Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.
It's not his pretended popularity or that he sold so many tickets to his movies or his religion that accounts for his greatness. Rather, it's because he's a ghost who can frighten and or beat people up (or have people beat up by someone else working for him) -- and, in addition, because society does not permit spirit people to be openly and honestly discussed.
And who, after all, is this so very privileged ghost? He is simply someone who thought that by doing the wrong thing a certain way he would for sure strike pay dirt. However, all he actually ended up doing was digging a grave for himself, and dragging these others (who listen to him) along with him into it.
One of his funnest and favorite things to do these days is to go around telling everyone so-and-so's and such-and-such's I.Q. (And this because they told him his was a such a high number.)
Look how he sneers, judges and punishes others for their real and imagined mistakes or misdeeds. Yet when it comes to the troubles he (and his associates) causes he says "Someone will pay for the damage." Problem is is that (outside the punitive sense) he is not that someone (i.e. and has no right, therefore, invoking this other as his excuse.)
What was right before is now frowned upon (if not made criminal) and what was before frowned upon (if not criminal) is treated as right. The question then that needs raising is what rules have changed? Who is changing the rules on us and where and how are they doing this?
No (spirit person) angel ever taught a person honesty. Yet how very much in awe of angels many (if not most) people are and would sooner listen to and heed an angel, ghost or other spirit person than someone who was honest and rational.
More Mystery Cuts
As before, we have some tracks here that need better ID-ing yet which I thought I would post in the interim till this is done anyway. I believe the second song here is "Trouble Blues" by McKinley Mitchell but still need to do some more inquiring before formally designating it as such.
"This Love is True" (.wma 2.2 MBs -- right click "Save as...")
"Trouble Blues" by McKinley Mitchell(?) (.wma 3.3 MBs)
Later Note. The above two tracks in question are: "Don't Fight It" by Parrish and Wilde (from Invader Records #407); and the second is indeed "Trouble Blues" by McKinley Mitchell.
Life needs and at the same time can only take so much -- so much space, so much sun, so much heat, so much cold, so much air, so much moisture, so much food, so much antipathy, so much love, so much truth, etc., etc. -- with balance and harmony, i.e justice, playing a key role in all of this.
We look to the past not to be spectators over what is dead but rather to remind or make ourselves aware of what, either for better or worse, can, might or will live again. At the same time, we often and better know who and what was more alive and living back then by what is most memorable; while giving us food for thought about who and what is most alive and living now.
"More, not less trouble [going on] -- that's just the way I like it (he, he, he.)"
I was watching the news (something I rarely do anymore) and they were interviewing ordinary citizens about the Pres. Obama's decision to send 17,000 additional troops to fight in Afghanistan. One woman said we've already done what we could there and should bring the troops home. Meantime, one man spoken with said we still needed to stay and finish up the job in order to prevent another 911. Yeah right, I thought.
Once more in a nutshell --
Though his films don't exactly endear themselves to me, in fairness the actual Spielberg is a talented director otherwise and in his way (and allowing for other circumstances), and when I speak of the movie career I don't really mean his own (though his own was certainly and to some extent dragged into it.) The pseudo-"Speelburg" or "Speelburg the Greater" on the other hand, though he has an imperial-like opinion of himself, is little better than a puppet or vegetable being used by these spirit people. No, the true movie career belongs to a spirit person -- but whose exactly scientists have yet to determine. Is it Satan's? Okeus? The ghoulish magician? Someone else? We simply just don't know. But either way the main point is this, he or whoever it is is not going to pin that loser career on us! You need to understand that though whoever he is rates very highly as a monster, he made a complete fool of himself with that movie career and which he persists in still trying to foist on both the willing and unwilling. This, you see, is a grave error on his part. Think of it being like his invading Russia -- it spells the end of it all for him, and reveals the mortal frailty which a career such as his is subject to. In other words, while he might even have and conceivably justified his position on the basis of evil (for the sake of argument), his pretense to movie greatness gave the lie to such purity -- hence the rest must ultimately fall. Whether such as myself will live to see the final nose dive is unclear, but that it will happen it's already a done thing.
