Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.
What if (heaven forfend!) the love of your life should one day become indifferent towards or even worse betray you -- what ought you do? The only thing you can do if you are a rational person -- wish them well and, if need be, assist them in whatever it is they want to do.
Flintstones: The Next Generation
I read on a message board someone saying that Black people are the propagators of crime more than any others. Leaving aside the obvious gross oversimplification of such a statement, it made me think that Black people are more naturally and intestinally innocent and spontaneous than other younger races. And I think that to the extent they are the progeny of the most ancient of peoples they are closer historically to paradise than other kinds of humanity; and for this reason devils find it both fun and profitable to especially pick on them; so we hear of a number reportedly acting up. But you see, the more informed devils know better, and far from look down on them as somehow inherently inferior envy their celestial heritage.
No, returning to the original question raised -- the most pernicious and baleful source of crime, of course, is big money. This is not to say big money necessarily implies great crime; only that it is among big money that you will find the worst source of crime. That these worst of all criminals, and who we see sometimes celebrating, if not inciting, the most savage and vitiating kinds of depravity (as with some of the computer games we looked at earlier) are acting in cooperation with gangster spirit people is, of course, more than evident. And this follows if for no other reason than that the worst gangster spirit people are not going to settle for anything less than the most money. Why should they since, as everyone agrees, there is few or no one to stop or impede their getting more of money and power than anyone else? Put differently, if they employ literal devils, what then materially speaking can be kept from them? Certainly, they can't have quite everything. But on the other hand, when it comes to single parties or families who and how many are in a position to vie with them?
Later Note. Not surprisingly, there is an advantage to be had to certain kinds of professional thieves in impersonating the very worst and most vicious kinds of criminals; just as there is advantage to be had, in different circumstances, in impersonating the very best and most virtuous kinds of people. Whatever works at fooling people is all that really matters.
I'll say again what I said before-- if he is so strong and mighty why does he hide? Similarly if he is such a man, why can't he stand up and speak out for the weak and oppressed? The fact is, he is as cruel as he is because he is afraid, and he is afraid for the same reason that he has so much money; namely that he is somebody's monkey on a chain. If this is so, what difference does it make for him to brag about all the women he can have? And if it is the case that he prides himself on the women loving him, what pray exactly is it that they love (or is it pity) him for?
We are reckless and this affects our health. And while we don't mean to hurt our health, nevertheless, we show culpability in not guarding ourselves better against such recklessness. Do we not wish to live or is it that we don't care? Either way it translates into what amounts to intentional recklessness that might unintentionally cause us to harm our own health. There may even be cases where extreme reckless might be considered an indirect form of self-murder, but self-murder ironically resulting from over self-medication and or the excessive pursuit of pleasure. Needless to say, demonism, when present in a given form, can potentially inflame such tendencies wildly in a person; usually because some spirit person is inflicting some purposeful pain of one kind or other. If this speculation is correct, what or how much sense does it make to place importance on national health care when clearly most of the medical community is out to lunch completely on who and what is a major contributor and cause of sickness in many people's lives -- perhaps even more so than we can possibly imagine.
What most affects us then is not an existent but the judgment that permits the existent.
Blowin' in the Wind: The answer is the question, or the answer is the wind or the Holy Spirit where true reality for us is anyway.
Get off this dice already! You lose. It's over. Face reality. Now pay up what you owe or you don't play anymore. It's that simple.
Just for and to clear up the record, the age-old sorcerers actually learned from Disney -- not the other way around. Only what happened later was they managed to inveigle and work their way and their people into his studio, and subsequently took it over.
Observe how as soon as Senator Obama spoke out on behalf of honesty and getting more honesty out of our leaders much of the media suddenly turned virulently against him; reporting him as behind in the polls, while resurrecting and hyping up a tired rehash of the contrived and fairly irrelevant minister scandal.
