Nikola Tesla – The Untold Story

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Consent Vs. Compliance

Consent Vs. Compliance was written By BOJIDAR MARINOV | Published: JULY 7, 2010. Be sure to let them know exactly what you think too!

Before I talk about the article let me say  that I agree with the premise wholeheartedly.  We the people need to consent to the laws and who is to govern.  To that end I would suggest we immediately dismantle the electoral college and move to popular vote across the country.  Also to that end let us reconsider two Senators per State and the general ability of those with big money or big mouths to consider they speak for the country.  My father used to say that a paper would lay down and take anything.  Well, thankfully, not all people will do the same. As for consent of the governed, well, we vote with our dollars.  Where do you live, work, and eat?

“Now you have socialized healthcare too,” said a European friend of mine.

“Yeah?” I replied. “What makes you think that?”

First off, if you didn’t say, “No we don’t have anything of kind.” then you have no clue about what socialized healthcare means.  If you didn’t say that, “No we still have those no product middle men called insurance companies to suck us dry right after the government,” then you have no idea what the fear mongering Right has cost this country by preventing universal health care.

“Well,” he seemed confused, “Didn’t the U.S. Congress pass Obamacare into a law?”

My reply only increased his confusion: “The Congress did. But the American people didn’t. The law still needs their consent to become valid.”

Which bring me to a number of other points. I thought that once a bill was passed and signed into law by our corporate sponsored government and went successfully unchallenged in the Supreme Court, that it was law, but maybe I am confused. Oh, you mean if 2/3 of the States vote to nullify the law?  Yeah, like that is going to happen. You watch too much Fox News. Granted this law is not really supported by either the progressives or the conservative right. The progressives know without true universal health care that this law only delays our inevitable bankruptcy and the right have their own corporate reasons.  The progressives already see the moral bankruptcy.  So maybe we should just run this out to its inevitable conclusion.  If you want any law to have the consent of the governed, then you must follow a European example and have complete election reform disallowing any private funding of candidates whatsoever and kick out all those lobbyists. Let me see anyone talking about the consent of the governed take on that cause.

Explaining the American social and political system to Europeans can be a tiresome experience. Europeans just don’t seem to be able to climb out of their boxes of digesting everything in terms of the centralized almighty state and its decrees….

I think you must be blind to European politics if you think they blindly follow anything. Take a look here or here or here or here. To listen to some conservatives talk about the founding fathers, one might wonder how much they read of them.  What I hear them talk about blindly follows much of the European thought of three hundred years ago minus all the caveats expressed by our founding fathers.  First and foremost was their warning about corporations removing our liberty.

But the federalism of the political institutions is the smaller problem for the European mind. The bigger problem is the individual vs. the State. Europeans, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they admit it or not, are genuinely terrified of the way Americans view their relation to their own government.

When a law is passed by a Parliament in a European nation, the average European automatically accepts that the law is valid for the very reason that it is passed by a proper parliamentary procedure. … The consent of the governed is never a factor in the European thinking, and the average European never even allows for such a factor to play any part in his dealings with his government.

This quite odd, since Europe being the birthplace of capitalism, thrives due to its diversity. We are a baby. Much of our thought and culture is European and that might be why we are still the ugly Americans to much of the world. In our multicultural world we are in the minority, except in our abuse of the world’s resources.  Europe is in the throes of our history in reverse.  They seek a union of states and argue it much as you would, the union is taking away the rights of the individual states to treat their populations any way they see fit.

Compliance is the key word that describes the relationship between the individual and the State in the European setting. The European citizen is not allowed nor expected to exercise discernment once a bill is codified into law. There is no option for the citizen to exercise any active opposition to it, only passive compliance. …

Civil disobedience exists everywhere in the free world. To deny it is to be blind. Although one of the European Union’s (EU) biggest disagreement was to deny Turkey entry into their EU Christian club.

Such is the attitude of the European mind. When it relates to the law, its first thought is “compliance.” There is no higher lawgiver than the national legislature, no higher court than the Supreme Court, and no higher executor than the government. Therefore whatever civil law is, must be right and must be obeyed. A law cannot be opposed except through the same legal and political process that produced it –… There is certainly no higher moral law to give the ideological basis for any opposition, no divine law, and no God to …

Nor will there be anything like this in the United States either.  If we want a theocracy, then maybe we should consider Sharia law? The legal history of law in Europe actually has some deep ecclesiastical roots which is completely absent from our system on purpose and excluded explicitly by law. Try to get that nullified, why don’t you?