Last, and incidentally, on a bad day call him the ghoulish magician; on a good day call him the foolish magician -- either way it's ultimately up to him what he prefers.
Yes, I really do object to having my life being made to revolve around someone who feels it necessary to do the wrong thing in a serious way while commanding others to do the same. And had I known such was to be the case, and were it in my power to do so, I'd just as soon never have been born instead. But as it is I have these children and animals to take care of. But once and after I'm done doing that, you can have and keep the rest since with it being necessary for him to be around the rest obviously isn't really worth much of anything anyway.
Making allowance for the slave and captive types among them and whom we would not (as such) want to hurt or offend, you will otherwise henceforth call and address himself, his ghosts, his devils, his angels and his heaven, as the spirits of evil and unhappiness.
"Lawyer?" That word sounds vaguely familiar, but no I don't know. Isn't that some kind of blogger? No, so go ahead, tell me what it means.
"You love the old dog Tray; and Bella [Isabel] loves him as well as you. He is a noble old fellow, with
shaggy hair and long ears, and big paws that he
will put up into your hand, if you ask him. And he
never gets angry when you play with him, and tumble him over in the long grass, and pull his silken
ears. Sometimes, to be sure, he will open his
mouth as if he would bite, but when he gets your
hand fairly in his jaws, he will scarce leave the print of his teeth upon it. He will swim too, bravely,
and bring ashore all the sticks you throw upon the
water; and when you fling a stone to tease him, he
swims round and round, and whines, and looks sorry
that he cannot find it.
"He will carry a heaping basket full of nuts, too,
in his mouth, and never spill one of them; and
when you come out to your uncle's home in the
spring, after staying a whole winter in the town,
he knows you — old Tray does! And he leaps upon
you, and lays his paws on your shoulder, and licks
your face, and is almost as glad to see you as cousin
Bella herself. And when you put Bella on his back
for a ride, he only pretends to bite her little feet;
but he wouldn't do it for the world. Aye, Tray is
a noble old dog!
"But one summer the farmers say that some of
their sheep are killed, and that the dogs have worried them; and one of them comes to talk with my
uncle about it.
"But Tray never worried sheep; you know he
never did; and so does nurse; and so does Bella;
for in the spring she had a pet lamb, and Tray never
worried little Fidele.
"And one or two of the dogs that belong to the
neighbors are shot; though nobody knows who shot
them; and you have great fears about poor Tray;
and try to keep him at home, and fondle him more
than ever. But Tray will sometimes wander off;
and finally, one afternoon he comes back whining
piteously, and with his shoulder bloody.
"Little Bella cries aloud; and you almost cry, as
nurse dresses the wound; and poor old Tray howls
grievously. You pat his head, and Bella pats him;
and you sit down together by him on the floor of
the porch, and bring a rug for him to lie upon, and
try and tempt him with a little milk; and Bella
brings a piece of cake for him, — but he will eat
nothing. You sit up till very late, long after Bella
has gone to bed, patting his head, and wishing you
could do something for poor Tray; but he only licks
your hand, and whines more piteously than ever.
"In the morning you dress early, and hurry down-
stairs; but Tray is not lying on the rug; and you
run through the house to find him, and whistle and
call — Tray! Tray! At length you see him lying in
his old place out by the cherry-tree, and you run to
him, — but he does not start; and you lean down
to pat him, — but he is cold, and the dew is wet
upon him. Poor Tray is dead!
"You take his head upon your knees, and pat again
those glossy ears; but you cannot bring him to life.
And Bella comes and mourns with you. You can
hardly bear to have him put in the ground; but
uncle says he must be buried. So one of the work-men digs a grave under the cherry-tree where he
died, — a deep grave; and they round it over with
earth, and smooth the sods upon it; — even now I
can trace Tray's grave.
