For there is no other way (without revelation), to know God but by the manifestations in nature.
(Christianson, 257)

He is the God of organization not of disarray.
(Ibid., 261)

For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those that govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Natures actions than in the sacred testaments of the Bible.
(Ibid., 252)

The supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity He exists always and everywhere. Whence also He is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can, therefore neither be seen or heard or touched; nor ought He to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of His attributes but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sound, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells and taste the savors, but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses or by any reflex act of our minds; much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know Him only by His most wise and excellent contrivances of things
and final causes; we admire Him for His perfections, but we reverence and adore Him on account of His dominion, for we adore Him as His servants.
(Thayer, 1953, 45

From His true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being; and from His other perfections, that He is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, His duration reaches from eternity to eternity; His presence from infinity to infinity; He governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; He is not duration or space, but He endureth and is present. He endureth forever, and is everywhere present; and by existing always and everywhere, He constitutes duration and space . . . In Him are all things contained and moved.
(Burtt, 1951, 257)

I must profess I know no sufficient natural cause of the earth diurnal motion. Where natural causes are at hand God uses them as instruments in His works, but I do not think them alone sufficient for His creation and therefore may be allowed to suppose that amongst other things God gave the earth its motion by such degrees and at such times as was most suitable to His creatures.
Turnbull, 1960, 334)

============================================================
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Christianson,G., In the Presence of the Creator- Newton and His Times. London: The Free Press, 1984.

Thayer, H. S. Newton's Philosophy of Nature. New York:
Hafner Publishing Company, 1953.

Burtt, E. A. The Methaphysical Foundations of Modern Science.New York: The Humanities Press Inc., 1951.

For your information, go to an interesting article in the Globe and Mail--Canada's national daily (August 7, 2004) for the latest information on the large role theology played in the life of Newton. He was a theological democrat and believed that the universe is God revealing what God is. In my humble opinion, he thought in panentheistic/unitheistic terms.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...+Falk+%2Bnewton

He was an alchemist. Like most Rosicrucian Dragons of the Stuart paladins or Royal Society he studied the code in the Bible and particularly the stuff of Daniel as I recall. Twenty-five years after his death they found his alchemical work - of course I doubt the Globe mentioned that FACT.

R the B, the article in the Globe was written by Dan Falk, a science writer living in Toronto. Two years ago I read his book, THE UNIVERSE ON A T-SHIRT, it is about the string theory. Talk about "magic" and "alchemy". It is about what is called "the new physics", and is aimed at the non-expert reader. Excellent.

Falk's article gives the following Webpages http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk This is an attempt to publish, eventually,all of the papers of Newton--about 20 millions words. Quite a project. The article, entitled The Unknown Newton, tells us that Newton probably wrote more about theology, the Bible and philosophy than he did about the natural sciences. BTW, he was a unitarian and anti the dogmatic churches at a time when unitarianism was considered blasphemy and a crime by those in control. One could get burned at the stake. I understand why he was a loner.

Over the years, I have also come also under severe attacks, including life-threatening communications, for some of my ideas regarding panentheistic unitheism as expressed in http://www.flfcanada.com/index_forum.html

I don't know, but I presume that Newton, as a unitarian, was an advocate of freedom of thought. Are you aware of what his attitude was?

I was not aware that Unitarianism even existed in the time of Newton. If you said Arianism or the original Christianity and such you would be right - he was an alchemist. The arch-tectons (Septuagint) of the family of Jesus have numerous alchemists in their past - from Melchizedek and Solomon and including many they married into within the Benjaminite or Priory circle. I have loads and loads on Newton and the varied members of the Rosicrucian Royal Society of his era in my many books. Falk is a revisionist and of the modern need to whitewash alchemy and make it palateable if you are right about what he is saying. The time for avaoiding talking about alchemy (humanists mostly) is over I suggest.

The Royal Society did many good things but there are many things of these Stuart endeavours that are still hidden even from people high in their organizations. BTW a group I have called Gods in Training has a Unitarian Universalist Minister by the name of Salkin do you know him? He lost his legs and hearing in Vietnam and lives in San Diego.

I just looked at the Newton Project link - I see it is one I have looked through before- The inclusion of J. M. Keynes is most disturbing and important. These ONE PIE Physiocrats still rule and manage the WORLD Economy to this day.

Typo - Sarkin not Salkin. He goes by the nickname PaganMinister.

Pantheism is not the exact same thing as Panentheism. If one understands what a representative deity is the two become the same and indeed the root of Aten (one god) worship is this and in the Sphinx as Amun - unfortunately divisions have been created and new labels and religions crop up under the assistance of elites and hangers-on all the time. The time for one religious viewpoint is long past overdue - Mani tried and others (Cathars) have since. But as long as idiots follow manipulators the problem will continue.

Panentheism will include ecological or environmental as well as feminist and many other things that all free-thinking groups can support - why don't they all agree that religion sucks and come out and say it?

In 1950 B.C. there was a priest-king in Salem who understood the 'highward fire-stone' according to Gardner in 'Genesis of the Grail Kings'. His name was Melchizedek, and there is a secret or inner sanctum group of Mormons who follow his lead. The Mason (Joseph Smith was a 33rd Degree Mason, Brigham Young was a Mason too.) who founded this religion followed a path tred frequently in the expansion of esoteric manipulation. It continues to this very day with the OTO offshoots, Scientology and many other cults who believe in some very 'freaky' things. Most of the lay people will never get to know the ulterior motives of those who lead such organizations. The whole of the United States is one of their experiments according to many authors who have done excellent research in the matter. There are many things a reader should consider before jumping (or attempting to) across that chasm. The interests of ancient esotericists since the days of Melchizedek and before are now easier to contemplate as they sought to control people through the soul or spirit. Sir Laurence Gardner and the Dragon Court headed by HRH Nicholas de Vere who have parted ways provide interesting insights for us to consider.
"As to why the fire-stone was called 'highward' by the ancient Mesopotamians, we shall now discover as we enter the realm of high-spin metallurgy. {Solomon was a very adept person in metallurgy and other things of this order known as Rosicrucianism or Christian 'mystery schools' of the Masonic 'octopus'. I use ‘octopus’ as a way of trying not to have to list names and titles that would fill this book.}
THE TRANSMUTATION OF GOLD
Before commencing this section, it must be stressed that because of the potentially dangerous nature of an enterprise which deals with high-spin atoms, the explanations will be purposefully veiled and guarded. The following is, therefore, presented as a general overview, without detailing specific weights, temperatures, conditions or laboratory burn-times. This will prevent any ill-advised experimentation by unqualified enthusiasts and will avoid the contravention of prevailing international patents which govern the practice. {Yes, Modern science is able to do the alchemical 'Great Work' as a purely physical thing now.}
To begin, we should consider statements concerning the Philosophers' Stone made by the alchemists Lapidus and Eirenaeus Philalethes: 'The Philosophers' Stone is no stone, but a powder with the power to transmute base metals into gold and silver,' (2) and,
The stone which is to be the transformer of metals into gold must be sought in the precious metals in which it is enclosed and contained. It is called a stone by virtue of its fixed nature, and it resists the action of fire as successfully as any stone - but its appearance is that of a very fine powder, impalpable to the touch (imperceptible, like talcum powder), fragrant as to smell, in potency a most penetrative spirit, apparently dry, and yet unctuous, and easily capable of tingeing a plate of metal. The stone does not exist in nature, but has to be prepared by art, in obedience to nature's laws. Thus, you see our stone is made of gold alone, yet it is not common gold. (3)
Each of these testimonies refers to the enigmatic stone being, in actuality, a fine powder, and in talking of the precious metals within which the stone is contained, modern practitioners refer not only to gold and silver but also to those metals which comprise the platinum group. These metals, along with platinum itself, are palladium {Remember this when we get to cold fusion, under the Lithium heading.}, iridium, osmium, rhodium and ruthenium - and because of their ultimate strengths they are used in surgical, optical and dental instruments, crucibles and thermo-couples, machine-bearings, electrical switch contacts and all manner of precision devices down to the tipping of needles and pen-nibs.
The metal that, in jewellery manufacture, is commonly known as 'white gold' is an alloy of gold coupled with palladium, which is said to have been first discovered in Brazil, California and the Urals in 1803, and was named after the asteroid Pallas in that year. Iridium, osmium and rhodium are also given the same date of discovery, with ruthenium following in 1843. However, the platinum-group metals were not truly discovered in the nineteenth century, this was at least one of them, namely iridium, was rediscovered, for iridium was originally a key fire-stone of ancient Sumer. Because of its bright silvery colour and the then non-invention of its latter-day name (applied in 1803 by virtue of its iridescence), the mysteriously described shining metal was long presumed from the old records to have been tin.
Iridium is a very rare element on Earth, but geologists have discovered its existence in quantities up to thirty times the norm in crust layers where extraterrestrial meteorites containing the substance have landed in the distant past. (4) Iridium is, therefore, not so uncommon outside our own planet {He later notes that rhodium and iridium make up 5% of the brain's clarified weight and suggests our alien ancestors needed it to maintain their power or Divine nature. This is one reason for eating live animal pineal glands to enhance psychic ability. If those ‘animals’ have some of their own DNA it is better; so you might know why they harvest fetal material from Scarlet Women now.} The Sumerians and ancient Egypt clearly knew about the properties of gold and of how to alloy it with other noble metals. The Master Craftsmen were adepts too in the workings of iridium, which just like gold, could be taken to the exotic 'highward' state of the 'shem-an-na'.


