Allen Rehbein on Israeli protests

Allen Rehbein

wrote in FaceBook on November 23, 2012

I don't think most of my fellow Jews quite GET IT. 

Some of us Jews are not lemmings...some of us THINK for ourselves. 

Some of us don't THINK that dropping 1,500 bombs on a tiny piece of land with 800,000 children in it will make ANYBODY safer. I think it's going to create a whole new generation of children that will despise the people who dropped all of those bombs on them and ruined their lives. There is NO WAY we can support that in good conscience. I already know all of the propaganda points that make you support it, so please stop sending me the same 3 videos about Hamas that everybody keeps posting...and PLEASE stop sending me Glenn Beck videos about Israel...last year you all thought he was crazy, not all of a sudden you think he's Israel's savior. The fact that some of us are against these policies doesn't mean we are against Israel, it means we are against the policies of the Israeli government...and NO, I will NOT "stand" wi th Israel when they do these things. I stand with the Palestinian CHILDREN at this time, who are victims of being born in Gaza, with nowhere to run to. We think that these bombing operations are doing the exact opposite of making anybody safer. Many people in Israel agree with us...they don't support their own government either. For God's sake, FOUR Israeli people have set themselves on FIRE 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c1LhUwgRXU&feature=fvwrel in protest of their own government just in 2012, and I didn't see a SINGLE one of you post an article about that. 

You can easily go to YouTube and watch the demonstrations and protests the Israeli people hold in opposition of their own government. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5dsNvcNY7Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnB3p9iN_Jc&feature=relmfu

Do you really care about the people of Israel, or do you just care about what you are TOLD to care about and WHEN you are told to care about it? We think these policies hurt the Israeli people much more than help them. We don't think the Israeli government works in the best interests of its people. Do you get it?

Being Green -- Recycled

Those who claim to be freinds of the enviroment are the most destructive to it!

 

Being Green

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."

The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment f or future generations."

She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were truely recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.

But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

 

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.

 

To be or not to be Conservative

As a life-long "liberal" in support of most of the political issues on the left side ... anti-war; anti-corporatism; in support of a "green" working and living environments; preservation of natural ecosystems; an early advocate of alternative energies to displace the harmful power-grid system through local, on-site production and use; in favor of boycotting violence in movies and mass-media; advocating for states' rights rather than federal dominance in laws; opposed to incarceration of persons who use marijuana for recreation and or medicinal aims; resentful and strongly against the corporate dominance of our "food" industry that has poisoned soil, water and nearly all living animals; dismayed at the disease-care industry that has grown since the Nixon years to profit from keeping people increasingly ill; a strong preference for small, family-owned businesses rather than large corporations; the freedom to follow one's sexual orientation as it comes naturally, without harassment; and the freedom to practice or not practice any religion that one deems right and suitable without interference or ridicule ... I know it is exceedingly apt to ask the question: To be or not to be, or, to defend or not to defend "conservatism." 

It appears that a majority of voting Americans believe that a "conservative" holds views in direct opposition to a self-proclaimed "liberal" or "progressive." Not all "liberals" are "progressives," although all "progressives" are "liberals." 
  
Of these three groups, those who claim to be "progressive" reveal an egoistic arrogance regarding their assumed roles in human civilization, as if to proclaim, "the social and political progress of humankind depends upon agreement with me on most issues." Another way to put it: "Follow me so that human civilization can progress towards perfection." 

Fortunately, again, not all "liberals" are "progressives." 

Still, the enormous error persists: To hold views in opposition to "liberal or progressive" political/social tenets makes one a "conservative." And, as one relative repeats excessively, "Republicans and conservatives like you just don't get it." [For the record, I've never voted Republican.]

Thus is exposed the narrow-mindedness of those who habitually, vociferously denounce "conservatism" and "conservatives" as if they are humans of a lower development on an evolutionary scale. Yes, even adherence to unproven and partially disproven evolutionary theories reveals arrogance within some "liberal progressives." The less-than-subtle implication is that, as a "progressive," one has also become so due to higher intelligence on an evolutionary path, while "conservatives" adhere to ideas perhaps more relevant to the daily life of a Neanderthal. 

As if blindly believing in evolution is proof enough of its validity, despite sufficient evidence to the contrary.

If a "conservative" is not merely the opposite of an enlightened, highly-evolved, super-intelligent "liberal," what makes a true conservative?

A true conservative is someone who believes that nature provides the best possible model for preserving life for a species, thus, we should strive to emulate nature in our developed systems, our arteries of transportation and communication, and we should preserve, as much as possible, the natural world in which we live and upon which our lives depend.

A true conservative believes that some answers to our problems will come through science, yet it is far too early to say that technology is the answer or will be the answer to human problems applicable universally. The antithesis of this is found in the arrogance of "liberal-progressive" thinking: Science and technology hold the key to solving all the problems of human civilization, and this justifies Monsanto Corporation, as an example, to create new organisms to feed the world as if it is true that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe for consumption.  