"It is part of our mercy and beneficence towards the ghoulish magician to permit and sponsor him to carry out the most extreme and aggravated acts of cruelty and torture. Now we realize this imposes a burden and cost on you the victim. But not to worry! We've taken that all into account. So that for your pains and trouble we promise to compensate and reimburse you with our unmatchable heavenly riches, and in a manner that we deem most generous and honorable to yourself." (Go mind your own business.)
Nothing is but that it is adjudged by someone to be so. Therefore, if you think something exists (or that something is the case) you can preempt or effectively negate its existence (or its being so) by rejecting the judgment that asserts that it exists (and by rejecting as well, if need be, the person making the judgment.) Now with some occurrences, such as immediate and excessive pain, it is not so easy to do this. However, with most everything else and overtime it is very much possible -- so extraordinarily and ineluctably supreme is the power of judgment. Yet what enhances one's power to accept or reject the existence of something is seeing to it that our judgments are sound. And our judgments are sound when we are logically consistent, honest with ourselves, and just towards others. This said, our life and the world around us can otherwise be literally shaped, especially over time, almost as we like by our judging correctly; and, again, we judge correctly when we keep within the bounds of logic, self-honesty, and an attitude of equal fairness towards others.
"What about, at last, in the name of not being utterly boring and tiresome? Doesn't that mean nothing whatsoever to you kind of people?"
The more individuals are empowered to be become billionaires the poorer everyone else becomes (including the billionaire themselves.) Not because being a billionaire is intrinsically destructive; it is rather that spirit people who presently and only are the ones to make it possible for one to be or become a billionaire (in the material sense) are very much so.
Not infrequently, many will turn away in distaste when the subject of religion comes up. Part of what causes this reaction is that religion (whatever kind you name or choose) has been plagued by the presence of spirit people, in one form or another, down through the ages -- and spirit people, ordinarily speaking, are a witchcraft phenomena. Nor has this been made less difficult or confusing by references to spirit people in sacred texts; in the gospels, for instance, Jesus speaks of "holy angels." What then is going on here?
In the "Wizard of Oz," Glinda asks Dorothy "Are you a good witch or are you a bad witch?" And Dorothy gives the both smart and correct answer by replying "Why, I'm no witch at all!" In the case of spirit people (and unless perhaps you are an impartial, scientific investigator) you should shun having anything to do with them at all, and regardless of what form they come in -- since, as with witches, there are, as a practical matter, no good spirit people; only bad or else dumb (as in "stupid") ones. This is important because knowing this may end up sparing you both Hell and Purgatory. The test of truth as we know it is honesty, right reason, basic morals and justice. The angels such as Jesus speaks of are angels who are of the truth. Were they not of the truth they would not be holy angels, and holy angels only become manifest if the truth is already and clearly present. This means, among other things, that the presence of angels does not of itself or by any means imply the truth. It is the truth that saves -- not angels. In the failure to make this crucial distinction then lies one of the salient differences between life and ruin, and as a general rule one should eschew dealing with any and all spirit people entirely. If God requires or desires that you see holy angels present it will only be in a truthful and honest environment and when you yourself are capable of full truth and honesty. Maimonides was correct then in insisting that such visitations are possible only for prophets. And unless you are a prophet, you should never welcome or tolerate the presence of overtly manifesting spirit people, whether to your naked or your mind's visual eye.
I have three brothers, and growing up and in the name of individuality we understandably tended to espouse one particular baseball team or other of our own choosing. Now I myself inclined to the Mets and the Baltimore Orioles (I was a stalwart Brooks Robinson fan and I also remember when Mark Belanger came to visit the Rockville Centre Little League to coach us.) But I also liked the Yankees too and was there when Mickey Mantle hit his 500th home -- though among Yankees stars Mel Stottlemyre was the one I most preferred (I remember trying to imitate his elongated wind up); while my younger brother's was Bobby Murcer. Manny's Baseball Land, incidentally, received a fair share of our patronage in those days. Also, our grandfather from Connecticut was very big on baseball, and a couple of times took us to Wilkes Barre to visit briefly one-armed wonder Pete Gray. Well, talk about nostalgia -- how many of you recollect "Record Day" at Yankee Stadium? It just so happens that I have here an .mp3 recording of the "Here Come the Yankees!" theme song. Click here to download (right click "Save As...")
