Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.
Of late, I am continuing to correct and revise my Mabel Normand Source Book. As part of which, I just yesterday finished going through my examination of the William Desmond Taylor murder case, and which examination you can download as a .pdf file here. It has been a long while since I went through it, and I must say in recently doing so, and without meaning to boast or be immodest, how very impressed I am at my analysis. Who else and yet has come up with a more cogent and better explanation of the mystery, I'd like to know? And yet since I first published this account, I have yet to hear from anyone in response to it, and, in addition, to this day and for almost a decade now am unable to get in contact with Taylor expert Bruce Long, who has been invaluable in providing me with original material in the course of compiling the MNSB and who earlier I also had been in regular consultation with on the topic of the Taylor case. Bruce, where are you?
The people who most talk about sex are predictably the most inept and immature when it comes to the subject; while their taste in women is invariably as appallingly awful as their manners.
Earlier this bright, slightly breezy, June day, I went to go visit a local garden nursery-plex to take notes and brush up on my horticulture and botany -- the sort of thing poets and would-be poets would be well advised to do every now and then for purposes of keeping up on the diverse kinds of trees, flowers, shrubs, and plant life that there are. While there, I was struck by how very strange and peculiar life in its various forms can be. In particular, I saw some very large, over-sized red, gold and white fish from a foot to two feet in length. In addition to their colorful beauty, I was amazed to discover that they would regularly be at or come to the surface to be not only fed, but petted as well -- just as you would pet a dog or cat. There was also a young boy there who explained them to me, and I found myself being instructed by an eight year old -- which made me feel somewhat like a child myself listening to him; as fish are not something I actually know a whole lot about. "How wondrous creation is!" I thought.
As I reflected on the subject, it seemed to me that life as we know it need not at all have strictly evolved the way it did but that someone way, way back when made certain value choices. And for all we know, life in nature in its different manifestations may have been decided on and spun out by gods (or if you prefer primordial sentient beings), yet gods whom answered and answer to the Great Creator, and that once something comes into being it must live and abide by God's ultimate rules and principles.
Sure you want to live in Hobo Heaven. But you are not going to live in Hobo Heaven by leeching on me and mooching off me. So finish up that Claim Jumper, guzzle down that Monster Energy, trim your goatee, and head on down to monster.com to get a job so that then you'll have the money to deposit at WaMu and go live at HoJo with in furtherance of your dream.
The film "Blackbeard's Ghost" (1968) starring Dean Jones and Peter Ustinov was actually not among those I saw when growing up, and what memory I do have of it from that time was some sort of advertisement or promo tied in with "Sugar Daddy" or else "Sugar Babies" candies. It just so happened that "Blackbeard's Ghost" was mentioned last evening by goomer ghost, and then out of curiosity I watched some clips of it on YouTube. Sure enough, Ustinov's Blackbeard is indeed a kind of humorous version, loosely drawn, of the ghoulish magician -- at least in certain respects, and the film interestingly has the characters interpret him as a figment of the imagination and, in the case of Dean Jones' character, as someone physically real. As with the ghoulish magician, Blackbeard wants to get people to do the wrong thing with the idea that good will come from it. Of course, in the film the ghost is only as bad as an ordinary pirate; unlike the magician who is (or at least has been) capable of crimes far more heinous and abominable. Like Darren Stevens in "Bewitched," Dean Jones doesn't want to use the ghost's powers to be used to gain him advantage, but as a matter of comedy the ghost goes ahead and does as he pleases instead. And so it is in real life with someone like the ghoulish magician. He can be playful and funny to those who are receptive to him -- but with the difference that the magician is or can be a depraved, sadistic monster like Dracula; whereas here Blackbeard is more of a mischievous teddy bear. All in all and from what I have seen of it, the Disney film, allowing for this difference and a certain amount of comical and fictional license, is a worthwhile and useful presentation of the subject of such spirit people; not least of which in its showing how such a being's reality can be deemed imaginary by most and yet himself be capable of acting very palpably in people's lives.
Many will be understandably frightened at the thought of the insatiable fiendishness and fury of demons. However, it should be pointed out that the reason it seems many so-called demons act the way they do is that they are behaviorally trained to, and apparently part of this training involves their being starved of what they need to remain feeling well; while and as a result they are taught to find their satisfaction in a false substitute. There is little doubt in my mind that their deplorable living condition, and in turn their bad behavior, could be significantly mollified, if not entirely cured, with special drugs and sedatives to calm and relax them. At the same time, it seems to me many of them would voluntarily go on such a medicated regimen if they could but that the politics of their circumstances (if you will) forbids and prevents it.