A true conservative is able to glean wisdom from traditional religious writings and beliefs. Yet, a conservative need not be religious in order to be right about the most prudent course to take individually or as a society. 

There are few atheistic conservatives, while many "liberals" or "progressives" are agnostic or atheistic in tenets or practice. It is as if "liberals" and "progressives" outgrow religious beliefs (and related wisdom) just as one outgrows childhood clothing. It follows that "conservatives" are described as if it were true they still wear their childhood clothes in public. 
 
A true conservative believes in thrift but not in debt as the prudent way to finance our present and future projects. 

A true conservative is frugal, believing that conservation of personal and community resources is prudent and wise. These resources include natural gifts of the earth, its minerals and life-supporting ecosystems, but also the resource of knowledge, traditions and wisdom accrued over countless generations. And, yes, sometimes wisdom is found in the writings of major religions, some traditions held as a resource to be passed down to later generations. 

A true conservative understands that religion functions as a school through which knowledge, wisdom and moral lessons are to be transmitted to younger generations. Those who understand this also discern the difference between this essential function of religion and how it is represented, quite falsely, by "progressives," who represent religious teachings as equivalent to lessons of a dog-obedience school. On this point, conservatives earn a right to say accurately of "progressives" and "liberals," ... "You just don't get it." 

And yes, there are many who call themselves "conservative," adhering to a very limited understanding of their own religious tenet of free will, who as a consequence also accept their own religious teaching as if it is comparable to a dog-obedience school. They just don't get it.

A true conservative believes in preserving life and freedom for all, not merely for those who come first. That is to say, a conservative is able to discern the contradiction of being opposed to harmful substances in food, in baby formula, in water, and opposition to weapons of war used against unarmed civilians nearly everywhere they are imposed ... and a "liberal-progressive" advocating for abortion as a convenient method of birth control under the delusion/deception of "a woman's health." 

To be or not to be a conservative? 

I believe in free will. This is not the same as believing in total freedom to do whatever one chooses to do, or as some liberal progressives will advocate, "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law." Those who profess this as "true" may or may not know that it was Aleister Crowley, who proudly proclaimed himself the most evil man alive, who made that assertion. 

I believe that adults should be allowed to freely grow and use "recreational" or medical marijuana as a conservative exercise of free will. 

I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to fully practice a religion without interference or intimidation from institutions or ridicule from the increasing social networks of the general public. Of course, it follows that all should be free to express themselves at any time and place unless the mode of expression interferes with reasonable peace of others. 

I believe in collective effort to resolve social problems such as hunger and homelessness, but not in collectivism in any form as means to the same end. 

Blind are those on both sides of the liberal-conservative divide who persist in demanding that our largest institutions, corporations and federal governments, resolve the high-unemployment phenomena by "creating jobs." The solution to this problem lies in restoration of past practices, the same past practices that "liberals" are in a hurry to "progress" away from: those that made small towns in America prosperous hubs of commerce from the local vicinity of small family-owned farms, local "savings and loan" banks, owner-run small businesses, cohesive families, and church-based charities that met of the needs of a community's down-and-outs through communal care. And importantly, most counties required doctors to provide assistance to county-run clinics for indigent persons in need, pro bono.

The majority of people who agree with these definitions are excluded from the ranks of the upper-middle class and the wealthy elite in this country. The great majority of truly conservative people are poor, or are struggling to maintain a stable position in the economic quagmire of this decade. 

To be or not to be a "conservative" is best approached by first expanding one's view of what "conservative" means beyond the confines of the popular yet exceedingly misleading definition written and broadcast by enemies of the merits of a conservative lifestyle. Among these ranks are atheists, anti-family advocates, a growing population of narcissists (see a future blog on narcissists) and hedonists, an increasing number of poorly educated victims of the dumbing-down of American education, and a swelling population of "entitled" persons whose maturing process has been retarded by excessive satisfaction of desire combined with lack of accepting personal responsibility. {If you have contributed to unemployment insurance or social security or Medicare payments and need these, or qualify to draw down from them, these are not parasitic entitlements, but your due. Corporations receive the vast majority of "entitlement" payments, tax breaks and "profits" through deceptively favourable legal means.} 

The demise of the concept of sin applicable to human behavior, an atheist-modernist modification, has significantly contributed to mass-denial of personal responsibility. 

It follows that a large majority of abortions performed as a convenient means of "birth control" are motivated by a woman's (or other family members') desire, or demand, to avoid personal responsibility for a child. It is no surprise that "progressives" equate a "woman's health" with her "right" to obtain an abortion on demand. Taking personal responsibility for a baby, even very short-term until an adoption may be arranged, is an inconvenience that conflicts with the "progressive-modernist" redefinition of the gift of free will. {"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law."} And, the use of the birth-control pill has proven to be disastrous for a great number of women whose health has severely deteriorated as a result of The Pill. The deception is monumental. 