This means that they not only knew and worked with these metals, but that they understood the science of atoms and nuclei - for the 'highward' state of the white powder is only achieved through knowledge of the high-spin metallurgical experience. Only by understanding this part-physical and part-metaphysical science can one take a physical something and turn it into nothing by applying the principle of 0=(+1) + (-1). Interestingly, the high-spin powder of gold has a distinct effect upon the pineal gland {See Thalami} and its increased melatonin production, while the equivalent powder of iridium has its similar effect on the serotonin production of the pituitary gland.


Although the current names of the platinum-group metals are relatively new to us, the metals themselves are far from new. Recent tests have shown that, by dry-matter weight, over 5 per cent of our brain tissue is composed of iridium and rhodium in the high-spin state. (5)
So, what precisely is the highward or high-spin state which converts these noble metals into an impalpable white powder? A normal atom has around it a screening potential - a positive screening produced by the nucleus. The majority of electrons going round the nucleus are within this screening potential, except for the very outer electrons. The nucleus goes to the highward or high-spin state when the positive screening potential expands to bring all of the electrons under the control of the nucleus. {Refer to Solid State chemistry and the work of Don Robins as it relates to 'scavengers', microphages in the genetic structure also have an effect that may be similar. Can the meta-mind attune these electrons and bring their forward and reverse spins into conjunction? Are the much debated nanobacteria of recent Mayo Clinic confirmation akin to the lattices of his megalithic Macrochips?}


These electrons normally travel around the nucleus in pairs - a spin-forward electron and a spin-reverse electron. But when these come under the influence of a high-spin nucleus {Is this a conscious act?}, all the spin-forward electrons become correlated with the spin-reverse electrons. When perfectly correlated, the electrons turn to pure 'white light' and it is impossible for the individual atoms in the high-spin substance to link together.� (6)
Whether or not they can do these things today: they (Alchemists or Rosicrucians of the Great White Brotherhood of Master Craftsmen) certainly have done such things in the past. Did they learn the process from the remnants of a previous 'modern' human? That seems more likely to us than the alien explanation they want us to accept. Was there a program to keep these things super secret? There certainly should have been. In 'Morning of the Magicians' Pauwels and Bergier tell about a meeting they had with Fulcanelli as well as a presentation he made to the Paris Academy of Sciences. One of these authors was a member of Heisenberg's team of scientists working on splitting the atom and the other was the editor of 'Earth' magazine. Fulcanelli warned about the dangers of the atomic forces that science was about to unleash and he explained how the Cathedrals were constructed to include the knowledge they were seeking. I've read his book which purports to include the keys to this knowledge. It is extremely cryptic in nature but I think if one was to be able to create the green vitreole of the stained glass windows (no easy art, but available in other places) then it might be true.


If these things are the explanation for Sodom and Gomorrah, or the vitrified rocks then we have some real concerns to address about our leaders and their willingness to do one thing and say another. It is very unlikely that this knowledge has not been the object of secret agents and the desire of monarchs and others' concerns for many millennia. We know Crowley, Hitler, and guys like Barrett ('Secret Societies') join the likes of Bacon and Dee in these quests. Truly power does corrupt and we know that when a few people have the power to do these kinds of things, it will eventually become a factor. The present situation seems to indicate that many people will have access to terrific uses of technology and we must not be as naïve as the audience of Britannica was at the start of the 20th century when they wrote that torture was a thing of the past, as far as 'civilized' Europe was concerned.


The Singularity:
“In recent decades, science has uncovered an impressive and ever-growing list of elements of universal 'design' which appear to be specifically conducive to the emergence of life. This deep and valuable concept, the anthropic principle, exists at the interface between cosmology and theology, and is aiding the growing rapprochement we are observing between science and spirituality. In its most interesting developmental variant, this principle proposes that the fundamental parameters of this universe have somehow become "tuned" for the ever-accelerating local emergence of computational complexity.


In considering this proposal, it is important to realize that careful universal design, if true, does not require the embodied existence of a specific universal designer. As an alternative and conceptually simpler explanation, the universe we are in appears more likely to have been self-designed, very probably over many successive cycles, as has occurred with all other known replicating complex adaptive systems within the universe.
Fortunately, the new scientific paradigm of evolutionary development may provide powerful insights into this issue. In the biological domain, living organisms have required many successive cycles to develop their own special initial parameters, which are carefully tuned for emergent form and function within the lifecycle of any particular organism. Likewise, if we consider the universe as a developmental process, we can propose that a number of natural phenomena, such as the emergence of life, biological intelligence, or electronic consciousness (the technological singularity), may also be highly predictable future events. We can even testably propose that certain emergences are a "destiny" that the universe must locally (or multi-locally) arrive at, failing developmental catastrophe. Such predictions are not at all equivalent to a theology (a religious faith), though some would attempt this connection.


The words "design," "destiny" and "predestination" make some (but fortunately, not all) scientists cringe, for important historical reasons. Let's review those reasons now, and discover the way new theories of self-organization and evolutionary development are allowing us to finally move beyond our historical prejudice.


First, those words are occasionally used in religious contexts in somewhat unscientific ways. Indeed, many current "Intelligent Design" (I.D.) theorists of various religions mistakenly assume that design implies designer, and this also has kept some scientists from confronting these important issues�or worse, caused them to dismiss the mounting evidence for carefully tuned universal 'design.' Fortunately, not all I.D. advocates assume an embodied designer. Increasingly, they are beginning to understand the possibility of cyclic self-design, as occurs in biological systems.


Second, there has long been a misconception that the idea of predestination of a complex system must somehow oppose the idea of a perceived "free will" within that system. In actuality however, these are nonexclusive concepts. Developmentalists (not chaos theorists, who occasionally muddy the issue) have shown us that complex systems built on special, tuned, and iteratively self-designed initial conditions will utilize evolutionary chaos (strange attractors) in the process of creating a long chain of statistically predetermined developmental events (ordinary attractors). These two parallel perspectives on physical process allow us to understand how human and other complex adaptive systems can simultaneously contain two apparently contradictory qualities. Those qualities are both an irreducible evolutionary "freedom" (essential pseudorandomness to self-observation, of one's own thought and behavior) as well as an inherent developmental "predictability" (statistically predictable psychological and behavioral trajectory, based on physical constraints of the interacting systems).


Third, and perhaps most importantly, design- or destiny-averse scientists may have come to their perspective because they have focused on the well-known, well-studied findings of the randomness of evolutionary processes, but have completely overlooked the potential applicability of the deterministic phenomenon of biological development. It is clear, for example, given a permissive environment, that a fertilized human egg is "destined," 13 years later, to become a fully developed adult organism with very specific features, and the ability to pass on its own mature sperm or egg in an iterative evolutionary developmental cycle. It is also clear that such eggs or "seeds" must pass through a whole series of time and structure-specific future events in their unfolding.


What is not known to a surprising number of scientists is that all known developmental processes incorporate countless random, chaotic phases of evolution within their unfolding developmental plan. Discovering the way that chaos is used in self-organizing developmental systems will clearly be one of the keys to the puzzle of growing autonomous adaptive technological systems on silicon substrates in coming years. If you are interested in building biologically inspired computers and are looking for a grand theoretical and experimental challenge, there may not be a better one than understanding developmental biology, at the present time. The predominant randomness seen at low levels (molecular, genetic, cellular, signalling systems, etc.) is productive, is constrained by, and informs the future expression of the overarching developmental program.


The paradigm and process of evolutionary development thus incorporates evolution, but in a manner that does not disrupt the larger program of developmental emergence. So it is with any developmental system that a special subset of future events�a small but very significant minority�will be highly "statistically predestined." One of the most famous modern proponents of this perspective was the philosopher Teilhard de Chardin, who coined the elegant, profound, and still-little-used term, "cosmic embryogenesis," (only four Google hits in 2003) to propose that universal cosmology is apparently developmentally programmed to proceed through a series of inevitable emergent stages of information processing while also searching out a large number of locally unique evolutionary paths in the process. Teilhard’s stages, geosphere, to biosphere, to noosphere, remain intuitive and relevant today. Yet like models of human consciousness itself, developmentalist models of universal change are still weak and recently emergent in the scientific community.


In Destiny of Species, I propose that our universe exhibits all the features of an evolutionary developmental system as it unfolds within the multiverse. Developmental systems such as biological organisms use the learning they acquire during their lifespan to reorganize (carefully tune, across multiple iterations) their initial developmental parameters less randomly in subsequent cycles. Thus, keeping learning (adaptation) central to our discussion will help us understand the evolutionary value of assigning individual responsibility wherever possible in what also appears to be, on a developmental scale, a statistically deterministic universe.


It is also worth noting that even though we may find evidence everywhere for intelligent (e.g., anthropic) universal design and apparent "destiny," such as the singularity, any speculations we may have regarding an intelligent designer remain in the realm of our own personal theology. None of this is to denigrate theology, which has its own unique place in the consciousness of humanity and is a computational choice that must be faced by all who contemplate the reasons behind the splendid design we observe. Agnosticism, Humanism, Atheism, Animism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judeo-Christianity, or any of the other myriad perspectives we may consider, even Nihilism, are all personal theological choices, based on faith (even an assessment of the incompleteness of data is still a faith) and ultimately defensible only to ourselves.


