Public support for the war in Iraq has been steadily falling and for this reason the Bush administration desperately required a good news story coming out of Iraq rather than just more reports of a never ending quagmire. In recent times we have been bombarded with media stories concerning the 'success' of the surge in Iraq in quelling violence in the country, which would suggest that what the situation in Iraq required all along was the application of a greater concentration of military violence, since apparently this was the missing part of the equation in the past. Now that the surge has proven to be beneficial we now here reports that the Bush administration is authorizing a second surge, this time in the number of troops recruited into the American armed forces, and funding will now be given to increase the size of America's military. The timing of this announcement follows the announcement of the success of the surge into Iraq, since the conclusion one must draw is that America is short of troops, and since more military force equates to success on the battlefield, America needs to allocate more funds to expanding its military.
Certain readers may be unaware of some important details concerning the fall in the level of violence in Iraq, and so I thought it would be good to fill in some of the blanks. Now one of the first reasons for the fall in the level of violence in Iraq is that the period of ethnic cleansing is now over, and given how there are no longer Shi'ites living in Sunni claimed neighborhoods or vice versa, there are no longer any civilians for the armed militias to terrorize and chase away so as to create pure ethnic enclaves in Iraq. The seeds for this great outburst of ethnic strife in Iraq were planted right at the beginning of the occupation when suddenly many tens of thousands of Sunnis, members of Saddam's tribe, were suddenly out of a job having been summarily fired by Paul Bremer who was running Iraq on behalf of Washington at that time. The Sunni insurgency then began to build up steam in the following months. In order to fight the Sunni insurgency it then became necessary for Washington to become cozy with the Shi'ites, who now dominate Iraq's parliament, this being the old imperialist strategy of 'divide and conquer', and the hope was that by recruiting the Shi'ites they could be employed to help put down the rising Sunni insurgency. Next came the constitution, which granted oil rights based upon regions, so as to please the Sunnis in the South and the Kurds in the North, while leaving the Sunnis in the middle with next to nothing, since there is no oil discovered in the middle of Iraq at the present time. This constitutional division of the oil rights based upon regions was once again required to keep Shi'ites and Kurds on board in the fight against the Sunni insurgency. This was then followed by the Sunni bombing of the most sacred Shi'ite mosque, which was then followed by an escalating round of tit for tat episodes of ethnic cleansing and one car bombing and episodes of kidnapping, torture and murder as Sunnis drove out Shi'ites and Shi'ites drove out Sunnis, resulting the new creation of ethnic enclaves in Iraq where you won't find a single Sunni in a Shi'ite claimed territory or vice versa. This phase is now over since there are now several million internally displaced refugees in Iraq and no more ethnic cleansing is required to purify various neighborhoods since they were already purified in the past couple of years. Thus this sort of violence has subsided in Iraq, and it has nothing to do with a success of the surge but rather is the result of the success of ethnic cleansing, a totally different matter altogether.
Now given that the Bush administration needed a good news story, and given that the surge was not producing results earlier in the year, and the situation was so bad that during the September report to Congress and the media on the surge, the theme of the day was that the surge just needed more time and then it would be successful, so therefore people should be more patient.
Well, given the failure of the surge, as reported in September, it became quite obvious that a surge was never going to work, no matter how damn long they tried that strategy, and so the decision was made to try a different strategy. Therefore now the militias in Iraq are on the Pentagon payroll. They are now receiving pay cheques of three hundred dollars a month to not attack American troops. In this way peer group pressure could be brought into play, for if everyone in that militia wants to keep getting their monthly pay cheque they will have to make sure that all their associates in that militia do not ruin things for everyone else by attacking American troops. This strategy of paying the militias in Iraq has worked where the previous surge had failed and now violence is dropping in Iraq. As well, you might have heard the one about how the militias in Iraq finally came to realize the grave danger posed to Iraq by foreign Al Queda fighters and then began fighting Al Queda in Iraq. What happened there is that in order to keep their payments of 300 dollars a month the militias had to agree to fight Al Queda in Iraq while also agreeing not to fight America troops. It gives a person some idea of just how much people in Iraq want three hundred dollars when you consider just how quickly those militias began fighting Al Queda in Iraq, which was duly reported in the media, incorrectly, as being the result of the growing unpopularity of Al Queda, when actually it was all about being on the payroll and getting paid for doing certain jobs. A lot of these militias haven't been paid by the month ever since they got unceremoniously dumped into the streets by Paul Bremer, and now that they have finally found gainful employment, it is not surprising to see them at work and on the job everyday.
The moral of the story would appear to be that when a country is invaded the very first thing that should be done is that cheques should be issued on a monthly basis for humanitarian causes. Now there are those who might say, 'who the hell am I, Santa Claus?' However, you did invade their country, and you will be spending hundreds of billions and then even multiple trillions on the barbaric attempt to beat that country to a pulp, and it would seem to me that while playing Santa could also cost you a few hundred billion it would still be more cost effective than sinking all that money into some endless sinkhole only to wind up at the end of it all writing some miserly cheques to try to make up for some of the damage done when you spent that previous trillion bucks on barbarism and violence.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
Faith in Violence
The cost of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is climbing towards one trillion dollars, with some estimates suggesting that the total cost will climb into the multiple trillions by the middle of the next decade, assuming that these two seemingly endless quagmires were to continue for that long. Iraq was once one of the most prosperous countries in the Middle East, with modern infrastructure such as power utilities and water and sanitation being built over the course of decades using the proceeds from a state owned oil industry. Now the country is destroyed and poverty is endemic, while child starvation is a persistent fact of life in Afghanistan. All the hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars are not being spent on human needs but rather are being poured into violent bloodshed, with the human and social toll of the conflicts feeding back into a growing insurgency that gains more support as the months and years go by, resulting in even more money being poured into the open cesspool of violence and oppression in response to the constantly swelling support for the insurgency in those two countries. The Taliban have made a comeback in Afghanistan and the great majority of Iraqis want the Americans out of their country, while millions of Iraqis have become homeless refugees because of the conflict in their country. In order to fend off starvation the farmers in Afghanistan have turned to the heroin trade such that 90 percent of the world's heroin is now being produced. When attempts were made by the NATO forces to spray the poppy plants, the population turned to the Taliban for protection so that the poppy fields could be protected, and as a result the Taliban now once again control the southern part of the country.