A powerful example of this European mentality is the recent decision of a European court against the display of crucifixes in public buildings in Italy. Even though the decision was made by a court far away from Italy, by judges who know next to nothing about Italian traditions and history – or care nothing about it –…

Oh, you mean like you do. Your European mentality nonsense sounds like outright bigotry on its face. It reminds me of the ethnic national characters of the last two centuries.  I bet without much prodding you could expound on the German, the French, the Italian and the Irish spirit. There is an interesting point in this.  It is the authoritarian personality.

We in America very often make the mistake to believe that just because in the last 60 years most governments in Western Europe – and in Eastern Europe in the last 20 years – never used force against their own people, Europe is somehow free, and the rights of the individuals are safe and protected. We assume that because European nations have experienced the “the rule of law” that the Founders of these United States envisioned, therefore Europeans are free and their rights are protected. Nothing could be further from the truth. …

Yes, nothing could be further from the truth. You totally miss the point that almost all our rule of law comes from Europe and it is the United Sates that is still a babe in the woods.

In stark contrast to this stands the political ideology of the original American Republic. One of the things that made – and still makes – America unique as a political setting is that little phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Yes, we are unique. Outside our borders lie great barbarian hordes.  We allow just about anyone to get on their soapbox and preach to the great burnt over regions of our country.  Sometimes we even listen.

Consent is the key word here. In this foundational document of our American liberty, governments are declared to be secondary and derivative, rather than a primary source of law and power. A true American doesn’t consider his government to be the source of its own powers; its “just powers” are derived from his consent to acknowledge the government as legitimate and just. Furthermore, government is not an end in itself; it serves a purpose: “To secure these rights.” …

Yes, to secure the rights. So we have another would-be constitutional scholar. Check out my link to why universal health care is a constitutional right.

True, a European might be able to relate to the principle of the consent of the governed, but they would do it in a very limited way: That the governed exercise their “consent” by appearing regularly at the ballot box. Outside of that ritual of confirming their “consent” the governed can use different means of protest against specific government measures or laws. But compliance with the laws is non-negotiable…

In a parliamentary system the whole government can be dissolved due to lack of confidence.  Let’s try that.

A true American must disagree with such a limited view of the value of his political consent or non-consent. The value of the consent of the governed is not limited merely to a general recognition of the political system as a whole at the time of voting. Such an approach would have seemed irresponsible to the early colonists. A responsible and freedom-loving citizen must exercise his consent or disagreement concerning every single law or act of the government, not just in relation to the general political and legal system. …

I thought this was worked out in the Whiskey Rebellion? Certain forms of disagreements are just not allowed.

The history of America is replete with examples of active resistance of citizens against immoral, unjust, or stupid laws. The early colonists were smugglers at sea, rebels at home, and evaded paying taxes when they disagreed with them. They also disobeyed the Proclamation of 1763 and moved to settle new lands west of the Appalachians. They kept their guns when the British governors tried to confiscate them, and they obstructed the King’s tax-collectors. And of course, the event that started the Revolution, the Boston Tea Party, was a display of defiance against the ability of the British government to impose laws on a people against their consent. The American Revolution was only a logical outcome of a political ideology that had been developed in the colonies that no government and no law can have just power without the consent of the governed.

There you go.  I want to forcibly remove certain states from any commerce with the rest.  How about a fence starting from north of Arizona and going right straight across?

Admittedly, this healthy political ideology for the legitimacy of government has been in retreat for the last 200 years, but even in the 20th century we see it at work in America. Even today, there are hundreds of federal and state laws that have failed to become reality because the governed refuse to comply with them. Federal gun-control laws are the best example, being defied by state governments and individuals alike, but they are not the only example. Back in the 60’s there were hundreds of heroic Christian fathers and mothers who defied the law of the State and took their kids back home to educate them, very often facing persecution and jail sentences. The infamous “anti-hate-speech” laws, designed specifically to kill any Christian testimony in the public square, have only produced the opposite result, encouraging many individual Christians and Christian leaders to speak publicly about their beliefs. True patriotic America may have been in retreat for quite a while but she is far from defeated, and in fact, she is getting prepared to strike back at the new tyranny of the centralized State, learning from its Founding Fathers. Amazingly enough, even the Left in America, with its worship of the State …

The Right has no idea of the Left, not the real Left.  We have no leaders save thought and heart.  We have no structure save creativity.  We have no backing save freedom. We do not worship authority.  So now you make me angry.  You are speaking about something I know well.  I too home schooled my child, and not as many in the sixties, not for a bogus religious reason masking bigotry.  I home schooled her because I equated socialization with domestication.  As for you madam, I will have none of your slop either because what you condone is nothing less than murder.

