Religious Support for Human Rights:
When we reflect on the historical development of human rights, we see immediately that for most of human history {Not the history we present, but the 'His'-story they wish to foist on us. Remember the Protocols allow certain authority to go to those with demonstrated track records of needful and immoral acts against others.} religious leaders resisted what we today describe as human rights. Traditionally religious leaders have been primarily concerned with enforcing their authority and with the welfare of their community {The church}, rather than with the rights of its members, especially if recognizing these rights means permitting dissent. Thus, religious people who now support human rights should in good conscience confess that their traditions and teachings have generally been used to deny many of these rights. {Excellent call! Who is doing the using?}…


For example, many Muslims are loath to support the right of an individual to convert from Islam to another religion. They believe that God has constituted the Islamic community to rule in his stead. To convert from Islam is thus to reject God and those who are charged to rule for God… This position is not unique to Islam. Prior to the 18th century it was the view of most religious communities, at least among the theistic traditions. It was the position of the Roman Catholic Church until the latter part of this century, and it is affirmed in slightly different ways by many Christian groups today." (2)


So, the group enforcement of prejudice and fear has a great momentum and possibly a clearing house as well now. The demographic fight over denomination and domination of people while ensuring that churches maintain collective power while mouthing platitudes is NOT (!!) ecumenicism. Is this religion? From a sick sociological perspective and anthropological reality we agree this is the defining purpose of religion. Control! But what about real freedom? Freedom from... or freedom to... do what you want and not be concerned about others. What about ethics and the RIGHT thing? How can we teach or convey this when so much garbage exists in the minds of those inculcated with petty hatreds or worse? Would it be too far fetched or conspiratorial in nature to suggest that the elite or intellectual aspects of the community of man have built a dialectic different from openness and free encouragement of the Socratian sort? The relationship with God and death has played a major role in the usages and behaviors of the collective social management at the very least. Beliefs of a common sort that are shared did have a legalistic form of structuring proper behavior no doubt, but there is more than that simple reality to God. Personally I have a hard time believing anything because I know I'm not God and I'm pretty sure life goes on with death as part of the growth of the soul. But before I comprehended the Keltic Creed I had many philosophical lovers and mentors.


In the struggle to know the difference between a right (human or legal) and such things as talents or blessings might entail; I found Sartre became my bridge from Freud to Jung or Russell to Rampa, and beyond. My own education had been fostered by a father who knew the 'pixie mind' and had read his whole local library as a youth including the Britannica from A-Z. That was probably the edition that said torture was a thing of the past in Europe's advanced civilization. Still at the age of 19 I hadn't had a confirmed ESP experience that went beyond intuition or intellectual guesswork. Then I went to jail for some more of my parking tickets for the second time. That was when I saw the collected works of Existentialist thought on the floor next to the bunk beside me. The next couple of days was a whirlwind of ESP experience and when I left the jail I met my cat that gave me an enlightenment that I once thought was akin to the flash of illumination that Tesla had after his stay in hospital at the same stage of his life. Later I learned about the Enneagrams and I think that my 'cat' was just giving me a tap-in to one level or dimension of understanding.


Sartre was a solid philosopher despite the absurd nature of some in his school of thought or the critiques made of his supposed atheistic outlook. Are there any 'rights' or talents that are sublimated in the normative educational process. ESP and the soulful healing of the shamanic sources are certainly given more than the short shrift. Yoga and Silva Mind Control might accelerate rather than negate and atrophy these talents that I consider basic human potential and everyone's right to develop. His quantum world outlook went far beyond the Descartes roots and questions about the obvious existence of material things. I still enjoy the depth of his ruminations. But where do we integrate the Hegelian dialectic of the elite 'radical aristocrats' like Nietzsche and the actual events of history that include some nefarious conspirators or a network of similarly seduced materialistic capitalists? The French and American Revolutionary War period certainly is an excellent point of time to take stock of the matter but we have already noted the time of Moses and the founding of Rome and Britain as our most important inputs.