Later Note. I am partial to James Fenimore
Cooper's etymology for the appellation "Yankees" (found in The Deerslayer); that is, that it stems from the northeast Native American's "eeng-gees;" which is a corruption of the word "English." Repeated enough times, it soon and with only very slight modification verbally transmutes into "yankees." (Compare also, for instance, the word "Boatswain" becoming "Bosun;" or "Indian" becoming "Injun.") If correct, the name then has as much a Native American as European origin, and in a historically founded sense is an instance of the Indian naming us (who are not actually natives of America in the way Indians are.) The “Jan Kees” (or “John Cheese” in Dutch) interpretation was then, I would think, found out as a facetious coincidence by someone afterward.
Correction: Sometime after writing the above, a family member informed me that Pete Gray actually resided in the Hanover section of Nanticoke, PA. -- and not, as previously stated, Wilkes Barre; the latter being where some relatives on my mother's side of the family lived whom we sometimes visited.
Busted Around Here Since 1898
It is said they act this way in the interests of the search for deeper knowledge. This is a quite interesting claim to which I taken pronounced exception to and for a variety of reasons. Among which, I told this ghoulish magician that if he knows so much why doesn't he compile and publish a compendium of all the great, timeless, and extensive learning and knowledge that he so prides and vaunts himself on? Perhaps title it the "Encyclopedia Brutannica?" He can't do it because the person he answers to wouldn't allow it. And even if they did -- what on earth do you think would come out but (aside from certain technical know-how and artfulness) the most complete conglomeration of obscenity, nonsense and absurdity?
To not esteem and appreciate with fervor the value of freedom and basic rights bespeaks the most feeble and lame minded sort of intelligence. Because (for one) if you are not free you cannot do what you otherwise would be able to do if you were free. Some now, both presently and in ages gone by, have adopted the idea that freedom will come to them if a) they have great material wealth and b) they act in cooperation with the authority of spirit people. Yet were this belief true, King Darius of the Persian Empire might be considered one of the freest and most liberated individuals of all time. We know from contemporary experience that being extremely wealthy in the material sense does not by any means guarantee one the status of being or becoming a truly free man or woman. How many, for example, of the billionaires that there are today can think, speak, and publish freely? Clearly, it is understood that they may have as much wealth as they possess only if they keep silent on certain topics and avoid promoting essential human rights and fair and equal trade. I will not say that it is utterly impossible for them to speak out on behalf of those ideals in some measure. But if so, only in a limited way and only theoretically speaking (since we are familiar with none that actually do so.) The power they do have is bestowed on them and authorized by spirit people, much like the divine right of kings -- and is not based on justice, right and honest reason, and fair competition. You know full well that were justice, right reason and fair competition the primary grounds and basis of their wealth and power they would never have been permitted become so very rich. It follows that what makes them rich is a principle that demands the enslaving and inhuman degrading of others. They might not desire this to be the case or state of things of themselves, yet nonetheless this is what the spirit people who legitimize and license them to be rich are after, about, and intend.
The earth is you mother. That much is obvious. But who then is your father? According to many primitive and early religions and cosmologies this would be someone from up in the sky. The gospels, interestingly, speak of a person's ultimate father as being either God or, alternatively and otherwise, the Devil -- though the difference to some extent also seems, perhaps paradoxically, to depend on one's choice. The reason for this latitude is evidently based on the idea that God, through his power and mercy, can supersede the Devil's authority and paternity.
