Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.
If he can recognize the form then I see he can see it, and I know that when he sees it, or at least thinks he sees it, he will say "oh, it's nothing -- it's just that form." But I know he knows this, and as likely as not he knows I know he knows this; only in his doing so he loses proper, if not complete, grasp and understanding of the form by his too hasty and unjustified confidence in his own powers of judgment and discernment.
If there is evil in the world, it's because of Satan, the evil one, or someone like this who wants people to do the wrong thing; so that, inasmuch as he is concerned and inasmuch as he has influence, everyone might or might just as well go and kill each other. If you can't grasp this basic notion, and or won't deal with it, how can you seriously blame or criticize anyone otherwise for anything? "But leave aside his scariness, 'Satan' is such a strange conception; where does one begin to understand such a person?" Think of him as someone who many long ages took up or adopted wrong doing as a way of gaining power and or exacting his revenge against those "having it too good." As a result, he and his followers, as a practical matter, ruined life for everyone, yet are often treated as if they are at the center of the greater order of things. Many of them, even so and despite this seeming success, continue to this day jealous and feeling sorry for themselves because they "had to do the wrong thing." Indeed, so much so that we who refuse to comply with this long standing state of affairs and accommodate this maniac must be punished and made to suffer for our impertinence. (This, at any rate, is one idea of how to approach the subject, and no doubt many of you could think of an original of your own or that is similar.)
I don't think Miltiades and Themistocles were so obsessed with acquiring material wealth (and which doing so led them into scandal) as much as they were desirous of finding a way to do the wrong thing in good conscience (i.e. and not be crucified.)
Not infrequently, many do or will find themselves frustrated, disgusted, angered, or else saddened by the way of how much of the world works. Yet it is easy, on the other hand, to overlook, ignore, or be blind to how things are manipulated to be as they are by criminal spirit persons. For instance, in my own situation, it is hard for me not be appalled and stupefied by the absurdity, puerility and illogic I have oft encountered from professionals, including teachers, lawyers, police, doctors, clergy, and government people when I have gone seeking for help and assistance. And yet, such levels of incompetence are no product of mere happenstance, but are, in large measure, a result of efforts by these criminal spirit people (and their hench-people) to oust (including, in a given instance, assassinate) persons of probity and ability from among society's leaders; and substitute in their place well-meaning but ineffectual mediocrity.
However, it is not that the latter poor surrogates are necessarily or inherently unable to do a good job in the given profession they pursue as a calling, but that they had deliberately bad influences on their education; were purposely deceived and mislead, and ultimately were made to believe and follow a lot of nonsense -- so that sometimes when you go to them for help when you are in dire need, they not only prove to be useless, but, in some cases, actual accomplices, witting or no, of the most rank and filthy criminals imaginable. This, understandably, causes us to lose faith in the system, or to go on about the ways of the world. Yet really it is not "the system" or "the world" but the machinations and maneuvering of criminal spirit people, overtime, that is the real source of the problem, and would people start recognizing the palpable and empirically verifiable existence of such criminals, and begin to start dealing with them then what previously seemed like an insoluble or insurmountable dilemma, and in turn the hopelessly fallen state of mankind and the world, is not nearly so impossible to address, get at, and find remedies for as we or others have hitherto thoughtlessly assumed or carelessly took for granted.
As for specifics as to how criminal spirit people can be "found out," identified, and their methods and tactics understood, what is lacking are not ways but both the will and maturity to take the next evolutionary step up and admit to and confront the existence of "classic troublemakers," and the disguises they put on and obstacles they throw up to insure their immunity and protection from both investigation and prosecution. Yet deny and deprive them of their weapons and armor -- and they aren't nearly so all powerful and mighty as childishness and irrational superstition have traditionally construed and taken them to be.
Said the pre-Socratic philosopher, Xenophanes of Colophon (570–480 B.C.), in a sentiment echoed some one thousand years later by St. Augustine:
"Both Homer and Hesiod ascribed to the gods all things that evoke reproach and blame among human beings, theft and adultery and mutual deception."
Yet who or what was actually most deserving of criticism here? That the "gods" should behave in such a way (as Homer and Hesiod reported?) Or that people, including Homer and Hesiod, were foolish to trust and treat such spirit people as gods? Or that Homer and Hesiod were imprudent and undiplomatic, albeit honest and forthright, in either (a) ridiculing and insulting such spirit people, and or else (b) those who believed such to be gods?
Cross
The cross is
An Arapaho's star;
A Sioux's four corners
Of the earth
Wherever you are.
To others,
It's the celestial glint
Of a lighted taper;
Or two roads
Intersecting
The eternal vapor.
