Past Postings

Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.

**************************************************************************************** *******************

Good For

Good for some things,
Yet not for others.
And when not good
For everything,
You sometimes
Feel good
For nothing.

But worse
Is not being able
To see whom you would,
But instead some other
Whom they
Say you should.

So why this charge?
What was my offense?
When all I sought
Was to live those dreams
That make one's life make sense.

Life as we wished it;
Life as it is.
Yet go on we must
That the good in us
Might live.

For if we stop
And say "no more,"
Then what on earth
Were we ever good for?

(I joke it's true,
But you know the pain.
Better to laugh it off
Then go through this again.)


There is, as you know, this philosophy of life being a war without rules, of each for himself, and that whatever merit there is in honesty and virtue is essentially or mostly at the behest or indulgence of tyrants and masters who utilize evil in order to dominate and control the slaves and subjects (i.e. society at large.) This view predominates and is successful as it is both in the present and historically because there are spirit people who share and actively promote and encourage it. Yet unlike regular people who (to greater or lesser degrees) adopt and maintain this amoral stance, they don't desire mere material profit and security (in the face of such strife and competition this outlook assumes) -- they, rather, seek purposeful degradation and suffering of others. To most people, such willful cruelty is or would seem sick, depraved, and not make a whole lot of sense. And yet between the more humane and (as they see themselves) practical wing of this philosophy versus the sadists, who do you think holds the higher and more important positions of ultimate power and influence? Not very surprisingly, if you think about it, the latter. For who can and will contend against them, especially if they are spirit people? So that for those who accept such a philosophy greater power goes to the more vicious and cunning -- not the more decent and right minded -- as can be expected if one accepts such a teaching in the first place. Likewise, no one enslaves someone because they love or want to better them. And why is this important? Because if you believe might or brute force makes right then you must believe in slavery; since those most powerful in the use of brute force are people who do and must enslave others -- and slavery is then an inevitable part of what doing the wrong thing in order to stay ahead entails.

But aren't their angels to police such criminal spirit people? To which can be answered -- aren't their police in our own society to combat organized crime? Yes and no. It all depends, of course, on how society (whether of regular or spirit people) at large thinks and acts, and no police, no matter how well meaning, can do their job properly if "society" is fundamentally corrupt and untruthful.


If all human (and animal) minds perished, would there be any mind left? Of course and for one thing, it doesn't seem possible that all human minds could perish without a mind seeking that as an end (or, say, as part of some "greater" end.) But even if "random events" somehow brought about the annihilation of all human minds then what it seems one would conclude is that behind or underlying the "random events" is a mind greater and more powerful than the human mind -- or else a force more powerful than mind but which is not mind. And yet were there such a force (as per the latter alternative), it would, nonetheless, only make sense to call it a mind of some kind, now wouldn't it? I cannot, in other words, imagine all human minds being destroyed without another mind causing that event; and were that mind itself to be destroyed it must be by a mind greater than it, ad infinitum. Q.E.D., or at least so it seem to me, mind is or must be eternal.


Verbs it can be said are perhaps the very soul of writing and speech because they keep the world of thought (via speech, the printed page, and certain kinds of thoughts) in motion while serving to join, separate, or maintain equilibrium between persons, subjects and or objects through action. The very power of motion then is in any circumstance a great power indeed considering. But all the more in the case of thought and understanding; for without the flow of action, process (in its infinite forms) so necessary to continued and harmonious thought and understanding would simply dry up and the infinite cease. So that when it comes to the using conventional verbal or written language, verbs are instrumental in keeping the process of thought alive, flowing, and in motion.

In studying verbs more closely then of late, I was struck by the (to me) baffling nature of standard conjugations and the terms used to described them. For example, a "Passive Verb" refers not to an action in the past (as to some it might sound) but to the fact that the subject of the sentence is being acted upon -- rather than doing the action. At the same time, "Perfect," an odd term of reference, is used to mean a past action. In the interest then of clearing some of the confusion that I initially encountered trying to memorize and properly comprehend the various verb cases (in English), I came up with a general outline and which to me makes more sense than any other of its kind I have yet seen. For the possible benefit then of others who might be put off from trying to grasp the different kind of verb cases there are, here is that same outline respecting standard verb conjugation.