For the record (my own if no one else's), in my essay "The Critical Mirror" I make reference to a 1930's Warner Bros. cartoon that I didn't know the title of. Well, it just so happened that upon looking, one very similar (if not identical) turned up on YouTube. Well, for any who might be interested, here is that latter cartoon. (Note. It comes with an extra "rock music" introduction that, of course, is not actually part of the original short, but ends after a few seconds.)
Who was it that said the first step on the path to being interesting begins with minding one's own business? And, of course, what advice could be more true? Why, if a person's minds their own business people have a better not a worse opinion of them. And he who so acts opens up realms of promise and possibility hitherto undreamt of -- that is, if they but take that necessary step. Nor is minding one's own business nearly so hard and impossible as some seem to imagine. On the contrary, it's easy. Why, anyone can do it - that is, if they but gird their loins, roll up their sleeves and make the appropriate effort.
Depart from me ye unclean spirits!
Depart from me ye Heavenly host!
And while will this cross is borne,
May mine eyes remain fixed
On the prize of ridding us of you
The Google/"Quotations Page" Quote of the Day for this Monday, April 21, 2008 is:
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image."
- Stephen Hawking
And thank you, Stephen Hawking.
As time has gone on -- and under the circumstances -- I think I have come to like the idea of playing the role of Banquo's ghost. (moo-ha-haha...)
A spirit person told me last night that Alexander burned down Persepolis because it was filled with ghosts. As previously, I don't know myself if the actual claim is true, but if so I understand completely how he must have felt.
The question may be asked what's wrong with throwing tribute to the dark powers on a regular basis, such as people who disfigure themselves or think nothing of frequent mendacity and moral corruption (to cite two sample and isolated examples)? One of the biggest problems with those who bow down to demonism is that you are led to think the world revolves around demonism. But the world only revolves around demonism to the extent people believe it does, and to the extent they feel they must be of the world in their lifestyle and thinking.
Yet you see to intelligent people who reject demonism, they can forswear demonism and simply toss it out of their own lives as something that is of no interest to them. For remember, demonism is neither of nature or the truth (or, at best, very little of either nature or the truth); so you see there are ample philosophical grounds for rejecting it as not necessary.
Not so is rejection so easy for those who act submissively toward demonism and demonistic thinking (including consorting or conversing with angels or spirit people for seemingly religious reasons.) For by their permitting themselves to become vassals of such forces they are, in effect, shackling themselves to a great psychological ball and chain -- and which then can be used to torment them if desired or need be.
(While I address the topic more at length in my New Treatise, we can add here -- one shouldn't consort or converse with spirit people because a) you don't necessarily know who they are and despite all the persistence, wonders and powers they might manifest; b) their secretive manner reflects falseness rather than openness and forthrightness; c) the devil people, as things stand, control the "airwaves" of who gets in or not; just as television and radio -- and now the internet -- can be so controlled and manipulated, and probably more so.)
I just of late finally had the opportunity of seeing Anthony Newley's "Can Hieronymus Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Humppe and Find True Happiness?" (1969); and while it is chaotic and the continuity of the narrative very flimsy, it is a nonetheless a powerful film that addresses life issues in a very bold, candid and daring way. Some of the nudity, wackiness, and sexual references are a bit overdone, yet it would hardly appeal as a porn film to anyone. Indeed, I would recommend "Hiernonymous" for high school kids or older as providing them with a sobering look at the snares and pitfalls of promiscuity. This said and regardless of one's age, it is a disturbing work when all is said and done, and if you do watch it be prepared for that.
On the lighter side, it does have its humorous moments and Milton Berle is funnier than I have ever seen him. Also, Tara Newley has to be one of the cutest babies I ever saw on film.
