Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.
What I am at a loss to understand about this so- called 'Spielberg" person -- is he intent on destroying the world because he disapproves of it philosophically -- or does he perpetrate and immerse himself in evil in order to live a carefree, happy-go-lucky existence?
Herakles, Jonah, Van Gogh, Kafka. Now how can one honestly say they were being helped in being put through the ordeals they were "forced" to undergo. In the first instance, Herakles had to expend the better part of his adult life carrying out labors in some instances pointless; in others questionable as to their practical necessity. With respect to Jonah, he supposedly got the people of Nineveh to repent and yet was it necessary for him to be treated so in order to bring this about? Now lest some people thing me reproachable or impious in suggesting this understand I see God as what got the prophet through his trials and difficulties -- not the one who caused them or who necessarily -- and as such -- sent him on his strange pilgrimage. And with respect to Van Gogh or Kafka, I'm sure you can see, how did they do them any real good?
One of the significant differences between such as take the attitude I do towards spirit people versus others' attitudes is that we do not think that it is necessary to know God or higher truth by means of spirit people. We can know God or higher truth by means of the Holy Spirit, inspiration, right reason, heart and conscience. At the same time it needs to be said the instances where spirit people communicate with regularly people is in most, if not all, instances fraught or accompanied by some kind of wrong doing (e.g. such as secrecy, invading your person); while at the same time most efforts by spirit people to overtly communicate with someone are, based on experience, carried only or mostly by spirit people who are hucksters, would-be power brokers, interlopers, and parasites -- masquerading as greatness or holiness. I will not say this is true in all instances of efforts by spirit people to communicate overtly, but the waters have been so muddied by the frequency of bad ones (over the years) conducting themselves in such a duplicitous manner that it makes all that sort of communication of this kind unverifiable, highly unreliable and untrustworthy (at least practically and probabilistically speaking.) That God should require spirit people (outside the Holy Spirit) to speak to you is flat out false.
Now if you actually happen to be such a one that is isolated and targeted by spirit people, you will soon find that if you don't have friends and or money there's not all that much you can do about their abusing you. Others can lie to, turn their back on or betray you; deny you decent treatment or refuse you your basic rights -- and unless you have friends and money, there is really nothing you can do about it. And even then, in some circumstances even friends and money cannot always help. What then a person should do who finds himself in such a predicament is forget about getting angry and distraught with regular people who won't help you. It is the spirit people who are the real problem, and you need to think most about fighting them off. In order to do this you want most all to let them know you reject them and their presence in your life. You do not seek a heavenly reward for the perhaps very cruel suffering you have undergone at their hands; rather you want them plainly and simply to get lost. You don't need to revenge yourself on them or retaliate yourself on them; you don't require special compensation; keep it simple -- you want them simply and merely gone. You are happy to forgive them if they ask it -- but in any case and without any qualification they must go. Others (that is regular people) who in the course of your ordeal have mistreated you you should really just let go and avoid making too much about it as far as your own personal interests are concerned. The main thing is to try to ignore or forget secondary problems as best you can and -- above all -- get rid of or work to get rid of the spirit people; again, because they are really 90% or more of the problem, and but for them these regular people would not likely have treated you so badly or badly at all.
Just to clarify what I said earlier -- just because someone is very powerful it does not necessarily follow that they are greatly loved. How, if it isn't already obvious, could this be? Simply party A could grant, confer on, or award party B so much, say, great power and material wealth; only they might do this either to use (for their own selfish purposes) and or (if done in such a way) destroy party B (and rather than out of love for them.)
To a person who has accustomed themselves to deal with spirit people intelligently and on a regular basis, the novelty of such visitations or intrusions inevitably, as a matter of course, wears off and they soon come to learn how and what different ways they might react to the threat or nuisance the spirit person (or persons) might cause; and these last can be categorized on a basic level as a) physical duress or injury, b) psychological manipulation, c) playing games, d) a need to use you to get attention of themselves - whether to intimidate, persuade or torment you. And if like in my own circumstance you are made to undergo it for a long time, you get used to it, are forced to get used to it, to a point till you most of the time finding yourself reacting mechanically to such assaults and battery; and (you find) there s really nothing so special after all about these people (versus anyone else.)