When you consider the trillions of dollars being flushed down a sewer and when you consider just how much easier it would have been to win people over with a little help, or even a lot of help, since a trillion is a lot of money to be spending, then you can realize just how fucking brainless political leadership on this planet has become and just brutish and barbaric the minds of the entire political establishment must be to think that they can 'win a victory' simply buy using more brutality and spending ever greater amounts on violence as the violence they unleashed previously inspires more insurgency, thus requiring more spending on brainless violence. It is exactly this process which occurred in Vietnam and as the soldiers in that country used to say, there were no civilians in that place, since everyone was a supporter of the Viet Cong, this rising militancy occurring over the period of years as a response to brutality and violence. The same process is underway in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the brutish policy of the political establishment is the same as it was in Vietnam, more money and more violence, and while the idiotic twaddle about 'victory at any cost' continues, it is easy to predict how things will turn out at the end of it all. Some people apparently learn nothing from history.
The following interesting article appeared in the Observer, written by Jason Burke and entitled “No Hope of Victory Soon in Afghanistan.”
When you consider the trillions of dollars being flushed down a sewer and when you consider just how much easier it would have been to win people over with a little help, or even a lot of help, since a trillion is a lot of money to be spending, then you can realize just how fucking brainless political leadership on this planet has become and just brutish and barbaric the minds of the entire political establishment must be to think that they can 'win a victory' simply buy using more brutality and spending ever greater amounts on violence as the violence they unleashed previously inspires more insurgency, thus requiring more spending on brainless violence. It is exactly this process which occurred in Vietnam and as the soldiers in that country used to say, there were no civilians in that place, since everyone was a supporter of the Viet Cong, this rising militancy occurring over the period of years as a response to brutality and violence. The same process is underway in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the brutish policy of the political establishment is the same as it was in Vietnam, more money and more violence, and while the idiotic twaddle about 'victory at any cost' continues, it is easy to predict how things will turn out at the end of it all. Some people apparently learn nothing from history.
The following interesting article appeared in the Observer, written by Jason Burke and entitled “No Hope of Victory Soon in Afghanistan.”
He wrote, “In late 2003 I interviewed starving peasants in a ward of Kandahar hospital. That there was still famine two years after Afghanistan had been invaded by the world’s richest superpower was not just a disgrace, but plain dumb. When I spoke to inhabitants of the village outside Kandahar where the Taliban had been founded a decade previously, they told me how they were planting opium to survive, how they did not want the religious hardliners back, but wanted security, justice and protection from rapacious government officials and warlords, and how they would like a well.
“Last week, fierce battles raged around that village as NATO troops tried to wrest it back from the insurgents. The international coalition fought one easy war to win Afghanistan in 2001, then lost a third of the country through negligence and is now fighting a hard second war to get it back.
“This puts recent tactical victories in perspective. Musa Qala, the town retaken from the Taliban last week, is a small district centre in one of the remote parts of the country. If Afghanistan were the United Kingdom, it would be a market town in mid-Wales. If [Conservative Opposition leader] David Cameron seriously thinks the fight for it is the equal of D-Day, then he should look at an atlas.”
Friday, December 21, 2007
Hollywood's sanitized version of events leading to 911
Tom Hanks Tells Hollywood Whopper in 'Charlie Wilson's War'
As it so happens, Massoud did not receive any financial support from the Saudis, because they mistakenly thought he was a Shia Muslim. He was Sunni. Nevertheless, he was not altogether displeased with the situation, because it meant he didn't have to deal with the Arab jihadis. This is one of several reasons why, had we actually supported Massoud and not Hekmatyar, there would have been no 9/11. To be sure, there were quite a few people during the 1980s, including several U.S. Senators and various journalists, trying to warn Wilson and the CIA that the consequences of supporting Hekmatyar would be globally catastrophic.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Oil and the War in Sudan
The map on the following page shows the relationship that exists between the location of Sudan's oil fields and the region where the war in Sudan is being waged between the SPLA and the government forces. The government forces are concentrated in the oil producing region with the SPLA forces ringing the perimeter, and this arrangement of strategic forces indicates the war in Sudan is mostly about the wealth being generated by oil. Similar grievances are found in Nigeria where a smaller scale war is being waged over complaints about oil revenues being siphoned off while none of the money reaches the local population. Oil Activity and the Scene of War: Western Upper Nile
In the following story from the BBC site the SPLA claims to have conquered a Chinese run oil field, a claim denied by the Chinese company, although they did acknowledge that fighting had taken place over possession of this oil field. Darfur rebels win 'major victory'
In the following story from the BBC site the SPLA claims to have conquered a Chinese run oil field, a claim denied by the Chinese company, although they did acknowledge that fighting had taken place over possession of this oil field. Darfur rebels win 'major victory'
The Mind of Adolph Hitler
History teaches us that the great struggle for life takes the form of a battle between the races. What was the result of the first of history’s great battles between the Nordic Aryan race of Europe and the Jew? Was the result of this first victorious struggle not the greatest flowering of human culture and the grandest rise in the level of human civilization that the world has ever seen. What the Jew feared most was what came to pass in those days, as the innate superiority of the European Aryan race was revealed in all its majestic glory.
Truly it can be said with no fear of contradiction that it has always been the Aryan white race that has been the carrier of all that has been best in human culture. Compare the scientific genius, the undeniable technological prowess put on display for all the world to see. Who could deny the greatness of the Aryan Super Race, nature’s highest creation, and the chosen child of Divine Providence meant to reign and rule. What comparable accomplishment could be attributed to the black nigger race? Or the barbaric Indian? If it were not for the benevolent intervention of the more cultured and superior white Aryan race would not the nigger still be found haunting the jungles of the world, fearing the thunder, wearing bones in their noses. Would not the Indians still be found wandering the plains in the most backwards state, pursuing buffalo as did their most primitive ancestors.
Yes, the true glory of the Master Race has been revealed, and was it not true that none of this glory would have become manifest if it were not for the vision of visionaries who first took the battle to the Jew. Yes, it is true, that no great advance in the cultural and civilization of Europe would have been possible without it being a first requirement that the Aryan race rise up to their historic task and engage in victorious struggle with the Jew and that most primitive abomination which was the creation of the deviant Jew, that Jew God. No great advancement in science was possible without the Aryan race first being found in bloody battle to throw off the imposed backwardness of that filthy creation, the Jew God. From the victorious rise of the Aryan we can gain confidence which will strengthen us in the struggles to come, for the battle against the Jew continues to this day, and it is the struggle to throw off everything backwards, everything rotten and corrupt and primitive. Here we can see that the great defining struggle of our age is the battle between the Aryan Master Race and their implacable enemies, the Jews. The entire future of the human race hangs in the balance awaiting the outcome of this greatest of historical struggles. Will the flower of humanity blossom and produce the fresh fruits of a higher and more civilized culture or will the Jew prevail and drag the human race back to the primitive level of the cave dwelling savage?