Roger Ebert's review is fair, and for which see http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19690528/REVIEWS/905280301/1023
To obtain a DVD copy, try http://5mtl.com/1D/CANHIERONYMUS.htm -- although be forewarned, the transfer is far from the best. But at least it gives one the chance to view the film. In about a month or so, I will be posting some of the songs from the original soundtrack LP here at this website. Last, and for fun, here is Newley singing "Something in Your Smile." (2.5 MBs)
True, sooner or later they will get around to beating you up if you insist on being honest. But I ask you, what is more enduring and long lasting than the truth? Fame, money, prestige, are or can all be wonderful. Yet what substitute, after all, is there for reality and being in reality?
Fear not -- the finest minds in the world are working on this very problem, even as we speak.
"...Before Somebody Drops a House on You" or "Fudd, Sweat and Tears"
As it is every now and then my wont, let me give you an update, in brief, of my situation.
To this day these people are both running brain torture radios on me round the clock; while subjecting me regularly to assaults using sprites demons or other form of witchcraft related violence and attacks. This is all the more striking when at the same time, they for years now have had me so situation that my telephone, email and regular mail are so interfered with that I have been rendered almost completely alone, cheated of work and career, and deprived of almost all human social companionship. At the same time, this being for many years now, they consider themselves entitled to great billion dollar fortunes. Now I ask you, is it not the complete height of arrogance that they can swimming in millions and yet simultaneously be leeching and mooching off of me whom they keep materially impoverished?
Although granted it is not the easiest thing to out of hand prove that one's communications are being interfered with, let alone that one is being routinely assailed with brain torture radios and witchcraft related violence, there are a number of points in my behalf on which can be clearly taken and the grounds for such readily demonstrated. The following are some, though by no means all, such.
Now understand, my greatest wish is simply to get assistance so that I am no longer victimized with brain torture radios and witchcraft attacks, and money damages and or vindication are very trifling concerns by comparison. It is my belief, however, that if I can receive money and or secure vindication this will bring pressure on my harassers to lay off and or help ease the extreme pain and difficulty created by these bizarre, hoodlum engendered circumstances. At least if I am relatively poor and alone -- but left in peace -- I can do my work properly. As it is, these gluttons cannot even leave me alone -- and it is this (not lack of receiving money damages, or vindication, or the inability to publicly pursue my work and career as an author) which is not only unconscionable but out and out hellish -- and thus begs a test of and inquiry into the fundamental soundness and integrity of the judicial system as it pertains to my case.
Later Note. With respect to the suggestion (conveyed sincerely or otherwise) that has been made or implied; namely that these crimes done to me (and those which continue to be done to me) can be excused by a promise on behalf of spirit people of a Heavenly reward, my response is this. In order to facilitate and expedite the settling of this dispute, I am not only happy and willing to hereby waive and forgo such aforesaid Heavenly reward, but indeed (so called) "Speilberg" and the Magician can split what's mine of that remuneration between themselves -- that is, on the condition that they cease intruding on my life and living circumstances as they do and have been doing. (My reasoning, of course, is that such reward promised by or coming from spirit people is of no real value and that to relinquish it, accompanied by such stipulation no less, would not, as far as I am concerned, be really giving up much of anything on my part.)
("I'll get you my pretty! And your little dog too!")
When we ask what is it that makes something especially good, thinking here particularly (but not exclusively) of works of art and music, it lies in their reflecting or becoming the incarnation of harmony. Harmony in turn is the carefully and successfully weighed combining of opposites or contraries (as, say, by tradition we know by way of Heraclitus, Lao Tze, or Aquinas.) With music, to illustrate, we have opposites in the way of high and low pitch, fast versus slow tempo, loud-beated rhythm and soft foot-counted time, sorrowful versus ecstatic, merry versus somber, major versus minor, long versus short notes, etc. And a similar analysis can be applied to any good, albeit with similar or different groupings of opposites. All of which such manifestations evince the value of opposites in the aiming at and obtaining, and realizing of good.