One thing however that one should most guard against is their use of assumptions. If they can get you to accept their assumptions -- then they've got you. And truly it is absurd, sometimes literally insane, often tragic, how some people will allow themselves to be taken in by con-artist spirit people. What is needed then is to not merely to question or reject their assumptions (those too) but to attack them. So, for example, he says to you, "I've been torturing people and animals for years and it is a practice accepted and therefore validated by long tradition and experience -- indeed, internationally." What you say to to him is that him and such as himself to believed such nonsense were simply wrong all along and never knew what they were talking about...or the founder of this teaching was a charlatan...etc. But whatever you do, don't for a second put up with these people if you can help it; meanwhile and as always persistently insisting on reason, justice, and truth. Just because they are powerful doesn't necessarily mean they are greatly loved; so you have to look at the whole package of what you are getting with when it comes to these people; and not merely be cajoled or dazzled by what might be admitted strong points or virtues in certain respects.
(For the record) I am a free American -- not the vassal or subject of some hooded tyrant (no matter how "heavenly") -- and while others, it is true, need or will not necessarily respect my freedom, I for my part have no regard or respect whatsoever for their tyrant in any case.
You know how their TV shows and movies are phony, well the heaven of these spirit people is phony in a not dissimilar way. You know how they take over with a seemingly benign face? Same thing. Whatever it is taken over has the same old name, but the spirit of the thing is up and fled. Yet there are always those who will believe the name even though the soul or spirit is gone. But of course taking over is never enough and so a certain number will have to be killed; only my question now is if he is killing us with boredom what then does he need torture and violence for?
She is like a disease to me; and whenever she comes around or is near I feel sick.
And yet she is one of their more attractive, beautiful, and likable people. What then do you suppose I think of the rest of them? Believe me, if mankind is ever going to finally live and finally be free we will have to some way or other get around to wiping out and exterminating the dead.
By contrast, those of the past that are worthy are not someone dead in time, but someone that lives in a timeless, yet somehow moving, perpetuity, and more alive there as much, perhaps more so, than it is alive here; only most of us, most of the time, are too blind to see or rarely see this. This also is why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob et al. are spoken of as living; and why you would never see them as ghosts or spirit people.
For those who are or might be having problems comprehending dealing with the occult, it is of help to see and be reminded that in most basic terms all the occult for practical purposes is is spirit people and or their regular person servants being able to take advantage, injure and or perhaps murder you without the police being able to do anything about it. What the occult then, as we experience it, effectively consists of is the various ways of how people deal with such spirit person criminals, and each other, in the face of such a threat. And when you consider the extremely wide range, styles, and kinds of methods there are committing crime things are only made more confused and difficult to understand. Needless, to say people's reactions and way they find of dealing with such perpetrators can and will vary enormously all the more so as they, in a given circumstance, might have literal mind control being done to them and in a social environment in which dishonesty and secrecy prevail.
The Marquis of Chastellux, in his deservedly praised and valuable Travels in North America in the Years 1781-1782 (Part II, ch. V), gives the following description of life in America at the time of the Revolution; to which portion of his text are appended two footnotes: the first by his translator (who happened to be an Englishman), and the second by the an American annotating an 1828 edition of the work.
[p. 296] "The Virginians have the reputation, and with reason, of living nobly in their houses, and of being hospitable; they give strangers not only a willing, but a liberal reception. This arises, on one hand, from their having no large towns, where they may assemble, by which means they are little acquainted with society, except from the visits they make; and, on the other, their lands and their negroes furnishing them with every article of consumption, and the necessary service, this renowned hospitality costs them very little. Their houses are spacious, and ornamented, but their apartments are not commodious; they make no ceremony of putting three or four persons into the same room;* nor do these make any objection to their being thus heaped together; for being in general ignorant of the comfort of reading and writing, they want nothing in their whole house but a bed, a dining-room, and a drawing-room for company...
"* Throughout America, in private houses, as well as in the inns,
several people are crowded together in the same room; and in the
latter it very commonly happens, that after you have been some time
in bed, a stranger of any condition, (for there is little distinction,) comes
into the room, pulls off his clothes, and places himself, without ceremony, between your sheets.* Trans.