Taking personal responsibility is the crux of the matter of deciding, if it is indeed an option, to be or not to be a conservative. The human herd is stampeding toward avoidance of personal responsibility. The recent and growing demand that big business and enormous government "create jobs" or provide for the needs of tens of millions of people living (existing, often) on the margins is evidence of this trend away from personal responsibility. Both corporate "persons" {the designation of which by the United States Supreme Court is a heinous crime against humanity} and governmental organizations lead the world in the failure to take responsibility and to be held accountable for actions detrimental to human beings. Those who plead with these organizations for "jobs creation" and "economic solutions" directly abdicate personal responsibility and free will applicable, and significantly essential to equitable resolution. 

A wiser population would be raising a voice for independence in thought, words (mass-media) and actions towards a free society in which personal effort and ingenuity can and will be applied to resolve individual and collective problems. Then, the merits of conservative lifestyles would become universally evident. 









       

The Dam shame of it

On Mon, 10/15/12, Helen West in Alaska

This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries regarding a pond on his property. It was sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, State of Pennsylvania. This guy's response is hilarious, but read the State's letter before you get to the response letter, you won’t stop once you start.  This is an actual letter: State of Pennsylvania 's letter to Mr. DeVries:  SUBJECT: DEQ ... File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec 20; Lycoming County Dear Mr. DeVries: It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations.. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2010. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, David L. Price District Representative and Water Management Division. Here is the actual response sent back by Mr. DeVries:  Re: DEQ File No.. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County Dear Mr. Price, Your certified letter dated 11/17/09 has been handed to me. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane , Trout Run, Pennsylvania . A couple of beavers are in the process of constructing and maintaining two wood 'debris' dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials 'debris.' I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic. These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is: (1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or (2) Do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. (Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.) I have several dam concerns. My first dam concern is, aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the damed stream 'restored' to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English. In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams). So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2010? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice by then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality, health, problem in the area It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your dam step! The bears are not careful where they dump! Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office. THANK YOU, RYAN DEVRIES & THE DAM BEAVERS

4 attachments — Download all attachments   View all images   Share all images  

ATT00001.jpg 15K   View   Share   Download

ATT00003.jpg 18K   View   Share   Download

ATT00004.jpg 10K   View   Share   Download

ATT00002.jpg 9K   View   Share   Download

Liberal intellectuals and the Obama election

The following is a passage from The Ultimate Frontier by Eklal Kueshana, first published in 1963. 


    "Most people who arrogate to themselves the status of 'intellectual' are seeking a distinction among men to compensate for their social ineptitude. A deep sense of inferiority compels them to proclaim their superiority over intelligent men of good sense.  Intellectuals like to believe that they are so far above the rest of society that common men can't understand them or appreciate them. To prove this contention, they have an esoteric jargon of their own. When intellectuals gather, they spend the time impressing each other with their culture and education. Such intellectuals form a sort of lunatic group of writers, artists, poets and bizarre nonconformists, who parrot clever things they've learned from published intellectuals. Because they really try to believe they are above men, they will go to any extreme to demonstrate their contempt for society's hard-gained concepts of proper behavior and morality.
    "Intellectuals behave in a bohemian manner not so much for the sake of enjoyment but because it is the very opposite of prudent convention. They flout religion because they feel their intellect is beyond such opiates. They contrarily profess radical, revolutionary movements and would secretly love to gain control over their country in order to mold it to their own liking. Inasmuch as they cannot fit into society, their antagonism toward it makes them want to command all who comprise it. They would force everyone to acclaim their kind as exalted beings. Intellectuals are notorious for having promoted revolutionary ideologies which have resulted in the overthrow of established governments, and in effect, they have carelessly and unconscionably delivered whole nations into the hands of dictators. this they may do in hopes of reward from a new government, but almost without exception they are removed as dangerous inciters of revolution by the very scoundrels they afforded power. 
    "Most intellectuals are prone to harmless self-pity, retreat and erratic behavior; but the liberal is a real villain. He will take no firm stand on anything even if his very survival depends on a soundly reasoned plan of action. He will tell you that one must be open to both sides of every question at all times. He will bend over to demonstrate, for instance, that Nazism and Buddhism are similar or that the concepts of good and evil are wholly relative so that no absolute moral laws can exist or insist that the notion of the sun revolves about the Earth can never be entirely disproven. Under the guise of open-mindedness and intellectual fairness, we have a person who will not think constructively or conclusively. Ironically, he usually is college educated, smoothly persuasive and well-polished socially, and these attributes aid in his appointment to positions of trust and respectability. But his devious, unanchored morality and his adeptness at evasive double-talk make the liberal an easy turncoat and traitor -- after all, his loyalty is only relative to his nonabsolute code of morality. He can rationalize any immoral behavior by his shifting standards which allow him, above all other men, the ability to live any way he pleases and never sin in his own eyes. This he can do without inner conflict because the liberal can argue that his intellect may in some respects exceed God's wisdom -- if indeed he even recognizes a God. The liberal, as you can see, is without common sense, logic or morality. He is creation's most dangerous fool." 