In addition, we might note that given the importance of verbs to conventional language, and language to thought, various and certain philosophical questions are or might be raised, such as the relationship between motion and thought, or between action and being, by examining and comparing such cases. Western grammar, of course, originated in large part with Protagoras; who, as some of you may recollect, was one of the philosophers that greatly influenced Socrates and, moreover, is credited by some with being the actual inventor of the Socratic method.

brief list of terms and their general explanation
IMPERFECT refers to a past action; typically includes the word "was" (or "did," or "used to.")
PERFECT, except in the case of "FUTURE PERFECT," refers to a past action; includes the word "have" or else "has."
PLUPERFECT refers to a past action; includes the word "had."
"FUTURE PERFECT" refers to an action which will be or have been accomplished in the future. I put it in quotation marks to draw attention to its being a kind of oxymoron that, at least superficially, sounds like a contradiction, i.e. "Future Past" (and may help you to remember that perfect refers to the past.)

Using as example the verb "carry" or "to carry" in first person (i.e. "I".)



Imperfect Active: I was carrying.
Perfect Active: I have carried.
Pluperfect Active: I had carried; I had been carrying.

Present Active: I carry; I am carrying.

Future Active: I shall carry.
"Future Perfect" Active: I shall have carried.



Imperfect Passive: I was being carried.
Perfect Passive: I have been carried.
Pluperfect Passive: I had been carried.

Present Passive: I am being carried.