We have all seen how some historians would have us believe the aristocracy was the group that suffered most in the French Revolution and now we are able to pierce the veils and see a Merovingian aristocracy actually became ascendant. In Ētudes sur la Revolution française Georges Lefebvre goes beyond the single events and economic factors of 1789 and raised the question to which we might see the Prieuré de Sion and the Protocols provide the answer. He says this on page 247 from 1954's perspective on what really was going on:


"The rise of a revolutionary class is not necessarily the only cause of its victory; nor is its victory inevitable; nor need it lead to violence. In this instance, the Revolution was begun by those whom it was to annihilate rather than be those who profited from it, and... there is no reason to suppose that great kings could not have checked the progress of the aristocracy in the eighteenth century."


And in the mist of existence and debates of attribution that include 'Cogito ergo sum' my focus expanded beyond myself and into a brotherhood beyond the competitive urges I certainly was well ensconced in and driven towards. My favourite phrase of Sartre's that I think demonstrates his total integration of life is "Love is absent Space!" Now I will throw myself back into the philosophical headwaters of my life and try to encapsulate the words of Sartre as he sees the 'grayness' rather than the all-knowing materialistic 'Toilet Philosophy' of direct inference or inductive reasoning. Believe me, to select a few words from a book that has meaning on each of a book that has over 800 pages is hard enough; especially when you consider this is just dealing with the dialectical thoughts of the Machiavellian/Hegel crowd. Here is the start of what I have chosen - we must fully comprehend the philosophical gamesmanship and 'praxis' (Method cum behavior plus a dash of values) of the 'octopus' and their paladins like Marx and Weisthaupt.


"CLASS STRUGGLE AND DIALECTICAL REASON


1. Scarcity, Violence and Bourgeois Humanism
The 'discovery' we have made in the course of our dialectical investigation (but is it really even a discovery? is it not the immediate comprehension of every 'praxis', individual and common, by any agent whether internal to the 'praxis' or transcendent?) has revealed, at different levels, the double character of human relations: apart from the determination of sociality, as simple relations between real but abstract individuals, they are immediately 'reciprocal. And this reciprocity - mediated by the third party, and then by the group - must be the basic structure of the community. But, on the other hand, reciprocity is neither contemplative nor affective. Or rather, affectivity and contemplation are the practical characteristics of particular actions in particular circumstances. Reciprocity is a 'praxis' with a double (or multiple) epicentre. It can be either positive or negative. {Positivism has deterministic qualities and negativism is ever-present in the control exhibited through group behavior as organized in social versus individual 'praxis'.} It is clear that its algebraic sign is determined by previous circumstances and by the material conditions which determine the practical field. And it is clear that the conditionings of antagonistic reciprocity are, as a whole, and 'in the abstract', based on the relation of the multiplicity of men to the field of action, that is, on scarcity. We have also seen that scarcity, as a mortal danger, produces everyone in a multiplicity as a mortal danger for the Other. The contingency of scarcity (that is to say, the fact that relations of immediate abundance between other practical organisms and other milieu are not conceivable 'a priori') is re-interiorized in the contingency of human reality. A man is a practical organism living with a multiplicity of similar organisms in a field of scarcity. But this scarcity, as a negative force, defines, in community, every man and partial multiplicity as realities which are both human and inhuman: for instance, in so far as anyone may consume a product of primary necessity 'for me' (and for all the Others), he is dispensable: he threatens my life to precisely the extent that he is my own kind; he becomes inhuman, therefore, as human, and my species appears to me as an alien species.