There is a direct link between the above passage and the reelection of Obama to occupy the White House. In both 2008 and 2012 Obama was the overwhelming favorite of "intellectuals" that hold positions of influence in this nation's universities, a group eerily consistent with the above definition. In addition, also consistent with the positions of influence held by the "intelligentsia" in mass media within nominally "Liberal" or "Conservative" venues, a great number of people have accepted the pronouncements of these groups "on both sides of the aisle" as if their arguments have merit. Thus, the recent "election" has been been given credibility in the minds of most voters. 

Style has overruled substance. Superficiality has risen to preclude examination of content and meaning within the political spectrum of this country.

This is a dangerous position for this nation to be in, while the great majority of Americans face uncertain futures. The consensus accepted blindly is to "elect" officials and trust the future well-being of more than three hundred million persons to them, hoping that they will act benevolently and wisely in the interest of us all. History has proven time and again that this expectation is never fulfilled, and that those who are granted such power inevitably abuse it in their own self-interest.

'Get a Job' by Dan and Sheila

'Get a Job' by Dan and Sheila

Something to think about . . .

The following is a recirculated statement sent by a good friend from Vermont in a recent email. I happen to agree with the concept.

Something To Think About . . .
 

        THE SITUATION

In Washington , DC , at a Metro Station, on a cold January morning in 2007, this man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes.  During that time, approximately 2,000 people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.  After about 3 minutes, a middle-aged man noticed that there was a musician playing.  He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds, and then he hurried on to meet his schedule.

About 4 minutes later 
The violinist received his first dollar.  A woman threw money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk.

  
 At 6 minutes
 A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again.

At 10 minutes
A 3-year old boy stopped, but his mother tugged him along hurriedly.  The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head the whole time.  This action was repeated by several other children, but every parent - without exception - forced their children to move on quickly.

At 45 minutes
 The musician played continuously.  Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while.  About 20 gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace.  The man collected a total of $32.
After 1 hour
He finished playing and silence took over.  No one noticed and no one applauded.  There was no recognition at all.

  No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world.  He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars.  Two days before, Joshua Bell sold-out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100 each to sit and listen to him play the same music.
 This is a true story.  Joshua Bell, playing incognito in the D.C. Metro Station, was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people's priorities.
This experiment raised several questions: 

      *In a common-place environment, at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty?

      *If so, do we stop to appreciate it?

      *Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context?

 One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this: 
If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made . . .
How many other things are we have been missing as we rush through life

An excerpt from the book, Kidnapping For Fun and Profit

Love and only love is the answer to problems arising from
parental abduction and alienation of children. Hatred perpetuates
and exacerbates consequences that already affect everyone sharing
this planet, these “two worlds living together as one.” Love must
be supported by forgiveness , and forgiveness must be offered to
all who repent, all who express genuine remorse for transgressions
of the past and present. The only way to love is with depth; it
cannot be lukewarm in a world in the deep freeze of amorality.
Tepid love within a relationship that conceives children is a large
part of the problem, one of the root causes of hijacked emotions,
a deep sense of worthlessness, readiness to blame those closest to
oneself for self doubt and self-loathing. Understanding that this is
ubiquitous in our amoral society is a beginning for those who
have been herded down this path. Power does not spare a soul; it
is too often an insatiable yearning for nourishment of one’s soul
missed in childhood that drives one to acquire power over others.
Inevitably, this power turns to ruthlessness; sociopaths are
spawned this way. Evidence of alienated children can be seen
everywhere, in faces of children in school, in reports of bullying, in
domestic violence, and in false reports of domestic violence used
as a weapon of aggression against a spouse or former partner. To
love is to reach down into the core of one’s being and to find
something within worth sharing; it is an inexplicable personal
power unknown before one sought it out. It is the power to
forgive, to reach beyond a concept of “a balance of power” that
requires only distance and détente. Love is power that requires no
force, nor can it be forced, just as remorse or repentance cannot
be forced from depths within any person. It is the obligation of
every parent to nourish the soul of one’s child so that he or she
becomes aware of both love and its relationship to one’s moral
conscience, for a moral conscience without love is weak, tepid, and
easily overcome by the machinations of the world.

Proverb: Truth is truth to the end of the reckoning.

living water

We have all seen those pictures of starving children with visible skeletons as eyes stare blankly at cameras capturing a moment in what well might be their last days. We are left not knowing whether those who brought cameras also provided sufficient food and clean water to keep alive all our unfortunate fellow human beings.