Future Passive: I shall be carried.
"Future Perfect" Passive: I shall have been carried.

~~~~~~*~~~~~~ --a name you can trust

What, am I the fatted calf to feed this vampire friend of yours? If so, I have to say I'm against it.


"If Achilles does not receive Briseis, why that's just like me not receiving (what I want.) So, now, by depriving Achilles (and using Agamemnon for that purpose), everyone will see (at least indirectly) what it's like being me when I am not properly appreciated."

If this is what actually happened then you can see it was not really Achilles, Briseis, or Agamemnon who brought about Achilles self-imposed seclusion, but rather someone or something else playing upon their otherwise and of themselves slight weaknesses. And if this is the case, we can then ask -- are we better off by having this someone or something else around and who wants others to mirror or imitate him? You be the judge.


Later Note. Just in passing, I met Stanley Kramer once by accident when he was taking a stroll through Medina (part of Bellevue, WA.) where both he and I at that time lived, and walked a few blocks and chatted with him. I remember asking him about what was involved in getting a job as a screen writer; though in retrospect I wish I had been less opportunistic and more deferential and respectful of himself as someone important. He had about that time acquired a Lake Washington shore front house which used to belong to the family of a friend of mine (and which house I had visited and stayed over at many times), and which now I understand is part of the properties in that area subsequently bought up by Bill Gates.


In the realm or on the scale of what is infinite or eternal, the only great spirit is a true spirit. Any other spirit (i.e. that is less than completely true) is false. And while any one of us is far from being utterly honest and truthful, it is, nonetheless, necessary to reconcile and conform ourselves to what is true; otherwise we will find ourselves abandoned to a false spirit.

The world of spirit people as it intervenes and interferes in this world is by its secretiveness a false spirit; yet a false spirit that many people look to as the true spirit; and it for this reason as much as any other there is evil in this life as bad as anyone knows it to be.


Though I had seen the movie, the music at the time and for some reason escaped me. In case the same is possibly true of you, here by way of mp3 downloads is Andre Rieu's instrumental version (I liked it of those I checked out) of "My Heart Will Go On" from "Titantic" -- a film which seems like a world away even now, doesn't it? (Though, of course, they would never have released that movie originally unless it had contained a heaping helping of gratuitous cussing and profanity.)


It must be emphasized that they make other spirit people (or spirit people generally) look bad just as they make movies, religion, government, patriotism, innocence, romance, sex, etc. -- i.e. just about everyone and everything else -- look bad. That's what they are and that's what they do. But then what do you expect from a group or class of people with the likes of Stinky Boika or the ghoulish magician working for them?


Though Shakespeare, among his many clevernesses and high attainments, synthesized and extracted the good from the bad; I am sure he would agree that his doing so, no matter how artful or masterly, did not, even so, ever justify or legitimize the bad; and that the bad was something merely used, say, like dish rag is used to help prepare the adorning of an event.

In "The Tempest," for instance, you have this most unusual scenario where the exiled saint, a pillar of beneficence, is actually a sorcerer; and which I think was actually his way of ridiculing the devil.


He has all this money and orders everyone around, even including the government, and yet have you ever seen or heard of a bigger loser in all your life? (I rest my case, he's a space case.)


We had spoken of "London After Midnight" here just a few months back, but it was only the other day that I finally got around to seeing two of Tod Browning's other well known films "Freaks" and "Mark of the Vampire."

"Freaks" I had long avoided seeing out of choice, for I could not see what was to gained either as message or entertainment out of a horror film which revolved around and played up the theme of real life physical deformity.* And after now seeing it, my former reservations, it seems, turned out to be in large measure correct. Historians have marveled that "Freaks" was permitted to be made in the first place; nor does it come as a great surprise to hear that one of the movie's players, the bearded lady, later felt the film, despite the overt sympathy expressed in it for the "freaks," to be exploitative. The motive behind both the story it tells and the reason for making the film leave one quite puzzled. As a true life drama, the film is too preposterous to believe. Why after all would Cleopatra, the trapeze artist, and the strong man, themselves both lowly circus performers and who worked with "freaks," have so viewed and treated them with such virulent and shameless hostility? Their characters in this wise simply don't make any sense. If, on the other hand, "Freaks" is viewed as an allegorical tale, what is it an allegorical tale of? There may be a wise and intelligent claim for an allegorical interpretation, but if there is it is as yet mostly lost on me. The plot bears some resemblance to Poe's "Hop Frog;" only the villainy of Cleopatra and the strong man is a good deal more baffling and inexplicable than that of the arrogant courtiers in Poe's tale.