What has been the contribution to human culture of that most primitive of races, the Jews? Does there remain any thinking person who has freed themselves from the malignant clutches of the Jew who might still consider those ridiculous backwards Jew stories to be a contribution to the canon of the philosophers? Yet, despite it all, somehow the Jew has managed to pollute the planet with that primitive chatter so that almost no place remains clean. Such is the true contribution of that evolutionary abortion, the Jew. The Jew debases and pollutes the culture of every race they encounter. One may only need to survey this planet and see the enormity of the damage that has been done by those Jews and their primitive stories to be able to see clearly and understand clearly the true nature of that most dangerous of creatures, the Jew.
Even though it has been clearly seen that the Jew has been that most destructive of creatures, polluting the human mind and debasing the human civilization throughout recorded history, nevertheless there are still those who would consider allowing Jews to roam freely in every country. Any sane ruler who found himself in possession of the power to do so, would not hesitate to begin immediately the task of separating the Jews and isolating the Jews, so as to avoid the further spread of their contagion. For a look at the debased state of human civilization on this planet provides all the evidence one needs to open ones eyes wide so that for the very first time a person would see the Jew for what the Jew really is, the carrier of an infectious contagion. They are like vermin, like rats who carry the plague and the result of the practice of allowing the free roaming of the Jews from nation to nation has been the most calamitous fall in the level of human culture as the most rotten superstitions are fed into the addled heads of a human race apparently helpless before the filthy schemes of those dirty rotten Jews.
Has there ever been a story to foul or filthy that it would cause the face of a Jew to blush. Apparently there is no story to idiotic that it would not be considered a philosophical precept by such a primitive and underdeveloped creature, such as the Jew. And yet, despite the truth, which is impossible to conceal, so great is the primitive stench, nevertheless the more developed races, and even superior White Aryans will be found sitting upon the lap and sucking on the teat of some Jew while that Jew reads them little fairy tales, and it as though the human race somehow that this hideous parasite, the Jew, was a nursemaid. The Jew only tells the people these fables because the Jew knows that is what they want to hear.
It is not obvious that no more incorrigible liar has ever existed than that most practiced of deceitful liars, the Jew. There is no shameful or reprehensible falsehood which will not flow as though it were honey from the lying lips of the Jew. The Jew is the most damnable of liars, and yet despite the ridiculous lengths the Jew will go to in making up those ridiculous Jew stories, there are still those who show themselves idiotic enough to regard such primitive backwards nonsense to be worthy of a philosophical debate. While the philosophers dabble and preach, meanwhile the Jew continues on free to perjure and then perjure again, while all the while continually poisoning one generation after another with the filthy rotten superstitions spread about by those malformed Neanderthals, the Jews.
Truly the Jew is like some idiotic relative that a family might hide in the attic so that no one would know that their family was capable of giving birth to such idiocy. Yet, the Jew, idiot that he is, is allowed to roam freely and go about his business of destroying the human race. Truly the Jew is like an evolutionary abortion, a malformed and subhuman species that to this day continues to wallow in primitive prehistoric rottenness, and they spread this rottenness much as a cancerous tumor spreads until it consumes and destroys the entire body. So it has been with the Jews and that fossil they have dragged into the modern age, the Jew God, and now every culture and every almost every civilization in the world has been befouled by the filthy taint caused by the pusillanimous touch of that parasite, the Jew.
Can anyone imagine any sight more appalling that to see nature’s noblest creature, a White Aryan, a privileged member of the Chosen Master Race, gripped with the mental hysteria caused by Jew Mania, as the sight of that entrenched hive of Jews in the Middle East addles their brains yet one more time with fanciful visions of the arrival of that primitive Jew God. Apparently the world can never be free of such backwardness as long as even one Jew remains alive on this planet. It is for this reason that we must be hard and we must be ruthless, for it has become apparent, yes, history has taught us this lesson as well, that the human race will never respond to reason nor will they do what must be done with a willing heart. Therefore, force must be used. The human race will be forced into the new world that is coming. Where the babbling of the philosopher has failed, we will succeed, if we are hard enough. Ruthless measures must be taken. The Final Solution to the Jewish problem is simple enough at the end of it all. No Jew, no more Jew God, no more problem.
Therefore, given the disgusting state of affairs in the world today, and given that International Jewry continues to hold large swaths of this planet within their filthy grasping claws, it becomes apparent that only one course of action remains if the Aryan is to achieve the final victory and raise the cultural level of humanity to the glorious heights which is its destiny. In the past the Jew was free to infect the human race for generation after generation with the most primitive forms of backwardness and rotten superstitions concerning the gods who were the idols of our cave dwelling ancestors. They did this because for centuries past there was to be found no one with the determination or the simple common decency to take action and do something about those Neanderthals, those parasites, the Jews. Europe has become Jew Free, but the battle continues. A planet awaits its liberation. The time of the Jew has passed. The victory of the Aryan Superman is inevitable. Only be strong and courageous. Victory is certain. The new world awaits, a world free of the taint of primitive superstitions concerning gods. No more will the human race be found worshipping those detestable idols. The twilight of the idols has fallen.
If the filthy plots of those Jews were to come to fruition they would soon enough have humanity back in caves worshipping bundles of sticks and mud. Truly the Jew has been to the human race like a ship attempting to sail while at the same time dragging an anchor along the ocean floor. The solution is to cut off the anchor.
Look at the debased state of the culture of the human race. Is it not a sorry sight. In countries all over the world there are people found worshipping those bundles of sticks and mud, and they will not willingly let them go. They Jew, filthy creatures that they are, know this and the Jew will never stop poisoning the well, not so long as one Jew remains alive on this planet. Cut off the root and the whole tree falls. Both the Church and the Mosque are build upon the faulty foundation provided by that Jew. When the foundation is destroyed, all that was built upon will also collapse. Where the philosophers have failed, the strong man will succeed. All that is required is a man with a will or iron who posses the ruthlessness required to be hard with the human race. The human race is like a child requiring stern correction.