"* This was probably the case at the time the translator wrote; but at the present day there is no country in which travellers [sic] can be more retired, or better accommodated than in the United States."
"Given the nod." Kinda makes me feel like Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise -- only in the religious (rather than movie) sense.
It seems to me that his problem can be broken down into two antipodean, yet united, causes. The first is his driving and ongoing need and appetite for grandiose attention; the second is that these other spirit people are so very clever when it comes to psychological manipulation that they have effectively trained him like a dog to always do the wrong thing (or else always see to it that the wrong thing is being done by at least someone.) Certainly these two factors, along with a workman like persistence, is what I most frequently and regularly encounter in his behavior.
Take your pick.
Having, over the years, pondered the matter to a large extent, I am now firmly convinced that it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to call a crow a raven for poetic purposes.
To give you just a small idea of how utterly blind and senseless, if not brazenly corrupt and incompetent, the legal and police system has become -- look how much enormous amounts or time, money and resources are expended combating computer, viruses, malware, spam, unsolicted popup ads, hacking and such - indeed the whole phenomena of Vista is as much as anything else a reaction to such -- and yet it is (in effect) unstatedly assumed that the cause of these problems is just some young computer nerds with free time on their hands; and otherwise not a word is even spoken, let alone a discussion prompted, about who is or might really be doing those things. But again, this is just one odd and isolated example (of what on an ongoing basis we at this website attempt overtime to apprise you of many.)
And who can cease to marvel at the cheek of purveyors of hoaxes and their accomplices who brought us such works as the 1934 film "Maniac?" Although no longer included on the internet movie data base (imdb), and harder to locate on search engines than previously, it is still up for sale at and from Amazon? And then we wonder about the Dwain Espers, the Phil Tuckers, the Arthur Wontors, the O'Dale Irelands and such. Where are they all now do you suppose? (Working for the likes of Equifax perhaps.)
It is not a little absurd how the wasteful and fairly pointless club membership mentality (itself, in my opinion, a result of the pernicious and parasitical notion that wealth and value are primarily created by artificial scarcity or exclusivity) has moved from the supermarkets to the libraries. While organizations and endeavors such as Project Gutenberg, Google Books, Internet Archive (archive.org), and ManyBooks.net have and continue to make invaluable contributions and deserve highest praise for helping to make books available to internet users (and thus, among other benefits, assist in stemming the tide of illiteracy), shame on other groups like Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Gale: Online Eighteenth Century Literature collection, and Jstor for requiring special permission, payment or restricted access to be able to use them. What is the reason for this? Is it fear of hackers? Are they trying to make money? Although perhaps someone could provide me with an explanation that makes sense, as it stands I have a hard time seeing what arguments would support such.
"In general" -- that is based on vague and questionable inductive conclusions versus "in and of itself" that is based on reason and principle and immediate facts. For example, custom can make something wrong seem acceptable or something right unacceptable -- yet if instead of general assumptions formed by convention and habit we turn instead to the particulars, and in the process convincingly justify ourselves on the grounds of honest reasoning, we have it in we have it in our power not only to see something differently but also to make and shape its reality as something different to us than how (some) others see it. At the same time, the failure or inability to be able to do this reflects the inability to grasp at existence and instead shows us as to be more prone to be blown about by it following a greater frequency of illusions which certain others -- who do grasp at existence -- routinely set as traps and snares.
It is more and more a wonder to me how people take these spirit people (at least those who lord it over others) so seriously. In all the years I have dealt with these "holy" and hair raising characters the only person who they ever could ever get to face me (aside from Gyro who made more of a mere guest appearance by comparison) is this monstrous magician -- and he's some kind of Frankenstein man (with some Archimago thrown in.) Now then who and where is their great leader? Their mighty man of valor? Their profound sage? I don't, nor ever did, see any such person. Yes, they have great disembodied voice -- but this is I deem only one more shameful villain and rascal who can't face me. True, when it comes to ganging up on someone they are veritable princes. But if you want man for man you will have to go to someone else. And yet, observe, despite all this, these of whom I speak are exactly the kind of personalities many look to for their -- of all things -- religion.
"In Praise of Prairie"
By Theodore Roethke
"The elm tree is our highest mountain peak;
A five-foot drop a valley, so to speak.