Some authors (see Kurzweil, Age of Spiritual Machines, 1999) equate spirituality with the evolutionary processes of consciousness itself, thus capturing it within a potentially scientific framework. But theology goes even beyond spirituality, involving not only the paths we choose to take to live better, more "spiritual" lives, but also including the otherwise unknowable structure of reality. If, like transcendentalist philosophers, we see conceptions of God as essentially extrapolations of the utilitarian and scientific concept of infinity�defined as an "unending process" in our discrete mathematics�we may suspect that theology will remain with us and our electronic successors indefinitely, as a productive and personal counterpart to scientific investigation. They are two separate domains, the first based on a personally revealed faith in universal process and outcome, and the second perhaps as fundamentally axiomatic, but more restricted in its application, and more rigorously attempting to eliminate those axioms over time. This helps clarify that speculations on the nature of the singularity, in all its forms, are well within the domain of critical and scientific investigation, and must be considered separate and apart from personal theology.� (7)

R the B, Shawn and others: I sincerely admire the breath of the esoteric knowledge you seem to have. When did you first begin your exploration into such matters? I confess that I have not read everything you have written, nor do I claim to understand fully what I have read. It would be interest to read a profile of you. Have you posted on anywhere on this site? I belong to another forum which allows us to do this in capsule form as follows:

I try to be: Spiritual Moral, Seeking, Protestant, Multifaith, Curious Agnostic, Church-going, Scientific, democratic Capitalist, humbly Skeptical

Theologically speaking, I am a panentheistic unitheist. However, I try to avoid anykind of fixed-position thinking. http://www.unitheist.org/whatis.html

Words which I use with respect when I talk about the god-concept, which I usually write as G-d--: Eloh, Allah, Theos, God, A Higher Power, Jesus Christ, Science, Reincarnation, Community, Power of Love, and The Golden. I try to be inclusive and universal.

Religious Affiliations

Background: Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational. I respect many traditions, including Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, Protestantism, Catholicism, Taoism.

I am currently affiliated with the United Church of Canada and a retired minister http://www.united-church.ca/

ECONOMICS, STEWARDSHIP, AND HOLISTIC WELL BEING
General Interests. I am interested in promoting holistic health and wealth, for all classes. Rather than taking a right or left-wing approach to the political economy, I like to think of myself as taking a feathers approach. Feathers come from the body of the bird and they protect the whole of it. The tail feathers help keeps the wings balanced.

INTERESTS
Health, Pneumatherapy--a Spiritual form of hypnosis like that of Milton Erickson.
History & Scholarship, Meditation, Movies, News & Current Events, Politics Economics, Science Travel, Community, Family. Pneumatology--the study of the spirit. Philosophy and psychology. Writing and Art.

Organizations and Affiliations
The United Church of Canada. Conservative and the Freedom Party of Canada, Masons--on the local and fraternal level, Family Life Foundation- www.flfcanada.com

My Statement of Belief--flexible:

Currently, I think of myself as a unitheist. Unitheism is not unlike pan-en-theism. Do a google search on Marcus J. Borg--His book is, The God we Never Knew--Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith.(1997) Chapter 2 is all about panentheism--G-d as non-personal being, but personal in persons. While I understand the need for some people to "image" God as a father figure, or an all-powerful personage. For me, this is not necessary. However, if "he" wants to reveal to me that I am wrong, I am willing to listen. I try to avoid being arrogant. G-d--Note that I use the Jewish Orthodox spelling--for me, is that which is total, universal and all encompassing, in which, as Paul puts it, "we live and move and have our being", quoting Greek poets. For me, G-d is ineffable, immanent and transcendent being, not A being. John quotes Jesus as saying, "God is Spirit...God is love". For me, G-d is the source of faith, hope, love, truth, beauty, justice, peace and is as real to me as the next breath I take.

Dear LGKing

I joined Beliefnet and was rudely attacked and had posts deleted ostensibly because they said they could not believe I write what I do, or check the copyright issues. This was after they attacked me for posting reference to my book and sites where my work is excerpted for free viewing. You can see a few things of mine there still I suppose - their lack of erudition is amazing.

I have posted many things here and many of the things I have posted will not come up if you search I suppose, because I often post without logging in. Shawn may have this fixed. Let me say simply - Unitarians are taking the Gaedhilic School or peryllats work into the present but few of them know what that is. If you wish to learn you can get the start of it in my book Diverse Druids and if you want a lot more than that you can get my 21 book CD at World-Mysteries or Amazon under Robert Bruce Baird.

If your church wants I can do the evolution of your church's thought and demonstrate why ecumenicism and the Unification of all beliefs is necessary for society in a book. I have done this under some other headings of books already and would only have to add a little of the history of certain preachers who started using the word Unitarian around the time of Newton and going back to Arians and the likes of Eirugena and Pelagius. Or I can delve deeper into what can be done beyond the mere Philosopher's Stone if they or anyone really wants to change the world. The latter would be a more involved endeavour requiring a team of two or three special engineers (One Harmonic and one constructor) and one expert I have in mind for the lattice-opening (Dimensional) symbology.

Newton was quite the theologan and alchemist, a devoted monist to the core who did not accept the trinity. His alchemical works alone far outnumber his writings in physics and mathematics.

I've read several biographies, as well as his original Principia Mathematica, Optics, and other writings of his, and would highly recommend "In the Presence of the Creator", an excellent and engrossing biography over Newton (by Gale E. Christianson).

It's interesting to note that Newton dedicated himself completely to his work, never marrying, nor being very social in any way. He was also vindictive to the extreme, carrying on feuds with Leibnitz, Hooke, and Halley, among others. He believed he was God's chosen, and sought to provide objective evidence for it in his works and actions. In all, he is an admirable character, the father of modern-day science and discoverer of the calculus and the law of gravitation, though his extremism can also be perceived as a lopsidedness to the extent that he sacrificed much of his humanity in order to achieve what he did. I suppose whatever path in life you take involves sacrifice of one type or another, and the forsaking of other paths, but Newton's life in particular, is a dramatic example of this.


About searching for guest postings from Robert (as guest 'Robert the Bruce'), try going here:
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?act=...t%20the%20Bruce
and make sure to select the option at the bottom for "Search posters' name". Also, you may want to select "Show Results as Posts", and then click "Perform the Search".

R the B and Shawn: Thank both of you for your very personal notes. I presume that you agree that it is possible to agree to disagree agreeably, on many topics, and to debate concepts and ideas ad infinitum, without being disagreeable and miserable people.

By the way, have either of you written anything on economics--what Carlysle called the "dismal science"? I am very interested in the concept of local currencies and the spiritual nature of money. I believe local currencies can be used complimentary to all other forms of currency--and there are many. Years ago, I discovered that the NT Greek word, which is translated 'stewardship' is 'okionomos'. From it we get our word 'economics'. Interesting.

It would be most interesting to know ALL the details as to why Jesus turned over the table of the "moneychangers". I have my own theory. Note: they are not called "money exchangers".

I have Carlyle's secret I believe. He says none of his biographers will be able to do a good job because of it.
CANT (He-He) There is not such thing except in the mind of sheep and he had in mind a HERO. But would sheople accept a HERO like NEWTON? Actually Newton is a lesser humanist or alchemist and said his Principiae was more than he should give - therefore he was advised not to by others - and less than there is - therefore he followed their advice a little.

Locke is more the person to look to in order to start the understanding of the Physiocratic Economic School that still RULES.

My book Tuckahoe Mud addresses these people and who they are today.

He couldn't review my book - it would require more than he could muster I suspect.

http://www.thejournalnews.com/baird/

R the B, I just took the time to read Howard Bloom's essay on the HISTORY OF THE GROUP BRAIN VIII which you posted awhile ago. Is this the whole chapter?

I find it interesting to speculate on how much of human poverty, disease and pain is no doubt caused not by any real lack. But rather the result of the way our brains have been entrained by the socalled experts who run our political economy. And perhaps they too really do think that economics must devote itself to the study of how we ought to manage our "scarce" resources.

I have long since felt that the real problem is not the lack of natural resources, but of human imagination, will-power and the moral imperative necessary to spur us to take action.

R the B, thanks for passing it on to us.

Dear LGK

Bloom's site has much more of this great man's work. I hope someday to see my work get the kind of result his should soon have.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau

"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions are generated." - Bertrand Russell
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages...will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests.� � Rothschild Brothers of London communiqué to associates in New York June 25, 1863

Dear LGKing

Here is the First paragraph of the introduction to another of my books which addresses the economic inputs to what you intuit is at work - as do others like Hazel. If you buy Tuckahoe Mud I will send this book to you by e-mail for free. The book is titled Eugenics, Abortion and the ONE PIE.

Abortion has been a very contentious issue to say the least. It is just a small part of the overall eugenics agenda and need for proper governance of the resources on our planet. Irving Fisher combines both of the main themes of this book. As a crusader for his Skull & Bones brethren and benefactors like the Rockefellers he actively and openly tried to maintain that eugenics is for the good of the people. We must give credit to the arguments he made. We really should act less like the Nazis who try to silence real dialogue as we approach this subject. Things are not simply black and white and a lot of what he said deserves our serious open-minded evaluation. He is the patron saint of supply-side economics and the father therefore of Reaganomics. It is all part of the One Pie ideology which the masses have bought because the noble elites are not interested in enabling real empowerment and resource application; including each human being who can create. Yes, CREATE; but they tell us they speak for the CREATOR! We must question these authorities who front for Divine Kings under the guise of ‘The Greater Good’ which has led inexorably to a Manifest Destiny against all life outside their materialistic focus.

Is there a topic in this forum which discusses economics? Or should we start one? I happen to believe that understanding the nature and function of money is crucial to any human endeavour. it is too important an issue to be left to the manipulators, don't you agree?