It is therefore obvious that the greatest act of decency, the greatest gift that could ever be given to humanity at this present time, would be for a great man to arise, a savior, someone strong enough and ruthlessness enough to wipe out that entrenched hive of Jews in the middle east. This would be an act of grace. In one hour the world had changed. The hour before the old world was found writing in its labor pains, struggling to give birth to modernity. In the next hour the world was dazzled by the blinding light. The New World was born and there was now no going back. The Jew was gone, and now even the most deceived and gullible were forced to face the truth. The spell of the Jew was broken. As time went by, and no Jew God was seen, it would be the end of everything primitive and the last trace of everything backwards would be purged and finally destroyed.
If the filthy plots of those Jews were to come to fruition they would soon enough have humanity back in caves worshipping bundles of sticks and mud. Truly the Jew has been to the human race like a ship attempting to sail while at the same time dragging an anchor along the ocean floor. The solution is to cut off the anchor.
Look at the debased state of the culture of the human race. Is it not a sorry sight. In countries all over the world there are people found worshipping those bundles of sticks and mud, and they will not willingly let them go. They Jew, filthy creatures that they are, know this and the Jew will never stop poisoning the well, not so long as one Jew remains alive on this planet. Cut off the root and the whole tree falls. Both the Church and the Mosque are build upon the faulty foundation provided by that Jew. When the foundation is destroyed, all that was built upon will also collapse. Where the philosophers have failed, the strong man will succeed. All that is required is a man with a will or iron who posses the ruthlessness required to be hard with the human race. The human race is like a child requiring stern correction.
It is therefore obvious that the greatest act of decency, the greatest gift that could ever be given to humanity at this present time, would be for a great man to arise, a savior, someone strong enough and ruthlessness enough to wipe out that entrenched hive of Jews in the middle east. This would be an act of grace. In one hour the world had changed. The hour before the old world was found writing in its labor pains, struggling to give birth to modernity. In the next hour the world was dazzled by the blinding light. The New World was born and there was now no going back. The Jew was gone, and now even the most deceived and gullible were forced to face the truth. The spell of the Jew was broken. As time went by, and no Jew God was seen, it would be the end of everything primitive and the last trace of everything backwards would be purged and finally destroyed. Yes, after the Jews are destroyed, and the world goes on, the generations come and go, and no one sees that Jew God, even the most gullible will no longer be found bowing down before the altars of ancestors. The gods will perish. A new world of modernity will be born. History will look back graciously upon the man who kills the Jews. They will reckon time by his passing. Just as they reckoned time by that idol of theirs, Jesus Christ, and spoke of time as being divided into eras, before Christ and After Christ, so they will honor the man who kills the Jew by marking off time based upon the glorious day of the birth of the true savior of humanity, the hard man who out of love for his fellow human beings, had the harshness to do what was required by killing the Jew and bringing salvation and redemption to a struggling humanity, by ridding the world of that Jew..
Truly it can be said with no fear of contradiction that it has always been the Aryan white race that has been the carrier of all that has been best in human culture. Compare the scientific genius, the undeniable technological prowess put on display for all the world to see. Who could deny the greatness of the Aryan Super Race, nature’s highest creation, and the chosen child of Divine Providence meant to reign and rule. What comparable accomplishment could be attributed to the black nigger race? Or the barbaric Indian? If it were not for the benevolent intervention of the more cultured and superior white Aryan race would not the nigger still be found haunting the jungles of the world, fearing the thunder, wearing bones in their noses. Would not the Indians still be found wandering the plains in the most backwards state, pursuing buffalo as did their most primitive ancestors.
Yes, the true glory of the Master Race has been revealed, and was it not true that none of this glory would have become manifest if it were not for the vision of visionaries who first took the battle to the Jew. Yes, it is true, that no great advance in the cultural and civilization of Europe would have been possible without it being a first requirement that the Aryan race rise up to their historic task and engage in victorious struggle with the Jew and that most primitive abomination which was the creation of the deviant Jew, that Jew God. No great advancement in science was possible without the Aryan race first being found in bloody battle to throw off the imposed backwardness of that filthy creation, the Jew God. From the victorious rise of the Aryan we can gain confidence which will strengthen us in the struggles to come, for the battle against the Jew continues to this day, and it is the struggle to throw off everything backwards, everything rotten and corrupt and primitive. Here we can see that the great defining struggle of our age is the battle between the Aryan Master Race and their implacable enemies, the Jews. The entire future of the human race hangs in the balance awaiting the outcome of this greatest of historical struggles. Will the flower of humanity blossom and produce the fresh fruits of a higher and more civilized culture or will the Jew prevail and drag the human race back to the primitive level of the cave dwelling savage?
What has been the contribution to human culture of that most primitive of races, the Jews? Does there remain any thinking person who has freed themselves from the malignant clutches of the Jew who might still consider those ridiculous backwards Jew stories to be a contribution to the canon of the philosophers? Yet, despite it all, somehow the Jew has managed to pollute the planet with that primitive chatter so that almost no place remains clean. Such is the true contribution of that evolutionary abortion, the Jew. The Jew debases and pollutes the culture of every race they encounter. One may only need to survey this planet and see the enormity of the damage that has been done by those Jews and their primitive stories to be able to see clearly and understand clearly the true nature of that most dangerous of creatures, the Jew.
Even though it has been clearly seen that the Jew has been that most destructive of creatures, polluting the human mind and debasing the human civilization throughout recorded history, nevertheless there are still those who would consider allowing Jews to roam freely in every country. Any sane ruler who found himself in possession of the power to do so, would not hesitate to begin immediately the task of separating the Jews and isolating the Jews, so as to avoid the further spread of their contagion. For a look at the debased state of human civilization on this planet provides all the evidence one needs to open ones eyes wide so that for the very first time a person would see the Jew for what the Jew really is, the carrier of an infectious contagion. They are like vermin, like rats who carry the plague and the result of the practice of allowing the free roaming of the Jews from nation to nation has been the most calamitous fall in the level of human culture as the most rotten superstitions are fed into the addled heads of a human race apparently helpless before the filthy schemes of those dirty rotten Jews.
Has there ever been a story to foul or filthy that it would cause the face of a Jew to blush. Apparently there is no story to idiotic that it would not be considered a philosophical precept by such a primitive and underdeveloped creature, such as the Jew. And yet, despite the truth, which is impossible to conceal, so great is the primitive stench, nevertheless the more developed races, and even superior White Aryans will be found sitting upon the lap and sucking on the teat of some Jew while that Jew reads them little fairy tales, and it as though the human race somehow that this hideous parasite, the Jew, was a nursemaid. The Jew only tells the people these fables because the Jew knows that is what they want to hear.