To yet others,
Its on what
A sail is pinned
In order to catch
Truth's wind,
On the voyage of ardor
To the longed for arbor.
But for you,
It is a rude mockery;
Just as life
At their hands
Becomes a rude mockery.
And when you starve
So it seems the world itself
Must starve also;
And then the world
Never really had hope.
And you are worn.
And you are beat up
Because they are
Beating you up.
But how well
Could they endure such
Who have no sense
Of right or shame?
They can act like
There is no war.
But there is, there is.
The proof is in these sores.
Yet though your body's broken,
Your spirit,
Unlike theirs, is free.
They've purchased vain security
At the price of their own
Conscience and liberty;
While you now must endure,
Not to get something,
But only to keep
What's already yours.
They are strangers;
They always were.
And because defy them you dare,
The sunshine
Of their false hope
You may forever forswear;
Let their own grief be theirs.
The cross is
An Arapaho's star;
A Sioux's four corners
Of the earth
Wherever you are.
To others,
It's the celestial glint
Of a lighted taper;
Or two roads
Intersecting
The eternal vapor.
To yet others,
Its on what
A sail is pinned
In order to catch
Truth's wind,
On the voyage of ardor
To the dreamt of arbor.
For those who can actually think (and deal with what is going in reality), life, at worst, isn't a movie; rather, it's more like a series of movies -- some good, some bad. But for those with a high opinion of their own intelligence, and yet you who cannot think and behave both honestly and rationally, they are ever condemned to live their lives being in someone else's bad movie.
I saw the above Victorian advert card on ebay. That face to me speaks volumes (and that's what I like.)
Speaking of Superstitions. You drink...you smoke pot. I don't really see any major difference, or problem with either as long as one isn't being discourteous or bothering others with your indulgence. This to me is universal common sense that I think most people, if you give them leave to say, more or less agree with. The stigma against pot is largely psychological; that developed over time into a kind of collective pathology, and for this reason can itself be deemed as constituting a kind of mania or mental illness; so that the persistent and long standing taboo against and antipathy towards smoker's choice springs more it seems to me, from a desire a) to trivialize credible law (by mixing with it the spurious), and at the same time b) is in some measure an attempt to program and indoctrinate people to adhere to an in-earnest decree without regard to its justice, practicality, and reasonableness -- in short, obey without thinking (because this way you are more easily manipulated by us who are the masters of manipulation.) Again, all this I think is just common sense. We have far more, on the other hand, to dread from people having the occult brought into their lives without their knowing who or what they are being made to deal with; thereby opening up the door to them to sickly spirit people; who not untypically are carriers and transmitters of all kinds of deadly, disfiguring and mutation causing ailments to a person, both medically and psychologically. Unfortunately, it is this warped and strangely international (seeming) outlook, in either ignoring or acting as willing or unwilling accomplice to such casual involvement with such spirits, that prevails over common sense when it comes to government and the legal system. All of which will naturally bring into question for some exactly whose interests some 80 or so years of (hitherto) positive law and the government are and have been actually serving with such a dogmatic and, in retrospect, self-defeating jurisprudence.
"It's those dirty hooligans. Who else could it be?"
Though I don't think anyone questions his sincerity and integrity, I rather suspect that with Barack Obama what it seems we are getting is "President Jr." But then, of course, why would they have permitted him to be President were it otherwise? They go on about these purported terrorists in Afghanistan, and yet for over 16 years I have had brain torture radios used on me in this country (and no doubt others, yet who can't speak on the subject, are and have the same being done to them!) Some, naturally, will ridicule the suggestion that there could even be such a thing as brain torture radios. Yet if you are one of those who is skeptical, what would your reaction be if it were possible (at least for the sake of argument) to prove to you that there actually were, and being used now for years in the U.S.?
Similarly, we've had malware, viruses, unsolicited pop-up and surprise audio advertising, daily bundles of overtly obnoxious spam, and other obstructions and interference plaguing the internet for over a decade. And yet do we ever hear a word coming out of Washington, D.C. about any of this being a problem? And yet who would have the resources, money and expertise to keep all these expensive and in some respects sophisticated acts of viciousness and aggression going on -- Ben Ladin?
You who by this time do or might concur with me in sentiment might well ask "if things are as you say, what then should we do or what should be done?"