In many parts of this world, living water is a matter of live and death.

 This photograph showing a starving Sudanese child being stalked by a vulture won Kevin Carter the 1994 Pulitzer Prize for feature photography. He committed suicide the same year this picture was taken. 

From the beginning of the television campaign to “save the children” in “the developing world,” in countries such as Ethiopia and Somalia, or Haiti and The Sudan, there has also been a global campaign to gain control of the living waters  that are essential to life for all of us. Living Water:  our mountain streams, our natural springs, rivers, lakes and ponds, even as of late, rainwater … sources of fresh water across the globe are the single most important source of life on Earth.

Corporations have been trying to, and largely succeeding in, gaining control of most sources of living water for many years.  Because of this reality that a few corporations have imposed upon the rest of us restrictions of access to living water the solicitations to “end hunger” are much like raising money for gasoline for vehicles without wheels.

Starvation exists as a result of three basic causes: 1. Depriving people of a plot of land on which to grow food; 2. Depriving people of the essential knowledge and tools to cultivate small plots of land, and  3. Depriving people depriving people of access to living water with which to grow crops and sate thirst.

In general, the second cause is easily negated through cultural history; most cultures have developed or learned basic knowledge of agriculture and passed it down through generations. The same is true of agriculture tools that fit local environs. Then, too, many people are provided barren land on which to live yet their acreage remains barren because the primary resource of water is hoarded by a few. Native Americans living in the American Southwest can attest to this.

I’ve been told that  a human quest for “decadence’ is what drives “progress,” and that this desire for decadence is therefore good because of its utility. In cultures like the former Soviet Union, the argument goes, deprivation of means to be decadent led to systemic failures, thus proving the good of decadent desires for the enrichment of humanity … “the profit motive works.”

I disagree with that argument, and this is why.

Efforts to gain control of all sources of living waters on this planet are an epitome of that same “desire for decadence.” Those who seek such power intend to overcome every limitation for themselves, thus to position themselves “to enjoy whatever decadence one’s heart (or loins) desires.” Many have long ago achieved that status.

Yet, those who live for decadence are empty and unsatisfied. One sated pleasure is immediately replaced with a need for another. Rarely is an alcoholic ever content with his last drink, if ever.

The Gospel of John provides a connection between this quest for decadence of today and the concept of living water. Yeshua had met a Samaritan woman by a well, and said to her of the water from the well: 

    “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, …”

This is the cycle of decadence, or of appetites whether simple or large, such as an appetite for power or pleasure.

Water has been, for millennia, a symbol of the spirit. It is a symbol of life, fittingly, for all life depends upon water. Those starving in barren lands, deprived of clean water, are deprived of life. Those who deprive others of access to water are spiritually dead.

It is also strangely apt that the Samaritan woman at the well represented a “decadent” lifestyle, as she had had a number of men, “husbands,”  in her bed through a passage of time. A great many of us live this way today, passing from one “comfort zone” to another with little thought to spiritual continuity.

Many of us, in the same superficial way, answer pleas for donations of money to causes such as those pertaining to starving children. We write a check or make on online contribution without contemplating the difference between cause and effect. We are quick to provide a bottle of water without a single thought that what is needed is a stream of living water  that will alleviate the perpetual thirst and hunger of many unfortunate people.

John 4.10 records:  Yeshua answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water."

We are told elsewhere that “those who are the least among you” and “who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,'” are one and the same when it comes to charity. In other words, those starving children are in need of living water  to sustain their lives, just as those who provide that living water  must also partake from the heart.

The human will  has the power to prevail. We can do this on Earth, while we are here. Whatever living water  we provide to villages and isolated rural communities will provide them with “perpetual life” while they exist in body, and an opportunity to contribute to humanity as a whole. Collective human will  is required to overturn the present concentration of Earth’s living waters  under the control of a very few who profit from its control and sale.

When we reach a point of each community supporting itself, there will be no excuse for war and deprivation, its related death and disease.

These are some aspects of living waters  as they apply to humanity today.

And yes, beneath the surface, unseen yet vitally important is the connection between what is written here and the exclusive meaning given to living water  as Yeshua intended. May you never thirst. 

Biographical Disclaimer Part One

      When I was thirteen years young, I was confirmed in a rite of passage in Saint Therese of the Little Flower Catholic Church, Coral Gables, Florida. At that time I took a confirmation name Francis after Saint Francis of Assisi. By that moment in time I had already spent countless hours in deep contemplation alone in nature, in the tropical forest of Viscaya, in a place called Simpson Hammock, or walking along the shoreline of Rickenbacker Causeway or perhaps sitting beneath or in the branches of a tree anywhere.