In response to Bill Griffith's challenge:
"While I can't be your regular friend, at least do me the honor of being considered that spare radial tire in your life that is there when and if you need it."
"Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and
children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
"Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
"For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?
"Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.'
"Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand?
"Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.
"So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.
"Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned?
"It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
~ Luke 14: 27-35.
The above passage from Luke I think is particularly applicable and relevant to our present situation for a number of reasons, but particularly because it indirectly and by implication gives some indication of what the powers of Hell seek to achieve as part of their program of enslaving people. Among other things, what they essentially seek to do is to recruit followers by providing that follower with what they are led to believe are the necessary requisites of their well being; when in reality what such receives is actually only the illusion of such. The follower then as a result is not in possession of what is needed to properly construct a tower or adequately empower a military force, to use the above gospel's metaphors. Rather he is awarded only enough to get him to think he has all he needs when, of course, in reality he is dreadfully short-changed. Being satisfied in this specious way, he can then be used to attack or protect against Hell's enemies who are not so foolishly taken in.
To better illustrate my meaning, take for example, some of the nouveau rich who have materially profited by Hell's conquests and take-overs of the past decades. In receiving, say, money and social status by cooperating with Hell they have been made to think little of betraying their country and fundamental principles of freedom and equality before the law which their country has hitherto stood for; and so have sold these out in behalf of what they think is their own better self-interest. But in permitting, say, human rights, free speech, honest rational discourse, fair competition, and basic civil liberties to be degraded and truncated by betraying or abandoning them, they help to impoverish the very society in which they live; selling their own dignity and freedom for a false dignity and a false freedom. In further consequence of which, far from strengthening, they weaken their capacity to live a full and meaningful life, and, meanwhile, are themselves used as pawns against those who would stand for and maintain basic freedoms. "Let him who has ears hear!"
"The downfall of the lunatics" -- this phrase has a nice sounding ring to it, don't you think? Oh well, I do. In any case, think positive.
The more I have had time to come to know and deal with them, the more appalled and outraged I am at the notion that spirit people are somehow the standard of divine or higher goodness. In all my life, I've known of no regular (i.e. flesh and blood people) who are anywhere near so bad as the worst spirit people I have encountered. At the same time, the good that has come from spirit people has usually been so very rare or trivial as to be, all in all and by comparison, hardly worth mentioning. Now all this may have nothing to do (as such) with the nature of spirit people themselves but is simply a result of the governance and order of things under which they operate. I am then not, nor wish to be, disposed to be inherently biased or prejudice against spirit people. Even so, when I find myself reflecting on what is the cause of what is most wrong in the world I invariably find the answer to that question to be the worser spirit people. And yet after all these many years, I can find no one who is willing to discuss them scientifically. This is not, by any means, to say there are no such; only that for one reason or another I am or have been separated from them by circumstances. Yet if the worst evil originates with spirit people as I propose then how can humanity afford to remain silent on the subject? Is not this fear and reticence to address these "other worldly" gangsters and criminals objectively, rationally, and scientifically in its way the ultimate source of all or at least most of our most serious problems? While I don't expect anyone to take my word for it that such is the case, this, at any rate, is how I feel about the matter. Some seem to think that it is up to spirit people to police themselves. Yet why should we assume such a thing? Perhaps all along it has been regular people's duty to police and keep the worser spirit in check but that most regular people and deceived by spirit people have been too irrational, gullible, and cowardly to do so. If such is the case, it is, needless to say, long over due for this state of things to be reversed and for life to start taking the offensive against the arrogant, destructive and useless dead. But how does one go to fight an enemy -- in fact the enemy -- when this enemy cannot even be discussed? This being, as I argue, the case, is it any wonder that this world has witnessed as many heart breaking horrors and tragedies as it has down through history? And what other explanation betters accounts for such taking place than that they were brought about primarily by very bad spirit people permitted to be at large and run riot with only a very few regular persons ever (if ever) even being allowed to speak out against them?
He always seems to do the wrong thing a certain way. Did you ever notice that about him? That's the mental patient for you. That's just the way he is. And that he always acts that way, there is no debate. The only real question is when does he ever mind his own business in the first place?
Do you realize I been subject to ongoing physical violence, not to mention intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, ever since President Bush's father was President, without respite and for every day, every minute, except times when they don't (at least to my knowledge) attack me while sleeping? They have done and do this using both brain torture radios and witchcraft spirit people, and though I have tried to procure assistance, my efforts have been effectively unsuccessful.