"A man's head is an eminence upon
A field of barley spread before the sun.
"Horizons have no strangeness to the eye.
Our feet are sometimes level with the sky,
"When we are walking on a treeless plain,
With ankles bruised from stubborn grain.
"The field stretch in long, unbroken rows.
We walk aware of what is far and close.
"Here distance is familiar as a friend.
The feud we kept with space comes to an end."
I don't understand some people. If you can't speak the truth who was ever meant to? And surely there is more to life, one would think, than living merely as a happy slave or a duplicitous criminal or accomplice.
Caution -- he may, unlike you, have been fooled. But stop and think -- if he wasn't fooled he might prove as good or better a person of faith and virtue as either you or I.
What I would like to see, if possible and for here on out, is an all volunteer movie career only (whether the latter be of a Hollywood and or else religious cast); with a permanent moratorium placed on all further conscription and an end to that (which for some time now and at present) continues to be forced and levied on our citizenry in its interest.
That not only your enemies but indeed your friends should (as it happens) end up mocking or deriding you should come as no surprise; really it is all very much carefully calculated to be that way and there's no need for you to take it personally. It has been done so many times to make it (for practical purposes) beyond counting.
Because he tricked or murdered his brother they permitted him to found an empire, and now they call him King of Heaven. And all these spirit people who are his followers (and who are not outright slaves or hostages) are simply such as who never did much real good; and who instead of living their lives trying to do the right thing (as best they could) instead lived their lives doing things "a certain way." This then is and what perpetuates cannibalism; because to be fallen means to be a cannibal.
[Later Note] By cannibal is meant someone who survives or lives his or her life by means of the premeditated, deliberate and intentional death of other humans (the latter usually being, but not always, children or poor people); it doesn't necessarily imply that they eat someone in the literal or culinary sense.
Do you know what he said to me this morning? He said -- he had been beaten before. My response was that this was not at all surprising -- the wonder and awe of it rather was in his getting away with as much as he does.
Why he verily does have Copernican Revolution of his own also: the world revolves around himself.
"The Mummy" with Boris Karloff is a very good film for showing the character of what some of these authoritarian spirit people are like: though a monster possessed by evil, his motives are in many ways very human. Interestingly too, the mummy "stare" we see a number of times in the film is something some of these people (like "Simon the Magician") might do to you -- that is stare at you (whether openly before you or in your thoughts) either to frighten or mock you. What is lacking in Karloff's Imhotep, however, is a sometimes sense of humor and the ability, often, to be or represent any and everyone to whomever they can fool.
[Later note] As I recollect it now, the only movie monster "Simon" ever himself made mention of to me was the Creature from the Black Lagoon; so that it is possible he himself likes that comparison better.
If the Cock Lane ghost was real then what was the purpose of the whole affair? To get people to lie about it being not real.
As religious or would be religious, we don't at the outset seek suffering and persecution, but rather recognize the very down to earth and practical fact that if one chooses true good and to tries to be good that they very likely (probabilistically and historically speaking) will be made to suffer and be persecuted; moreover, by intelligently and artfully adopting certain forms of acceptance of suffering and persecution we are better able ultimately to combat and overcome them; and for the benefit of others (in sparing them these things) as much or more so than ourselves.
To be truly great -- at least with respect to the minds of most -- means to be greatly loved, doesn't it?
I was cleaning up some papers when I found a single sheet carefully folded up. Upon opening it, I discovered it to be a prayer I had written in about the late nineties. At the time, I was attending church; in part because I knew I was dealing with real Evil; but still had not, however, met or known about spirit people as I have since and do now. Even so, and interestingly, the pray, allowing for its liturgical formality (and occasionally trite phrasing), is still a pretty good one I think -- at least for its sincerity; and is still perfectly sound if for "Father," "Jesus," and "Holy Spirit" we are permitted to interchange or substitute words such as justice, truth, beauty, reason -- all of which qualities false spirit people can pretend to but, by definition, cannot actually be or realize; and yes how utterly and absolutely horrible it would be to think of addressing these kinds of sentiments and petitions to such (or any spirit people for that matter); and you will understand it neither was my intention then, since, or now to do so.