Sometimes I would simply sit in a church listening to the groans of wooden pews, watching sunlight pass through stained glass windows. Others times I would go for long, aimless walks throughout my neighborhood or into adjoining ones, noting differences in houses and surrounding landscape.

When I learned about Saint Francis my reaction was, I get it.  It is fair to say that I sensed an affinity for his teachings and that that understanding influenced my life along the way, perhaps profoundly.

But no, emphatically, No, I cannot claim to have followed his example in most things. During that period of my life I tried to become pious but failed miserably at that. Knowing this, I would never claim to be “holier than thou.” On the contrary, I’ve done my share of sinning and then more.

Yet, there is one influence from St. Francis that stayed with me most of this life: accumulating large stores of money has never been my priority. I admit this. It may well be “a sin” against modern society but at best the pursuit of money for its own sake has been a secondary interest, if it ever did make it to the number two rank. It has not been “my Cup of Tea.” 

Of course, this put me out of step with the large majority of my peers in our global culture. And of course, I’ve lived within certain limits because of this. 

Perhaps I’ve missed out on a lot of “due decadence” during my life up to the present, although I have no regrets about that. 

I’ve had to work as I grew up, beginning at age eleven, as our family of five siblings and one (continuously) working parent of two at home had few nickels to rub together.  

Saint Francis, though, gave me an important gift or perspective on life, that one may retain one’s dignity as a human being, a “Child of God,” while subscribing to poverty, either involuntarily or voluntarily. Francis chose poverty of his own volition, yet no sane person would claim that he lacked personal dignity. By our standards and knowledge of his contemporaries, Francis lived in rags but would not be labeled “White Trash” as some would tag people today. 

At home, conditions were such that some of my siblings and I went to work before becoming a teenager. For me, it was delivering newspapers by bicycle, folding pizza boxes, learning to make pizzas and other goodies by the age of fourteen, and various other things as opportunity came along. It was a school away from school  for me.

While collecting for an afternoon newspaper, The Miami News before it was purchased and shut down by The Miami Herald, I met hundreds of older persons living in a historic district of Miami, just south of the Miami River and on both sides of Miami Avenue. The famous nightclub-bar, Tobacco Road  was in my territory. In visiting many of those customers, I could not help but notice how each coin was carefully scrutinized and counted when making a payment. I knew that many in that area had to do this to live, and to eat every day, and I sensed that many also would skip meals in order save for the end of the week or the end of the month. Time after time, someone would be home when I rang but not answer the door. I made it a point to lose their stub for that week, and often for multiple weeks, and hope for a payment the next time. It’s no exaggeration to say that a third of my earnings were left behind this way, and I continued this practice for about six years with the two newspapers, leaving the day’s propaganda at doorsteps seven days a week. 

Looking back, I have no regrets for leaving thousands of dollars behind me in this way because from so many of those endearing, wonderful, struggling people, some the poorest of subscribers in the city and others among the wealthiest, I learned something about life that’s endured. 

Many of us will age, and reach 70, or 75, or even beyond 85 years. The world will change rapidly and in exceedingly profound ways around us through the energy and activity of younger generations. For one reason or another, I learned before my Confirmation, many of us will arrive at a place alone, living alone, and we will have to be cautious with each expenditure. It is also predicted that many of us will need to work until our last day, if that is possible. For millions of us Baby Boomers economic conditions will not be as good generally  as they were for elderly persons I met in the 1960s. 

I’ve seen  the future that many of us face. The necessity of frugality is nothing to fear, and there is nothing undignified  in thrift, or in poverty. Personal dignity is, as Saint Francis taught, very much a state of mind and a state of being.

 

Thus, it is far worse to find oneself alone, isolated, or friendless  in our declining years, unless that is a personal choice for solitude. This can and will happen to some of us, especially those who define self-worth in terms of material things, then find that there is little of that left during waning years of one’s life, or at any time.

Now, we are at point in history that can best be described as an upheaval. The significance of current changes that are happening in political, social and economic venues all point to this, although for many the collective crux may be imperceptible or elusive to define. Nevertheless the upheaval is happening all around us. Because of this, I cannot stress enough the importance of reaffirming and strengthening any bonds you may have with others. Whenever possible, set aside differences that may split apart families and friendships in your life, and learn to follow the Boy Scout Motto: "Be prepared."  (Also, read my post “Give Forgiveness.”)     

 

Placebo Politics 2012 an Introduction

Many martyrs gave their lives on behalf of freedom in the Twentieth Century. Before 1960 millions of innocents were killed in massive purges of small farmers from lands in Asia and Eastern Europe. Then World War Two swept across the same lands, taking more than sixty million more lives around the globe. Since 1960 up to the present, in other purges in the Middle East, in Asia, in Mexico and throughout Africa, tens of millions more human beings have been slaughtered by those who control natural and man-made resources. The wholesale killing that began in 1914 has continued unabated since the outbreak of the First World War, yet “life goes on” as if this were not the case.

