Bishops effectively surrendered to the Protestants during the Wars of the Reformation (oh the Protestants speak of Catholic lack of tolerance, but Protestants won those wars simply by going way beyond the appetite of any Catholic for murder and rapine). At the Council of Trent, soon after the Catholic Surrender the Catholic Bishops underscored their acquiescence to the Doctrine of Grace. They promised heartily that never again would any Catholic ever intentionally do Good. Well, as they still insisted upon behaving better than any Protestant, the Protestants never believed them. Oh, yes, the Protestants have their Pedophiles aplenty too, but suing a bunch of Scout Masters is like squeezing blood from stone. The Lawyers go after the Catholics because they have all those Hospitals and Schools to sell. Notice that nobody ever takes the Pedophiles to Criminal Court. It is always just about the Money.
Now, back to the point of Grace against Works, as I insist, it is ONLY the Bishops who PRETEND to speak for the entire Church, but it is obvious that the Monks and the Nuns believe no such thing, as they completely fill their lives with Intentional Good Works. It is only the Bishops and the Secular Clergy (the Priests who have no affiliation in any Religious Order) who have been involved in these horrid Sexual and Corruption Scandals. Or, wait, no, I do remember some old problems within the Religious Orders, but at least the Order Superiors had their hands free to exert Discipline and demand Moral Retribution. The Religious Orders never stood by doing nothing, waiting for Grace.
The Bishops, and especially the Paulist Protestants, if they would take seriously their Nominal Beliefs (so few people care to bother to know what they are actually supposed to Believe) really are backed into a corner when Caught in Scandal. As the Bishops had said repeatedly, they are supposed to Forgive. They are supposed to depend upon the Grace of God and not take Judgment (where they mean discipline and correction) into their own hands.
You see, where Protestants are mostly ignorant, the Bishops – even if they are Evil, well, at least they are Educated, and they KNOW about the history of the Bishop Pelagius and the Doctrines sourcing from Paul through Augustine which insist upon Grace over Will. Christian Doctrine being what it is, morally their hands are tied.
But Christ reminded us that we would know a Tree by its Fruit. Where ‘Grace’ is a pretty enough name for a Tree, we find that its fruit makes the Tree in every sense a tentacle sprouting up from the bowels of Hell to strangle any reasonable Hope for Righteousness in the World.
So, on the whole, Grace is not really a very good thing, is it?
Privacy, The Root of All Evil
It is ordinarily supposed that money is the root of all evil; however, this is only so to the extent that money is able to purchase effective exemptions from the usual social supervision that is brought to bear upon those with less money. In short, people with more money acquire with it a greater extent of privacy. And it is that privacy which allows for all of their notorious evil.
Most Theological Philosophy attributes to God the quality of being All Knowing. Such All Knowingness would certainly make any kind of Privacy impossible. So it is that in Heaven, where God enforces His Moral Judgment, that the Blessed Souls maintain a moral perfection because they know they can keep no dark secrets from God, that they have no Privacy. While their Goodness is real enough, much Evil is probably avoided because there are no opportunities for private indulgence. Perhaps it can be compared to how anybody would behave if always in the presence of those whom one respects the most, with no slipping away to the dark side, ever.
Now, down here on Earth, we are presently going through the threshold of capabilities, in information technology, that could effectively eliminate Privacy, and with it put an end to most crimes and instances of corruption. Cash money could be made contraband and replaced exclusively by systems of monitored electronic transfer – allowing for only honest exchanges. Also, it would take relatively little to almost completely monitor, with video and audio, at least all of the Urban Areas, at least the public areas where most crimes being committed. Where all movements are tracked, no criminal could ever “get away”. If it would not quite be the same as God watching our every move, still there would be the moral comfort of knowing that we could all be watching each other, that is when in the public sphere. I suppose it would not hurt to still have our homes to ourselves… at least our bedrooms.