Feeling the burdensome weight of my sins, Dear
Please in your mercy indulge and receive this my prayer.
For offending your Love, I ask in the name of
Jesus Our Lord
That Father in heaven You forgive me in order
Might be worthy to have this my prayer heard by
All Glory, Praise and Honor
Be Yours Dear Lord.
For without you,
All that is good in the world,
All that is good in me,
All the good that has ever happened
Simply would not be.
There are things I would like
Things I would have happen,
Yet always and everywhere,
Always first and foremost,
Your will be done.
Use my life as You will,
May I lose my Life
If it may allow me to
Show my Love to You.
My Life is ever Yours,
Your will be done.
After this, four things I would humbly ask:
Please protect and keep safe the Innocent,
All children and animals,
From pain and harm
From the evil and cruelty of the Devil and Man.
If I need be I will go to Hell
That this might be so.
Please protect and keep them always.
Please forgive my sins,
Both what I have done,
In my thoughts, words, and deeds.
For these I ask I am sorry and ask that
You continually give me guidance
From offending you ever again.
Dear Jesus, be always in my mind
In my heart, my body and my soul;
Let me come as close as possible to being like You
In Your love, compassion, humility and courage,
That through my life the Father, You and the Holy Spirit
May be adored and glorified.
Tell me Holy Spirit
What I should do,
What I should think,
What I should say,
That I might be worthy of being called
The servant of
God the father
Yourself, Oh Holy Spirit,
Our Lord Jesus Christ,
Mary Our Mother, and all the blessed angels
Who live and reign forever.
I don't know why this continues to come up as what's supposed to be a serious argument, but once and for all we can confound the philosophical challenge -- if they don't know what they are doing, then why do they have those very pretty girls? Very clearly they are God's great pity on these people, and no doubt even some of the oldest of the devils, like Gyro, will have figured this out long ago -- but not all of them obviously (some of the dumbest idiots of all time.)
Although it is encouraging and heartening to see locally a resurgence of that traditional interest and enthusiasm in saving and protecting the environment; yet people need to be cautioned or reminded, if we can't or won't protect people -- and I mean everyone (as best as we honestly can) -- from cannibal spirit people, witchcraft magnates, professional mobsters, serial killers or nazi scientist types then our ecological and similar efforts, as well meaning as they are, are ineluctably futile.
Without breath there is no life;
Without words there is no breath;
Without poetry there is no freedom;
No freedom? What's left but death?
The name "Shrewsbury" happened to come up in the previous item, and the association got me to wondering about Richard III and the riddle of the allegedly murdered princes in the tower -- like the Arnold treason case another one of history's great mysteries; and which quite frankly to me, and for brevity's sake, bespeak the close involvement of Machiavellian spirit people in the puzzling and much clouded events that transpired. Jonathan Frid, by the way, at his website presents the Richard III story in a fresh light via Shakespeare's (by some suspect) treatment of it.
Although I can hardly count myself little better than a person browsing on the subject, and no expert, my sense of the matter is this.
Even if Richard was not guilty of anything intentionally wrong; his failure to protect the children shows either:
1.) Negligence and incompetence on his part.
2.) That he had vicious enemies who would murder innocents in order to discredit and unseat him. This may perhaps be supported by the possibility that his brother Edward IV may have himself been murdered (perhaps by the same people.)
If 2.) then why did Richard send the boys to the Tower? Either a. in a hopeless and clumsy effort to protect them or b. he was led or tricked into doing so in order to set him and them up for what happened.
Even granting the above suspicion, this does not necessarily mean the Tudors were to blame -- all the less so if spirit people were involved somehow; and which I personally would suspect they were. This means then that if we consider the boys to have been murdered, it is necessary to take into account what possible spirit people's motives may have been at work in bringing about what took place -- and this might include sadistic desire for someone's and or else a group's ruin
With respect to Major John Andre', whom we made mention of here not long ago, I came across the following story of interest in Edward McCrady's History of South Carolina in the Revolution: 1775-1780, (1903), p. 487; who in turn takes it from Nathanael Greene's early biographer, William Johnson (the William Johnson referred to in the text is someone different.)