"The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise ... economics is a form of brain damage." –Hazel Henderson.


“Rather than telling others that they should live up to American Principles, we should live up to them ourself.� – Gary Hart, author of The Fourth Power and former Presidential candidate.


I have many posts on the Physiocrats or Synarchistic oligarchy and their economic ONE PIE ideology.

Robert: Can you access the following site:
http://www.mondopolitico.com/discus/messag...html?1090509736

From the above, I exerpt the following revised version:


September 08, 2002 - 10:40 am, I wrote about:

THE THREE ACCEPTABLE CLASSES

Keep in mind that I am more of a humble intuitive economist, a philosopher on money and stewardship, always open to be educated by those who know than I do. I am not a technical expert. Having learned the lesson of the danger of appearing to be a know-it-all, the following is simply is my humble opinion:

As I see it, any successful political economy is made up of at least three classes:

First, there is the super-rich and powerful few--some few of whom are political leaders (The Rockefellers, the Kennedy's, for example). Some of these are the ones who have a sense of "noblesseoblige"--nobility obligates. And I realize that not all noble people are super rich; or even rich.

There are some super rich who are only interested in wealth for the sake of wealth and the power it brings. They often operate without much, if any, publicity. Who knows how many are moral and ethical?

Second, there is the modestly-rich middle class, on the way up the socio-economic ladder--some of whom are political leaders. Many are business people, professionals: artists, scientists, educators, religious leaders, entertainers and the like. I suppose most elected politicians fall into this category. At this point, I presume most people in this category are good people.

Third, is the working poor--the ones on the verge of joining the middle class. This class is so busy raising families, on modest incomes, that they have little time to get involved in the struggle for power. Again I presume that most of these are hard working and honest people.

Unfortunately, poverty--a relative term--is the kind of soil in which the weeds of crime, directly and indirectly, seem to flourish.

THERE ARE CRIMINALS IN ALL CLASSES

I presume that it is obvious that criminality is a classless fact or quality. In all the classes mentioned above, there are some who are immoral, unethical and perverted predators who care only for themselves and about satisfying their own evil cravings. Even some high ranking clergy have played this sick game.

By nature, it seems that there are takers and givers. Takers produce victims, who usually end up in extreme poverty, or even dead. Sometimes, even the predators become victims. Drug dealers and biker gangs take revenge on each other all the time. There are even some rich and famous who have been murdered family members.

NOW, THE CHALLENGE IS

In the light of the above, I see the challenge as being the creation of a political and economic system which encourages activity among those, in all classes, who are sincerely moral and ethical personas, so that all willing, moral and ethical workers--in all classes--have a fair share of the wealth produced.

In addition to the above, it seems to me, there needs to be enough wealth left over to provide a justice system that can stop blatant criminal activity. In addition, we need to help victims of such crimes and to pay for the rehabilitation of those who sincerely decide to leave the life of crime behind.

Any other suggestions? Here I welcome your contribution.

=============================================

At this point, let us take a look at what has been called "one of the most successful economies in history"--The USA economy.

Even so, how come there is so much poverty there? How come there are 30 to 40 million people who can't afford medical insurance? Also, note this: It is repoerted that the American system of privately funded medicare costs more per capita than the Canadian system? How come?

By the way, who of you has read the book, SHOOTING THE HIPPO, by Linda McQuaig? She is a strong advocate, much stronger that I am, of governments having a role in the economy. This, and other books, begs the question:

IS THERE A ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT?

The on-going Enron fraud is just one example of where the government should apply attention- getting sanctions. How about prison, for proved crimnals?

By the way, a few years ago, political scientist, professor Jeremy Rifkin, wrote a very influential book, THE END OF WORK--recently being released. In it he wrote about the importance of the Third Sector of the economy--the Charity Sector.

Rifkin proposed that governments need to team up with the charities, including churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. Could this could be a way of encouraging the creation and fair distribution of wealth, at the local level?

I am all in favour of doing things at the local level. It seems that at the local level it is easier for people to see who pays and who benefits. Also, there, it is easier to prevent the corruption prevalent in our current tax system, don't you think?

None of the above is carved in stone. Let's talk.

Dear LGK

I clicked it and there was little to see - just a lot of labels like left and right with no understanding of economics or government - left and right have no meaning. Decisions do - and who do those decisions benefit. Some people think the right means one stands for freedom from government and some think Libertarian means less government. Does it? The Libertarians are a Physiocratic 'front' as are the Straussian Neo-Cons that a Skull & Bones economist developed into more 'trickle down' hogwash.

The Physiocrats are those who said 'he who governs least governs best'. They want no restrictions on their use of force and duress. Today these Synarchists support platforms in every political party and the Bills being voted upon have small print the legislators don't even read (eg. WTO which removes democratic processes or real freedom). They have taken a major role in ensuring their agenda will succeed no matter which 'talking head' is in power. More divisive borders and more tax loopholes seems to be the order of the day. Meanwhile the rich get richer - it is not happening by mere chance. When the Cancun conference took place last year the farmers or everyday people of the world got screwed big time. We need to help people become consumers through their hard work and we need to consider implementing technology to maximize resource utilization rather than full employment.

Anyway - there was nothing (truly NOTHING) at your site.

The Club of Rome has a decade old paper that shows how we can double output. Bucky Fuller showed how all people on earth could be millionaires in the late 60s. The rich are interested in power and they give little (!) tokens of apparent charity to keep the fiction of being 'ennobled' or fair. They have so much money that more money means little to them. They want POWER! To have power they create a class of paladins and teat-sucking leeches to manage the masses. Porto Allegre Brazil is the site of the annual speech a year or two ago by the head of the Club of Rome - have you ever heard about what has been shown to work there?

If you can't read my stuff, perhaps it is better for me to transfer it directly. This will give me the opportunity to put it in one place and also make some revisions. You are right. I stopped posting to Mondo Politico because I could not find anyone who was really ready to dialogue in such a way as to find some solutions.

[Here is what I wrote, Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 03:47 pm]

FEATHERS COVER THE WHOLE BIRD.

Feathers, not only help keep the wings and body of the whole bird in balance, they provide harmony and balance for the bird as a whole.

If, collectively speaking, we humans beings ever became, truly fully functioning human beings--that is, moral, ethical and god-like beings--any political and economic system, whether it be left-wing, right-wing, or centre, would probably work well. Come to think of it, perhaps, the most efficient form of government is one run by a benevolent and all-merciful and lovings dictator. Think about this, for a moment.

It is not surprising that a variety of theocratic and autocratic monarchs, throughout history, have all claimed to be benevolent rulers appointed by the gods, or God, to administer political and economic justice. Belief in the divine right of kings and that he was a wise and just ruler, cost Charles I of England his head.

Long before him and the other rulers of England, the pharaohs of Egypt, the kings of Israel and Judah, the emperors of Rome, the czars of Russia, and all other nations, all claimed, at one time or another, to be wise and just rulers. But, unfortunately, very few of them actually came close to the ideal. Even those who claimed that God guided them, frequently failed in being good and just.

This led people to rebel. Some nations, such as England--after the commonwealth of Cromwell--became constitutional monarchies. Some, like France and the USA, became republics. Later, some republics, for example, Russia, under communism, became autocratic republics. Others, like the USA, and Canada, became more or less democratic.

However, because we are not perfect, yet, we need to keep on struggling to find that political and economic system which is truly democratic and utilitarian--one which and does do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Given that most people agree that republics and/or constitutional monarchies are the best political systems, what is the best economic system.

First we need to ask: What are the options?

Broadly speaking, the options are capitalism, on the right, and socialism on the left.

CAPITALISM. In his, A Dictionary of Canadian Economics, David Crane, who writes a column on business and economics for the Toronto Star, defines 'capitalism' as "an economic and political system in which the means of production are largely privately owned and the rights of private property are respected by the state according to the RULE OF LAW and due process."

He goes on to say that "the role of government is to protect individuals against the abuse of power, to protect the public interest, and to maintian an economic climate in whiich private entrepreneurs can make a profit."

ADAM SMITH founder of Classical Economics

In the 18th Century, as a reaction against government interference--Monarchs and their lackeys loved to interfere with business--the belief in unrestricted private enterprise emerged.

Laissez-faire economists, such as Adam Smith (1723-1790), the father of political economy and of the CLASSICAL SCHOOL of economics, in his great book, The wealth of Nations (1776)--the first complete work on the political economy--states that labor, and not land or money, is the real source of a nation's wealth. This concept, the, LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE, was later taken up by Karl Marx (1818-1883).

Smith also argued for free trade and a free market. He argued for trade unrestricted by government controls or by monopolies. He wrote that individuals know best what is good for them and that under the influence of the profit motive they would turn out products most desired by the consumer. He sought to harness self-interest to the common good.

But I don't agree that Smith argued, anywhere, for unbridled capitalism--the kind that has got us into so much trouble in modern times.

SOCIALISM. Socialism, that is, democratic socialism, is not to be confused with communism and/or national socialism, nazism. Socialism is both a doctrine and a movement.

It is a political and economic system which, in practice, comes in all shapes and forms.

It is fair to say that 'socialism' is a much abused term. Many people believe in both democracy, a political idea, and in socialism, an economic idea.

Consider this: A city owning an electric power plant or a water purification system is no less an example of socialism than a national government owning a railway. Credit Unions and Cooperatives are forms of socialism. Our medicare system is a form of socialism. Who but the wealthy and powerful few would like to see us abandon a national form of medicare?