Now when we say good versus evil then are contraries, and therefore opposites, are not we saying that evil in good? In some instances an obvious evil can be good, as say when some numbers of a species must be eradicated due to reasons of its swarming and thereby becoming a threat to itself and others (though bear in mind, in passing, that the creation of swarms is something rotten spirit people are invariably the real cause of; and rarely or not is it the species itself.) But the very idea of evil of itself is, by definition, contrary to good, and therefore they cannot be viewed as equally good; nor are they considered to be so by the vast majority of people as a practical matter. And yet this said, there is some sense in which the two are co-joined.
The next question is, is such conjunction a necessity? Clearly not because we can see many times in experience where good, in its variegated forms, can be opposite to itself without one of the other contraries actually exhibiting or pertaining to evil. When then is evil necessary? When it is used to get rid of evil. (What makes for the greater or lesser evil I leave here for another occasion.)
The only lasting way of getting rid of Mahoney is to get rid of Winchell.
A poor man might justify siphoning or availing himself of goods from a rich man on the basis of need and the rich man's surplus. This argument may or may not have force depending on the particulars of the circumstances and if we are speaking merely of need for food, shelter from weather, or money. These kind of spirit people that I write about operate much on a similar principle, only taken to an acute extreme. And what they will do is leech on a person -- not for merely their goods or money per se -- but for their very person -- seeking to find fulfillment in their own lives by co-existing in personal proximity in another (who does not welcome them.)
In some measure this behavior is brought about through excessive egotism, if not megalomania; because the only spirit people who act this way normally and intentionally are those who manifest such psychological dispositions. This in turn is invariably due to their acting in conjunction with and being under the influence of other very egotistical spirit people more powerful than themselves. So that their need is more voluntary in its way, and thereby more easily averted and less excusable than say a poor man's seeking basic food, shelter, or money.
Regarding the Heaven Sent Devil
After years ruminating over the matter, I think I have properly arrived at and see more clearly the key, or at least part of the key, necessary for defeating the monster people. One of the arguments they like to use to justify themselves is that they have good to offer in a way that would excuse their evil. So, for instance, they might murder someone and assure that person before hand that they will go to Heaven for their pains. In light of this, what I say to them and propose here is this. Having them around when they have great wealth and power, or having them more than very, very briefly in and around one's life and living circumstances (and allowing for temporary and unavoidable exigency) is entirely and utterly unacceptable. The only reason for enduring criminal and authoritarian spirit people (or their hench people) in the community or in one's own life is for either (1) protecting one's loved one's or similar who are defenseless, or else (2) for purposes of destroying these very same monster people (say, the way a soldier will suffer the enemy but only to defeat them.) Other than for these two reasons, life with these spirit people around is simply not worth living and has no real value.
The alternative to this is to accept spirit people's claim that gross and or repeated gross evil can and should be put up with because the victim will be compensated for their trouble -- say with Heaven or pretty girls or a great fortune, etc. Some of these spirit people evidently will think gross evil doesn't matter (so much as people think) because they have seen it work out well for their victims.
Yet, even so and of course, we respond that it is not for them to decide whether it is all right to, say, murder someone; and that in the final analysis there is no adequate compensation for putting up with their raw evil (and that, after all, is what we are talking about.) Therefore, to have them around for any prolonged amount of time renders life not worth living -- but that one has loved ones or similar need protecting. Otherwise, their presence is completely unacceptable.
By denying them this prerogative of excusing their evil on the grounds that the victim(s) can or will be indemnified, we in large measure take the wind and greater force out of their contention. This is not to say a victim of evil can't or won't be compensated. But if they are, such compensation will come from ourselves or clearly and openly recognizable friends who choose to compensate them, or a court of justice's awarding them damages to be paid by the culprit and perpetrators -- and otherwise Frankenstein must leave town or be destroyed.
"What the --?"
The following two videos are, more or less, self-explanatory.
The truth faith is the faith that is sincere, forthright, and honest. "Anything more or less than this," as the Gospel states, "comes from the evil one."