We have been distracted from necessary reflection on this and what it means, how it shapes our everyday lives.

We have been lulled to sleep and hypnotized, literally, by television and its offshoots in the high-tech revolution.

Civilization itself kills millions of people each year, at a faster rate than weapons unleashed in the last world war.

The distribution system of land and resources alone is responsible for the deaths of approximately thirty thousand children every day  from starvation, foul water and related diseases. It is definitely not the case that this world is overpopulated and that this sad circumstance cannot be avoided as long as the poorest people on Earth continue to procreate.

The concept of overpopulation is a placebo. It is an empty, meaningless pill fed to those who inquire into the state of the world. It is a placebo, for some, intended to alleviate any sense of guilt for having amassed far more than they need of Earth’s resources in order to live and prosper, or for indulging in the haute cuisine of indifference. 

And it does just that.

It is also a useful placebo used to justify the murder of innocent fetuses, as a measure against an already, so it is claimed, overpopulated world. If it were true that Earth’s resources are insufficient to maintain all seven billion humans in a civilized society, then it might be partially true that abortion is acceptable. But the premise is quite wrong, and those who control an extremely high percentage of our resources know this.

The same group of controllers disseminates a vast array of misinformation through mass media. To a great extent, this small group of controllers is responsible for creating much of the matrix of informational placebos that divide families, communities, states, nations and peoples in what has recently been touted as Class Warfare.

By now most of the world knows of the recent attempt to generate new political placebos through the Occupy Wall Street movement and its clones around the world. In some ways, as will be seen true of most placebo politics, there is a sound basis for the Occupy Movement. There is a good reason to demonstrate and demand reforms of the system that Wall Street represents. However, not one of the agenda items publicized for that movement “hit the nail on the head” by citing the critical key  that would bring about the changes that the Occupy Movement allegedly targeted.

        From this I’ve had to conclude that Occupy Wall Street is yet another informational placebo of the political world. Like any placebo, it has a purpose in deception. Placebos are created to deceive the mind. A common definition …

	Placebo: Something of no intrinsic remedial value that is used to appease or reassure another.

 

Anyone who pays attention to broadcasts of debates, or commentary afterward, or generated “news” of the activities of government through major networks or minor players in the blog scene, upon reflection, will discern that substance is absent. Choosing any favorite topic from the wide gamut of possible subjects, I wonder if anyone can emphatically and assuredly state that that particular subject has improved through handling by government officials or their political achievements?

It is doubtful, and this is not because one side might argue that, for example, the latest government report on statistics for unemployment decreased from 9.5% to 8.7%, or at least, it was reported as such. The number might appease a few, and reassure a few more who intend to vote for the incumbent president regardless of the overbearing reality of administration failures. Numbers such as unemployment figures are exceedingly effective placebos whether they are used to boost ratings of one politico or to manipulate minds to go in another direction, to lose confidence and increase general fear.

The same principle applies to discussions of illegal immigration. Numbers are thrown about for our general consumption because it has become blatantly obvious that there is a problem and its solution has been evasive for decades.

To understand placebo politics is to understand why not one of the issues of grave concern to you, me and everyone who casts a vote in a democratic election will have a satisfactory resolution through this process of empowering other people to do what is right and just. Every election at the national level and a very high percentage at state and local levels have become an informational placebo.

The purpose of every election is to appease and reassure concerned citizens (and non-citizens who share a stake in an outcome) that what we all sense deep down a the gut level, and through considerable education for some, is not going to be true this time, all over again ... that no matter who is elected or empowered we all lose.  

It is my hope that those who read this book will gain sufficient knowledge and understanding of the forces that dominate our world so that each is empowered to change what can be changed within the boundaries of your lives, and to better comprehend the lives of other people who are distant in space, culture or custom.      

Amoral Morale

Setting aside a matter of religious wars, some believe that the United States is divided by the Left —liberal, “freethinking” or “progressive” -– faction on one side and a self-proclaimed “conservative,” sometimes hard-core Christian group on the Right.

      There are many contradictions within the Right, and many within expectations of the Left.

This is largely due to the fact that there is no true far right, there may be a very small far left, and there is no true culture war.

Primarily, when all small groups that make up the far right are examined by what they believe, they are found to espouse many tenets that moderates also believe. No one fully practices what they proclaim to believe except for a very few; these live in Orthodox communities that can be named and numbered: Orthodox Jews, Amish, Mennonites, and some Catholics who attend Mass in Latin or live in monasteries are a few such groups.

The latter, the monks or sisters in convents, also struggle with petty differences as if they were family members; they experience divisions, wrestle with faith and piety, develop attachments and jealousies, as do any other members of society. Yet their lifestyle as a whole conforms to their proclaimed beliefs and they ought to be recognized for this.