COMMUNISM. Crane defines communism as "An economic and political system in which all private property, aside from consumer goods, is abolished, and the state not only not only owns all means of production but relies on central planning rather than on market forces to determine the allocation of resources, prices, new investments, and output.

Marx thought of socialism as the precursor to communism--the ideal state of things, yet to come.

Communism, it is said, thinks of labour as organized, “for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.� Sound good, in theory; but it hasn't worked out this way, in practice.

FEATHERS ABHORS EXTREMES

When I use the words, "feathers economics", I use them to describe an approach to economics which is a positive combination and balance of left wing and right wing to the benefit of the whole bird.

After all, feathers cover the whole bird, not just the wings.

Years ago, in the British Parliament, before the rise of the Labour Party, most members the British Parliament, like in Canada, were either Liberal or Conservative. Winston Churchill annoyed his fellow members by crossing the house, on more than one occasion.

This prompted one member to ask: "Mr. Churchill, do you not have a strong opinion on these important issues? Where do you stand?"

He replied: "I stand in the extreme centre."

As one who believes in the feathers approach to economics, I too, on many issues, stand in the extreme centre.

No - But if people don't stop fighting against ech other like Dittoheads (Limbaugh) they will not study enough to see they are being played for fools and fighting for the very problem that must be addressed. The same thing is true when well-intentioned people fight for personal causes that might be good but are not as important as other things. First off - we must be aware.

Then we must talk and find terms of Peace that all can agree upon. (See the Head of the Club of Rome's Speech - he says we do not even have the terminology or words that all can understand.}

Most people prefer to beat each other up and fight for their liberal or conservative (pure BS labels they do not even understand - like Communism - which never existed in Russia) pretty boy that the elite approved for their voting upon. The elite also designate their helpers or top officials to watch over them - like Nelson and Nixon - Do you know who forwarded Nixon? Prescott Bush the charged treasonous cretin Nazi.

I find a lot to agree with about the mature and reasoned approach to ethics that is here. I have a whole litany or should I say a plethora of posts on developing all this stuff on other sites if you want to join them. I spent more than a year trying to motivate action and I had a few supporters who were willing to take it a long way but in the end it will take a major media campaign or substantial backer. Of course - I will continue to wage war on ignorance and endeavour to get people to develop the terms, principles (simple ones - say six) and ethics upon which plans can be made but there is little sense in wasting hundreds of hours more on this - I have detailed outlines and lots more in my books and who knows maybe someday soon I will have the proper podium myself - but if the Head of the Club of Rome can't get people talking and learning - I am likely going to be a mere voice in the wilderness.

Loved a lot of your prose in this.

Creativity

Does this include spirituality?

There are many people commenting on the economic interest of those who have and those who have not. Is this something that will improve if proper management and reduced bureaucracy is initiated? Can we really return to ethics such as the extended family had or the volunteerism and community based programs like Northwestern's John McKnight has demonstrated in the most unfriendly conditions?

Do Nobel Laureates like J. K. Galbreath who called for increased technology and reduction of bureaucracy as part of a guaranteed minimum income really have something to offer?

Surely re-cycling and proper environmental protection will lead to a reduced number of people living the supposed high life. It could do the opposite actually.



From: Robert the Bruce Sent: 15/02/2003 8:58 AM
It is important to know the starting point and the hill we must climb. I think this little tidbit tells us a lot. Their intent is the EXACT opposite of mine. My idealistic slogans might not get support but I know they are right. I'd rather be dead and right than slave to a misogynistic and torturous system. DAMN RIGHT or DEAD RIGHT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948:
"Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military-economic supremacy].... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming.... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."






This is about a third of the address and I can supply more of it. The key point has to do with a lack of Principles and ways of sharing what those are in all lives throughout the world. THUS my crusade for PRINCIPLES for World Peace.

Presidential Address by
His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal
of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>
as President of the Club of Rome<O:P></O:P>



To The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology <O:P></O:P>
<O:P>
A New World Order without Ideologies <O:P></O:P>
<O:P></O:P>
Zurich, Switzerland
4th February 2003
<O:P>
Three years ago, at the annual meeting of the IMF and the World Bank in Prague, Vaclav Havel emphasised that the “the crucial task is to fundamentally strengthen a system of universally shared moral standards that will make it impossible, on a truly global scale, for the various rules to be time and again circumvented with still more ingenuity than had gone into their invention.�<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Earlier still, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan and I, as co-chairmen of the Independent Commission on Humanitarian Issues, issued a call for the establishment of a new international humanitarian order, precisely to bring to humanitarian issues the same level of experience and expertise as is usually accorded only to economic and hard security matters. This proposal, I am pleased to say, was adopted in 1981 by the UN General Assembly. Today the Commission’s emphasis on the need for continued and sustained work in this area is once again being keenly felt.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

The schisms in the world today have become so numerous, the iniquities and inequalities so stark, that a universal respect for human dignity must once again be brought back to the consciousness of the international community. Now, more than at any other time, an ethic of human solidarity and a new international order are required.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

A few short weeks ago, I attended a meeting of the Euro-Mediterranean Study Commission Working Group, in Amman, to discuss Euro-Med dialogue. There, I emphasised the theme of governance and building a society from the bottom up. Our current systems of governance, whether authoritarian, monarchic, or totalitarian, have not reached the people with what they need – transparent and participatory government, education towards altruism and tolerance, and clearly defined human values instituted through schools, media and legislation as the basis for a dynamic civil society. Moreover, the absence of a coherent formula providing universally acceptable guidelines for future global governance makes extremism a threat to the stability and security of all states. <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

We cannot get rid of systems to order our affairs; in the broader sense, we cannot rid ourselves of ideologies, which are systems of thought. A world without any ideology would be a world without aspiration. To the extent that our actions are directed towards making a better future for ourselves, we are all subject to one ideology – the ideology of improving conditions for ourselves. I do not think that this very basic, even biological imperative can be avoided when we examine the question of ‘a new world order without ideologies.’<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

There is no denying that today, where I come from, and possibly where you come from too, there is a feeling of hopelessness, that the inevitability of war will force new realities on us in the absence of an ideology or system that we trust. For the world that we desire is surely not a world dominated by war, poverty and unhappiness. Unless we cease to work against this or that faulty ideology and instead work for a positive vision, the new realities of war will simply sweep us along on a tide of realpolitik. <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Just as fundamentally, while we are facing critical international problems and issues, we lack an international terminology with which even to identify them securely. Boaz Ganor, the prominent Israeli thinker, addressed the question of terrorism today and demanded that there be ‘no prohibition without definition’. Let us be very clear in acknowledging that, just as one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, so one man’s ideology is another man’s terrorist manifesto. Let us accept no prohibition of any approach without very clear definition of what, exactly, we are referring to as an ideology and to what exactly we object �which specific people, places, times, texts and actions. <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

On September 11th 2001, and I quote Wade Davis (For a Global Declaration of Intradependence – IHT, Paris; The Globe & Mail, Toronto; 6/7/2002) <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

“…in the most successful act of asymmetric warfare since the Trojan horse, the world came home to America. ‘Why do they hate us?� asked President Bush. This was not a rhetorical question. Americans really wanted to know, and still do, for their innocence had been shattered.�<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

The explanations have been numerous, if largely inadequate as a result of their refusal to address more than one aspect of the issue. They range from assumptions as simplistic as the resentment of success, or the clash of civilisations, to the more thoughtful thesis of the developing world’s innate antipathy towards the double standards exhibited daily in the West’s tendency to call for the ideals of democracy and the rule of law, whilst apparently flouting both, both in their own policies (viz Kyoto for example) and in their tendency to support regimes whose values are to the very opposite of such ideals. <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Those dreadful attacks were, I believe, more than just a terrorist attack – they were indicative of the extent to which non-state actors could quite conveniently hijack religion in the form of pseudo-religious extremist ideology and proved, in tragic ways, that acts of genocide – crimes against humanity – can be committed by entities other than systems of government. They also, I believe, showed not so much America’s peculiar vulnerability (for who among us on this fragile planet has ever been immune from terrorism?) but it’s insularity, it’s ever-increasing self-polarisation, and it’s peculiar loneliness on what I consider to be a very unlonely planet. Many worlds have been coming home to America for many years because from its very inception America has seen the world as part of it, rather itself a part of the world.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

We stand today at a crossroads and the choice appears stark: either we move further away from one another, basing our sense of self and our self-interests upon the idea of a threateningother, or we move closer together and, taking our common humanity as the starting point, move towards an organic whole. The first road involves a sort of ‘international apartheid’ – an absence of meaningful dialogue between groups, but I come here to suggest the second road, that of bridge-building, in an inclusive civil society that appreciates a holistic approach, and in the belief that our human interdependence is our community.<O:P></O:P>



A New World Order…<O:P></O:P>
<O:P></O:P>
Economic factors have always been of primary importance in international affairs and, during the 1990s, the ‘new world order’ was often less political�or even military�than economic. Globalisation, a term initially applied to investment, production and trade, gradually came to embrace a much wider range of phenomena: everything from ‘fast’ food, ‘world’ music, fashion and advertising to the information technology revolution, particularly the rise of the internet and of satellite television. The rapid pace of globalisation was almost as shocking as the changes themselves and, before long, many people around the world began to feel squeezed, not only economically, but politically, socially and culturally. <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>
It is worth remembering in this context that, despite such rapid advances, the majority of the world’s population, far from sending emails, has never even received a telephone call; that 1.3 billion people live on less than a dollar a day (which incidentally is less than the sum allotted - $2.20 - to each cow/head of cattle in the EU) and that in most of the world individual success is neither celebrated nor individual, rather the fate of the individual is wholly linked to that of the community.<O:P></O:P>
<O:P></O:P>