It is not obvious that no more incorrigible liar has ever existed than that most practiced of deceitful liars, the Jew. There is no shameful or reprehensible falsehood which will not flow as though it were honey from the lying lips of the Jew. The Jew is the most damnable of liars, and yet despite the ridiculous lengths the Jew will go to in making up those ridiculous Jew stories, there are still those who show themselves idiotic enough to regard such primitive backwards nonsense to be worthy of a philosophical debate. While the philosophers dabble and preach, meanwhile the Jew continues on free to perjure and then perjure again, while all the while continually poisoning one generation after another with the filthy rotten superstitions spread about by those malformed Neanderthals, the Jews.
Truly the Jew is like some idiotic relative that a family might hide in the attic so that no one would know that their family was capable of giving birth to such idiocy. Yet, the Jew, idiot that he is, is allowed to roam freely and go about his business of destroying the human race. Truly the Jew is like an evolutionary abortion, a malformed and subhuman species that to this day continues to wallow in primitive prehistoric rottenness, and they spread this rottenness much as a cancerous tumor spreads until it consumes and destroys the entire body. So it has been with the Jews and that fossil they have dragged into the modern age, the Jew God, and now every culture and every almost every civilization in the world has been befouled by the filthy taint caused by the pusillanimous touch of that parasite, the Jew.
Can anyone imagine any sight more appalling that to see nature’s noblest creature, a White Aryan, a privileged member of the Chosen Master Race, gripped with the mental hysteria caused by Jew Mania, as the sight of that entrenched hive of Jews in the Middle East addles their brains yet one more time with fanciful visions of the arrival of that primitive Jew God. Apparently the world can never be free of such backwardness as long as even one Jew remains alive on this planet. It is for this reason that we must be hard and we must be ruthless, for it has become apparent, yes, history has taught us this lesson as well, that the human race will never respond to reason nor will they do what must be done with a willing heart. Therefore, force must be used. The human race will be forced into the new world that is coming. Where the babbling of the philosopher has failed, we will succeed, if we are hard enough. Ruthless measures must be taken. The Final Solution to the Jewish problem is simple enough at the end of it all. No Jew, no more Jew God, no more problem.
Therefore, given the disgusting state of affairs in the world today, and given that International Jewry continues to hold large swaths of this planet within their filthy grasping claws, it becomes apparent that only one course of action remains if the Aryan is to achieve the final victory and raise the cultural level of humanity to the glorious heights which is its destiny. In the past the Jew was free to infect the human race for generation after generation with the most primitive forms of backwardness and rotten superstitions concerning the gods who were the idols of our cave dwelling ancestors. They did this because for centuries past there was to be found no one with the determination or the simple common decency to take action and do something about those Neanderthals, those parasites, the Jews. Europe has become Jew Free, but the battle continues. A planet awaits its liberation. The time of the Jew has passed. The victory of the Aryan Superman is inevitable. Only be strong and courageous. Victory is certain. The new world awaits, a world free of the taint of primitive superstitions concerning gods. No more will the human race be found worshipping those detestable idols. The twilight of the idols has fallen.
If the filthy plots of those Jews were to come to fruition they would soon enough have humanity back in caves worshipping bundles of sticks and mud. Truly the Jew has been to the human race like a ship attempting to sail while at the same time dragging an anchor along the ocean floor. The solution is to cut off the anchor.
Look at the debased state of the culture of the human race. Is it not a sorry sight. In countries all over the world there are people found worshipping those bundles of sticks and mud, and they will not willingly let them go. They Jew, filthy creatures that they are, know this and the Jew will never stop poisoning the well, not so long as one Jew remains alive on this planet. Cut off the root and the whole tree falls. Both the Church and the Mosque are build upon the faulty foundation provided by that Jew. When the foundation is destroyed, all that was built upon will also collapse. Where the philosophers have failed, the strong man will succeed. All that is required is a man with a will or iron who posses the ruthlessness required to be hard with the human race. The human race is like a child requiring stern correction.
It is therefore obvious that the greatest act of decency, the greatest gift that could ever be given to humanity at this present time, would be for a great man to arise, a savior, someone strong enough and ruthlessness enough to wipe out that entrenched hive of Jews in the middle east. This would be an act of grace. In one hour the world had changed. The hour before the old world was found writing in its labor pains, struggling to give birth to modernity. In the next hour the world was dazzled by the blinding light. The New World was born and there was now no going back. The Jew was gone, and now even the most deceived and gullible were forced to face the truth. The spell of the Jew was broken. As time went by, and no Jew God was seen, it would be the end of everything primitive and the last trace of everything backwards would be purged and finally destroyed.
If the filthy plots of those Jews were to come to fruition they would soon enough have humanity back in caves worshipping bundles of sticks and mud. Truly the Jew has been to the human race like a ship attempting to sail while at the same time dragging an anchor along the ocean floor. The solution is to cut off the anchor.
Look at the debased state of the culture of the human race. Is it not a sorry sight. In countries all over the world there are people found worshipping those bundles of sticks and mud, and they will not willingly let them go. They Jew, filthy creatures that they are, know this and the Jew will never stop poisoning the well, not so long as one Jew remains alive on this planet. Cut off the root and the whole tree falls. Both the Church and the Mosque are build upon the faulty foundation provided by that Jew. When the foundation is destroyed, all that was built upon will also collapse. Where the philosophers have failed, the strong man will succeed. All that is required is a man with a will or iron who posses the ruthlessness required to be hard with the human race. The human race is like a child requiring stern correction.
It is therefore obvious that the greatest act of decency, the greatest gift that could ever be given to humanity at this present time, would be for a great man to arise, a savior, someone strong enough and ruthlessness enough to wipe out that entrenched hive of Jews in the middle east. This would be an act of grace. In one hour the world had changed. The hour before the old world was found writing in its labor pains, struggling to give birth to modernity. In the next hour the world was dazzled by the blinding light. The New World was born and there was now no going back. The Jew was gone, and now even the most deceived and gullible were forced to face the truth. The spell of the Jew was broken. As time went by, and no Jew God was seen, it would be the end of everything primitive and the last trace of everything backwards would be purged and finally destroyed. Yes, after the Jews are destroyed, and the world goes on, the generations come and go, and no one sees that Jew God, even the most gullible will no longer be found bowing down before the altars of ancestors. The gods will perish. A new world of modernity will be born. History will look back graciously upon the man who kills the Jews. They will reckon time by his passing. Just as they reckoned time by that idol of theirs, Jesus Christ, and spoke of time as being divided into eras, before Christ and After Christ, so they will honor the man who kills the Jew by marking off time based upon the glorious day of the birth of the true savior of humanity, the hard man who out of love for his fellow human beings, had the harshness to do what was required by killing the Jew and bringing salvation and redemption to a struggling humanity, by ridding the world of that Jew..