And that’s why it is still not sure if we have socialized total Federal healthcare in America. The American people haven’t spoken yet. And therefore the healthcare law is far from valid.

Yes, let the people speak.  I will be out there speaking loud and clear with them.

What is amazing is that this confuses my European friends. It is obvious that in contrast to the European political ideology, the American ideology is the one that fosters and encourages political liberty; it is the system that imposes truly realistic checks on the expansion of government power. In fact, it is so obvious that one wonders what is it that makes Europeans unable to see it….

Maybe, just maybe, it is you that does not see.

The reasons for their blindness are religious. After the French Revolution, European nations have based their entire political and moral thinking on a rejection of the Triune God and His revelation in the Bible. … The individual lost any right to appeal to anyone higher than the State because there was none higher than the State, the State becoming god on earth. In such a religious system any thought of considering consent before compliance would be tantamount to sacrilege, a blasphemous act, an affront against the god.

You, my friend, are a zealot.  Yes, it is a spiritual matter, and yes, the truth is one.  You are, however, blind to the truth. Jesus wept.

There is no way to understand the history of Europe after the 18th century without understanding this major religious change in Europe’s political and moral philosophy. The rise of the nation-states, the two world wars, Marx, Hitler, the national liberation movements, the rise of Communism, the founding of the European Union, and the beginning of its demise in the last one year – none of those events in history make any sense unless we understand the paradigm shift caused by the abandonment of the Christian religion in Europe…

I understand fascist dictators very well. They are made from the likes of your thought. Constantine would be proud that Hitler was able to move a Christian nation.

In contrast, our American system was based from the very beginning on the belief of our Founding Fathers that it was not the State, but God Who rules over the affairs of men. This denied the civil government any role of being divine or declaring the divine will. The individual and the State in such a political ideology are equal before God, they both have equal rights and responsibilities to search and interpret God’s will for their society. Therefore the consent of the governed is the pivot of the political system, it is the practical application of the verse in Proverbs 11:14, “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” ….

You do go on. I see nothing that you have said that David Koresh could fault.

Therefore, my European friend won’t be able to understand our political system unless he understands its religious foundation first. As long as Europeans reject Jesus Christ as their Lawgiver, they will have political false messiahs for ultimate lawgivers, and will have no recourse against their immoral and foolish laws. Passive compliance with tyranny and oppression is the fate of a godless people. Only a God-fearing nation can force …

Only a god fearing self-righteous fool could write such drivel. The last time a God-fearing anything tried to force me to do anything, I told him to got to hell.

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Journalism and Freedom by Rupert Murdoch

This is Ishtarmuz’s rebuttal to : Journalism and Freedom :Government assistance is a greater threat to the press than any new technology. By RUPERT MURDOCH

We are at a time when many news enterprises are shutting down… some tell you that journalism is in dire shape, and the triumph of digital is to blame.

My message is just the opposite. The future of journalism is more promising than ever—limited only by editors and producers unwilling to fight for their readers and viewers, or government using its heavy hand either to over regulate or subsidize us.

No, you are correct, the straw man of progress is not to blame.  Those that think and use old models of thought are to blame. Vertical organizations built on authoritarian control from above limiting the choices of information usage based on a worldview of property that never held sway in the arena of ideas are to blame.  If the old worldview is to survive, then we will all have to become slaves, not only in the marketplace of commerce, but to the marketplace of ideas as well. Horizontal networks are cooperative and share information and profit. This is anathema to old world greed.

Note the thought process here. It is all out war between private contenders. The interference of government imposing rules, such as ‘don’t let the pirates kill each other’, is wholly unfair to such winning combatants as Kevin Rupert Murdoch. The problem with this is that no man is an island and no one does it by himself or herself.  We form an interdependent community that remains healthy only by a commitment to all.