The wherefore of the confusing purpose of "Freaks" may it appears be found in the other, "Mark of the Vampire;" which is a remake of "London After Midnight." Here once again, the logic of the story and action is just too crazy to make any sense. An elaborate charade is set up to trap the killer, and yet if any of the characters was not going to be fooled by the scheme the very person to have seen through it would have been the killer himself (since he, of course, actually knew who had done the deed.) What then was the purpose of the charade? Nor are matters helped, when we have bats, spiders, and bizarre magic being made part of the deceptive show (at one point we see the bat girl change from a flying bat into herself.) Again, who is all this show for seeing as they can't possibly expect to fool the real killer? (The misty, gloomy vampire sequences, by the way, are much like the the electrically charged atmosphere or aura such as the ghoulish magician can appear in when making themselves visible to the naked eye, and I'm inclined to take it for granted that Browning himself had seen such things.)

The answer to all this seems to me that Browning may have been trying to outdo real life ghosts and lurid criminals in shocking, perplexing, and surprising people -- and interestingly enough, he succeeded. So that by doing so, he shows himself as being proficient at their own game. In other words, he was doing in a movie what they did (and do) in real life. And if the given film doesn't make all that much sense, it is much like how the criminal shenanigans of conniving and malicious spirit people often don't make any obvious sense. A not unrelated implausibility of narrative is also to be found in a film like Carl Dreyer's "Vampyr" where, again, one strains to discern rational premises for the sometimes extraneous and haphazard action that transpires. Part then of what makes the occult so difficult to deal with is that sometimes things are done to simply disturb and upset people -- only what takes place is done in a carefully thought out and contrived manner. This, I think, is in part a result of the idleness of such spirit people and that only if they do the wrong thing can they spend much time doing anything; in consequence, in such idleness they come up with some very strange and bizarre ideas of how to torment people in a long, drawn out way by means, including humor, of bringing about the unexpected.

On a lighter note, I was otherwise glad to see "Freaks" to discover Leila Hyams; whom, not surprisingly given the relatively few number of films she was in, I did not know of previously. One would have thought that someone so charming and beautiful would have been starred in more movies than she ended up doing. On the other hand, it may be exactly because she was so winsome and attractive that they didn't want the public to see so much of her (i.e. the public would be "having it to good.") Such, at least, seems not entirely implausible as an explanation.

* Browning/Chaney’s "West of Zanzibar" graphically focuses on a cripple and some of Chaney’s other films have similarly handicapped characters; so admittedly the notion was by no means entirely new; and Browning, in addition to his own circus background, may have in some ways been creatively prompted in this as much by Chaney as anyone else one might think of. Chaney, of course as is already well known to many, had parents who were deaf and so had grown up with and known physical disability first hand.


"For although we are in the flesh, we do not battle according to the flesh, for the weapons of our battle are not of the flesh but are enormously powerful, capable of destroying fortresses. We destroy arguments..."
~ 2nd Corinthians, 10:3-4


If, after all these many years no less, you can't take responsibility for what you are doing then perhaps you shouldn't be doing it? (Eh?)


Instead of resenting Adam and Eve's having it too good (and instigating the Fall), he ought to have killed himself. (Don't you think?)


Though what is rotten can be dressed up and made to seem sweet, you won't get what is sweet from what is fundamentally rotten, and you know what is disguised as sweet by knowing the truth and being honest -- not from lying and keeping secrets. And yet there are ose who go through life thinking and would have us believe that casual lying and or keeping secrets on a regular basis is necessary and essential to living.


Pass not through the Gates of Hercules. Why? Because I said so. (And don't ask any more questions.)


"Even in Hades he [Socrates] proposed to be a gadfly, and 'find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise and is not.'"
~ from The Life of Greece, XV, p. 367.

Observe how Chandu powers are applied by Socrates. He is not concerned with the circumstance itself of being in Hades; rather he focuses on who he will or might be dealing with there instead.


He subsidizes sorcery and serial killer culture in order to purchase peace from the devil; while in the meantime saving up money for a higher education for his kids.


"Wait a minute. How about instead of paying the devil tribute, blow him up instead with the military?"

No can do.


Because it isn't permitted to discuss spirit people scientifically, let alone make public policy concerning them.

"What then do you suggest?"

Mount a campaign against Ben Ladin, Gary Condit, Mexican drug lords, the NRA, the militia groups, or an unrepentant Martha Stewart -- take your pick.


Durant is worth quoting again, yet this time for purposes of illustrating to you how would-be empiricism, buttressed by unfounded and pre-conceived notions of its assuming, can easily slip away and succumb to irrational dogmas of its own.