The growing disillusionment and anger at the hypocrisy of this new world order of globalisation that affects the entire world whilst embracing only a fraction of it, was given vocal expression at the meetings of such organisations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Group of Seven (now Eight) industrialised nations, where anti-globalisation activists repeatedly clashed with police. More constructively, we recently witnessed the success of the third Social Economic Forum in Porto Alegre, a forum to which I am proud to have been invited to send a video message on behalf of the South Centre, where positive attempts to redefine participatory democracy, wealth distribution, poverty elimination and an end to corruption are being made. <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

And I would like to applaud the UN’s Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Right to Food for his comments.“Globalisation is a daily terror for three-quarters of mankind,� he said. “Thanks to cyberspace and the free market those in power have enormous vitality. Never has the massacre of mankind taken place so quickly: every day 100,000 people die of hunger. And this on an affluent planet.� Noting further that “…in the countries of the South, the noose is the economy of debt.� <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

The third world is my first world…..<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Over the last few months we have been told variously that we are in a new transnational age, in which borders have become meaningless; that the nation-state itself has become virtually meaningless; even of a new age of empire, “‘empire by invitation’ or ‘consensual’ empire,� seen as a reluctant “empire with a difference�a coordination of economic exchange and security guarantees welcomed by its less powerful member states, who preserved their autonomy and played a role in collective policymaking.�[1]<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

In the late autumn of last year, Charles S. Maier, Saltonstall Professor of History at Harvard University, responding to the formulation of what came to be known as the Bush Doctrine stated that the Bush Doctrine, had “emerged from a public discussion by policymakers and journalists� about the United States “as an empire.� <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Most American “liberal internationalists� do not believe that Washington is embarking on a course of territorial conquest or domination; instead, they “prefer to think of empire as the reluctant acceptance of responsibility for peoples and lands who must be rescued from the primitive violence that threatens to engulf them if left on their own.� Regions whose poor governance and lack of convincing regional strategies and institutions has made them revisit their past.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

(The rhetoric behind the post-World War I division of the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire into the states of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq; and the imposition of a mandatory system of tutelage by Britain and France under the auspices of the League of Nations springs immediately to mind.) <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

To a degree that might surprise the proponents of a transnational, borderless world, Maier emphasizes the importance of frontiers in his definition of empire, noting that, although empires claim universality, they also “accentuate divisions between inclusion and exclusion, both on a world scale and within their own borders.� While the “barbarians� are not barred from entering the empire, their admission is strictly regulated.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

This inevitably brings me to the issue of territoriality, identity and movement – Every region in the world has an identity except for our benighted Middle East. If you had sat at the table of Richard Holbrook when he was at the United Nations, you would know exactly what I mean. I remember his saying to me: “You are an Asian.� Quite right, by definition – geographic definition of the United Nations. Incidentally, Europe is part of Asia geographically, it is only through a purely political statement that it becomes an independent Europe. If you talk about a Moroccan, he’s an African by United Nations definition. If you talk about an Israeli, he’s not part of any region. No wonder we are finding it difficult in developing extra-territoriality.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

The argument against cultural or religious triumphalism is based on the notion that competition is not a valid model for some kinds of human activity. What Arnold Toynbee referred to as the ‘industrialisation of history’ provides a parallel to what happens when the capitalist model of competition for material results is superimposed on all areas of human existence.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Durwood Foster, a professor at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California, defines triumphalism as the belief which “assumes the primacy of one’s own values and the right to rule others�.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Following the awful events of September 11, triumphalism in America, particularly, has been, to some extent, characterised by a wave of self-righteous indignation which has led to consequences both intended and unintended: the Taliban are thankfully no more but how many ordinary Muslim people in America wake up feeling secure these days? The collateral damage in America – and the West’s generally – war against terrorism on so-called home ground can already be ascertained. <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

A poll in the International Herald Tribune[2] a little more than two months after the attacks showed that overall, 58% of non-American respondents agreed that “US policies and actions in the world were a major cause of the attack�; in the breakdown of this figure, only 36% of people in Western Europe agreed with this statement, while 81% of people in the Middle East did so. A slender majority, 52%, agreed with Americans that their country was resented because of its power; however, just as many cited “US policies which may have contributed to the growing gap between rich and poor.� This would seem to indicate that many people feel that the United States has not used its advantages�certainly, its strength and, probably, its wealth�to reduce poverty in the world and advance the cause of social justice: in fact, just the opposite. <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Yet while citizens of the US and western hemisphere exercise their sovereignty through elections and opinion polls, the peoples of that region rarely articulate their priorities in the world debate on global security. They are moreover often unaware of the trade-offs made at the expense of those priorities.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Perhaps because it was ‘cold,’ the end of the ‘war’ between East and West was not followed by any ‘peace’ conference to explore the new situation or surviving ideologies that had originated in imperialist capitalism; there was no effort to assess the underlying assumptions and principles that might form the basis of a new code of conduct in international affairs. Instead, the United States emerged as the dominant power, with no significant challenges to its authority or security. <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

In a major foreign policy speech delivered in January of this year, the British prime minister, Tony Blair, warned the United States that chaos could “come from the world splitting into rival poles of power; the US in one corner; anti-US forces in another. It can come from pent-up feelings of injustice and alienation, from divisions between the world’s richer and its poorer nations.� Global interdependence, he suggested, works both ways and the United States needs to show “the desire to work with others,� whether the issue is poverty, the environment, the moribund Middle East peace process, or even the status of the United Nations.[3]<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

A recent article in The Economist[4]looked at three surveys that seem to indicate that Europe and the United States are not only diverging in their approaches to international affairs, but in values as well. In terms of traditional versus secular values, it was found that America has become more traditional over the last quarter-century.<O:P></O:P>

Two other surveys that The Economist cites indicate that terrorism and the possibility that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction are the overwhelming preoccupations of Americans; by contrast, the primary concern of Europeans is combating religious and ethnic hatred. <O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

These findings bring to mind not only Tony Blair’s recent speech, but also Joan Didion’s observation that, since 11 September, American discourse on “postmodern relativism� has been replaced by a rhetoric of “moral clarity.�[5]Didion is describing what occurs when reality is filtered through the lens of ideology. And that, I believe, is what has gone wrong with the ‘new world order’ become empire: ideology is threatening to turn peace into war and stability into anarchy.

cont'd

Explain your use of the symbol <O:P></O:P>

By the way, I think the quote I use for my signature is from Marshall McLuhan, who in Chapter 14 of his book, Underestanding Media, defines money as "the poor man's credit card". I like that.

This prompts me to suggest: Now, if only we--and we can begin with small groups--had the wisdom to promote local currency systems, which, by the way, have existed long before central banks and national fiat currency systems, then all people would be empowered with the credit they deserve.

I need to add that I think of local currencies as being complementary to, not instead of federal currencies. In my humble opinion, it is our mono-currency system based on so-called credit--in reality it is debt based--which gives too much power to those who create and manipulate it to the advantage of the few.

On the scale of stages toward organizing a movement the first few people who are willing to commit are most important. They must develop principles and a mission statement that they each can get behind and take to all who will listen. It often requires people with different perspectives to establish these initial goals if the idea is to be interesting to all types of people. I gathered a lot of people in over 20 sites in the year I worked on it ending about this time last year. We had a lot of agreement on many things and stroked each other frequently. We created a new site to explore just these things that might bring a new vision for the world. There was also a site created by someone else who turned out to be a control freak and we left it (The Synod). It had a good debate format but the debates were moderated by the control freak who the other managers agreed should not have deleted one of the posts questioning 9-11. I left when he did that and they told him he was wrong and then he left and so on.

In the final analysis it is like the social salons of Chopra/Simon/Williamson or other good ideas. People stroke each other but stick to silly pet projects and will not really commit to working the hundreds of hours it takes just to come up with the simple Priciples or ethics. They get side-tracked talking about currency or animal rights or ending war and all so many things - so it goes nowhere.

Here are some examples of good things people talked about as it wound down in the one site we gathered in called Gods In Training.