Saturday, December 15, 2007
High Priest
I have made up my mind not to harass the Vatican or the Catholic Church any more. I think enough has been said, and I have been shocking enough to satisfy God's desire to send someone real shocking to the Vatican and to the Catholic Church, therefore, enough is enough.
However I did want to make one last point. Who is this Pope? This Pope is the High Priest, and he is wearing a filthy robe and he has a filthy turban upon his head.
Now someone might ask what it is that I say that the Pope is wearing a filthy turban on his head. Such a question would leave me frustrated, but I can well imagine that someone might ask such a question since apparently the people on this planet are easily baffled. They just don't use any simple common sense, and as a result of this bad practice, they have become quite stupid concerning the things of God. Somehow they failed to see the dirty turban. What is so shocking to me is that the turban is dirty and its plain to see. How could people be so incurably consistently stupid?
Now let us consider one of the favorite topics of the Popes. Really old church fathers from the first four centuries. The Golden Age, you might say. It was so close to the source of it all. Not like today, no, it was close and not far, far away as it is today. It is that closeness that gives these glorious centuries that golden glow.
Let us put aside golden glows for a moment and start thinking straight for a change. Consider the Bible. Now consider God. Yes, God, apparently, so people say, is supposed to take complete and full credit for the Bible. That is what people sometimes say, and they used to say it more often when there was more people saying it, as was the case with ancestors who said such things all the time and in such overwhelming numbers. God has never been known to say such things. God has never been known to say anything at all. There are those who would say God said something. You will just have to take their word for it. God never says something to everyone, so that, finally, at long last, it could be said that God said something and there would be nothing to argue about later because, you see, everyone knew that God said something. This was followed by silence. There was nothing to dispute and so there was no dispute. We conclude that when there is a dispute that means that, obviously, God had not settled that dispute. God as we know, says nothing at all. God shows no mercy.
It is for this reason that we have the Bible. We need the Bible because we must give up all hope of ever hearing even a single word from the mouth of God. God is pitiless.
Now let us open this Bible, and when we do, if we are showing some simple common sense, we will notice that the sacred table is covered with vomit and filth is everywhere. Pits and traps and deadly snares mark the path. As I said, one must open a Bible to confirm that what I am saying is the truth. The truth is obvious. There is no divine mystery here. The truth about the Bible is hard to miss. It is blasphemous in the sight of God.
Now once again I feel the need to review certain facts about the Bible, just in case someone wants to quarrel with me about the turban, and now the Bible, as I say, all covered with vomit, so that nothing remains clean. I am sure that there are those who might want to quarrel with me about that one. So let us review and make the point plain.
Kill all the women and kill every little boy, but keep the virgins for yourselves.
That one comes from the book of Numbers. Now given that I have already conducted a recent review of such material in my lecture notes, I do not feel the need to carry on about it all again right now. Besides, it sickens my stomach to think about it all. I would like to try to forget.
At this point I will assume that students have their lecture notes, and thus are able to review for themselves more examples of the dreadful blasphemies found in the Bible.
We might compare the Bible to Mein Kampff. Both documents were written by maniacs with a similar genocidal agenda, who were planning to wage wars of extermination so that they might plunder and conquer.
Now let us assume that from time to time, the King turns out to be a maniacal bastard. As we know, that does happen from time to time. It is just one of those things that you know must happen every now and then when you have a King. Such a King would find the Bible to be quite useful. Here we are assuming that this King who liked the Bible, and decided to make it some kind of royal book in his kingdom, and for all kingdoms to come, did so because the King and God had the same agenda. The general idea here was that the King would go out and do all the stuff written down in the Bible, because the King was working together with God on that project, you see.
Something like this must have happened and this explains how we would up getting the bible, and not some holy book like people theorized we were supposed to be getting from God, to make up for the fact that God was pissed off, and thus not on face to face speaking terms with any human being on earth.
Someone might wonder just how pissed off God could get because God was given full copyright ownership over that literary production we call the Holy Bible. Now we know that our ancestors had the Bible and they had no God. Little more needs to be said.
Now what we wound up with was some book covered the most offensive vomit, and this book was voted into existence by the Church Fathers. Apparently there must have been something wrong with their heads. They actually gave God the middle finger and just went right ahead and canonized the Bible. This did this even though they themselves knew that the Bible was not just a little bad. The Bible was polluted with unadulterated wickedness of the very vilest sort.
The best thing that could be said about a church father is that they were about as stupid as anyone else on this planet. They were idiotic when it came to things of God. This is the best thing that we could say, and the worst thing that we could say, I don't want to say. It sickens me just thinking about it. I would rather not.
Now to return to my previous point, and give it some more emphasis, I will once again insist that it is obvious that the Pope must be wearing a filthy turban, because he has the Bible, and that doesn't bother him to much, not enough to give the thing a good toss. He also has the Church Fathers, and believes those rosy days so long ago were some kind of Golden Age, even though, as we can easily tell, back in those days people went around routinely puking their vomit onto Bibles, and then, our ancestors became like dogs returning to their puke, and they decided to eat that pile of puke just like dogs eat their own puke, and so they voted on that vomit and raised it up to the status of sacred canon. Keep in mind that this is particularly filthy vomit, the worst kind. It is obvious that the Pope is wearing a very filthy turban. He also fails to see properly. In this he is much like anyone else, as far as I can tell. They can't see. Their High Priest can't see. Everyone is blind. They are the blind following the blind.
Out of all the sons she gave birth to, she could not find even one who was able to guide her. They all led her astray.
They gave us the Bible. YAHWEH is God. That was a mistake.
I thought I might address one complaint that this Pope has, as far as it concerns me. Why am I not like the holy men, asks the Pope. Now it was appropriate for Saint Joe to go into the monastery and live a sober life of quiet reflection and prayer, and thus earn for himself the reputation as being someone who would do something like that. You see, Saint Joe was an exile living in exile. The God of Saint Joe was a pitiless son of a bitch, who had given Saint Joe that same message God gave everyone in those days "Fuck you, Joe,' said God. "Drop dead, Joe,' said God.