When it comes to the majority of people in groups unfortunately lumped into “red states and blue states,” the Right become as liberal as people or their behaviors they condemn and the Left become as conservative as people that they habitually ridicule.

       It is no coincidence that people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh resemble, in the way they speak – ranting and raving – people on drugs, whether those pharmaceuticals are licit or illicit.

There are people whose main means of income is to perpetuate the myth that the United States is engaged in a series of culture wars that preclude unity on any major issue.

To hold this view is to say that we have entered into a long, possibly endless period of civil war here in this country. Like hot wars in the Middle East and around the globe, this is a perpetual war, a perpetual struggle for power of one side over the other.

In 1973 we began a civil “cultural” war over abortion: choice versus the right to life. This has not been a bloodless, civil war.

Beginning with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, we began a civil war of environment versus corporate power, or jobs versus owls and snails, that evolved into global air-conditioning via chemical-trails emitted from high-altitude jets, otherwise known as "saving the earth by poisoning it with a blanket of nano-aluminum and barium." 

Beginning with Jerry Falwell’s plunge into politics, we began a civil war on the issue of Fundamental Christian influence in elections, although not over government action.  

The election of “independent thinkers” aligned with gay-rights groups then began yet another civil war against organized religion.

In this rush to divide our loyalties, each of these civil wars has served hidden agendas of those in power who do not want you to perceive or to grasp the single most important issue we face this year and during the immediate future.

On both sides there has been no shortage of donors willing to spend billions of dollars to keep voices loud and clear on all divisive issues of recent decades.

The greater the potential for divisiveness, the more money pours in.

There is no limit to the money when it comes to funding the culture war myth. 

Nor has there been a dearth of willing tools, or fools, ready to accept handouts from the “concerned citizens” who want voices raised higher and higher “until something is done” about these things.

 Religiosity itself has become a divisive issue. Some on the Left claim that this has no place in our culture "because all organized religion is guilty" of suppressing people and individual rights; many believe the enormous lie that “organized religion is the root cause of all wars in history.” 

Attacks of some from the left are stated so dogmatically that one might assume that defiant individuality is sacrosanct, being gay makes one holy and infallible, and the only problems in the world – anywhere – are caused by organized religions, especially Christianity.

People today apologize for being religious; as if to say, “oh no, I didn’t mean that, actually I’m spiritual but not religious.”

The loud clamor in our public arena is meant to confuse people so that one will distance one’s self from religiosity and acquiesce to interchangeable, socially acceptable possibilities.

Differences that distinguish one set of religious or moral beliefs from another are not the most important issue we face, and do not justify bloody war.

 

 Nor is it essential for one to have firm beliefs in or practice religiosity. Development and use of one’s individual moral conscience is not a matter of believers versus atheists, agnostics and skeptics. Those who self-proclaim to be engaged in a civil war, or “culture war,” of Believers versus The Godless miss the point.  

 These are important matters. The fact that there is a widely held false belief that the Founding Fathers of this country intended there be separation of church and state in the United States does not elevate this misconception to the primacy of truth.

Moral Consciousness is the single most important issue of this age, yet our public forum states the opposite is a predominant moral matter, that of freedom from moral constraints. [Or, in  language commonly used, although bizarrely and esoterically sexual ... "don't try to cram religion down our throats."]

 While it is important to some that a contest continues between practitioners of a creed and those opposed to practicing a creed or tenets of religion, this antagonism is but a useful distraction from the issue that, once fully understood by sufficient numbers, threatens to unite rather than divide the population.

 To clarify, The People of these United States are “the State.” We are the body of each government, local, state and federal. We serve ourselves through functions of government and governing agencies.

Essentially, we govern ourselves.

To assert that the founders of this country intended that We People, comprising the State,  be completely separated from any and all open practices of religion is the literal meaning of an absolute separation of church and state. This falsehood has been repeated so many times that it seems axiomatic to many. It is to say that the Founding Fathers, including many religious persons among them, intended for this country to abolish the practice of religion.

This is the only meaning of a separation of Church and State in a nation of people who are, individually and collectively, the State.

To profess this as true is as absurd as to profess that one’s thoughts reside somewhere other than within one’s mind, excluding exportation to a recording device, paper, etc.

This is like replacing one’s blood with salt water and calling the change "life improvement."

The absurdity of a cultural, civil war being waged over the issue of separation of Church and State cannot be overstated. It is a contributing factor in a long process by which we have reached this point of emergency, however. 

 It is largely through this amoral morale that we have been led to believe wholeheartedly in culture wars as inevitable foundations of our civilization, as if splitting a foundation stone strengthens a building.  The belief in these differences as inevitable has led us to the point at which we are now.

Every one of these (and there are others) perpetual civil wars that we have been told to believe in have precluded our focus on the single great issue of our day: we cannot govern ourselves without a strong moral awareness and foundation built within  our laws and applicable to all.