But the trends in this direction are not favorable. Now, especially in America, where the propaganda is so entirely relentless and pervasive, that people assume that they are quite certain of what they think, and that they are quite right to think it, it is thought that Privacy is the preferred thing. We hear endlessly of protecting our rights to Privacy. Yet, all crime and corruption relies first upon privacy. Where charity and honesty preen in the light of day, all of the worst aspects of humanity lurk in the shadows of privacy. But it is considered the first priority of Political Correctness to protect what can only lead to endless harm.
Politically, privacy is now making strange alliances. The Left is screaming for protections of Privacy, perhaps only to spite the Right. But they should consider that Socialism and the Left could very well thrive in a totally open and monitored Society, but we can only imagine what a blow it would be to the Wealthy and the Corrupt Classes if suddenly all information were to be reviewed for ethics and legality. Does it not become obvious why so much Propaganda, that only the Wealthy and Powerful Classes can so well arrange for, has gone into convincing one and all of the supposed Blessed Sacredness of ‘Privacy’. The Dark have the most to gain in this atmosphere of Darkness, and so it is odd that the Left, so charitable and enlightened in every other regard, should side with the Devil in this particular case. Yes, they may be afraid of Right Wing Governments overhearing their secret Left Wing Conspiracies, but they should well consider that the same Darkness that shields them also shields their enemies who thrive so much better in the dark than they could ever do. Complete Disclosure would be the better strategic weapon for the Left. Besides, who needs secret police when you have undercover reporters.
There would be some problems and complications with implementing a totally Open Society. As it now stands, the Status Quo relies heavily on crime and corruption, indeed, there is a complete economic subculture that funds itself on drug sales, prostitution, car theft and warehouse pilferage (up to about 40% of the household goods found in poverty level households had ‘fallen off the truck’, that is, were pilfered from warehouses and sold at discount on the street. So this practice provides effective ‘employment’ on one side of the equation while relieving poverty on the other side with prices often a mere fraction of retail). The Monetary Policy in both America and Europe defend a high level of unemployment, blithely pretending to suppose that all of these ‘unemployed’ people somehow don’t need to eat or pay rent, but if they were honest with themselves they would have to admit that the money that supports so many ‘unemployed’ people must be coming from somewhere. It is. Crime that hides in Privacy. Privacy now maintains up to about 30% of the Population. In an Honest and Open World, we would have to either provide alternatives to what is now nominally illegal, but goes on in Private, or we would have to revise the Laws. While I can never image that Theft or Burglary could ever be legalized, I could easily envision Prostitution becoming a main street service, and that Drug Traffic could easily be transferred to the domain of the ordinary Retail Stores. Perhaps even more importantly, if Privacy were to be largely suspended, we would need to review the Laws in the light of just how serious we are about insisting upon them. It is one matter to have Laws that we know are only enforced against certain target ethnic or class groups, but quite something else if we suppose all of us could be vulnerable to the certain enforcement of such laws. We know for a fact that many people do indeed engage in drug use and involve themselves in prostitution. We need to ask whether such universals should ever be illegal. We hear a great deal about Freedom while the prisons are full of people who stole nothing and hurt nobody, and who are behind bars only because their Freedom had not been respected. Where Laws are enacted only to uphold the Morals of certain select groups, remembering that Democracies are often nothing more than 51% of the people imposing tyrannical dictatorships over the other 49%, we may easily suspect that people are sent to jail not because they offended against their own personal moral standards but because they offended others, who should probably have been minding their own business. We would need to review Laws that while supporting certain Moral Judgments or uphold certain Ethic Principles impinge upon the Freedom to make neutral moral choices. In this light it becomes difficult to support laws that punish those who have not stolen anything, or hurt anybody who does not specifically complain about anything. In almost every case Households should be allowed to police themselves (“A man’s home is his Castle” is more than a quaint old saying, but is rather one of the first principles of English Law which we have gone a great distance in forgetting), and we should all realize that the small good that millions of social workers do does not offset the harm of their perpetual threats and interference or the expense of their hire and maintenance. We could cash in all those Social Workers – all those people dedicated to taking children from their families – and pay for Universal Health Care and have money left over.