INCOOPERATION



Do you have a minute? Ok good, do something for me if you would, pull your mind over to the curb, and put it in neutral. Now, listen to its smooth running engine, your soul is driving and your spirit is riding shotgun and navigator. Imagine yourself the second you came out of the birth canal or womb. Your soul and spirit are in their places, and the back seat is totally free of baggage, biasness, anger, resentment, prejudice, greed and all the trappings of conditioning…

At this point in your life you’ve collected quite a bit of debris and a mishmash of things in the back seat, and it is starting to pile up in the back window too. You know what you have to do, and the soul smiles knowingly at the spirit, nods and winks. The heart sitting in the middle looks puzzled but amused as the spirit opens the door, goes to the trunk and gets out a giant thick black trash bag. The spirit is overjoyed at the thought of finally making this next big step in the journey. Ever since the heart of the tiny newborn was nurtured and developed, first in the little kiddy seat between you, on to toddler, child and finally heading towards young adulthood, the spirit and soul have both done the best they can, on an oft-times winding and bumpy road…

The spirit sets about this monumental labor of love and starts stuffing all the contents and garbage from the back seat into the bag at a brisk pace, humming a happy tune the while. The soul up front is hard pressed to keep the heart manageable with all the new activities going on in the back, but is able to maintain, as the spirit throws the rest of the trash into the dark bag and vacuums the seat and carpets. Spirit throws the whole bulging bag into a roadside dumpster. Then the spirit puts two new big pillows and a warm comforter in the back, opens the passenger door and grins a beaming grin in at the heart and soul. The heart, looks back and forth between the spirit and soul in excited anticipation, it gives you both one more inquisitive look, and instead of getting out, it scrambles right over the top of the seat and plops itself contentedly, in between the two sumptuous pillows on top of the snuggly comforter. The spirit leans in and gives the heart a quick little peck on the cheek, as the heart giggles and pushes it away. Spirit closes the back door, climbs into the front and can’t help but lean over and give the soul a warm hug, then settles back and looks towards the road ahead. Soul put its foot on the brake, shifts back into drive, and moves away from the curb…



Every one of the members of this universal cooperation, are its CEO’s, Board Members and VIP’s. From giant ocean squid, http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/...id_opening.html

or Blue Whale http://www.omplace.com/omsites/discover/BLUE/

down to the tiniest micro-organism, http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/index.html...d/protozoa.html

from the honey mushroom found in the Malheur National forest in Eastern Oregon, http://www.microbe.org/news/giant_fungus.asp

down to the tiniest microbes, http://www.microbe.org/microbes/mysteries.asp

these all have their place in this positive cooperation. This is a movement starting now, from scratch (for humans), where all work in unison towards a positive co-existence with every other member. Whatever events or mechanisms that threaten any of the coop’s members must be moved away from, and positive steps taken to reverse damage and negativity towards those members most offended. Most of the members in nature, in the universe, understand and work in harmony towards these stated goals, with one glaring exception, and ironically enough these anomalies from the harmony- the human being- think they control the planet and hence their known universe. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and the arrogance and ego involved with this large brained being is astounding. In order to assist humans in getting back to harmonious co-existence they will have a special assignment in this positive cooperation, and it is this:

Everyone of the 6.3 billion people on this planet are responsible for three things for each other- clean drinking water for daily consumption, efficient growing and processing techniques of edibles for daily consumption, and a monumental effort towards getting healing applications of good health, spirit and education for the well being of all. This is the true all encompassing globalization that should be implemented.

Funding from a Negative to create a Positive

I’ll start with the country that has the most to give and can do the most-the U.S.A. This new avenue of funding for the cooperation is a cinch, and it won’t come out of any existing programs except for one. Here is a famous quote from Isaiah - “They will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.� I agree with these words and wish to spell out what that means in these modern times.

What if I told you that in the last 60 years our government and leaders have charged the American taxpayer between 6 and 7 trillion dollars on an “insurance policy of fear?� Most of these funds have been squandered and siphoned off to opportunists in Congress and the private sector. This is just the proliferation of nuclear weapons alone. It doesn’t include any other section or program of defense spending. Are you kidding me? Can this be right? http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/schwartz.htm I don’t know about you but I think it’s high time we got this 400 pound Gorilla off our backs. So as not to be too much of a shock to the amiable but gullible public and politicians alike, the co-ops funding plan needs to be worked in over a period of five years. It would work on a graduating scale with 5 billion going on to 10, 20, 35, to 50 billion over 5 years.

Just as the tobacco companies have had to learn to diversify into more humanitarian and profit wielding investments, so too must the contractors who proliferate nuclear weapons. Think of the possibilities of these giants of the military industries turning their knowledge and infrastructure towards space exploration, renewable energy sources or agricultural efficiency. It would be a win-win scenario for them and the human race combined. Bush and Putin recently signed a treaty to reduce ICBM’s down to between 1700- 2200 over a ten year period so plenty of fair warning would be in place too. The co-op’s plan wouldn’t strip away all of the necessary funding for the maintenance and upgrades of more limited nuclear missiles over the 5 year period either. With the average of 98 billion a year being spent in this area alone, the remaining funds could be utilized with newer, better technology and disposal of the leftover nuclear waste from plants and weapons development.

Think of the good will and shining example the good ole U.S. of A. could show the rest of humanity by offering to “pound their swords into plowshares?� We could undo a lot of the hostility and terror directed at us as a nation, and imagined bastion of Freedom and Democracy. We could show the rest of the world that we are sincerely thinking about their welfare too, especially the poorest and neediest of peoples. This new millennium is perfect era to become prosperous and peace loving beings as a whole. We should not squander this best of opportunities to prove to ourselves once and for all that we can treat each other as equals and our sisters and brothers. The last century of wars and exploitation of natural resources and fossil fuels should be left behind, as a lesson and a warning of just how warlike and greedy humankind can be. It would be great to be able to give our children and the generations to come, the benefit of our lessons learned, and the wisdom derived there from.

Not With My Kids

If the U.S., U.K. and Australia are going to continue to promote Freedom and Democracy through the end of a gun barrel, than the citizens of those three countries are literally putting a target on their backs. Going after local, regional, religious and tribal leaders throughout the tribal and Islamic world is bound to fail. These people have built their plans of their lives and existence, from the cradle to the grave. They don’t care a whit about 4 year elections. They are not dependent on poll numbers, arrogant speeches of nationalism or carefully shaped rhetoric that the soft western populations gobble up without question. Just like the Viet Cong, they have been scrapping and fighting for their very lives commitments, and don’t change if the political winds change. They remain steadfast in their convictions and trust the gun in their hands on a frequent basis. They have the local geographic advantage and the intimate networking of their like minded comrades. They will continue to chip away at the forces of any invader, which is vulnerable to their multi-faceted and extreme tactics.

Why would any parent who loves their child, continue to feed into the lies and corruption of those who would control the world, by encouraging them to sacrifice their health, limbs and life, to heinous war criminals and natural resource harvesters? Who would want to sign up for educational and benefit reasons and end up on the explosive end of an RPG? Rich kids seldom do that, so our leaders and military tempt and encourage poor or lower income people to become expendable for their greedy and power hungry causes. When I see the U.S. Navy commercials with exciting aqua action and boasts of being a “life accelerator� I just shake my head at the audacity of this false advertising, when they are really a Death Accelerator. If Bush and oil baron cronies happen to win the next U.S. election (perish the sick thought), they are going to have some real military problems on their bloody hands. There are rumors that they are preparing implementation of the draft again which would totally validate my contentions about the separation of rich and poor.

When the hell is the moderate middle class going to finally stand up to these petty tyrants and say enough already? We’ve tried it your way, and it is mostly a miserable failure. We are all way over due for some much needed changes in your wars on terrorism, communism, and drugs. These wars are all a front to give you simpletons job security and a tee time at your local country club. Even after you send our kids off to war over lies and false premises, you neglect them and forget them like a piece of bad fruit if they happen to make it out of the “noble and patriotic� nightmare you have created. When they come home with shattered bodies, minds and personalities, you turn them over to the bungling Veterans Administration for further abuse and lies.

Do we not learn anything from mistakes of recent misbegotten wars and engagements. According to statistics one third of all homeless male Americans are Viet Nam Vets. The war mongers that would send our children as RPG fodder, have no idea of the deep seated and festering wounds and scars that these soldiers of the current conflict will have with them for the rest of their lives. Or if they do know they don’t care, as long as you served a human use for their greedy and ever hungry meat grinder. No, I say no more of this callous and glib attitude about our children’s welfare, and I will make it part of my life’s work to encourage my kids and any youth that I have influence or contact with to not be duped into giving away their future to those that would waste it.

Positive Communication

http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture..._151151,00.html

With over 700 million users online right now the world has become a different place, especially in the last ten years. This massive new trend has some pitfalls and some negative impact in certain areas, but I truly believe overall, that this is a wondrous tool that can be utilized to mostly positive affect. Positive online communication has such promise for expanding humankinds understanding, love and ways to deal with modern challenges on a global or universal level. As more and more diverse people go online, so too does the reality of like minds working together. When I started out with my first computer, like many, I had no clue of the far reaching and life changing events that my exploration would run in to. I checked out numerous computer and online games, a bit of smut here and there (that’s right I’m a bachelor male that appreciates a woman’s body, along with her mind and spirit) and dabbled around with sports, news, music and comedy online too. I have a curious mind and a strong willingness to learn and discover each and every day. I went into my first chat room in January of 2002, wanting to talk about 9/11 and reaching out because of some family problems. I ended up in my first MSN community in early March of that year, and my sense of priorities changed quite drastically. I came to understand the online community as a whole and realize the enormity and potential of this tool that has the universes at our fingertips. I started exploring everything I ever wondered about on numerous search engines and a myriad of links and networks.

This is such a golden opportunity to those that are online and then to the rest of humanity to work together for peace, love and prosperity for all. I personally feel a sense of responsibility to spread as much positive energy and truth as possible with this mechanism of learning and communication. This movement has no boundaries or restrictions to the good one can do or the effect it can have on every one of us luminous beings, and I am on a lifelong treasure hunt to find out anyway. The thought of talking to someone in Australia or Pakistan or India or Belgium or Egypt, is just amazing to me. The more that unaffiliated individuals who care can communicate, the more universal positive communication can transpire. That’s what it’s all about, no politics, or nationalism, or greed, or corruption, or religious or ethnic strife, but just people all working together to make this place a better world…

Insecurity



Do you feel secure? Does it make you feel good to pay out a third of your hard earned money for taxes? What would you do if the power grid went down for a week? A month? Into the unforeseeable future? Do you like to root for people to kill and make war on other people? Do you justify that type of behavior to feel protected for yourself, your family, your friends, your city, your state, your country or your ego? Do you ever step outside of your shoes and into someone else’s? Do you have the ability to be a human being that cares about people you don’t even know? Do you blindly live through your life, hoping for the best, but continually tolerating something a lot less than that? Would you be willing to start today, to make this planet and the people on it a secure world for all of us, and the generations to come? Have you ever considered focusing your waking hours to moving your thoughts beyond your place and sphere of influence in life at that moment, and working towards things that are only positive? Many of you do positive things all the time for this cause or that concern, but do you ever think about being pro-active for all us creative luminous beings as a whole? It’s time to quit living only in the past and present, and to expand your thinking towards a future. You probably have priorities of the moment, and I’m not asking you to drop anything your doing right now, so don’t be too quick to cancel or block me out. I would ask you to think about it though, and when your mind ponders others, try to think of all others, not just who you know. Think about all of us as equal striving, living and dreaming beings in positive fashion.