{Alien to the individual but in 'oneness' or 'brotherhood' one extends horizons in creative and geometric potential.}


But, in reciprocity and commutativity, I discover the possibility, in the field of my own possibilities, of myself being objectively produced by the Others as a dispensable object {Cannon fodder or a Scarlet Woman.} or as the inhumanity of the human. We have already remarked that the primary determination of morality is Manicheanism: {Many regard Manicheanism as dualistic in the good/evil conundrum but I find an element of wholeness or Abraxas; where harmonic convergence allows purpose to create a good aspect triumphing over the bad as it refines in the way dross physical humanity becomes ascended to the dark matter or collective affinity in spirit pervading universe.} the intelligible and threatening 'praxis' of the Other is what must be destroyed in him. But this 'praxis', as a dialectical organisation of means with a view to satisfying need, manifests itself as the free development of action in the Other. And it is clear that it is this freedom, as my freedom in the Other, which has to be destroyed if we are to escape the 'danger of death', which is the original relation between men through the mediation of matter. In other words, the interiorisation of scarcity as a 'mortal' relation between men is itself performed by a free, dialectical transcendence of material conditions and, in this very transcendence, freedom manifests itself as a practical organisation of the field and as perceiving itself in the Other as other freedom, or as an anti-'praxis' and anti-value which has to be destroyed. At the most elementary level of the 'struggle for life', there is not blind instincts conflicting through men, but complex structures, transcendences of material conditions by a 'praxis' which founds a morality and which seeks the destruction of the Other not as a simple 'object' which is dangerous, but as a freedom which is recognised and condemned to its very root." (3)


What greater violence than determining the root of freedom as the necessary enemy? Is this in totality a destruction of the soul that has been striven for through human organizational structure? Make no mistake about it! This is the nature of the top-down dialectic. For example, when Socrates was kindly given guidance by his students Plato and Aristotle at the point when they were firmly co-opted by the hegemony of their day: He chose FREEDOM and killed himself by drinking hemlock. His effort to allow people to question authority and see the other side and OTHER in everything allowed real free thought and his influence still is felt among the souls of Philosophers who are striving to allow man to create and love rather than put a gradual reductivist end to our universe.


"It is precisely this that we have called 'violence', for the only conceivable violence is that of freedom against freedom through the mediation of inorganic matter. We have seen, in fact, that it can take on two aspects: free 'praxis' may directly destroy the freedom of the Other, or place it in parentheses (mystification, stratagem) through the material instrument, or else it may act against necessity (the necessity of alienation), that is to say against freedom as the possibility of becoming Other (of relapsing into seriality), and this is Fraternity-Terror. Thus 'violence is always' both a reciprocal recognition of freedom and a negation (either reciprocal or univocal) of this freedom through the intermediary of the inertia of exteriority. Man is violent - 'throughout' History right up to the present day (until the elimination of scarcity, should this ever occur, and occur 'in particular circumstances') - to the anti-human (that is to say, to any other man) and to 'his Brother' in so far as he has the permanent possibility of becoming anti-human himself…


{Thus the foundational mortar of society and the willingness to eat scraps from the washings of the table fed upon by the elite. Thus the 'one pie' theory retains the crutches upon which weak and insecure or fearful people cower and grovel for the most TOYS! I like the term 'anti-human' and it seems like the fictional 'Anti-Christ' that holds so much power over the minds and souls of people.}


… This violence, contrary to what is always claimed, envelops a practical self-knowledge because it is determined by its object, that is to say, as the freedom to annihilate freedom. It is called 'terror' when it defines the bond of fraternity itself; it bears the name of oppression when it is used against one or more individuals, imposing an untranscendable statute on them as a function of scarcity. This statute is always (Biblio: At least, as Engels would say, in historical societies, [Engel's note to the opening sentence of the Communist Manifesto. Editor's note]) abstractly constituted by the same practical determinations; given a scarcity of food and of labour certain groups will decide to constitute, with other individuals or groups, a community defined both by the obligation to do surplus labour and by the need to reduce themselves to controlled under-consumption. Now, this oppression constitutes itself as a 'praxis' which is conscious of itself and of its object: whether or not it passes over the fact in silence, it will define the multiplicity of dispensable workers not 'despite' their reality as free practical organisms, but 'because' of it. {FREE is used in legal and not in organizational or societally managed context here.} The slave, the craftsman, the skilled worker, and the specialised worker are of course produced by the mode of production. But they are produced precisely as that more or less considerable area of free control, {Skinnerian negative versus positive reinforcement leading to less freedom today than in feudal times.} free direction or free supervision which must fill the gap between instrumental-being and man. It is certainly possible for a man to replace an animal in work which an animal could do (the gold carriers in the sixteenth century on the routes which crossed the isthmus of Panama). But this new distribution of tasks is constrained, self-conscious, and a deliberate choice based on scarcity. It is decided by the organisers {N.B.} and by those in charge that he who used to work 'as a man' should freely make himself inferior to man. For constraint does not eliminate freedom (except by liquidating the oppressed); it makes freedom its accomplice while allowing it no option but obedience." (4)