Also, when we think about Laws that end in tossing people into prison, not the least consideration should be that it costs a great deal to keep people in Prison. Every Prison Guard costs Society the price of a Nurse, and every Prosecuting Lawyer could have been a Doctor. We need to ask ourselves what is really important. Our Society has more lawyers than Doctors and Engineers put together. Is it any wonder we live in a Sick Society?
Anyway, if Privacy were to be eliminated, even if there were a reform of the Laws, still, employment opportunities would have to be significantly increased. And here I have an idea. Now people are given a distribution of Society’s Wealth in exchange for their labor, that is, for their contribution to Production. But honestly, with modern automation and ‘labor saving’ devices we certainly do not need everybody to work… or not all week long as is now done. We can see that practically all the manufacturing for the entire World can be accomplished in just a few urban areas in China. If we were really to refuse a Distribution of the Wealth to everybody not strictly needed for their labor, then we are heading for trouble (I cite a book from almost a decade ago – “End of Work” by Jeremy Rifkin). The way I see it, People should now be paid for their compliance. If people follow all the rules, they should be paid for it. And the more enthusiastically they go along with the program, the more they should get. It would be the perfect means for achieving the ends of Social Engineering – people could be paid to be the Perfect Society. As it is now, people are paid haphazardly to advance the ends of the Wealthiest 1%.
Oh, and one last concern. Freedom of Speech had once been something of an Ideal. But now in our National Security Societies, people can be silenced by imposing Confidentiality Restrictions upon information. In America today upwards of 20% of the Population are working under Security Clearances of some kind or another and so have been stripped of the right to speaking about their Jobs, what they do, and what they know. Doesn’t this render meaningless the whole idea of Freedom of Speech? And it’s not just a few key areas where there are Secrets. Now EVERYTHING has been made secret. It simply suits them to work in the Dark, and so every potentially embarrassing facet of Truth is hit with the Big Red Stamp. Indeed, there can be made something of a Logical Aphorism that can be applied here, call it the Leo Principle, that anything the Government tells us must be a Lie, because if it were true, it would be classified. You can’t Classify something that never happened, or that is purely imaginary, and so any politician is free to talk endlessly on and on, as long as they keep it fictional. But if it crosses the line into any area of Reality, then some Government Office would have already classified it, cutting it off from permissible Public Discourse. So Lies are the only thing they can ever really give us. The Truth is Secret.
Now Corporations impose their own policies of Secrecy and Confidentiality. And the Courts and the Judicial System that should be protecting Freedom of Speech are often the worst transgressors – imposing hush orders, and severely restricting what can and cannot be said during a Public Trial. For instance, it is widely known that the Jury of the O. J. Simpson Trial would have voted for guilty if only the same information had been available to them as was going to everybody else – anybody with a TV set – the
restriction of Speech and Information came back to haunt Society with this regrettable verdict. Then the Courts uphold agreements predicated upon Corporations contracting for Secrecy – people are given money to NOT tell anybody else about poison ground water and such, and it is the Courts that are brokering such Deals with the Devil.
Anyway, just as Privacy provides a shielding darkness that can foster corruption in the general public, so also it must not be forgotten that in regards to Governments and Government Agencies, Corporations, public or private, and the Courts, that if they can hide information, then we can only anticipate the same kind of moral degeneracy and corruption. If People or Governments are allowed to act in secrecy, what else can we expect but that they will do exactly what they would be ashamed to do in the open? All facets of our Society should stand in the pure light of day.
Most Theological Philosophy attributes to God the quality of being All Knowing. Such All Knowingness would certainly make any kind of Privacy impossible. So it is that in Heaven, where God enforces His Moral Judgment, that the Blessed Souls maintain a moral perfection because they know they can keep no dark secrets from God, that they have no Privacy. While their Goodness is real enough, much Evil is probably avoided because there are no opportunities for private indulgence. Perhaps it can be compared to how anybody would behave if always in the presence of those whom one respects the most, with no slipping away to the dark side, ever.
