Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.
Maybe it's me, but I can't seem to make the connection between these three items. Perhaps you can do better. Warning -- The YouTube video is very explicit and is not recommended for the easily upset. Ordinarily I wouldn't even post such a thing here. Yet upon reflection, I think people have a right to know about the kind of individuals who really run Time Warner, Microsoft, Dreamworks, Bank of America, etc.
1.
2. "Mondo Lizzie Borden" for Jan. 15, 2009 (i.e. "Support Our Troops")
3.
[Interview with Maggie Sue.]
Note regarding #2. If the above link doesn’t go directly to the Jan. 15 ’09 article you may have to search for it from the page you're directed to.
Here's a tip -- one way to distinguish bad coffee from good coffee is if it tastes like fish.
And why does he and did he do all these evil things down through the ages? Because he was jealous. (Poor baby.)
The way I see it if you are born others have a responsibility to take care of you; with the strongest having the greater obligation to take care of the weakest; furthermore, it is more important to see that everyone has the basics before permitting special individuals extravagant material luxuries (e.g. such as multi-million dollar fortunes.)
Their way, on the other hand, is that the one who most fools, frightens and kills should have the best of everything, or if they can't have it themselves should be in a position to prevent anyone else from doing so.
Now most, you would think, would prefer the first philosophy over the second. And yet if a person thinks little of lying, taking bribes, or keeping secrets with respect to a legal case involving torture and violence then they indubitably are of the second, and not the first, party -- the reason for this being that clearly they are of far more service and advantage to the second rather than the first group.
How then does the second philosophy get around this objection? What they do is bring in heavenly angels and spirit people who say -- don't listen to Sherman! (or such like him who so object.)
"Mystery" Cuts
There are still a number of "Soul, Rockin' & Obscure" tracks I have yet to post because the artists and titles have yet to be properly identified. At present I am working to get this fixed; however, here are three songs that are still worth the listen if you don't mind the (at the moment) "anonymous" attribution.
* "When the Sun Rose This Morning..."
Later Update: The actual artists and tracks, so far, are as follows:
"The Sun Rose this Morning…" is actually "Sun Risin’" by Baby Little
"So Long Johnny" by King George
"Baby Please" is "Days Got Brighter" by McKinley Mitchell
Just as it's impossible to be in all rooms in a house at the same time, it is impossible to know as much as you do or might know, or enjoy all that you do or might enjoy, or suffer all you might suffer all at the same time. Only God could do all such things at once, and is one reason why, at least arguably, God is necessary as a heuristic principle.
In an interview with Leonard Nimoy on William Shatner's "Raw Nerve" program, Mr. Nimoy relates how as a young man growing up he desired to become an actor, and on expressing to his family this desire, one of his family members recommended that he ought to take up the accordion on the side as something to fall back on if acting didn't work out.
This anecdote I found is a wonderful example of something I want to bring attention to in my discussions about "evil;" namely that the vast majority of people are usually and mostly as naive and simple minded as Mr. Nimoy's well meaning relative. The question then is -- if this is so, why then is the world so governed by and possessed with evil as much as it is? And why is it insisted by some that life is dog eat dog, and that the only way to really succeed in this world is by compromising with evil?
The notion of real evil is to most any given individual actually something entirely unnatural, incomprehensible and alien to them. It's just that being irrational as many or most people typically are (or at least not deeply rational), they can sometimes be easily tripped up by con-artist spirit people who have made it a religious calling to corrupt us. Nor is this helped by the phenomena that if a spirit person happens to be proficient as magic and is able to fool someone for extended times in their life, odds are that someone will come to see the spirit person (and or their voice) as divine or higher authority. So that this point of view we see so frequently expressed condoning or reflecting an indifference to evil is in origin nothing more than propaganda put out by these same spirit people; and those who show themselves susceptible to it, in essence, have no more intelligence than a brainwashed child or an animal who doesn't know what he or she is doing; with the greater preponderance of humanity having nothing like this inherently evil disposition as such propaganda claims or implies.
The question raised then further is if most people are, at heart, really so naive and simple minded from whence did this evil as a religion thing come from? Why and how, if life and creation are good, was it possible to not only make its way into our midst, but indeed engulf and take hold of people's thinking and behavior like wildfire? This is a profound and important question for which there is as yet to my knowledge no simple or easy answer. However, one factor that does stand out is that people will often assume higher knowledge without feeling it necessary to be very thoroughly or properly rational -- and inasmuch as humanity is to blame it lies in this weakness. Yet more importantly, and as practical matter, there is and has been this person (or persons) who is responsible for influencing and manipulating people's thinking, and this person is a spirit person. What is necessary as a practical matter then to address and resolve this most serious of problems is to get at and destroy this spirit person; and until humanity can collectively and rationally get together to accomplish this we have no real and effective hope in this life of solving our dilemma.