"Just before the lines [siege lines at Charleston, S.C.] were thus closed [late April 1780] an incident happened which, then without significance, proved afterward to have been of great importance if it had been understood. William Johnson, who, it will be remembered, was the first to organize the Liberty Tree party, and was throughout all the events which led up to the Revolution [Christopher] Gadsden's great support, was then serving as a cannoneer in Captain Heyward's company of the Charlestown battalion of artillery, stationed during most of the siege at the hornwork in the centre of the lines. Going in on a visit to the town on leave about this time, he called to see a sick friend, Stephen Shrewsbury, at the house of his brother Edward Shrewsbury, who was a Loyalist. There he saw a stranger dressed in homespun, and asked Edward Shrewsbury who he was, and was told that the stranger was a back countryman who had brought down cattle for the garrison to the opposite side of the river. The answer being prompt and plausible, nothing more was thought of the circumstance. But eighteen months afterward, while William Johnson was in Philadelphia, where he had been sent with the exiles from Charlestown who had been confined in St. Augustine, -- just after the discovery of Arnold's treason and the execution of Major Andre', -- he met his old friend Stephen Shrewsbury, who reminded him of this incident, and asked if he remembered seeing at his brother's house a man dressed in homespun. And upon Johnson's recalling the circumstance, Stephen Shrewsbury went on to say that the man was no other than Major Andre' in disguise. That while he was sick in his brother's house he was introduced to and repeatedly saw a young man in homespun dress who was introduced to him as a Virginian connected with the line of that State then in the town, but after the fall of Charlestown he met and was introduced to Major Andre' at his brother's, and in him at once recognized the Virginian whom he had seen during the siege. Thus his brother acknowledged that it was so, but asserted his own ignorance of it at the time. If this story, which is well authenticated, is true, it appears that the occasion upon which Andre' was captured and executed, was not his first exploit within the American lines. * Johnson's Traditions, 256; Johnson's Life of Greene, vol. I, 209, note."
It is an ironic facet of human character that while we would not think badly, as such, of someone for being executed as a spy in war; yet if he also denied being one things suddenly become more complicated and we look askance; and whether or not we think well or bad of him otherwise and for other reasons.
Hell -- as you who know already know -- is very clever at masquerading. So much so that, sometimes, after fooling a group of people, they don't need to be around to still go on fooling them; and can instead leave things on autopilot (in some instances, for a good long while.) This being considered, what do you suppose hell masquerading as a school is like? (How different from a real school?) Or, say, a hospital? A church? A government? The law? What but tools of abuse and oppression? So that they idea is to take what would be medicine and turn it into poison.
Now where do you suppose such an idea comes from? That by killing someone you can then take and have what they have. But how could such a principle have evolved to such a height of elaboracy and intricacy; such as we see in masquerading? Is it really worth it to get the good they seek (as originally intended by at least some of them) -- or rather is their purpose simply no good? (By even only the general look of things, I take the latter to be the answer.)
Because I am a fan of the Hesse novel, I was hoping I might be able to make a recommendation of the 1974 film "Steppenwolf." Having just watched it yesterday, however, I am reluctant to do so. Max Von Sydow is very good, and the scenes with Dominque Sanda have a charming and amusing quality about them, but otherwise I think the film, aside from being an extravagant interpretation of the introspective book, too easily lends itself to misunderstanding -- nor am I myself entirely sure what the filmmaker's intention was. This said, it is in many parts (though not all) an interesting and thought provoking film in its own right; not least of which because it in effect portrays an intellectual being hounded by a spirit person devil -- though this fact (intentionally or no) is never overtly stated; and this portrayal, based on my own experience, is quiet accurate. Some of the dream sequences that takes place in the Magic Theater are exactly like some more elaborate dream productions someone like a "Simon the Magician" can do to you. If then you want to know what it is like to be tormented by a ghost sorcerer, this film -- again whether intentionally or no -- reveals the same (in a number of respects at least) very correctly. It is a shame, however, Max Von Sydow's character does not fight him off (or what he considers to be the wolf within him) with and using Reason -- because that is an absolutely essential power one must avail oneself of in order to contend with and combat such people. Alas, the character in the movie, like so many in real life, seems to let himself be bamboozled and led by the nose by his devil -- when believe me folks, if you do have some gumption and sense (and despite the childishness and readiness of others to cry uncle) this is not at all necessary.