From the beginning, newspapers have prospered for one reason: the trust that comes from representing their readers’ interests and giving them the news that’s important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful.

A bit of truth and honesty is always good in an opinion piece, though I think it might have been better as an opener.

Technology now allows us to do this on a much greater scale. That means we have the means to reach billions of people who until now have had no honest or independent sources of the information they need to rise in society, hold their governments accountable, and pursue their needs and dreams.

Yes, people need to rise up and hold the real government accountable, all those multinational business interests pulling the strings behind the scenes.  Interesting how a half-truth is so much more convincing than an out and out lie.

… Some newspapers and news organizations will not adapt to the digital realities of our day—and they will fail. We should not blame technology for these failures. The future of journalism … [to] find new and better ways to meet the needs of their viewers, listeners, and readers.

So it is not the digital success, but the not taking advantage of it, that is at issue. What you are saying is that it needs to be harnessed. Harnessed means controlled, but you don’t want it controlled except by the pirates of the old model.  When you suggest finding better ways to meet the needs of customers, what you mean is to bottom feed off the baser instincts of your customers.

…give people the news they want. I can’t tell you how many papers I have visited where they have a wall of journalism prizes—and a rapidly declining circulation. This tells me the editors are producing news for themselves—instead of news that is relevant to their customers…

Rome gave people what they wanted.  That’s it; maybe we need to feed more liberals to the lions? Surely that is it.  How could that be irrelevant? Keeping journalists with pesky Pulitzers working is not the business of a news organization.

His article then goes on for a bit stating how the old business model no longer working and explaining how he is maneuvering to make more money. Then, not satisfied with his empire based on winning court cases, he bemoans the FCC.

One example of outdated thinking is the FCC’s cross-ownership rule that prevents people from owning, say, a television station and a newspaper in the same market. Many of these rules were written when competition was limited because of the huge up-front costs. If you are a newspaper today, your competition is not necessarily the TV station in the same city. It can be a Web site on the other side of the world, or even an icon on someone’s cell phone.

And you have effectively been arguing this in court into a global monopoly for years. You have won the battle.  Now what do you want?  Full capitulation? Murdoch’s business model, like Monsanto’s, is model based on the Borg.  Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

After a few drum beats for the value of “free” market capitalism, he comes to this:

In my view, the growing drumbeat for government assistance for newspapers is as alarming as over regulation. One idea gaining in popularity is providing taxpayer funds for journalists. Or giving newspapers “nonprofit” status—in exchange, of course, for papers giving up their right to endorse political candidates. The most damning problem with government “help” is what we saw with the bailout of the U.S. auto industry: Help props up those who are producing things that customers do not want.

Yes, unbridled free market capitalism can sell you just about anything with the right marketing, even bogus gold coins, insurance, legal services, deadly chemicals, drugs and all manner of products we don’t need.  The needs of the consumers are created in the same way the taste in the news is created by the selective attention of the broadcaster. It would be a shame (for you) for broadcasting to follow a nonprofit model and really make the news independent of politics.

The prospect of the U.S. government becoming directly involved in commercial journalism ought to be chilling for anyone who cares about freedom of speech. The Founding Fathers knew that the key to independence was to allow enterprises to prosper and serve as a counterweight to government power. It is precisely because newspapers make profits and do not depend on the government for their livelihood that they have the resources and wherewithal to hold the government accountable.

You mean like the news organizations being independent of big corporations like Monsanto? Anything that you say or represent when so placed must by definition fall within the purview of commercial speech.

 

 

Mr. Murdoch is chairman and CEO of News Corp. The [original WSJ] article was adapted from his Dec. 1 remarks before the Federal Trade Commission’s workshop on journalism and the Internet.

What do Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin & James Joyce have in common?

