|
|
by Guy Hendrickson www.advocatefreedom.com © Dec. 2002 G.F.H. about "America The Beautiful"... and all that follow, hear these words loudly and clearly. And may their eyes also overflow... My Quandary First, let me say this: Most of my "moments of enlightenment" --those occasions when new perceptions are achieved-- are those moments when an opportunity for contemplation and freedom to orally "ramble" are present at the same time. These opportunities usually occur when talking to my wife during breakfast. Her willingness to tolerate my "thinking aloud" as I drag her through progressive digressions and pedantic serial expositions in my quest to bring seemingly disassociated topics, moral and ethical principles, common sense, technology, mathematics, legal requirements, etc., into some correlationship that produces a new conclusion, --or even worse, something as ethereal as a new paradigm (!), is deserving of the highest Patience Award. But such awareness of too many ideas and concepts can become non-productive. One's attention can too readily digress. As one contemplates a given subject, other related topics come to mind which in turn bring new realizations about not only the relationship to the subject at hand, but new thoughts and new realizations about those other topics also. One cannot speak or write quickly enough to begin to keep pace, and the very attempt at such "multi-tasking" seems to be an impediment to the process. Yet, without somehow recording the new concepts as they occur, most fade away within minutes as newer "distractions of the immediate moment" crowd them into the archival stack of one's memory. They may only surface again when snagged from the recesses by some accidental hook of another tangentially-related later topic, --only to again suffer the same unresolved fate. Uttering these brainstorms aloud to another human ear at least slows the process and imposes restrictions upon digressions. The next most fruitful or productive venue is when attempting, in my own peculiar, stumbling manner, to type such ideas into a word processor. The disciplinary requirement to try to stay on topic, the available time to choose the most appropriate words --and the ability to change word sequence free of the impediment of huge scribbled-out regions-- is somewhat conducive to accurate recording of such ideas. --But still, my thoughts run awry. Still, the Idea transforms itself. Still I digress, then rewrite, as the words themselves bring new associations and concepts. The completed work seldom bears any resemblance to the original idea or initial intention. To attempt to record the ideas generated in an earlier oral exposition is therefore frustrating futile. Somehow the topic from the conversation has transformed itself, melding with those related thoughts-never-uttered and additional ideas generated during the typing process, until my recollection of the conversational substance has entered Oblivion. Now I've written this. --And I can't recall whatever-it-may-have-been that my wife "learned" during breakfast... "Elusive truth" Like with a "transparency," constant attention is required to keep TRUTH in sight, for it can easily be obscured by anything colorful. And, as with "optical illusions," any brief distraction can make it very difficult to rediscover. But although it may not be easy to perceive, and may be difficult to hold onto, TRUTH is not "elusive." It is eternally unwavering. It is that WE are unperceptive, inconstant vacillators. FOCUS ! "ongoing problems" In about 99.5% of all situations, our problems arise from some early departure from basic moral or ethical principles --usually as a result of failing to apply them at some very simple fundamental level. After that, we "rationalize" our way to some escalated level. By then we "can't see the woods for the trees" because we've assimilated the basic error so completely. Almost all "Catch 22" conundrums have that origin. "Eternal vigilance" (to paraphrase Jefferson) is the only "solution." --If we would discipline ourselves to pull the little weeds daily, and refrain from cultivating those which have had a headstart, dynamite should never be required to remove the stumps. Almost all contemporary economic, social or political "problems" will vaporize and disappear if we simply backtrack to where the faulty premises first manifested, then correct the flaw at that basic (moral/ethical) level. Any other tactic only guarantees perpetuation and escalation of the problem. Mule teams The successful driver of a 20 mule team puts the most willing pair in front. After that he only steers the first pair and encourages the last few, relying upon the rest to participate out of simple habit. When that entire arrangement isn't manageable, the only sensible alternative is to hitch-up fewer mules to a lighter wagonload. The most work is accomplished once the most efficient load weight / no. of mules combination is determined. But to achieve the greatest long-range benefit the driver must thereafter always refrain from overloading the wagon. Few of us have that much self-discipline. Political stupor Today was September 12th, 2001. I heard part of a speech by Senator Peter Domenici (R. NM) earlier today (from the Senate floor, I think), and for a few minutes I felt a glimmer of hope. I believed he meant everything he said. But that only served to provide stark contrast to every utterance I've since heard from every other politician. While the sentiment and patriotism Senator Domenici expressed were still ringing in my ears, I couldn't help but compare the droning monotone --the astoundingly dull and expressionless speech-- of all the others. Are they all in traumatic shock or a drugged stupor? Or are they already compromised by money or death threats and too cowardly to even cry for help? If their robot-like "politically correct" demeanor were their way to telegraph to us a hidden message that they are helpless prisoners of some force behind the scenes, as might a prisoner of war, one would think they would at least have the courage to twitch, wink, stammer, or something! If they believe that some notion of "calming the masses" via such staid, stoic, bored politics-as-usual presentation is the appropriate attitude for our leaders to display in the immediate aftermath of the greatest single-day loss of American