Oh goodbye! Good-bye!
Note. This is one way of saying that even though he can cause you grief and beat you up forever and ever, it is and always will be a dead end and he won't and cannot possibly ever find the solution to his problems in or through using you.
War is a state of the world where man is at the center of life's activities. But this state is possible only out of his own choice, and naturally he might just as well instead (also of his own choice) complement and highlight, rather than dominate, the proceedings (of creation.)
I've never been to (such and such country) and, moreover, don't know all that much about it. But I'm sure its inhabitants would agree with me in saying it is one of the best and most delightful places in the world to live (at least insofar as there is no tyranny, injustice and pollution in it.)
Though the image remained, the memory died because the enemy attached himself to it (the image.) Therefore, if the memory is to survive it lives not by the image, but by the spirit (or process) of love and (honest) truth.
If you aren't fundamentally honest and rational, don't speak to me about religion; otherwise I will take it for granted you are either a craven ignoramus and or else demonically possessed.
How bad is it these days? It's so bad that in order to do good or be involved in charity of some kind one needs must pay a tax to or purchase a license from the devil.
Leaving aside the question in the present instance of his alleged guilt, at least the governor of Illinois can be impeached -- that's more than could ever be said for Steven Spielberg, the Masked Marvel, the ghoul of evil or whoever the richest, most financially powerful man in America currently is.
My sense has in large part become one of inasmuch, and as some do themselves and would have us believe, the world revolves around the ghoul and doing the wrong thing a certain way, with the rest of us evidently just along for the ride, why should I care or especially concern myself (beyond basic duties and obligations the average person has?) Should I care so that I could receive honor or heavenly compensation for the extreme and unjust woes and troubles suffered at the ghoul's hands? The fact is I beat the ghoul, single-handedly and against all and overwhelming odds, better than fair and square -- and yet he still gets to cheat, still gets to get away with murder (like crazy.) No, no special award, honor, or compensation for me, thank you. For one thing, who could worthily confer such on me? Who and where is he? Is he my friend and the ghoul's friend? Then he's no friend of mine. No, what I have decided is that I will forgo any glorious prize or compensation, and choose instead to bow out and not care or permit myself to be disturbed unnecessarily. Not because there are not things or matters worth caring or bothering about, but under this umpire-ship (if I may all it that) the game is skewed and not worth playing, and I will find my solace instead lost among the crowd (as the animals, for example, must), or else seek such rest so that I will no longer have to trouble myself with a game that is rigged so much that it isn't worth playing. I do not mean to imply by this that life isn't worth living; only if the ghoul and his cronies get to cheat so much, I'd just as soon not having to be living my life to make possible his being babied and being able to get away with murder so much as he does. Let those who can live in peace and be happy do so, and may they be able to do so. But if the only way I can do so is by having to accommodate the ghoul, et al. I just as soon not bother, and say it isn't worth it (while, in the meantime, praying and wishing justice for the very poor, innocent, and helpless, etc.)
There is no moral, mental health, cultural, literacy, family, criminal justice, censorship, scientific research, human rights, or environmental crisis -- but there is an economic crisis! Thank goodness we at least got that HDTV/Blue Ray thing nipped in the bud.
You'll have to excuse me, they pulled something on me today and to help get it out of my system I had to hear "Defying Gravity" (from the original soundtrack) again. In the spirit then of what one of the little folk once said to me, namely "If one is good, two is better," here once more is that song. (As with the Monty Pythons and "Branded," now this by comparison would go good with Andrea Martin and Catherine O'Hara, imho.)
For those who might be interested, the following is a (mostly) new excerpt from the in-progress Fifth edition of my Calendar & Record of the Revolutionary War in the South: 1780-1781. The finished product I anticipate being done in about a month or two.
1 May [1781]. [raid] Douglass’ Raid (Wilkes County?, GA.) Lieut. Col. Thomas Brown, at Augusta reported to Lieut. Col. Friedrich von Porbeck, commanding in Savannah, that Maj. James Jackson was hovering about nearby with 80 mounted militia on the Carolina side of the Savannah River, while 400 to 500 "cavalry" besieged Augusta from the Georgia side.