"You and Bella together put up a little slab for a
tombstone; and she hangs flowers upon it, and ties
them there with a bit of ribbon. You can scarce
play all that day; and afterward, many weeks later,
when you are rambling over the fields, or lingering
by the brook, throwing off sticks into the eddies,
you think of old Tray's shaggy coat, and of his big
paw, and of his honest eye; and the memory of
your boyish grief comes upon you, and you say,
with a sigh, 'Poor Tray!' And Bella too, in her
sad, sweet tones, says, 'Poor old Tray, he is dead!'"
~ Ik Marvel (Donald Grant Mitchell), Reveries of a Bachelor (1850), Fourth Reverie, I ("The Morning").
Since they won't address the subject of spirit people they can never really get at and eradicate organized crime, nor in turn the enterprise and competition constricting monopolies and crime backed "trade" associations that tyrannize our lives (including the economy.) And since (and for some time now) we throw up out hands at organized crime, why not then, in our nation's capital, go the next logical next step and erect the Dracula Monument and the Blackbeard and Merlin memorials? Or put the faces of Al Capone, the Green River Killer and Peter Pan on our currency? (I jest, of course, but you know the way things have been going the past ten years or so such a thing, unimaginable before, now and very sadly seems not so very outlandish a possibility.)
The Bearstone Manifesto
Just for the record and to avoid any misunderstanding, we don't dogmatically insist that the devil is without any good to offer whatsoever. All we are saying, in short and to put it politely, is that he charges far and away too much for it (and assuming that good in the given context and circumstances is even desirable or worthwhile to begin with -- which it may or might not be.) On top of all this, he is never better than or superior to nature or what is honest and natural.
Just for the record and to avoid any misunderstanding, we don't dogmatically insist that the devil is without any good to offer whatsoever. All we are saying, in short and to put it politely, is that he charges far and away too much for it (and assuming that good in the given context and circumstances is even desirable or worthwhile to begin with -- which it may or might not be.)
Sea Song
The mew flies in with news
Of solitary ships and barks
Plying waters far off and dark.
And though he laughs so,
My tears in rivers
Still flow and flow
For what happened long ago.
The pennant at the peak...
The yard swinging that squeaks
To a shuddering ruffle,
Till all sound is muffled
And proudly the sail fills,
Tacking towards the lee,
Taking us to the sea.
Go ahead, have the girl! I don't care. Just don't be leeching on and mooching off me in order to keep her.
A murky cloud of darkness at present engulfs us and suffocates hope. But don't forget. Man for man he's not so much, and indeed needs a gang to contend with myself who, due to forced and contrived circumstances, am alone. But make him face me man for man and see how great and mighty Satan is then!
You'll have to figure this one out for yourself.
Napoleon's first Waterloo was when through clumsiness he capitulated to Tallyrand and ended up acquiescing to the execution of the Duc D'Enghien (based on the false supposition that the Duke was part of a Royalist conspiracy to overthrow the Emperor.) In some ways, I think this entrapment of the otherwise well meaning Corsican was of an infernal nature; tied in with Tallyrand. This weakness exploited and to such an extent only opened the way to his downfall. Such, at any rate, it seems the case can be made; so that between Bonaparte and the devil the devil won, and had Napoleon heeded the just and sensible pleas of such as Lannes things might have turned out more auspiciously for himself and everyone else. This then is proof to me that right was on the side of those against him after 1804. The British (land, as opposed to naval) participation in all this was most notable in their efforts in Portugal and Spain. And here once again, Napoleon went afoul, this time by frivolously deposing Spain's rulers. In this respect then at no juncture in all their nation's history was Britain more praiseworthy in fighting. This is not, however, to say the British were utterly without stain themselves; witness, for instance, the causes that precipitated the American War of 1812 (i.e. two wrongs don't make a right.) Still, all in all, and on the European scene she was, and, like her Allies, most morally ballasted and bolstered; in a conflict which we perhaps sometimes forget (that for them) lasted 7 whole years, and not just a few weeks in 1815.