lives since the Civil War, their beliefs are amazingly unrealistic. Anyone so judgmentally handicapped and sensibility-deficient is sociopathic and should be disqualified from office! --Whether it be cowardice, mistaken leadership notions, drug stupor, mental illness, monetary or political compromise, or simple insensitivity due to stupidity, these people are not qualified to be U.S. Senators or Representatives, or to hold other high office in this country. But my strongest suspicion is that we may be observing the manifestation of a brainwash syndrome. It has not been an overnight transformation; the "Globalism" mentality of the CFR / United Nations / One World Government crowd has permeated our government at the highest levels for many years. It is ubiquitous now. That is: --Would those who wholeheartedly subscribe to drastic wholesale reduction of the population of the whole PLANET be even slightly perturbed about fewer deaths than usually occur during a normal two months of highway accidents? No-one makes any drastic heartfelt public proclamations about those people, do they? --Do you? "Astrophysics?" My DOUGHNUT Query If one defines "space" as the eternal void, and "the universe" as the result of the only singularity event ever to have occurred, then a spherical universe might be possible, --but only if the event itself had been perfectly symmetrical, homogeneous, and non-rotating. Any imperfection would at some stage generate rotation due to the imbalance which would result from gravitational attraction between the various unequally distributed components as the universe expanded. And even if that "perfectly symmetrical" condition had occurred, the presence of any other matter anywhere in the eternal void would also impart some, albeit infinitesimal, imbalance to the expanding embryo, which would likewise generate rotation. Therefore rotation is almost certain. Any rotation would then cause distortion analogous to the bulge at Earth's equator. Centrifugal/centripetal forces would thereafter tend toward a disc-shaped expanding form which probably (but only theoretically) would then develop a "doughnut" configuration due to "toroidal" (i.e, corkscrew) effects. This doughnut-shaped "plasma" (for lack of a better term) of energy/matter --self-attracted and entailing the constant internal exchange of electrons, etc.-- may or may not thereafter reach a stage of equilibrium as regards the expansion or contraction of the doughnut as a whole. (No pun intended.) However, our mundane reality exists within the doughnut, so our 3Ds are warped to correlate with the outer configuration. Thus, at the human scale, because our senses are incapable of appreciating the totality, they accommodate perception of the curvature of the cosmic "ether" (i.e., the flux or plasma implied above) within this doughnut as straight lines and flat planes. STATUS: Because we also cannot yet see "out," we cannot know if there is anything beyond the crust. We're constrained to analyzing the composition of the "dough" within, then endeavoring to hypothesize what the composition and curvature may be; --while still conjecturing about whether we're in a disc or a doughnut. Having now begun to try to discover a "one size fits all" formula to explain everything we think we know, as well as everything-we-don't-know-yet, we'll now and forever be compelled to pursue our arduous perpetual quest. Meanwhile there may be billions of discs or doughnuts out there, or we may be the only one. We won't rest until we know. QUERY 1: --But then what??? QUERY 2: Even prior to dissemblence to the simplemindedness of QUERY 1, was I already "out to lunch" (or just hankering for a doughnut)? Mea Culpa "School prayer" As a Catholic child in public school, I was mildly uncomfortable with "debts" instead of "trespasses" and with what I regarded as "extra words" in the Protestant version of the end of the Lord's Prayer we always recited, so I understand how people whose religious beliefs and prayers are even more different might be slightly uncomfortable. But I don't see how the experience could be immediately harmful to anyone. Yet, although we must ensure the continuance of our freedom to pray wherever, however and whenever we choose, we cannot require a public school teacher who might be an atheist or of some non-Christian religion to hypocritically lead our children in recitation of Christian prayers. Nor can we require all students to participate in the multitude of prayers that would be required to represent ALL the various religions (even if there was enough time in the day). However, despite the positive aspects of encouraging daily attention to thought about our Creator, I think we must avoid any instance of the State exerting any kind of influence upon any component of religion, for the tendency will always be for that influence to grow and take control. Freedom of Religion and a free democratic republic can only co-exist side by side, not incestuously co-mingled. They must act as mutual watchdogs, for if we permit either to predominate, both will deteriorate. And only a truely responsible populace can keep either in check. Already, although it may have seemed harmless as far as it went, prayer in school allowed the State to alleviate, and thereby assume, a parental responsibility. "To train up the child is to mold the man," (or something close to that) is something I recall hearing somewhere. Free, spontaneous prayer can occur anywhere, anytime, privately or as a group experience, and exemplary parents will instill the tendency for that to occur. So, rather than campaigning for prayer in public schools, if the goal is to promote prayer, the clearest obvious course is for the adherents of all religions to begin to advocate and reinforce the parents' responsibility to properly nourish the minds as well as the bodies of their children by providing exemplary guidance. To that end, religious leaders would do well to emphasize the importance of parental authority and responsibility. --And that part of such responsibility is to set the example for posterity by refraining from allowing any personal responsibilities, religious or otherwise, to be reassigned to any government entity. In short, it seems to me that by unthinkingly misconstruing the Constitution in a way that perverts public school prayer into a