The search for fossil fuels, and extraction of these fuels for our energy needs, has become a curse more than it is a blessing. We’ve gone way overboard on this, as our most common source of energy and productivity. Our business leaders and policy makers have let a huge petroleum monster, climb on all our backs and it is affecting every member of the human race. It is polluting our air, it is causing wars and killing, it is driving religious animosities, and it is exploiting for greed, the peoples who need our help the most. Do the people that claim to defend your life and your family’s life care about your well being and real security? Would they really even need to defend you, if they hadn’t created a monster that has inflamed resentment and jealousy from around the globe? The people that are supposed to take care of our security, strengthen our infrastructures, clean up our environment, and secure our actual borders to people that mean us harm, send you into harms way instead. If they really cared they would focus on problems inside our country, but they don’t, they’ve been mesmerized by the siren song of capitalism and “me first� mentality. The good that petroleum and fossil fuels has done for our civilization, is quickly tipping the scale of benefits to becoming a negative bane on humankind.

The boycott of hemp and the putting off of acceleration of renewable energy sources borders on neglect and denial. The funding dedicated towards these clean and regenerative resources is squashed by jealous industries of fossil fuels and military contracting. The people in charge of our security don’t want us to be safer or more self-sufficient in the U.S., because that would take away from the obsessive needs for power, control and greed. Measures could have been implemented decades ago, to become more independent from middle eastern and third world countries, natural resources, but fear factor and civil strife in these countries is driven by Americans addiction to petroleum. They could have been working on hybrid and electric transportation decades ago too, for many practical reasons, but instead they squeeze the planet with wars on a myriad of different things to keep us all focused on oil and gas. Huge phalluses on wheels like SUV’s and status vehicles just serve as a disgusting need to feed our egos and play the fools of acquiring and consuming more than we ever really need. The wealthy people and “corpserations� that play on our vanity and ego make us all less secure as time goes on.

This new century is a time for smarter and cleaner options for all. Let’s leave the stinking petroleum priorities in the past and move towards a better future, for our future- our offspring. With less worry about oil, the more peaceful and benevolent nature of humankind will be allowed to prosper and flourish. The time is now, don’t waste the golden opportunity to do better for every one of us.

Sl{ULLHOPE



First Previous 2-6 of 6 Next Last Delete Replies

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 2 of 6 in Discussion

From: Robert the Bruce Sent: 23/02/2004 12:31 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/st...1153547,00.html

Key findings of the Pentagon

Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer

· Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honour.
· By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands inhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

· Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet's population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.

· Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.

· Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk.

· A 'significant drop' in the planet's ability to sustain its present population will become apparent over the next 20 years.

· Rich areas like the US and Europe would become 'virtual fortresses' to prevent millions of migrants from entering after being forced from land drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able to grow crops. Waves of boatpeople pose significant problems.

· Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt and North Korea. Israel, China, India and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.

· By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an 'economic nuisance' as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

· More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk.

· Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive numbers of migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from Scandinavia seek warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa.

· Mega-droughts affect the world's major breadbaskets, including America's Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss.

· China's huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates the inland water supplies.



Reply
Recommend Delete Message 3 of 3 in Discussion

From: Robert the Bruce Sent: 23/02/2004 12:29 AM
Though I know they will be able to clean the environment with nanobots in a decade I do not think they would not take advantage of this to de-populate the world to start over as they want it.




Reply
Recommend Delete Message 3 of 6 in Discussion

From: Robert the Bruce Sent: 23/02/2004 12:53 AM

http://nomorefakenews.com/

Excerpt:

Secret societies, of course, are all about conspiracies. People often don't get how a major conspiracy can operate without having a million participants in on the game.

Actually, it's easy. You compartmentalize functions, so that most of the dupes are just "doing their jobs." They don't realize the true agenda they are serving.

Some of the more amusing emails I've received are from people who say that big-scale conspiracies are impossible to maintain. These people are actually part of a conspiracy, but they don't know it. They're just going to work every day.

Looks like we're going to have two secret-society candidates for president in 2004. Skull and Bones Bush, and Skull and Bones Kerry. Neither man will talk about that link.

At the deepest level, secret societies are all about creating a mural called Reality, in which the rest of us live.

Most of us welcome that reality and do everything we can to assist in its creation, because we feel a need to have The World made for us.

"Give me the game board and the rules, and I'll play to the best of my ability."

We are so used to this state of affairs that we can't conceive of any other.

There is a full-on media op designed to convince us that the people who stray from the pre-set mural are lone nuts, assassins, crazy psychos.

Unless such a person (real or imagined) is, say, a Jesus, who receives official certification by a Church.

In which case, the lesson is: HE could stray from the mural because God sent him here for a reason; we don't have that option; we must seek deliverance through the Church that DEFINES REALITY.



Reply
Recommend Delete Message 4 of 6 in Discussion

From: Robert the Bruce Sent: 24/02/2004 9:42 AM

Globalization goes farther than you think, right off hand. Consider this:
========================================================

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994685

"There are no passengers on spaceship earth. We are all crew." Marshall McLuhan

SPACESHIP EARTH

Here is my interpretation of the above: If the earth is a spaceship, it appears--and it is only an appearance--that someone owns it and is paying someone to run it. Most of us are nothing more than paying passangers.

A privileged few of us occupy first class; some second class, while most of us are forced to get by, often at very high risk--even of early death--in steerage.

But this is an illusion. The fact is: we are all members of the crew.

WE ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE CREW

In agreement with McLuhan, I believe I am neither an owner nor a paying passanger, but a member of the crew, on spaceship earth. As part of my ongoing internal dialogue I often ask myself--and, as yet, I have no definite answers, just a suspicion--the following questions: How did I get to earth, and why am I here? Am I on spaceship earth as a volunteer? Or was I placed here by some cosmic accident? Or was I placed here by the gods, God, or whatever?

================================================ =============================

If we are all crew, I wonder how many of us accept this as so? And if so, what advantage would it be to the "owners" of the ship, aided and abetted by the paid staff, to make those in steerage--the vast majority, motivated by fanatic beliefs about going to heaven--go mad enough to use weapons of MAD (weapons of mutually assured destruction)?

I like it - but I would add that the Heaven and other 'constructed' myths that have a built up and built in design are quite able to affect real people in search of truth - and trap them. I do not blame any of the participants (including the devious designers) becausse there are reasons they have for managing the spacecraft we may not fully understand and few of us are willing to try to understand it.

But the time has come to stop the hoarding of management decision-making and allow more access to the plan or SOP that the captain and officers are given from on high.

Okay, RTB--if you don't mind me using this short form--I like your style.

It looks like we can have a very helpful and socratic-kind of dialogue about several valuable topics. BTW, feel free to call me LGK, or Linds--short for Lindsay.

Before we proceed further, may I suggest we set up a few basic principles for the dialogue.

I will begin by stating what I feel are valuable principles, to me. And, of course, I give you the right to add to and/or modify what I write. Agreed?

============================================================================

1. Firstly, I would like to think that both of us are fallible and truly human beings. Neither of us has a corner on the knowledge and wisdom market. No argumentum ad hominems ad infinitum. Agreed?

2. Second, I love humour. Let's not be too serious about things. Let's have fun doing this. Agreed?

3. Third, let us respect, without worshipping them, all the physical, mental and spiritual experts--scientists in all fields. We are not obligated to worship them as know-it-alls. For example, if we disagree as to the meaning of a word, let us, without considering them infallible, consult the dictionaries.

4. Fourth, if after we have both stated where we stand, we still discover that we disagree, let us agree, NOW, to disagree, agreeably. Agreed?

Have you anything to add to this? If so, add it. Then we can begin.

BTW, I would also like your permission to copy our dialogue to my Website:

http://www.flfcanada.com/index_forum.html

Dear Lindsey

I agree all of what you say makes sense but I am not sure that I have any desire to spend a great deal of time going over what I spent hundreds of hours doing and reaching the point where I know that I must wait until real committed people are willing to DO something. I dare say there are hundreds of posts on some threads and hundreds of threads on the 20 to 30 sites I did this on.

As it happens I am scanning in a book I did almost four years ago which has some of the stuff that I brought to these sites in the first place and I can put it here or discuss it while working on that book (without much distraction from my schedule).

If others here are participating in the discussions I will be more motivated to spend time on it. As you no doubt see - I am engaged in the discourse with others on tangentially involved topics - this is the nature of integration and distractions. I welcome any meaningful discourse and probably will post things on topic - but what I am saying is - I cannot commit to doing my best on the matter of debating something I already know the likely outcome of. I do not think you and I disagree a lot on the desired outcome in any event.