"The historical role of Hippocrates and his successors was the liberation of medicine from both religion and philosophy. Occasionally, as in the treatise on 'Regimen,' prayer is advised as an aid; but the page-by-page tone of the Collection is a resolute reliance upon rational therapy. The essay on 'The Sacred Disease' directly attacks the theory that ailments are caused by the gods; all diseases, says the author, have natural causes. Epilepsy, which the people explained as possession by a demon, is not excepted: 'Men continue to believe in its divine origin because they are at a loss to understand it...Charlatans and quacks, having no treatment that would help, concealed and sheltered themselves behind superstition, and called this illness sacred in order that their complete ignorance might not be revealed.' The mind of Hippocrates was typical of the Periclean time spirit imaginative but realistic, averse to mystery and weary of myth, recognizing the value of religion, but struggling to understand the world in rational terms. The influence of the Sophists can be felt in this move for the emancipation of medicine; and indeed, philosophy so powerfully affected Greek therapy that the science had to fight against philosophical as well as theological impediments. Hippocrates insists that philosophical theories have no place in medicine, and that treatment must proceed by careful observation and accurate recording of specific cases and facts. He does not quite realize the value of experiment; but he is resolved to be guided by experience."
~ from The Life of Greece, XV, pp. 343-344.

First, that there are or would be potentially certain superstitious aspects to ascribing illness to spirit people (or demons or gods or call them what you like) no one will find very surprising. Yet to categorically assume such speculations had no inductively verifiable foundation whatsoever is itself a bit of over hasty presuming one would think. And why, for example, if certain spirit people can cause an illness does this also imply that they must be god-like or divine? Moreover, just because myth and story were the usual ground or medium where and with which to discuss spirit people, it doesn't necessarily follow that spirit people themselves are mythical and exist only in allegorical fiction.

Here's another example of Enlightenment sprung dogmatism also meriting comment.

"Anatomy and physiology made slow progress in Greece, and owed muck of this to the examination of animal entrails in the practice of augury. A little brochure 'On the Heart,' in the Hippocratic Collection, describes the ventricles, the great vessels, and their valves. Syennesis of Cyprus and Diogenes of Crete wrote descriptions of the vascular system, and Diogenes knew the significance of the pulse. Empedocles recognized that the heart is the center of the vascular system, and described it as the organs by which the pneuma, or vital breath (oxygen?), is carried through the blood vessels to every part of the body. The Corpus, following Alcmaeon, makes the brain the seat of consciousness and thought; 'Through it we think, see, hear, and distinguish the ugly from the beautiful, the bad from the good.'" p. 345.

Assuming, as I do, that Durant essentially agrees with Alcmaeon, cannot it be argued that the heart, or the seat of deepest value judgments and emotions, plays a part in the deciding of what is good or beautiful -- as in "we love this" and "we don't love that"? Such understanding was not lost on the ancient Egyptians, some Stoics, and others who saw the heart as the higher seat of intelligence -- a view, which if you will read my Peithology, has a very sound and cogent rational basis. And yet conventional advanced learning of the past century or so will have you think that the brain or cognitive mental thinking is the only (serious) kind of intelligence there really is. SO YOU SEE (in sum), it is not always the religionists who are the misguided, albeit well-meaning, purveyors of darkness and ignorance.


As I mentioned earlier here, I previously had one lawyer mock and ridicule me (when I asked for his assistance) because I could not explicitly and immediately identify who it was that was harassing me (though, rest assured, of leads there are numerous.) Well, in truth, I don't think any regular person, including so-called "Speelburg" (their name for the mysterious Oafmore figure, by the way, not mine), would have gone to such trouble and lengths to cause me such grief but that they were under orders from these spirit people. So that now I realize that if I am asked who it is that is really behind all this, I would say it was Filth, the vampire king, and his empire of slave spirit people (including angels) -- whom some, very tragically, attribute a divine status to.


And life, in a very important sense, really is not nearly so very difficult and complicated as it seems; for get rid of these criminal spirit people, and we will have solved 80 to 90% or more of our worst woes, travails, and difficulties. One of the obvious dilemmas we face, however, in accomplishing this is that there are those who listen to these same spirit people as if these spirit people were the experts and possessed greater and more knowing authority than anyone else. As a result, such "listeners" predictably are or become deaf to plain facts and just reason, and exchange the eternal verities for the word of some con-artist ghosts (which latter, in addition to being utterly unscrupulous, are typically adept at magic and behavioral mind control); believing that by doing so, they "know about these things a certain way."

"Mandrake, the Magician" (1939)

Later Note. While the ways and conjurations of Mandrake continue to impress and have much to recommend them; I personally advise, even so, sticking with the Chandu approach, which I believe the larger majority of people will generally find easier and more convenient to adapt to ordinary, day to day, life circumstances.


It bespeaks the demonistic.

When the people don't rule, someone else does.