Edward Cashin: “He [Brown] sent John Douglass on a daring raid with a detachment of royal militia. Brown later testified that Douglass surprised a group of rebels guarding horses. The guards were bayoneted, and Douglass captured four hundred horses. What Brown did with four hundred horses is not clear. Ranger officers were sent out to seek help from the Indians. Captain Alexander Wylly went among the Cherokees with instructions to bring that nation into action, but the Cherokees were discouraged by the incursions of the mountain militia of Virginia and North Carolina. Brown hoped to receive assistance from the Creeks also, but most of them were away on the Pensacola campaign.”
With Von Porbeck having at his disposal 500 troops in Savannah and about 350 militia in the neighboring countryside, Royal Gov. James Wright, Sr. and his council entreated him to reinforce Augusta with 100 regulars, but he refused. In retrospect this refusal may have proved decisive, for two likely things might have occurred had the 100 regulars been sent, either a) they would have been lost at Augusta, or else b) the Rebels would have been repulsed. Porbeck’s choice would seem to reflect a greater fear of the former than hope for the latter, and shows again the tendency, whether forced or chosen, by British commanders in late Spring of 1781 to relinquish any idea of going on the offensive; and this perhaps due in no small part due to the split, and therefore indecisive, nature of the command structure with Cornwallis away in Virginia -– Clinton in New York -– Rawdon in South Carolina -– and Balfour in Charlestown.
Cornwallis left the state of the defenses in S.C. and GA. confused and in abeyance. Indeed, there was little or no planning in the Deep South at this time, and the British essentially found themselves reacting to the Americans, while not having enough of a punch left of their own (due to divided leadership and lack of numbers) to cause the Americans to have to react much. It is interesting that, aside from some in N.C., Greene received the regular cooperation of the militia leadership, and his taking exception, for example to Sumter’s failing to assist him at Hobkirk, shows an assumption of Greene’s authority that left little or no room to question who was actually in charge. At the same time, and in fairness to Sumter, and despite Greene’s just or unjust blame of him, he never for once attempted to assert either equality or superiority to Greene as commander. Rawdon, on the other hand and when all was said and done, found himself having to waiting on Clinton or Cornwallis since they alone had the men and material to make a counter offensive in S.C. possible. Greene with help of the locals and partisans, by contrast, had the advantage -- along with the disadvantage -- of having to rely on his own powers and resources, and if they failed there was no one really to fall back on to shore up or make up for any serious loss he might incur (hence the pronounced caution he displayed in almost all his engagements.) Although there were still many loyalists in S.C. at the time, the whigs were by and large far more aggressive and enterprising, and it was this finally which gave the Greene the momentum to continue on the attack (such as Rawdon could not do.) And as undisputed southern chief he could coordinate an offensive with much greater freedom and flexibility than had it been necessary for him, as it was for Rawdon, to answer to and rely on a superior far away for greater strength than he himself had.
Once again and for the record, yes (as well and aside from "demonistic" telepathy, if I may call it that) I am and do have brain torture radios being run on me around the clock -- for what has now been something like 15 years straight non-stop now, and about the only respite I get is (though not always) when I sleep or am asleep.
"Brain torture radios!" You might say. "What a crazy thing to do to someone? And who would have the wherewithal and persistence to do such a thing?"
Ah, but you see such as brain torture radios is just one example of why these people are so powerful. Even so, after waking up early this morning and when I saw my cat, I said, "look how good the poor little animals have been" or (as on another occasion) "how come the poor little animals have been so good?" -- thinking what a joyous and wonderful feeling it was to have rejected and stood up to these people all this while, and not sold out or caved in like so many others, and instead aligned myself with the animals (who are as much, when not more so, victims of Hell in this world as anyone, of course.) What some thought was impossible, I have proved (with God's grace, a rational outlook, and despite my many shortcomings) is possible. And though for many years I've been through Hells and torments like many of you (who read this) could never even have dreamed or imagined were possible, I never for a moment (or at most for a moment) questioned the wisdom of my defiance and contempt of these spirit people (and despite their many efforts to make it seem like they were God from heaven.) True, it is often still an agony for me that I desperately wish would all end. But give in and go along with these people in order to have it be so? Not for all the riches, honors, halos or what have you in the world.
As Jesus as much as said, "Peace unto you if you said no demonism by me."
Since pretty much the beginning, mankind has been led to think the world revolves around devilment and demonism. But if our lives our seen as always having to answer to devilment and demonism this is only so because people let it be so, and demonism, etc. is just a doctrine and teaching like any other system of belief. In its own special way it has proven very successful and materially profitable for its proponents. But, of course, it is also fatally flawed and self-defeating (and for reasons we've spoken of and brought up here time and again.)