One reason I raise this is that some of my philosophical adversaries seem to think that it is this or that which terribly bothers and upsets me. Now just use common sense. If you were being physically and emotionally tormented for as long as I have been by the ghoulish magician, goomer ghost (his look-a-like servant), Oaf from Beyond (i.e. the great Dolby Surround-Sound), hell's heavenly angels, and these latter assisted by a crack team of high-tech, covert operatives who as much as I know about them is that they work for some unknown someone named "Speilberg" -- would this not supersede and lessen almost all your other cares? If this then is the case, wherefore then have they went to such prodigious lengths and expense to vex and beleaguer me on some petty level, such as envy, personal embarrassment, or causing sorrow in missing out on desirable, say material, goods and or experiences? All these last of course pale into nothing compared to the former.
For me there is no higher good than that of serving who and what is most right and just, seeing to loved ones and humanitarian obligations, fulfilling basic day to day responsibilities and paying debts, and in addition to these -- getting rid of these spirit and so-called (so-called by themselves) "Speilberg" people in my life. This, you see, is far different from how my opponents do it. For their part, they seek felicity by and through acting in cooperation with such nefarious characters -- which last, entirely aside from my own situation, are known to have perpetrated the very worst and most unimaginable kinds of crimes. I ask you then, who do you think makes more sense? Yet though I say this, they will still not unoften waste my time with petty nonsense as if it was petty nonsense that will undo me.
Oh well, I must, as I have, just get on. But I'll say this much. I think it would make things more interesting if the use of brain torture radios was once and for all prevented, and these damn ghosts put in their place the way they ought to be.
"One morning Colonel [Bentley] Mott, Pershing's liaison officer with Foch, met the generalissimo, since August 6 [1918] a marshal of France, returning from mass in the village church of Bombon. 'As I saluted him he paused as though inviting me to speak, and I ventured the remark that Germany seemed to be getting more than they could stand. He came up close to me, took firm hold on my belt with his left hand, and with his right fist delivered [pantomiming] a punch at my chin, a hook under my ribs, and another drive at my ear; he then shouldered his stick and without a single word marched on to the chateau.'"
~ from Crisis 1918 by Joseph Gies, p. 256.
This just in, and straight from the proverbial horse's mouth at http://www.asifa-hollywood.org/2006_10_01_blogarch.html
"I liked Dick Shawn. I thought he was one the funniest and smartest comics of his age. But my actions/words were pretty much responsible for his demise.
"Why the big confession? What does this have to do with animation? Yesterday I unknowingly fought 2 1/2 hours of traffic hell to get to Jerry Beck`s Smokin` Toons screening at AFI.
"The screening was great but a little short so Jerry ended with the last reel of a 1977 Buffalo Bob failed comeback feature (just acquired by Mark Kausler) made up of lots of [Mr.] Magoo cartoons and B.B. in the same awful shirt singing 30s songs. Very sad. And there he is, Dick Shawn the man I killed, on a psychedelic flashing lighted stage being goofy for the aging second banana of a puppet that is sadly MIA for this film.
"I first met Dick Shawn in 1975 or 1976 when he was putting together his one-man show, the Second Greatest Entertainer in the Whole Wide World. Steve Rothman, my best friend from 8th grade and my college roommate, brought Dick to Florida State so Dick could put his show together far from the Great White Sharks of the Great White Way.
"I next met Dick when his play was running off Broadway. Steve and I went out to eat with Dick after his successful performance. Dick stood in the drizzle and signed autographics they pay the bills before going out for food.
"Dick was a Southern Gentleman [edit. Dick was born in Lackawanna, N.Y.] In the middle of Steve`s dinner show biz speal Dick looked over and saw that I was being left out of the conversation. He stopped in mid sentence and went into a hippy crazed stream of consciences verbal give-and-take with me that left Steve in the dust. When we were finished crossing the stream of consciences Dick picked up his conversation with Steve at the mid sentence where he had left off. I was impressed.
"In early April 1987 my wife and I went to the Pasadena Playhouse, that Steve Rothman had just restored, to see Dick headline back-to-back one-man shows with another, lesser comic. Ruth and I had the best seats in the house and Dick was in great from trying to lead an audience sing along of Gilbert and Sullivan.
"After the first show we all went back stage. Ruth and I were taking Steve and his then wife Alma Martinez (Under Fire, Born in East LA) out to celebrate Alma`s birthday. Dick said maybe he would come along but backed out when we told him where we were going. Never`d get back in time for the second show, maybe next time?