It makes no sense whatsoever to attempt to solve serious social, legal, and environmental problems and not be equipped and disposed to deal with sophisticated evil. But because sophisticated evil has its origin with spirit people, and because it is traditionally forbidden to consider and discuss spirit people honestly, rationally and scientifically, evil beyond the individual and personal level cannot even be addressed. What then has hitherto been the case is that people will battle mere agents and surrogates and underlings while never combating or addressing the real instigators of life's worst problems.
Though Satan as known and understood may be seen as as much a mythical or semi-mythical figure as a literal one, even so, there is some advantage to be gained by, at least tentatively, positing such a being and, so to speak, his generals. In what people of the future need to think about is arming and equipping themselves morally, rationally and spiritually to not so much battle it out with the trivial underlings but take the fight to the top. And for every citizen who has the spiritual, emotional and intellectual constitution for such a thing, they ought to be prepared, and circumstances permitting, to fight "Satan," Okeus, the ghoulish magician, or whomever evil's upper leadership happens to be -- and not just rely or leave this for someone else to do.
As to how and in what ways such characters may be combated, there are many. One, of course, is being willing and able to withstand and endure great suffering and hardship. Yet although this last is of crucial importance, it is by no means the only way of fighting these people, and we have and will continue, as best to do our part here at this website to suggest or show you other methods, strategies, and tactics in furtherance of this aim and objective.
He is supposed to be so diabolically clever. Yet after all these years he stills gets ripped off and cheated by his mentor, with his own blind consent, day in day out on a regular basis.
Now this other, his mentor, is for his part so very diabolically clever also, only it is not permissible to talk about and discuss him; otherwise it would ruin the whole (magic) trick.
Personally speaking (as opposed to politically speaking), am I vexed and disappointed at people's indifference (of itself?) No, for if I am ignored and forgotten I have no reason to fear being embarrassed (by my circumstances.) Nor am I alone either, for animals suffer as bad or worse than myself at the hooligan's hands and I consider myself as being with and throwing in my lot with them (the animals) -- as a matter of fact, I sometimes ask the cat if, come the day, she will grant me a place to sleep and a fair bite to eat.
No, what really kills me is these spirit people and brain torture radios (in that order.)
Not infrequently you will have heard them speak or make reference to murdering for the sake of love and romance. But no one really does such a thing for love and romance, and this sort of argument, as you already probably know, is actually and merely intended to justify and excuse murder (because that's what the boss wants.)
It's funny how television news and interview shows about politics and goings on in Washington, D.C. these days have the look and feel of a movie about politics and goings on in Washington, D.C.
I take it so much for granted as being true that it may be a good idea to reiterate that when see see sophisticated evil, cruelty and destruction in the world it is absolutely essential to understand you are dealing with a highly subjective teaching and a doctrine -- not by any means an intrinsic component and necessity to the universe. Destruction is a necessity, but not all destruction is evil. Evil can seek to find its place and justification in destruction, but only insofar as destruction is justified; and as a matter of course evil is bound to have a problem with this limitation. For one thing, when we think of natural destruction in the way of the eating and decay of vegetation, evil seeks to destroy or mutilate harmonious form and or all peace. Are both kinds of destruction then the same? My sense is when they take destruction down such and such a path and to such and such a pitch beyond nature's way they are adopting and proposing a point of view that is by no means a categorical or apodeictic necessity, and therefore only an opinion. Nonetheless, they have used this kind of arch philosophy in ways that have gained them stupendous power and domination, and to that extent have been hugely successful. But even so, does this success make what they do necessity? And for me the answer is very plainly and simply and obviously "no."
Unless you are true innocent, if you won't be honest, courageous, and rational yourself, or at least listen to and take your lead from someone who is, you greatly risk, if not guarantee, your becoming a slave or captive of Hell -- and we know this based on Hell's need to use fear tactics and mind control on a regular and routine basis. In connection with which, this is also why literacy has dramatically subsided in recent years, and why they insisted on calling internet communication "blogging," and why there has been drastically increased censorship in recent years, etc., etc.