He doesn't have a whole lot of credibility if (ruling in de facto anonymity) he doesn't really exist, now does he?

How would an iniquitous and purposely immoral person, and if he was allowed to do so, tailor, interpret and modify law, government, and religion to serve his own interests (and without it being known generally that this was what was going on?)

He's constructed of human body parts; so, sure, it doesn't matter to him.

For all his great genius and pretended greatness, he both works for these people and is being used by them for experimental purposes (only he doesn't know it.)


In years of being isolated, regularly tortured, systematically tormented, and constantly harassed by these spirit people (and their employees), one very valuable thing I have learned is that almost all suffering can, if you wish it, be converted to physical suffering -- somewhat like how one monetary currency can or might be traded and exchanged for another. So, for example, instead of suffering from severe or acute fear, depression, sadness, rejection, loneliness, boredom, etc., think of yourself as enduring a physical rather than an emotional or psychological pain. For a physical pain is usually much easier to comprehend, internally quantify and get a grip on than those of an emotional or psychological nature.

Further, bear in mind that the more punishment you can take, the harder and more expensive it is for them to keep up the pressure on you. This said and even if you adopt this suggested approach, they can or could still hit you for years and years. But at least, you don't have to make it any easier for them than need be. At the same time, remember also, as we've pointed out before, how for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; and the more abuse you can absorb and put up with, the more moral and legal ammunition you or someone else will have to use against them -- come the day. As much as we eagerly desire that these kinds of things would end sooner rather than later, one must be prepared, if need be, to stick out for as long as one possibly can; say, as a long distance runner or prize fighter would -- while ever consoling yourself with the thought that as imperfect and flawed as you yourself might be otherwise, at least you are not so stupid, spineless or slave-like as to cave in to, assist, or be like they who act so cruelly and are so rotten -- and whom we've never seen it working out for not once, not yet.

And yes, many did and would kill themselves rather than endure such things. Yet that's all the more reason (that is, if you are so hard pressed) not to; both in honor of the benefit you gained from their (in its way) soldierly sacrifice (i.e. for otherwise trying to maintain what was right) and to see what happens if you don't do what they did; for clearly there is and must be a potential and overwhelming power collecting and gathering itself to be kinetically unleashed -- that is, if waited on and cultivated with patience, faith, and self-discipline.


So let us then, once more, review.

What are some of the reasons why criminal spirit people pose the greatest threat to life, health, peace, progress and humanity?

* The vast majority, if not all, of the worst and most violent crimes originate with spirit people who plot, carry out, and or commission them to be done.
* They incite, empower, protect and permit criminals to get away with crimes.
* They set up an independent government in society's midst that is sometimes and in some ways more powerful than legitimate government itself.
* They corrupt and encourage people to take up and think lightly of dishonesty and treason to both their country and life generally.
* They offer and sell to people a false and spurious kind of higher intelligence than dispenses with honesty, basic morals, and rationality and that leads people to believe that the knowledge and "wisdom" of spirit people is superior to honesty, basic morals and reason.*
* Although foreigners without any clear and legally established right to be present in this country, they nevertheless are treated and acquiesced to as if they were among our most honored and valued citizens.
* In addition to never having to pay taxes, even though they more than anyone else benefit quantitatively from an economy's proceeds (and more), they are not made answerable to human law; nor are liable to prosecution with respect to crimes in which they are involved -- indeed, it is not even allowed to openly discuss or identify them.
* They can and do masquerade as law, government, and religion, while, in the process, discrediting and undermining those most essential and necessary of institutions and endeavors.
* They scapegoat the innocent and not untypically victimize the most virtuous in society for purposes of a) getting people guilty, b) causing more suffering in the world, c) ousting the competition, and d) shielding themselves and or their accomplices from investigation and prosecution.
* Though spirit people themselves, they no more represent or serve the vaster number of spirit people generally any more than society's biggest gangsters represent or serve the better interest of the greater part of society. And yet like such gangsters, it is made to seem as if our better interests were contingent on their having their way (when, of course, the exact opposite is true.)

* Note. If they do possess superior intelligence it is largely as hunters, assassins, and murderers of unwary and defenseless people and animals; hence the touted popularity of truncated and hijacked Darwinism and the idea that life is a (violent) struggle of the "fittest" -- notions obviously at odds with and inimical to fundamental tenets of society and civil law and order.


Another one of those things I recalled I'd forgotten but was (just now) glad to remember.

[The original "Curly Shuffle" music video]