Thus the appearance of freedom that everyone thinks they have is a well thought out design and not anything but more effective control, by egotists! Clearly such a broad generalization can be assailed with good intent or scholarship but in the final analysis if you read Fukayama and these esteemed or venerated scholars you will find there is an element of honesty in my characterization. Not to say I can identify the actual decision maker who is responsible for directing the Russian who ran the Allied war effort and the extent to which his boss reported to someone on both sides of the Hegelian dialectic during Korea.


It is slightly less obvious whether the Pope who didn't ex-communicate Hitler was actively doing more than helping Nazis escape. You can say nuclear armaments actually served the deterrent effect accredited to them. But you must look deeper. The issue of knowledge and the control of access to it has been raised to the level of making genuine common sense take a back seat to legal maneuvers. Those in authority can claim immunity by allowing their underlings to take the fall. The doctor who provides data to chemists in pharmacological enterprises may have little more knowledge about the chemical and metabolic impacts on the complex entity of a human being than the salesman giving him free all expense paid trips.


The apparent expertise is fraught with twists and turns that make every top criminal in corporate and supranational intrigue almost unassailable. It wasn't that way in the Keltic clandoms of pre-Roman times. The person in authority actually paid a higher penalty and was often unable to continue his high position or was ostracized. We are not as much at the mercy of these people if we would only start to think and question their authority and remove the protections and legal loop holes that lead to white collar criminals getting off Scot free while indigents are illegally and immorally abused by the system.


To incarcerate a woman who kills her abusive partner in order to protect her children is beyond immoral. The child gets thrown into a social environment of shame and further abuse in the hands of uncaring bureaucrats. This cycle of violence guarantees more criminals to scare the middle class into allowing more unregulated policing and secret agencies actually working against the growth of Brotherhood. The siege mentality pervading the social net is part of a plan. Yes you can say this is pure guesswork and unsubstantiated conspiracy talk. That is not the case. I have lots of proof and plenty of reasons to maintain we are part of a planned society. Things aren't out of control just because inept ego trippers who are put in positions of management say that is the case.


You would be quite correct to question my claim that there is a plan behind this on the basis of its apparent stupidity or mismanagement and fraudulent players. However, the Protocols allow for this trickle down element and actually need the confusion that results. For example before the war and for a period of nearly half a century until the early 70s the United States medical and political establishment was in league with a plot to destroy black America or diminish their status. At the very least it was prejudicial, but when one looks at the lead-based paint issue that created so many ghetto retarded children, one has to wonder. My father had told me about Tuskegee fairly early in life, and it seemed almost impossible for me to imagine Americans allowing this. When I heard the funding was stopped during Nixon's term, I didn't' think it was dear 'Dicky' who had a good conscience. When I saw the movie Mrs. Ellie's Boys in the last decade it all made my stomach turn. Yes, allover the world doctors were using humans as guinea pigs and drug companies still find ways to get their drugs tested on humans in places like Canada.


For those who don't know about Tuskegee and the Experiment that saw 500 Negro men 'volunteered' from prisons, with false promises of lifetime health maintenance and housing assistance, you should. For those who don't know how venereal diseases given these men, and left to fester and run its course, were clinically evaluating the increased rates of everything from dementia to heart disease. For those who don't know the facts that probably include these men spreading disease and becoming breeding grounds for new viruses and disease - might I suggest you don't deserve to eat your supper or have a beer until you do KNOW! There is no doubt that these 500 men infected a lot of people.