This person(s) who is paying for, and therefore in effect running, these brain torture radios (and perpetrating other assorted harassment and trouble making) for the past 15 or more years of his doing so has not only never faced me and taken responsibility for his actions, he has never even clearly and openly identified himself. No, rather it is spirit people who direct him to do these things so he behaves as if it is their business and I must deal with them myself. Yet the fact is he (sitting in his high-chair and eating his jello pudding) is responsible himself for what he does, including listening to those people whom he chooses as his ally and sees himself as benefiting from. If they carry on as they do, well, yes, I'll deal with them. Yet if he conducts and comports himself as he does he cannot justify and excuse himself by hiding behind them for what he does. But, of course, the big laugh here is that he will command and bully others with his money, etc. as if he were some big shot -- when, by contrast, I, alone and materially impoverished compared to him, have in point of fact bettered his superiors at their games and wiles, while always and punctually rejecting their putting on airs with me.
"A man without some sort of religion, is at best a poor reprobate, the foot-ball of destiny, with no tie linking him to infinity, and the wondrous eternity that is begun with him; but a woman without it, is even worse — a flame without heat, a rainbow without color; a flower without perfume!"
~ Ik Marvel (pen name of Donald Grant Mitchell), Reveries of a Bachelor (1850), Second Reverie, II.
As much as isolation is to be regretted, it cannot in every instance be helped, and someone albeit alone talking sense is better than two or more people talking nonsense; for at least the first can do no one harm (i.e. get out of my life and stop mooching off of me already.)
A person or being that is a disease and who as such induces or causes suicide. And yet, why not honor and bestow on him the crown and mantle of deity and high authority?
I remember in the 90's when Alex Rodriquez played for the Seattle Mariners, and how in those days the team would sometimes come in from playing the defensive half of the inning giving the long-horn hand sign -- otherwise assumed by most to be a sort of tacit tribute to El Diablo, and, of course, with the team making fools of themselves in the process (though don't misunderstand, I do love the Mariners.) Well, just to show you what good it did Alex to offer such tribute, they now have him up on charges of using steroids (presumably because he was doing the right thing or else refusing to do the wrong thing elsewhere) -- so does it pay to compromise with these people.
However, the greater joke here is how they penalize athletes for using steroids, and yet these those who control the vaster material wealth and political power very often (if not always) have that power and wealth because they make deals with El Diablo or his agents and representatives -- say, in buying and procuring peace for themselves, if nothing else. Moreover, some of these in order to pay for their habit (of relying on these spirit people for wealth and security) will invariably and in some form or other have to supply victims for their spirit people benefactors (or else aid and abet such victimizers), unlike those who use steroids who require no such victimization. So that though no one forces steroids on anyone, when it comes to using criminal spirit people as one's artificial performance enhancer the exact opposite, in effect, is true. And yet while such as Alex Rodriquez are now put through the wringer for their purported misdeeds, we never hear a peep about these infinitely worse offenders who use the steroids of criminal spirit people to maintain their riches and opulent lifestyle, and which riches and lifestyle far exceed even that of the very well reimbursed Mr. Rodriquez.
They do not suffer enough -- HE says so. (But why is it, if he feels that way, he shouldn't himself suffer more than he does?)
"More troops needed in Afghanistan" -- read as:
"More troops are needed in Afghanistan so that mass murderers in our own country can better do their job
here by having our nation's leaders distracted elsewhere.
Normally, when we think of Hell murdering, we think of serial killers assaulting their victim, or people being sent in groups to the gas chamber, or individuals waiting in droves to be executed by firing squads. But these are only the more sensational kinds of stories that make headlines, and the more usual type of murder Hell engages in is more often quiet and subtle, such as torturing someone to death over an extended period of time, invariably and for their purposes this is understandably done in secret. Well,you might be interested to know that last night they related to me that before the present "Speelburg" came into his own he didn't actually do any murdering, but instead went the rounds as a spectator following the former 'Speelburg," which latter was the one that saw to it that those victims of Hell assigned to him (so to speak) were receiving their regular torture. Only later (ostensibly and roughly about the same time the "entertainment" industry took over the home computer business) then was our present day "Speelburg" the one in charge of all this going on himself.