This whole business of being an exile, and thus going into deep and humble prayers and hymn singing, these things I know nothing about. I am like David. You won't find me in a monastery because I have never had any reason to be found in such a place. I do not know the exile. My God is not far away. My God is close at hand. I do not behave like Saint Joe. I have no reason to mourn. My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways. Nor should they be. We come from two different worlds. Never can these two worlds meet. The One would annihilate the other. The God of the Dead will cease to exist. The God of the Living will come.
However I did want to make one last point. Who is this Pope? This Pope is the High Priest, and he is wearing a filthy robe and he has a filthy turban upon his head.
Now someone might ask what it is that I say that the Pope is wearing a filthy turban on his head. Such a question would leave me frustrated, but I can well imagine that someone might ask such a question since apparently the people on this planet are easily baffled. They just don't use any simple common sense, and as a result of this bad practice, they have become quite stupid concerning the things of God. Somehow they failed to see the dirty turban. What is so shocking to me is that the turban is dirty and its plain to see. How could people be so incurably consistently stupid?
Now let us consider one of the favorite topics of the Popes. Really old church fathers from the first four centuries. The Golden Age, you might say. It was so close to the source of it all. Not like today, no, it was close and not far, far away as it is today. It is that closeness that gives these glorious centuries that golden glow.
Let us put aside golden glows for a moment and start thinking straight for a change. Consider the Bible. Now consider God. Yes, God, apparently, so people say, is supposed to take complete and full credit for the Bible. That is what people sometimes say, and they used to say it more often when there was more people saying it, as was the case with ancestors who said such things all the time and in such overwhelming numbers. God has never been known to say such things. God has never been known to say anything at all. There are those who would say God said something. You will just have to take their word for it. God never says something to everyone, so that, finally, at long last, it could be said that God said something and there would be nothing to argue about later because, you see, everyone knew that God said something. This was followed by silence. There was nothing to dispute and so there was no dispute. We conclude that when there is a dispute that means that, obviously, God had not settled that dispute. God as we know, says nothing at all. God shows no mercy.
It is for this reason that we have the Bible. We need the Bible because we must give up all hope of ever hearing even a single word from the mouth of God. God is pitiless.
Now let us open this Bible, and when we do, if we are showing some simple common sense, we will notice that the sacred table is covered with vomit and filth is everywhere. Pits and traps and deadly snares mark the path. As I said, one must open a Bible to confirm that what I am saying is the truth. The truth is obvious. There is no divine mystery here. The truth about the Bible is hard to miss. It is blasphemous in the sight of God.
Now once again I feel the need to review certain facts about the Bible, just in case someone wants to quarrel with me about the turban, and now the Bible, as I say, all covered with vomit, so that nothing remains clean. I am sure that there are those who might want to quarrel with me about that one. So let us review and make the point plain.
Kill all the women and kill every little boy, but keep the virgins for yourselves.
That one comes from the book of Numbers. Now given that I have already conducted a recent review of such material in my lecture notes, I do not feel the need to carry on about it all again right now. Besides, it sickens my stomach to think about it all. I would like to try to forget.
At this point I will assume that students have their lecture notes, and thus are able to review for themselves more examples of the dreadful blasphemies found in the Bible.
We might compare the Bible to Mein Kampff. Both documents were written by maniacs with a similar genocidal agenda, who were planning to wage wars of extermination so that they might plunder and conquer.
Now let us assume that from time to time, the King turns out to be a maniacal bastard. As we know, that does happen from time to time. It is just one of those things that you know must happen every now and then when you have a King. Such a King would find the Bible to be quite useful. Here we are assuming that this King who liked the Bible, and decided to make it some kind of royal book in his kingdom, and for all kingdoms to come, did so because the King and God had the same agenda. The general idea here was that the King would go out and do all the stuff written down in the Bible, because the King was working together with God on that project, you see.
Something like this must have happened and this explains how we would up getting the bible, and not some holy book like people theorized we were supposed to be getting from God, to make up for the fact that God was pissed off, and thus not on face to face speaking terms with any human being on earth.
Someone might wonder just how pissed off God could get because God was given full copyright ownership over that literary production we call the Holy Bible. Now we know that our ancestors had the Bible and they had no God. Little more needs to be said.
Now what we wound up with was some book covered the most offensive vomit, and this book was voted into existence by the Church Fathers. Apparently there must have been something wrong with their heads. They actually gave God the middle finger and just went right ahead and canonized the Bible. This did this even though they themselves knew that the Bible was not just a little bad. The Bible was polluted with unadulterated wickedness of the very vilest sort.
The best thing that could be said about a church father is that they were about as stupid as anyone else on this planet. They were idiotic when it came to things of God. This is the best thing that we could say, and the worst thing that we could say, I don't want to say. It sickens me just thinking about it. I would rather not.
Now to return to my previous point, and give it some more emphasis, I will once again insist that it is obvious that the Pope must be wearing a filthy turban, because he has the Bible, and that doesn't bother him to much, not enough to give the thing a good toss. He also has the Church Fathers, and believes those rosy days so long ago were some kind of Golden Age, even though, as we can easily tell, back in those days people went around routinely puking their vomit onto Bibles, and then, our ancestors became like dogs returning to their puke, and they decided to eat that pile of puke just like dogs eat their own puke, and so they voted on that vomit and raised it up to the status of sacred canon. Keep in mind that this is particularly filthy vomit, the worst kind. It is obvious that the Pope is wearing a very filthy turban. He also fails to see properly. In this he is much like anyone else, as far as I can tell. They can't see. Their High Priest can't see. Everyone is blind. They are the blind following the blind.
Out of all the sons she gave birth to, she could not find even one who was able to guide her. They all led her astray.
They gave us the Bible. YAHWEH is God. That was a mistake.
I thought I might address one complaint that this Pope has, as far as it concerns me. Why am I not like the holy men, asks the Pope. Now it was appropriate for Saint Joe to go into the monastery and live a sober life of quiet reflection and prayer, and thus earn for himself the reputation as being someone who would do something like that. You see, Saint Joe was an exile living in exile. The God of Saint Joe was a pitiless son of a bitch, who had given Saint Joe that same message God gave everyone in those days "Fuck you, Joe,' said God. "Drop dead, Joe,' said God.
This whole business of being an exile, and thus going into deep and humble prayers and hymn singing, these things I know nothing about. I am like David. You won't find me in a monastery because I have never had any reason to be found in such a place. I do not know the exile. My God is not far away. My God is close at hand. I do not behave like Saint Joe. I have no reason to mourn. My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways. Nor should they be. We come from two different worlds. Never can these two worlds meet. The One would annihilate the other. The God of the Dead will cease to exist. The God of the Living will come.