After learning about Tuskegee and Mt. Sinai or Saskatchewan you might wish to avail yourself of the current literature on mind-control equipment in order to determine if the beneficially paternalistic politicos are really working to help us. You might remember what Professor Graham Good said about Literary Theory and the search for 'sinister' thinking that doesn't dovetail with the prevailing paradigm.


How well can we impose our paradigm or hypotheses upon nature when we now know anti-gravity exists and Einstein's cosmological constant is just at the beginning of being integrated into a set of laws that cannot explain the fact of its existence? How can we continue to reject the reality of spirituality when all materiality and its laws are wrong and produce immoral constructs? Sartre addresses this long before the massive knowledge of quantum physics became instrumental to the computers and realities we now face.


"The source of this unfortunate approach is well known: as Whitehead said, a law begins by being a hypothesis and ends by becoming a 'fact'. When we say that the earth revolves, we do not feel as though we are stating a theory, or that we are relying on a system of knowledge; we feel that we are in the presence of the fact itself, which immediately eliminates us as knowing subjects in order to restore us to our 'nature' as objects of gravitation. For anyone with a realistic view of the world, knowledge therefore destroys itself in order to 'become the world', and this is true not only of philosophy but also of all scientific Knowledge. When dialectical materialism claims to establish a dialectic of Nature it does not present itself as an attempt at an extremely general synthesis of human knowledge, but rather as a mere ordering of the facts. And its claim to be concerned with the facts is not unjustified: when Engels speaks of the expansion of bodies or of electric current, he is indeed referring to the facts themselves - although these facts may undergo essential changes with the progress of science. This gigantic - and, as we shall see, abortive - attempt to allow the world to unfold itself by itself and to 'no one', we shall call 'external', or transcendental, dialectical materialism." (5)


Does Sartre actually think science and the hypotheses of the prevailing paradigm are an "abortion" of the potential of man and his creative soulful potential? We leave this thought in your mind. Be careful to allow knowledge not "to destroy itself" and you will admit that is one of many possibilities. In the process of evaluating the immanence of Divine spirit in all things and the multiplicity of the totalized universe you will alternately wax parallel and alternative until the absurdity of our KNOWing will seem elegantly if not eloquently amusing. But Harold Pinter will never reach my funny bone and Camus will still be left saying suicide is the only alternative to incorporation. But before total 'dis'-corporation into a void of pure rationality occurs let us revisit the absurdity of a unified transcendent field in the words of Sartre. Remember also, that truth is convergent, congruent (affinity applies) and growing, despite the Heisenbergian 'uncertainty' or 'observer' that Schrödinger’s 'cat' entails.


"Altogether, these observations enable us to attempt a critical assessment of rationality (as a rule of understanding) at the level of the group. Common 'praxis' is 'dialectical', from the most basic level on (that of the fused group): it totalises the object, pursues some total aim, unifies the practico-inert field and dissolves it in the synthesis of the' common practical field'. If common 'praxis' is to be a form of rationality, it must be dialectical rationality. And, since it is always intelligible, we are compelled to recognise the existence of this form of rationality…


{But must we surrender our soul in response to the Hobbesian/Hegelian rather than rise to the promise of the Socratian? Plato was a control or top down oriented person but he mourned the loss of Socrates with the best of them, 'they’ say.}