"I told Dick that he did a great job of answering my question. At the end of his performance (the one just finished) Dick had done something that no stand up in his right mind would dare to do. Are there any questions from the audience?
"What is the meaning of life I boomed out across the theatre. Dick responded I know that one, just a minute. I`ve got the answer and I`m not even going to charge you for it. The meaning of life is . . . . (and Dick fakes a heart attack and falls down dead on the stage)
"April 17th 1987, two weeks later, Dick Shawn was performing at the University of California at San Diego with the same stage crew and stage manager when he had a massive heart attack on stage and fell over again seeming to be dead. There was a Doctor in the second row who thought it was part of the act as did the stage manager who came out on stage and then left and then came back. Dick lay there and died while people laughed which is somehow fitting. And my words and his response to my words killed him. Maybe next time?"
"See then how a billionaire does it" -- I hear someone saying. I don't know. I saw this film when it first came out and without any preconceived prejudices against it. On the contrary, I was led to think here was something new, unusual and exciting, and practically assumed it would be so. Yet subsequent to viewing, it didn't seem to make any sense to me; nor has the passing of time helped any in this regard. What on earth is the director's statement? Is the story this film depicts explicitly a fantasy (with concomitant allegory) or does he perhaps mean literally to suggest there is extra-terrestrial life, and, moreover, has reason to believe they may very well look and appear like the ones in this film, i.e. sort of the gray, egg headed, slanty eye-slit type aliens? It is interesting how in the above sequence their own cheery-eerie music-communication effectively silences that of the humans ("It's the first day of school, fellas.") In probably most of his films, someone is invariably being in some way stalked. And here is no exception. In another cut of the film to be found on YouTube, the sequence ends with Richard Dreyfuss -- the character who is stalked beforehand -- going up, alone and by himself, into the space ship and the space ship lifts off -- to? Why does he do this? Where is he going? For just about any other movie, this would be where the story starts and begins. But in this and despite the sumptuous regaling, we are simply left baffled. This is not relieved much by the apparently original version where, as I recall, Dreyfuss, rather than being alone, goes up with a group of others -- all dressed in colorful space suits. Oh well, even if it doesn't really make any sense, one can't argue with success. (Your thoughts, Dr. Ruehl?)
The Alaskan Menace
Any given person is against what is bad, and yet we are far from all being in agreement about evil being a problem. For some evil doesn't exist. For others, evil exists and is a problem, but their ideas as to what is the cause of evil are uncertain, erroneous, or confused. For yet others evil is seen as a positive good; indeed, there are those who make a religion out of supporting and celebrating it.
If we say real evil does indeed exist and it is a problem, do those who complain about what is bad and yet who deny evil's existence make any sense? Speaking for myself, I hardly think so because, for one, if evil exists clearly it can be the cause of various kinds of bad (i.e. the one thing we are all agreed upon is a problem.) Likewise, if we posit there are persons deliberately disposed to evil, and yet we deny such persons exist, than how better able are we to prevent or contend against what's bad? Unless and until then we are prepared to admit to and deal with real evil, our efforts to resist or reduce what is bad are severely weakened and impaired (at least in the long term sense.) And if we say further that there are persons who calculatingly and deliberately pursue a policy of evil, we will find them, I would argue, mostly if not always among spirit persons. And yet acknowledging the scientific and empirical existence of spirit persons is, or at least so it would seem, not the majority view. And, at the same time, if there are actually evilly disposed spirit persons, they will or would not surprisingly do what they can to generally encourage the beliefs that a) there is no evil, b) that spirit persons do not exist, and c) that if evil does exist it is to be found anywhere but among spirit people. If then what I have been saying for years now about spirit people has a true basis in fact, then in order to combat both bad and evil evilly disposed spirit people must be combated. But if the existence of spirit people is denied then what hope is there is for our own either effectively removing or eliminating bad or evil in any meaningful sense? The answer -- no hope whatsoever, or so at least I think any rational person will find if you consider the matter closely and carefully.
He says he doesn't think it proper that we should be able to have a soda and a smoke while we are suffering the cross. We, in turn, counter this by saying that he, for his part, ought to have been sent to the electric chair a long time ago for the many mass murders he's committed. Who then is right?