	As we there are where are we are we there from tomtittot Beck	UNDE ET UBI. underwhere
	to teetootomtotalitarian Glenn in a Nauziated projection.	ADVEHO ME toohell
	Teaparty tea too oo. Tea 2.0
With his broad	Whom will comes over FOX. Who to caps ever flocks.	SIC. o o o
and teary face,	And howelse do we hook our hike to find that
to everyman  a	pint of porter place? Am shot, says the big–
disgrace.	flag guard.1 And trades the truth for money.
	Whence. Quick lunch by our left, wheel,	IMARGINABLE
Mealy mouthed	to where. Long Livius Lane, mid Mezzofanti	ITINERARY
about	Mall, diagonising Lavatery Square, up Tycho	THROUGH
peebles problems.	Brache Crescent,2 shouldering Berkeley Alley,	THE MOST
	querfixing Gainsborough Carfax, under Guido	PARTICULAR
	d’Arezzo’s Gadeway, by New Livius Lane till	UNIVERSAL.
Don’t retch meat	where we whiled while we whithered. Old	HEARSTRUTH
fat salt lard	Vico Roundabout. But fahr, be fear, by greed! And
sinks down (and	natural, simple, slavish, filial glory. The marriage of
Out sourced).	Montan wetting his fame moll we know, like any
	enthewsyass cuckling a Palin hoyden3 in her
	rougey envy Sarah goes rogue
1 Rawmeash, quoshe with her girlic teangue. If old Herod with the Corm-
well’s eczema was to go for me like he does Snuffler whatever about his blue sweatered
canaries I’d do nine months for his teary beaver beard of lies.
2 Mater Mary Mercerycordial of the Dripping Nipples, milk’s a queer
Arrangement ideal for a vaporubbed stuffed shirt.
3 Real life behind the floodlights as shown by the best exponents of a royal
divorce of fair and balanced reality.

FOX Newscasters Have Been Reduced to Carnival Geeks. Fox is Not News

FOX Newscasters Have Been Reduced to Carnival Geeks. Fox is Not News

Free Speech is only free when it is not backed by front groups supported by makers of products you are shilling. So the suppression of FOX NEWS would not be an abridgment of the right to free speech . Mascarade news designed to sell products is  commercial speech, which is not free at all. If it is proven that you have unfairly undercut competition by misrepresentation, then this may be prosecutable.

In a similar manner news is not news unless it is separate from commentary and stands on its own without the filter of editorial talking points. To give the appearance that your opinion is news would appear also to be a form of commercial speech.  If you promote a millennial point of view garnered only from tainted sources and advertise gold, for example, then this is commercial speech. It has also been said that FOX news only uses incestuous sources.

News also is generally reported without high drama and emotional appeals where possible. Reporting of “grassroots” organizations that are funded by billionaires with ties to FOX and orchestrating these “grassroots” organization’s crowds is being and making the news, but it is not news. Reporting entrapment you have arranged on a group you have done nothing but misrepresent and use their own information against them, is not news. Reporting this “news” with appeals that would make carnies blush is so abhorrent that I would say that FOX newscasters have been reduced to carnival geeks, but the commentators are the real freaks. When FOX backs a movements and a party based on fear, then they can only stand for fear and ballast reporting.  Maybe they used Glenn Beck’s spelling for their slogan? So when they distort, you decide as they report all the news that fit to fake.

Fox is not news, nor is it entertaining. What FOX is, is reality TV gone wild. The cheap faux reality presented at ‘fair and balanced‘ FOX sounds more Orwellian than Orwell these days. All the expert pundits are just hired guns that follow the party line like good whore mongers. None of this is surprising as their conservative backers move more toward a fascism, politely called corporatism.  The favorite media tool of corporatism is projection, accusing their potential opposition of what they are actually doing themselves. It is done preemptively at FOX  lest anyone notice that Rupert Murdoch has no clothes.

Maybe a little history and a bit of smoke might help. Consider  the parallels between Keith Rupert Murdoch and William Randolph Heart. They are astounding.  Take such items as the illegality of hemp and Global Warming.  Hearst championed hemp’s ban for the same reason Murdoch had the two reporters fired that did the report on Monsanto.  That reason is corporatism.  So how is hemp related to global warming?  Monsanto now, like Dupont back in Hearst’s time, and now, have a vested interests in the illegality of hemp and FOX comes up with reasons to discredit anyone that objects. Similarly, Murdoch has a vested interest in global warming denial.  This corporate bias can also be seen by Murdoch’s flip flop on the climate change theme after a corporate deal with a Saudi prince, he selectively had allowed some parts of his “news” organization to champion climate change skepticism, then they did a total turnaround. Obviously Murdoch’s ideals are only based on what he considers best to make a profit. Clearly for his reality, read news, to always have a Right wing bent, his world view must be one of a Reptilian shape shifter. The stories in Murdoch’s media, like Hearst’s media, are as real as they say they are.  Their pseudoscience is firmly backed by the science of profit from human frailty.