And, just remember, if things get really bad, and worse come to worse, you can always shout -- "Je-rry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!..."
Famous Bloggers of the Supreme Court.
It would be interesting if someone wrote a history of very wealthy people down through history.
Can one command peace in oneself? Yes, inasmuch as they are not attached to things and images.
He doesn't listen to life; rather he gets his wisdom and knowledge from listening to the warped and demented dead; and as a result lives his life for the purpose of pain suffering and misery; not for peace or happiness. He uses evil to have his way; then spends his winnings on wasting his own and every else's time.
Our hero. (Just for the record, it isn't evil if it is just.)
I know that you know that when I say these things you expect me to live up to them.
Meditations on the Cross.
Just because bad, timid, brainwashed or corrupt people won't help you in your desperate hour of need doesn't mean you are undeserving or unworthy.
If Hell and Evil inhabited darkness prevail, it is only because a certain number of people -- perhaps including yourself -- assume they must prevail.
A Christ figure can, if he so chooses, absorb the pain others would otherwise receive at the hands of Hell.
The quality of your life is based irreplaceably on the quality of your love.
They need us; we don't need them.
I don't remember who said it, but it bears repeating that a people without their history is like a person without his or her memory -- and, we might add, risk the probability of acting just as stupidly as the latter. But of course, like any worthwhile thing, history needs to be done well, and if ill done, can not only be ineffectual, but possibly become the cause and source of problems. And when we are without our more sacred traditions and heritage, such as a sense of truth, justice, honor and compassion, we then become debilitated in our ability to function and survive while usually at the same time irrationally believing that though our forbearers don't or didn't matter we somehow do.
Or, as another way of putting it -- he should be on the chain gang or doing time at the rock pile. But you know him -- (he's so divinely superior that) he's beyond god and evil(so the first, of course, won't be necessary.)
Unconditional surrender is the only way to deal with such people; there is very good reason for this; nor, in demanding such, be fooled by that numinous or ethereal glory that is unharmonious and at odds with both Nature and Truth.
Earlier this afternoon (it is now getting on evevning as I write this), I fell pleasantly asleep shortly after reading this opening to the second part of Shelley's "Queen Mab;" and thought some of you might enjoy it also.
"If solitude hath ever led thy steps
To the wild ocean's echoing shore,
And thou hast lingered there,
Until the sun's broad orb
Seemed resting on the burnished wave,
Thou must have marked the lines
Of purple gold that motionless
Hung o'er the sinking sphere;
Thou must have marked the billowy clouds,
Edged with intolerable radiancy,
Towering like rocks of jet
Crowned with a diamond wreath;
And yet there is a moment,
When the sun's highest point
Peeps like a star o'er ocean's western edge,
When those far clouds of feathery gold,
Shaded with deepest purple, gleam
Like islands on a dark blue sea;
Then has thy fancy soared above the earth
And furled its wearied wing
Within the Fairy's fane.
"Yet not the golden islands
Gleaming in yon flood of light,
Nor the feathery curtains
Stretching o'er the sun's bright couch,
Nor the burnished ocean-waves
Paving that gorgeous dome,
So fair, so wonderful a sight
As Mab's ethereal palace could afford.
Yet likest evening's vault, that faëry Hall!
As Heaven, low resting on the wave, it spread
Its floors of flashing light,
Its vast and azure dome,
Its fertile golden islands
Floating on a silver sea;
Whilst suns their mingling beamings darted
Through clouds of circumambient darkness,
And pearly battlements around
Looked o'er the immense of Heaven."
The key to mind control is to entrench false assumptions, persuasively intermixed with true ones -- with then an appeal to reason -- in order to achieve the desired effect.
Now among the very most ruthless of monster spirit people it is routine to seek to train people to become killers, in whatever their walk or station of life, and, if possible, without their realizing what is taking place.
Someone then might argue, "Yes, but if THEY are the ones killing everyone, would it not make sense to throw in one's lot with them? After all, if one is their friend, isn't it the case that they will be among those not killed?"
The problems with this argument are diverse and numerous; and yet this is one of Hell's most successful. One could go on at length addressing, but for now I will point out just a few objections.