One thing I for my part especially hate about these rotten spirit people who are behind all this is that life, whether rich or poor or in between, or whether people or animals is inevitably, if not always, challenging and hard for anyone. Where then do these criminals get off violently abusing others and being such vicious parasites as they are? I fail to see the justification for it. Yes, we all must die, but with these their aim is not merely murder, but as much or more so to cause and inflict acute and gratuitous suffering, and this, again I find, is simply and entirely inexcusable.
And another point worth mentioning...In addressing the topic of spirit people, it is not strictly necessary to come to absolute conclusions about the essential nature of souls and or of life itself. Much, obviously, can and has been said on these profound and momentous subjects, and no doubt more will be said in times to come. All we are suggesting, in the meantime, is that if there are spirit people, they have an obligation if they occupy our country to adhere to certain norms of behavior -- such as no murder, no torture, no rape, etc. -- and this, assuming they have any right to be here in the first place; and which latter question the citizens of a given nation can (in some measure) ultimately vote on and decide for themselves.
Now do you see what kind of curves a person is thrown? Namely, is the above to be pitied or ridiculed?
The Department of Defense
Who that will not listen
Ever learned the lesson
Of Troy's fall?
For years he fought
And kept the wall.
Yet one day's sleight of hand
And look he lost it all.
Whoever is most fair and just
He said should rule.
But now say his captors
"No, it is he who best fools.
"And if good you must be
Then die you certainly will.
Oh, you won’t be good and die, eh?
Then like us you must kill."
What has hitherto been the fundamental problem with governments is that they do not really acknowledge or are capable of contending with real evil on a long term basis. This is largely due to the vast majority of people being this way generally. Types they can caricature, and or they can demonize and vilify a certain person or party as evil. Yet beyond this sort of superficial name calling they do not go and this because they will or cannot admit to or deal scientifically with spirit people and who are the true source of (serious) evil.
To help some along away in this signal weakness and incapacity to confront evil, it is worth mentioning that the trick or art of dealing with witchcraft and deluded religious people and criminal spirit persons consists in striking a balance between sympathetically understanding them (while making allowance for their perhaps involuntary puerility and ignorance) versus being firm and adamantly condemning the otherwise inexcusable trouble they are causing. Yet while it is well to be one way more than the other with these people one naturally cannot always, if ever, do or be both equally.
[start 2009]
For your New Year's twilight pleasure -- (from Basel, Switzerland 1992.)
Some of you need not have explained to you how it is part of more involved demonistic teaching to get their follower to believe that those notables who everyone assumed were do-gooder people were all along and in reality up to something, their sly sophistication being lost on the less observant and less informed. You who know better will of course know that in most instances this is merely a lot of self-serving nonsense and propaganda designed to sway and indoctrinate the credulous into thinking serious wrong doing is more common, especially among the historically famous, than it actually is. Even so, many will be inclined to believe such and similar things if told to them by a spirit person of seeming unimpeachable authority (but who also just happens to do the wrong thing "a certain way.")
Those girls remind me of some cute little cat that is beguiled and lured into a cage in order to get a nice bite to eat, having no reason, as far as they can see, to be suspicious. And though when captured their abductors tell themselves they mean well -- well, I myself don't think so, and feel sorry for the cat.
Fear usually arises from feeling weak or believing yourself to be weak. But observe, if you are strong or at least believe you are strong you will not fear.
Words increase the amount and can enrich the quality of your concepts, and the more concepts of which you are capable the greater your capacity for thought, expanded choice, and new opportunities -- at least if your heart is in the right and makes essentially the right choices at the outset. This latter is why serious discussion and analysis are considered useless to people who have no heart to begin with; for, yes, without heart expounded thought, poetry, or rational disquisition are indeed mere blogging.
Random Oracles continued
Now demonism, devilment, sorcery... there's a bum.And who was it that came up with it all in the first place? Satan? The evil one? Ah, now there's a villain and a scoundrel if ever there was. Look at all the problems he ended up causing! Even so, even so, you are as much to blame as he is for believing him when he told you he was God.
They, or at least their benefactors, actually killed her father so why would they be above abusing her?
Maybe I do deserve it. But even if I did, they should get someone else to do it. He should not be still so privileged.
Is it possible that a being who (at least relative to everyone else) was impervious to all pain and suffering, and who always did himself or promoted evil doing in others could exist? And yet if we assumed he was as powerful as that it would be granting him quite a lot now wouldn't it?