A word of explanation. It is not so much that these mega-corporation people are greedy that is itself really the problem. It is just that being very greedy is a way of doing the wrong thing that, at least on the surface, seems relatively harmless compared to other forms of wrong doing. So that by being very greedy, they secure the insurance protection made "necessary" by and available from spirit person run organized crime, and, in addition, don't have to do something else more and worse wrong in order to have and maintain the level of lifestyle and well being that they feel they deserve, require and are entitled to.
In part because I always tell myself that I will one of these days, yet never actually get around to doing so, I would like to finally make some comment concerning what some of my criteria are for selecting a "Recommendation of the Week." First off, what I try to do is suggest someone or something particularly interesting and very worthwhile that I think most people these either don't know about or else don't think about any longer; at the same time I try to steer clear of something that is already very will known and established as such. As well, that something (including someone) is timely now not infrequently enters as a factor.
Of course, not everyone or everything fits into such nice categories, and there will be some items I see as rare which are very familiar to some, and, by the same token, some things which are commonly known about but which seem to me not sufficiently appreciated. As a result, there is a good deal of subjectivity in my choices based on my own perception of things -- which perception, needless to say, is naturally subject to lapses, lacunae, and imperfection. At the same time, and also needles to say, there is much I don't know of, particularly with respect to many foreign peoples and cultures; though as time goes on, I do what I can to try and improve on and remedy this.
My being prompted to make these remarks at present is the recent death of Harvey Korman. Now Mr. Korman was an excellent actor and comedian, and he certainly to my mind qualifies as a best. The same is true, by the way, of Vicki Lawrence, herself a very underrated and outstanding talent. But the Carol Burnett Show with which they are most associated is, in my view, already so well known it is something I would be reluctant to recommend -- unless perhaps years from now if I am still posting these recommendations then. A similar thought occurs to me also about "Laugh In;" which when I was a child growing up had a tremendous and good impact on me; even though in "Laugh In's" case and as an adult much of that humor is now mostly passe'.
In sum, if I end up leaving out some special favorite of yours in my recommendations, it doesn't necessarily follow that I don't know of or don't like and admire them. True, I might not, in a given instance, actually know about them. Or else, I may think they are so famous as to hardly need a plug from me -- though, obviously, I sometimes make exceptions. So while I allow myself a certain amount of latitude in deciding what works for a given week and what doesn't, I otherwise strive to adhere to the aforesaid criteria as my basic guidelines in making the choice.
I can see they are still bumming people out with demonism. Perhaps this will help.
"The seventy returned with joy, saying, 'Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name.' And He said to them, 'I have observed Satan falling like lightening from the sky. Behold, I have given you the power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and upon the full force of the enemy, and nothing will injure you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice because the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice because your names are written in heaven.'"
~ Luke 10:17-20
On the surface, what Jesus says hear could seem like something magical, and in a way it perhaps is. It all depends on how you look at it, and this is a good illustration of how the Bible functions as poetry. As well as suggesting something mystical, it also contains a belief that is hard headed and rationally based. The greatest possible power any given spirit person might have over you is that they are more logical and rational. For even if they exceed you in brute strength , reason ultimately is greater than brute strength -- at least in the long-run. Now a rational person knowing their kinship with Christ, and which title among others implies truth and truthfulness, gives a decided advantage to one's powers of reasoning -- as opposed to one whose premises are fictitious. So if you are dealing with an almighty spirit person and you are full of the truth, and you are rational, they cannot in the long term sense have any greater power over you than you do over them.
The idea of a Christian is that your love is gold and means something more special than usual. With powerful love, by definition, comes greater and greatest love and ultimately and as a matter of course the most valuable persons, things and experiences. So for instance, if proper Christianity enjoins us to be courageous, truthful, just, forgiving, sincere, self-demanding, patient, and to strive with persistent vigor (by means of faith), and you have a community of people composed largely of such who seek those virtues then that society will prosper and thrive compared to one where they are absent -- unless it is attacked and it is not prepared to meet such an attack. For the latter, courage is obviously much to be valued, and unless one is essentially a passive, unpretentious innocent, there is no one worth the name of good who is not brave also.
All right, but what does it mean then to speak of God with respect to all that is stated above? Well, for starters very much, indeed infinite could and has been said, of course. One good idea is to conceptualize God as this hypothetical person -- say an ideal best friend -- whom you would do right by in any and all circumstances. So that by the standard you treat God can be measured the standard you treat your friends -- and, as a Christian, enemies as well. Like God, you want, by means of love and truth, to save and cherish as many as it is possible for you to do so -- only to save them is to assume they can be, at the very least, suffered and tolerated in a community of honest and rational people. And if we cannot insure that someone is not highly destructive, duplicitous and disregarding of others basic rights than it is that less possible to include or "save" them -- for the obvious reason that they threaten the general harmony a veneration of basic virtue allows.