It is important to remember that the real problem is these autocratic spirit people. They are have been for thousands of years the curse and horror of life and existence; and who, meanwhile, have been permitted to involve themselves and reign over the lives of others without ever really being blamed for the troubles they are responsible for. It is so utterly absurd when you think about how history will view with abhorrence or label this or that person a monster or a criminal; and yet the spirit person who, as it turns out, is much more to blame continues to be treated as a deity or at else deferred to as a higher authority. This, I submit, simply makes no sense, and what is called for is an effort to identify and demystify spirit people; hold them accountable for their actions, and, if need be and circumstances require, destroy them. Don't be so hung up on Renfield, or Igor, or Hitler, or "Speelburg," or whomever -- these kinds of people, even as bad and or powerful in a given instance as they might be, are really only pawns and puppets; and who, if things don't work out, are left to incur everyone's wrath. As Richtofen (in effect) said "shoot the pilot -- not the plane" -- and it is not an inapt comparison to say that attacking lordly spirit people requires the same kind of sharpness and skill as a combat flying ace. Can you kill the monster without unnecessarily harming the dupes and captives that are used to stand in for, cover and or shield him? That's what you want to do. Don't be preoccupied contending with underlings; take the fight, where and when possible, to the top; and if that is not readily possible follow the path that leads to him -- only without permitting yourself to be needlessly distracted by second and third banana characters (if possible.) If he acts like he's God or a benevolent deity -- don't believe it -- and treat all spirit people who assume superiority or authority with you as the enemy. And while it is and may not yet be technologically feasible for anyone now to shoot at such people with a gun or physical weapon; nevertheless, this kind of idea ought be prospectively contemplated and considered. In the meantime and until then, what is needed is more closely identifying and determining who these people are, their strengths and weaknesses are, and how they might in present or near future circumstances be assailed, given those strengths and weaknesses. For example, in the course of my ordeal, I have been beat up by these people for years, and I have come to learn that the more punishment I can take the harder I make it for them; moreover, if I am really good at this and comport myself morally and intelligently, I can actually transform and hurl these same pressures directed at me back at them -- that is, so long as I have and continue to keep the right target in my sights.
The unwritten law is that if we do something wrong then this gives the green light to certain zealous spirit people that they may also do something wrong. But note the latent and assumed premise they adopt -- all bad is all one and the same; for which reason they (and allowing for certain diplomatic exigencies of particular circumstances) may stab someone if, say, he fibbed; which self-less moral opportunity, needless to add, can then be turned to their own selfish profit; not infrequently excusing themselves by acting as if the unconscionable and aggravated harm they did as a result, didn't matter. But if it didn't matter, then how and why is it they make their living off of and wield such sway and influence on the basis of this arch-jurisprudence, and that alone makes possible the worst and most shameful outrages? Such an arrangement you may put up with if you will, but as for me give me liberty or give me death.
Take the word of someone who has seen and known it -- the heaven of those spirit people who, whether on the pretext of mystic religion or of brazen fascism, connive and meddle in this world's affairs is at its root a lot of phony and worthless junk; and the only thing that really bothers or intimidates me personally is the thought of being one day brought up on charges of not feeling sufficiently sorry for them.
It is easier for me now to see and understand how the hated stamp imprint must have looked to many of the exasperated colonists; that is to say not unlike a tattoo being forced on people. And on a certain level of things, that is what no doubt some of its other-worldly proponents (acting behind the scenes) intended it to be (rather than merely a means of acquiring revenue, and not so very unlike how some internet "advertising" is used -- i.e. to mark you.)
As to what was viewed as the political justification for the tax itself, Lord Chesterfield's remarks are worth reproducing.
"You have, to be sure, had from the office an account
of what the Parliament did, or rather did not do, the day of their meeting: and the same point will be the great
object at their next meeting; I mean the affair of our
American Colonies, relatively to the late imposed Stamp duty; which our Colonists absolutely refuse to pay. The Administration [of Whig prime minister, Lord Rockingham] are for some indulgence and forbearance to those froward children of their mother country: the Opposition are for taking vigorous, as they call them,
but I call them violent measures; not less than les dragonades; and to have the tax collected by the troops we have there. For my part, I never saw a froward child mended by whipping: and I would not have the mother country become a stepmother. Our trade to America brings in, communibus annis, two millions a year; and the Stamp duty is estimated at but one hundred thousand pounds a year; which I would by no means bring in to the stock of the Exchequer, at the loss, or even the risk, of a million a year to the national stock."
~ To his son, 27 Dec. 1765.
As we ourselves have made mention and as you yourself possibly already know otherwise, it has been something of a kick of late among certain internet "advertisers," particularly (in my experience) at Yahoo mail, to shout out various well-known people's purported Intelligence Quotients. Although I'm sorry I don't have my usual snap to prove the fact, yesterday it was announced that Pres. Obama's I.Q. is now 140! That's 13 more IQ points than was reported of him by these same busy observers just last week. I deduce from this that either those calculating these estimates are being negligent in their computations or else the President has made a terrible decision of some kind (and or else done something terribly wrong.) Let us hope and pray then that it turns out to be only the former and not the latter.