Now, down here on Earth, we are presently going through the threshold of capabilities, in information technology, that could effectively eliminate Privacy, and with it put an end to most crimes and instances of corruption. Cash money could be made contraband and replaced exclusively by systems of monitored electronic transfer – allowing for only honest exchanges. Also, it would take relatively little to almost completely monitor, with video and audio, at least all of the Urban Areas, at least the public areas where most crimes being committed. Where all movements are tracked, no criminal could ever “get away”. If it would not quite be the same as God watching our every move, still there would be the moral comfort of knowing that we could all be watching each other, that is when in the public sphere. I suppose it would not hurt to still have our homes to ourselves… at least our bedrooms.
But the trends in this direction are not favorable. Now, especially in America, where the propaganda is so entirely relentless and pervasive, that people assume that they are quite certain of what they think, and that they are quite right to think it, it is thought that Privacy is the preferred thing. We hear endlessly of protecting our rights to Privacy. Yet, all crime and corruption relies first upon privacy. Where charity and honesty preen in the light of day, all of the worst aspects of humanity lurk in the shadows of privacy. But it is considered the first priority of Political Correctness to protect what can only lead to endless harm.
Politically, privacy is now making strange alliances. The Left is screaming for protections of Privacy, perhaps only to spite the Right. But they should consider that Socialism and the Left could very well thrive in a totally open and monitored Society, but we can only imagine what a blow it would be to the Wealthy and the Corrupt Classes if suddenly all information were to be reviewed for ethics and legality. Does it not become obvious why so much Propaganda, that only the Wealthy and Powerful Classes can so well arrange for, has gone into convincing one and all of the supposed Blessed Sacredness of ‘Privacy’. The Dark have the most to gain in this atmosphere of Darkness, and so it is odd that the Left, so charitable and enlightened in every other regard, should side with the Devil in this particular case. Yes, they may be afraid of Right Wing Governments overhearing their secret Left Wing Conspiracies, but they should well consider that the same Darkness that shields them also shields their enemies who thrive so much better in the dark than they could ever do. Complete Disclosure would be the better strategic weapon for the Left. Besides, who needs secret police when you have undercover reporters.
There would be some problems and complications with implementing a totally Open Society. As it now stands, the Status Quo relies heavily on crime and corruption, indeed, there is a complete economic subculture that funds itself on drug sales, prostitution, car theft and warehouse pilferage (up to about 40% of the household goods found in poverty level households had ‘fallen off the truck’, that is, were pilfered from warehouses and sold at discount on the street. So this practice provides effective ‘employment’ on one side of the equation while relieving poverty on the other side with prices often a mere fraction of retail). The Monetary Policy in both America and Europe defend a high level of unemployment, blithely pretending to suppose that all of these ‘unemployed’ people somehow don’t need to eat or pay rent, but if they were honest with themselves they would have to admit that the money that supports so many ‘unemployed’ people must be coming from somewhere. It is. Crime that hides in Privacy. Privacy now maintains up to about 30% of the Population. In an Honest and Open World, we would have to either provide alternatives to what is now nominally illegal, but goes on in Private, or we would have to revise the Laws. While I can never image that Theft or Burglary could ever be legalized, I could easily envision Prostitution becoming a main street service, and that Drug Traffic could easily be transferred to the domain of the ordinary Retail Stores. Perhaps even more importantly, if Privacy were to be largely suspended, we would need to review the Laws in the light of just how serious we are about insisting upon them. It is one matter to have Laws that we know are only enforced against certain target ethnic or class groups, but quite something else if we suppose all of us could be vulnerable to the certain enforcement of such laws. We know for a fact that many people do indeed engage in drug use and involve themselves in prostitution. We need to ask whether such universals should ever be illegal. We hear a great deal about Freedom while the prisons are full of people who stole nothing and hurt nobody, and who are behind bars only because their Freedom had not been respected. Where Laws are enacted only to uphold the Morals of certain select groups, remembering that Democracies are often nothing more than 51% of the people imposing tyrannical dictatorships over the other 49%, we may easily suspect that people are sent to jail not because they offended against their own personal moral standards but because they offended others, who should probably have been minding their own business. We would need to review Laws that while supporting certain Moral Judgments or uphold certain Ethic Principles impinge upon the Freedom to make neutral moral choices. In this light it becomes difficult to support laws that punish those who have not stolen anything, or hurt anybody who does not specifically complain about anything. In almost every case Households should be allowed to police themselves (“A man’s home is his Castle” is more than a quaint old saying, but is rather one of the first principles of English Law which we have gone a great distance in forgetting), and we should all realize that the small good that millions of social workers do does not offset the harm of their perpetual threats and interference or the expense of their hire and maintenance. We could cash in all those Social Workers – all those people dedicated to taking children from their families – and pay for Universal Health Care and have money left over.