political football is a self-damaging way religious leaders are avoiding, even abdicating, their responsibility to their followers. Strange picture I read. Then think. Then I think as I read. I keep reading and thinking and reading, then writing, then thinking. Then I read some more. --Then I rethink and rewrite and think some more.....and rewrite again..... All the pictures in my mind keep rearranging themselves. The things I read, combined with all I've read over the years, vie for position in a montage as it seems to mush around, slide over and under itself, then randomly shuffle and reorganize into a new configuration. On occasion, whole segments suddenly blend together as perfectly as if they were segments previously cut from a single photograph. This sudden magical appearance of a coherent whole, with no imaginable alternative arrangement, is difficult to disregard. Sheer chance is not a plausible explanation. The parts are each convoluted and unique, and are highly unlikely to be replaceable by any other randomly generated component. Validity of the total picture is difficult to discount. In this particular instance, a great number of pieces fit perfectly to form a very large picture comprised of interconnected major portions with only a few random voids. It appears to be nearly complete, but a number of parts I've been provided (some many years ago) don't quite fit with each other or any of the others. They don't belong to this puzzle. I'm forced to disregard them. (Where could they have come from?) While nothing is absolutely proven, many alternative schemes seem to have been eliminated. Upon stepping back to glean a full view I've discovered that the total picture presents an entirely unexpected scenario. I don't like this picture. I have derived these pieces from reading thousands of articles, columns, and books. Many contained ominous supposedly secret knowledge, predictions, and potential disasterous scenarios for coming economic crashes, Y2K, and religious, environmental or cosmic doomsdays. But a broadspread general picture of Big Brother government, Globalism, or One World Government as the eminent imminent looming danger has now overwhelmed those other minor fears. Numerous sources allude to the publications of the United Nations, and that these are purported to be available as free public hand-outs to anyone who walks through the door of the UN building in NYC. Having long desired to stay at least 1000 miles away from NYC, I've never been tempted to investigate those stories in person. But I've many times heard that such publications can easily be "read between the lines" or even that they clearly state the intentions, plans and strategies for attaining world hegemony and absolute control of all aspects of economics, property, infrastructure, ecological systems, weather, population and quality of life. Everything I've read that is purported to be from that UN source can be interpreted to fit those purported schemes; --but then, those furnishing such reports are usually the proponents of the proverbial "conspiracy theories." Are they honest, are they paranoid, or are they journalistic hacks who are deliberately concocting intriguing stories? I'm seldom absolutely sure. Many of these stories are obviously contrivances or misinterpretations which contain glaring inconguities. Others are quite clever and entertaining, but are impractical or impossible. Yet, although many are but "chaff in the wind," a great number are hauntingly unable to be dismissed. Those indismissable reports also happen to be the ones that fit so well into my grand jigsaw puzzle. The coincidental fit is difficult, --nay, it is well-nigh impossible to discount. Have I been self-duped into circular thinking; only accepting as valid those ideas that fit with my own peculiar set of accumulated components? Have I unwittingly joined with a number of others who happen to share the same information pool, only to consequently discover that they have assembled that information into similar configurations? Has this been a phenomenon of "group think," group hypnosis, mob mentality paranoia, or deliberate subversional propaganda to detract or distract from some other scheme, or simply subconscious co-operative fictional construction? --Surely our most prestigious psychologists should have undertaken research and issued proclamations of discovery of this gargantuan affliction by now. Despite the ubiquitous sneering references to "conspiracy nuts," why has no-one posited any alternate configurations, other theories, other explanations? Where are the opposing arguments? Where are the facts we've overlooked? What's in a letter? The word "but" always comes up short, always interrupts progression. Adding another little "t" only lends a negative effect a la "butt," "butt-end," "butt-steak" or "buttress," etc. Even "butter" originates from the lower nether regions of an animal, and "butterfinger" is an outright insult. However, the grand capital "T" is never found standing alone at the end of a word. And there are many words, both positive and negative, which nevertheless deserve its use. "Tolerance," for example, or "Triumph." Or "Terrible," "Terror," "Trouble" and "Turmoil," and even "Tizzy," because they often seem to demand the honor. As short as it may also be, the most magnificent word of all, which inculcates the grandest reach of mankind's imagination, intelligence and verity, easily and deservedly accommodates that big beautiful letter twice! I try to only use it seldom and only with appropriate veneration, and always in all "caps" for, after all, it is "the light of the world." The above has been an example of the kind of baseless but emotionally appealing deliberately contrived presentation of bizaarely illogical argument which is commonly used by the "Left." Here the technique has simply been deliberately applied to elicit a positive initial reaction or impression in a non-Left direction. It may be "cute" and sound good, but BEWARE SUCH MANIPULATION! Beneath the obviously illogical treatment of the subject matter (which the listener or reader may discern), if the audience retains any residual notion that there is some esoteric "value" in the configuration of letters and numerals, the propagandist will have succeeded. BEWARE SUCH MANIPULATION! © Dec. 2002 G.F.H. more coming...
|