Yet this is just the start of the parallels of Murdoch with Hearst and their strange mix of politics with faux news.  They both inherited a struggling newspaper from their father.  They both were leftist before they went right. They both made their name with tabloid journalism.  They both have been noted as ruthless competitors.  They both are warmongers. One can go on, but in the end we can reduce it all to one word: rosebud.

Other than that, why would anyone even consider boycotting Rupert Murdoch?

The Obsession of the Right with Fascism?

The back story on this post is that it started in response to a post on another site that began, “The left is obsessed with the public option…”  I am not sure any more if this is exactly what it said since it appears the right wing rant was removed by the writer, but it served its inspirational purpose. I would have liked to have it remain as counterpoint to my piece, but here is the link to my less thoughtful original version.

The defeat of the public option is an obsession of the right even though it is clearly needed to ensure that everyone gets health insurance coverage and that skyrocketing costs are brought down to manageable levels.

The the reason that the right is so obsessed is due corporate influence. That influence has created a situation just the reverse of what the right claims to honor.  The free market which they claim to be preserving, no longer exists. The hegemony of the corporation has left free market competition as no more than a propaganda slogan existing only in the mouths of right wing lobby machines. The right insists on the public option defeat by any means and at all costs, even the furtherance of our economic decline, loss of any of our remaining freedoms and the smashing of our moral compass. They see the left as encroaching on their Godly profit motive, seeing the public option as a Trojan horse to all sorts of left-wing socialist agendas, something they see the left as being in love with, and a real threat to their profit-without-product.

The right says that the pubic option is the road to Barack Obama forming a one world government that they have already achieved via the transnational corporations. The right thinks that once a public option is in place, then there will be a domino effect of reinstating government regulations they worked so hard to dismantle , and that their New World Order (NWO) idea reserved for business interests will be usurped by the left. Though there is no leftist plan for a NWO, the public option will allow the government to undercut the private insurance industry’s monopolistic price gouging and will ultimately move on to other business cartels. They will actually regulate the private insurance, making it possible to force them to charge  fair market based premiums that produce only just profits in real competition with the public option. The private insurance monopoly will be forced to do business with the government instead of the reverse. How this might be socialism I am not sure, but that is what the health insurance industry would have you believe.

I do see the current state of affairs as akin the fascism, however.  The public option could indeed morph into single payer universal health care, but only if the health insurance industry refuses to comply with these more just policies. I cannot see health insurance industry actually complying.  So one can only hope that when the private insurance industry refuses to comply that the government will have the sense to see this and rescue our democracy and our economy before we go completely bankrupt; economically, politically and morally. If not, single payer universal health care will become just one more moral imperative ignored by America and our country will slip into an even more openly fascist state and our private insurance industry will continue ration health care to feed their out-of-control profits, with the elderly and disabled being those who are most left out in the cold. How do I know that the right would allow this?  Because they already do. Unfortunately, I am having less and less trust in the left as well, thinking that the smoke and mirrors in this debate is all about maintaining corporate control with the best public face.

I begin to look forward to the rise of a new Progressive party.

The Gnostic World

The Dark Fantastic: Literature, Philosophy, and Digital Arts

The hunter has a purity of heart that exists nowhere else. I think he is not defined so much by what he has come to be as by all that he has escaped being. You can make no distinction between what he is and what he does. And what he does is kill. We of course are another matter. I suspect we are ill-formed for the path we have chosen.

—Cormac McCarthy, The Counselor

—Nikodem Poplawski of the University of New Haven—believes that the seed of our universe was forged in the ultimate kiln, likely the most extreme environment in all of nature: inside a black hole. Are We Living in a Black Hole?

We know how, in antiquity, dogma put an end to the fantasies of gnosticism; we can guess in what certitude our own encyclopedic aberrations will conclude.

—E. M. Cioran, The Temptation to Exist

The Gnostics were…

View original post 967 more words

Bluebeard ~ A Killer to reckon with: How to Survive the Soul’s Predator

Heidekolb's Blog

If you think the human psyche is home to nothing but goodness and beauty, then please step aside. Because if you continue reading, you might get upset. For we shall dive into a reality that is hard to grasp by nature. It is elusive, slippery, and does not want to be seen. It feels counter-intuitive and anti-life. It is indeed both.