… Moreover, it should be noted that in itself it does not display the specific characteristics of the 'individual' dialectic as the free development of a practical organism. Although - as we have seen, and as will soon become clearer - a dialectical relation may insert itself between a common 'praxis' and an individual's 'praxis', a common 'praxis' is not in itself a mere amplification of the 'praxis of' an individual. As we have seen, the interiorisation of multiplicity is one of the essential characteristics. And the organism is undoubtedly comparable in some ways with interiorised inertia. But, when applied to the organic individual, these words have only a 'metaphysical' and uncertain meaning in relation to its biological being, in so far as it eludes apodictic, dialectical investigation and manifests itself, beyond reach, in the milieu of the transcendental dialectic. In fact, dialectical investigation shows us, the action of the individual as unifying itself in the unifying synthesis and in the transcendence of the practical field, but it 'never' reveals it to us as 'unified'. The practical organism is the unifying unity of unification; thus the investigation refers us (as if to its first, most abstract intuition, and as to its limit) to man as the 'biological unit' on which every 'praxis' is based (and which every immediate 'praxis' realises as a temporalisation towards an end). The interiorisation of multiplicity, however, is a moment of collective action and the group constitutes itself 'by it' (as by the other factors already mentioned) as the means of the common 'praxis'. {This is the kind of thing that allowed Ed Kyle who was in the bunk next to me and refreshing his existential knowledge, to open me or me to open him as our bond in Sartre extended our intuition into actual and certain ESP. I learned more that two days than in any year of school to that point in my life.}In this simple form (the fused group), we are in fact forced to admit that the group is initially a 'means', in which the organism is agent, end and means all at once.


{He goes on to express the necessary loss of fear ["means of defence"] and giving of oneself with reduced concern that rational or intellectual knowingness must achieve potency over the "free affirmation of freedom" yet he leaves room for more in the "hyper-dialectic" which might relate to Spirit and World Mind.}


In our example, the grouping, still in a primitive state, is the 'invention of everyone' in so far as everyone is personally threatened by a danger which presents itself as common. {Is this conflict in self and group part of a natural right of all humans to allow each other the access to go beyond?} And everyone can invent this new instrument 'in so far as' the practical organism can already totalise multiplicities in a practical field, recognize the 'praxis' of developing common totalisations and create a group as a reinteriorisation and practical inversion of a totalising signification of negation (the 'praxis' of total annihilation). {It goes beyond mere nihilism I know, now; but at the time Nietzsche seemed to me a lot like Sartre - I was wrong!} Thus the practical creation of 'means of defence' is a resumption in freedom, as a new relation with men, of an exterior unity, or a dissolution of the serial relation of impotence by the free affirmation (through circumstances) of freedom as a human relation in a new 'praxis' (which comes to the same thing). This does not mean, however, that 'either' the interiorisation of the multiplicity in me, 'or' the affirmation here of 'my' freedom as a recognition of all 'our' freedoms, 'or' totalisation as the constitution of a means for 'praxis', or the synthetic and common character of the original urgency and of 'our' objectification in the victory, are capable of constituting a new statute of hyper-organic existence, as 'being-in-the-group' - any more than the specific characteristics of common action (in particular, the utilisation of multiplicity and the differentiation of functions) succeed in making it a hyper-dialectic whose intelligibility lies in its synthetic transcendence of individual dialectics." (6)


Direct inference or the formulation of constructs and hypotheses are not true observation and therefore don't employ real science. Our right to be stupid and impose our values on nature is a reality but the reality has little congruence and creative potential. Without fear and in full acceptance that whatever actually is God or the spiritual and metaphysical intelligence that creates and allows chaos of gravity and anti-gravity to exist (along with all other apparent incongruities); we are able to find a commonality and enabling ability to accentuate the positive beyond mere authoritative deterministic and reductive models. Our soul does not use our retina as much as it uses our visceral and interiorized cosmic interfacing thalami. This is now being proven in research and we must prove it in our social exchanges and institutional environments such as school. We did not bargain to have new names for our maleficent overlords through ending the Dark Ages. We bargained for a new wisdom and brotherhood - we think! What do you think? Are you free to think such thoughts with certainty that no social repercussions will occur?

can you please post a concise summary?

I'll leave that to Dan who I have challenged to do that with this.

as if

Yep - as I thought.

Merely one who talks big - but cannot analyse or think.

ooh, ya got me