Also, when we think about Laws that end in tossing people into prison, not the least consideration should be that it costs a great deal to keep people in Prison. Every Prison Guard costs Society the price of a Nurse, and every Prosecuting Lawyer could have been a Doctor. We need to ask ourselves what is really important. Our Society has more lawyers than Doctors and Engineers put together. Is it any wonder we live in a Sick Society?
Anyway, if Privacy were to be eliminated, even if there were a reform of the Laws, still, employment opportunities would have to be significantly increased. And here I have an idea. Now people are given a distribution of Society’s Wealth in exchange for their labor, that is, for their contribution to Production. But honestly, with modern automation and ‘labor saving’ devices we certainly do not need everybody to work… or not all week long as is now done. We can see that practically all the manufacturing for the entire World can be accomplished in just a few urban areas in China. If we were really to refuse a Distribution of the Wealth to everybody not strictly needed for their labor, then we are heading for trouble (I cite a book from almost a decade ago – “End of Work” by Jeremy Rifkin). The way I see it, People should now be paid for their compliance. If people follow all the rules, they should be paid for it. And the more enthusiastically they go along with the program, the more they should get. It would be the perfect means for achieving the ends of Social Engineering – people could be paid to be the Perfect Society. As it is now, people are paid haphazardly to advance the ends of the Wealthiest 1%.
Oh, and one last concern. Freedom of Speech had once been something of an Ideal. But now in our National Security Societies, people can be silenced by imposing Confidentiality Restrictions upon information. In America today upwards of 20% of the Population are working under Security Clearances of some kind or another and so have been stripped of the right to speaking about their Jobs, what they do, and what they know. Doesn’t this render meaningless the whole idea of Freedom of Speech? And it’s not just a few key areas where there are Secrets. Now EVERYTHING has been made secret. It simply suits them to work in the Dark, and so every potentially embarrassing facet of Truth is hit with the Big Red Stamp. Indeed, there can be made something of a Logical Aphorism that can be applied here, call it the Leo Principle, that anything the Government tells us must be a Lie, because if it were true, it would be classified. You can’t Classify something that never happened, or that is purely imaginary, and so any politician is free to talk endlessly on and on, as long as they keep it fictional. But if it crosses the line into any area of Reality, then some Government Office would have already classified it, cutting it off from permissible Public Discourse. So Lies are the only thing they can ever really give us. The Truth is Secret.
Now Corporations impose their own policies of Secrecy and Confidentiality. And the Courts and the Judicial System that should be protecting Freedom of Speech are often the worst transgressors – imposing hush orders, and severely restricting what can and cannot be said during a Public Trial. For instance, it is widely known that the Jury of the O. J. Simpson Trial would have voted for guilty if only the same information had been available to them as was going to everybody else – anybody with a TV set – the
restriction of Speech and Information came back to haunt Society with this regrettable verdict. Then the Courts uphold agreements predicated upon Corporations contracting for Secrecy – people are given money to NOT tell anybody else about poison ground water and such, and it is the Courts that are brokering such Deals with the Devil.
Anyway, just as Privacy provides a shielding darkness that can foster corruption in the general public, so also it must not be forgotten that in regards to Governments and Government Agencies, Corporations, public or private, and the Courts, that if they can hide information, then we can only anticipate the same kind of moral degeneracy and corruption. If People or Governments are allowed to act in secrecy, what else can we expect but that they will do exactly what they would be ashamed to do in the open? All facets of our Society should stand in the pure light of day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)