There is an innate predator and killer in psyche. A psychic force that cannot be “rehabilitated”. A psychic force that does not transform. The challenge with all archetypal energies is to learn how to relate to them without being overtaken. For the feminine psyche, which always wants to connect and relate,  this anti-life force is probably the most difficult one to come to terms with. It is too much for an individual psyche to digest.

This is the realm of Freud’s Thanatos and Jung’s dark side of the Self…

View original post 952 more words

The Sobo’s guide to Baxter and Katahdin for 2019

Baxter And Katahdin Info for ATers.

Your first stop for info: Baxter State Park.

Join the Appalachian Trail SOBO 2018 , or the  Appalachian Trail SOBO 2019 Facebook groups!
The name of the mountain is Katahdin, the summit is Baxter Peak.
The famous sign isn’t on the peak – go tag that 12 foot high cairn!
The AT is called the Hunt Trail from Katahdin Stream Campground to Baxter Peak. The traditional start for sobos is a there-and-back-again climb from Katahdin Stream Campground to Baxter Peak.
The ATC has a registration program for those attempting AT thru-hikes. A very useful tool for planning and distributing information. Please visit ATChere.
Share – the bus ride, the shuttle, the campsite – save $, make friends.
Kennel that pooch! No dogs allowed in Baxter state Park. I recommend Katahdin Critters and Connie McManus.
Bring cash, as Baxter Park does not accept debit or credit cards.

View original post 853 more words

The 2019 SoBo’s Guide to Baxter and Katahdin

Getting ready to thru-hike the Appalachian Trail SOBO.

Baxter And Katahdin Info for ATers.

Your first stop for official info: Baxter State Park.

Join the  Appalachian Trail SOBO 2019 or the Appalachian Trail SOBO 2020, Facebook groups!
The name of the mountain is Katahdin, the summit is Baxter Peak.
The famous sign isn’t on the peak – go tag that 12 foot high cairn!

The AT is called the Hunt Trail from Katahdin Stream Campground to Baxter Peak. The traditional start for sobos is a there-and-back-again climb from Katahdin Stream Campground to Baxter Peak.

The physical and mental challenge of climbing Katahdin is not to be underestimated. You cannot roll off the couch and climb this mountain. Fit hikers can easily spend 8-10 hours getting up and down the mountain. More than a few prospective southbounders were unprepared for the task, and ended their hikes the same day they started

A successful sobo should be a physically fit and experienced backpacker. 420 SoBos…

View original post 1,337 more words

stuartbramhall.wordpress.com: Senior MIT

stuartbramhall.wordpress.com: Senior MIT Scientist Warns 1 In 2 Children Will Have Autism by 2025: Prediction based on Roundup’s devastating effect on gut bacteria. https://wp.me/p3WzT7-4Q3

Greens Can Dream And They Do So In Vibrant Colours.

Greens Can Dream And They Do So In Vibrant Colours.

GREEN GYMNAST C.C.

PASSIONATE PEOPLE: are artists on a mission.

Buddhist humor

Zen Flash

A Buddhist phones the monastery and asks the monk, “Can you come to do a blessing for my new house?”
The monk replies “Sorry, I’m busy.”
“What are you doing? Can I help?”
“I’m doing nothing.” replied the monk. “Doing nothing is a monk’s core business and you can’t help me with that.”
So the next day the Buddhist phones again, “Can you please come to my house for a blessing?”
“Sorry,” said the monk, “I’m busy.”
“What are you doing?”
“I’m doing nothing,” replied the monk.
“But that was what you were doing yesterday!” said the Buddhist.
“Correct”, replied the monk, “I’m not finished yet!”
~ Ajahn Brahm

View original post

Why Killing Dodd-Frank Could Lead to the

Why Killing Dodd-Frank Could Lead to the Next Crash http://ow.ly/9ty730kRcI4

http://ow.ly/Pf5Z30kRcGa Trump Should Ju

http://ow.ly/Pf5Z30kRcGa Trump Should Just Give People Money

14th Annual Taste of Diversity Festival

14th Annual Taste of Diversity Festival – Buffalo Rising http://ow.ly/15zB30cR9yy