The war against evil is a war against mind control -- and certain very bad spirit people are what most threaten reason than anyone and anything else. Their leadership is not against reason; on the contrary they know they need to use it to obtain and hold obedience. For if they can threaten a person's capacity to reason, they are that much more able to bend them to their will. The more they can bend to their will; the more powerful they will be, etc. A person then who is more honest and rational has then just what is necessary to thwart any such assaults or attempts on their own freedom. But some spirits can be very scary, and again we see the need for courage in order to sustain the dedication and resolve necessary to see honesty and reason through.
One of the most wonderful things about a faith like proper Christianity is that it offers rich hope for the innocent and helpless and defenseless victims of evil. The Hell, point of view by contrast, makes no such promise or guarantee; unless perhaps it be a canned and substandard kind of hope and happiness, and which, as a practical matter shows either their indifference or disdain toward the innocent. With Hell you get -- money, women, prestige -- but what are you giving up? You don't get something for nothing you know. What insurance does such a one who willingly agrees to evil have, for example, when it comes to peace, reason, fair competition, justice, free choice, and lasting trustfulness. For them the standard they can expect may easily well vary and differ.
And this is one reason, incidentally, why legal positivism is an inadequate or insufficient theory of jurisprudence. For without truth and honesty there is no there is no law of integrity, and merely doing literally what the code says does not insure that it will not be interpreted to serve criminal interests -- hence, unless there is a spirit of honesty and truth underpinning the law -- something that cannot be forced by edict -- the law can be defeated of its purpose entirely, and there is then no real law but what the tyrant condones. Moreover, to say the law is only particulars is to say it has no spirit, and having no spirit has no intestinal fiber and strength of its own.
Speaking personally, I myself have never been envious of Hell people. Yes I might like this or that they have but do I really want this or that regardless of cost? And if I cannot think straight how can I protect myself from being cheated? So that when I see the good willful and incorrigible wrong-doers have, I cannot fail to be reminded of the exorbitant price they do or will pay. We, for our part, don't wish them bad. We just don't want them forcing themselves on us. They, on the other hand, have in their midst and occupying powerful positions such who would not concede so much to us.
As for some who think to take an imagined third view, how will such withstand either Hell or real Heaven? Even if the latter accept them, what guarantee do they have against someone whose business it is to attempt to enslave theirs and everyone else mind (if they can?) If they will not insist on honesty and reason, and as well be valorous and firm in this, then by our definition they are not in true reality, and therefore run all the greater risk of going the way of Hell's unreality. True, they might conceivably get by being ignored by Hell, but how undisturbed and for how long can their well-being confidentially rely on such a state of things?
Note the heavenly day-glow -- but is it of heaven or is it of hell?
Look at it this way, if they are right then why do they need to censor, lie, dissemble, hide and cheat so much? (I rest my case.)
The above pie chart comes from a very sobering and eye opening web page at: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.htm (Allow extra time for the page to load as it is very graphics heavy.)
Who on earth could have wanted and sought such a result as these figures and charts show? Why did some nations in the various wars listed suffer so much more than others? These are the kind of questions that need to be asked if one is ever going to begin to make sense of such incomprehensible numbers.
Admittedly the following is very sketchy, yet let's give it an analytical go and see how it flies.
Let X be an honest, decent person
Y a person who listens to spirit people
and
A = Honest, rational truth, i.e. reality (as best we know it)
B = Worldly love, honors, and luxuries
C = Basic material goods
X wants A, B, C.
Y wants B and C does not care about real A, and prompted and directed by spirit people to do so takes in its place spurious A; so that on throwing away real A he is assisted in getting B and C.
X who has been robbed by Y (and the spirit people who assist Y) of B and most of C, has real A -- or at least the potential to realize A as long and as soon as he can get rid of or get away from X. But from where does X expect to obtain B or a proper equivalent of B? From cooperating with spirit people? No, rather he expects to obtain B as a result of faith in God and honest truth; for without A there is no real B. Y, in the final analysis, loses out on not only real A but finally B, and is left only the basics of C. Will then no one have real A and real B in this life? As long as spirit people are allowed to participate and interfere in human affairs it is not or else only hardly possible. The conclusion? Hunt down (or up) and get rid of these meddling, in some instances overlording, spirit people.