God raises the middle finger
Throughout human history, as far as we can tell, just about any monstrous thing could happen to a human being, and no one could ever expect any mercy from God, nor could there ever find any hope for salvation or deliverance from the wicked who were destroying them. Not in this world. They could be run down by the Hun or women and little children could be hacked to death by Ghengis Khan, among so many other dreadful and sickening things, those sorry ends that so very many sorry people came to and for such a very very long long time.
If God exists then we know that whenever we see human suffering that tell us that it must be true that God is a ruthless son of a bitch. The alternative hypothesis would be that God does not exist, for if there was a God, and a God was seen to tolerate even the most sickening acts of wickedness, this would be better interpreted as evidence that no God exists, for if there was a God how could this have happened?
After long ages of time have gone past, religious gives birth to atheism.
How do we interpret what we have seen? Now, for some reason when people think about God, they never use any common sense. They can be sensible dealing with each other, but when it comes to God, they become quite stupid, perhaps it might not be to far off the mark to even say that they become totally brainless, for some strange reason.
Now let's suppose that you have a friend, or at least you thought you had a friend, and your family was being slowly butchered by a maniac, they were getting picked off one at a time, and your so called friend knew all about this, was in a position to intervene, and yet, you discovered, your friend did nothing. I think most people would feel very pissed off about this matter, and I think they would get some kind of message about that friend of theirs. Apparently, that friend of yours said fuck you to you and fuck you to your entire family, too.
We should show some common sense and recognize the fact that God is like the false friend in the parable above, and the message of God for all of humanity for thousands of years was 'fuck you and fuck your family, too.'
Now, someone might ask, 'why would God be telling the human race to go fuck themselves for a few thousands years?' My answer would have to be that a few thousands years would be about how long it would take for God to tell the human race to fuck off and then, finally, have the human race accept that God had told them to fuck off, the reason being that after having been told to fuck right off so many times finally the message got through.
This then is the true divine message of God : Fuck you, and fuck all your religions, too. Yes, fuck them and fuck them yet again, says God, until finally they are royally thoroughly fucked. You are doomed, says God, and fuck you if you don't like it, you fucking little collection of bastards.
Having received a message from God as bad as that one, and having received so consistently for such a very long time, it then follows that whoever should still be stubborn about religion and willing to quarrel with God about it, gets what they deserve. You see, once again, if we use simple common sense when dealing with the things of God, we would know that God is going to be supremely pissed off if that thousands of years thing didn't work. It then just follows that God will then attempt to get it all done in an afternoon. This would not be something you would want, and you should see that, and maybe you would see that if you would bring to mind just what a miserable ruthless son of a bitch God has been.
There has been no salvation and no deliverance in this world. We can conclude that all religious doctrines of salvation and deliverance are discredited. They have been disowned by God for as we know God offers no salvation and no deliverance from evil. There are those proclaim a God of good fortune, who favors the few. However whatever small favors God gives to the few are taken away soon enough when they find themselves surrounded by evil. The days will be evil, and evil will prevail on the earth for a very long time, and God will do nothing.
God offers no salvation. Only religion does that. We can conclude that religion is rebellion against God, for what God so persistently and stubbornly refuses to do, and what God does most consistently, never wavering from that singular purpose, that very thing is the thing that religion is found to be doing. Religion does what God does not. What God does, religion does not do. These two are in opposition to each other.
It is for this reason that God has sent to speak to religion someone as notoriously rude and disorderly as myself. This is what is known as a point of emphasis. God wants to emphasize that previous point, the one about not wanting to participate in any religion. Therefore God has chosen to emphasize the point about not liking religion by making damn sure to send religion someone they really won't like. Someone deeply shocking to them. Someone like me.
That is step one. Step two is another one of those points of emphasis I mentioned previously. That's the step where, even though it wasn't supposed to happen, God then appeared and made that same damnable point over again, this time with special emphais, thus ensuring that enough emphasis got put onto that point so as to, hopefully, this time, after such a fucking long, long time, finally, at long last that point of emphasis got made.
Hopefully that will be the end of it, and there will be no more quarreling with God and forcing God to make another one of those points of emphasis. As we know so very well from our past experiences with God, it has never been a problem for God to toss even millions and millions of people into the jaws of wickedness. This sort of thing happens all the time, and so therefore, if we were to once again use simple common sense, we would draw the conclusion that it probably wouldn't be much of a problem next Tuesday, nor would it be a problem on the fifth of June six years ago or six years from now.
If God exists then we know that whenever we see human suffering that tell us that it must be true that God is a ruthless son of a bitch. The alternative hypothesis would be that God does not exist, for if there was a God, and a God was seen to tolerate even the most sickening acts of wickedness, this would be better interpreted as evidence that no God exists, for if there was a God how could this have happened?
After long ages of time have gone past, religious gives birth to atheism.
How do we interpret what we have seen? Now, for some reason when people think about God, they never use any common sense. They can be sensible dealing with each other, but when it comes to God, they become quite stupid, perhaps it might not be to far off the mark to even say that they become totally brainless, for some strange reason.
Now let's suppose that you have a friend, or at least you thought you had a friend, and your family was being slowly butchered by a maniac, they were getting picked off one at a time, and your so called friend knew all about this, was in a position to intervene, and yet, you discovered, your friend did nothing. I think most people would feel very pissed off about this matter, and I think they would get some kind of message about that friend of theirs. Apparently, that friend of yours said fuck you to you and fuck you to your entire family, too.
We should show some common sense and recognize the fact that God is like the false friend in the parable above, and the message of God for all of humanity for thousands of years was 'fuck you and fuck your family, too.'
Now, someone might ask, 'why would God be telling the human race to go fuck themselves for a few thousands years?' My answer would have to be that a few thousands years would be about how long it would take for God to tell the human race to fuck off and then, finally, have the human race accept that God had told them to fuck off, the reason being that after having been told to fuck right off so many times finally the message got through.
This then is the true divine message of God : Fuck you, and fuck all your religions, too. Yes, fuck them and fuck them yet again, says God, until finally they are royally thoroughly fucked. You are doomed, says God, and fuck you if you don't like it, you fucking little collection of bastards.
Having received a message from God as bad as that one, and having received so consistently for such a very long time, it then follows that whoever should still be stubborn about religion and willing to quarrel with God about it, gets what they deserve. You see, once again, if we use simple common sense when dealing with the things of God, we would know that God is going to be supremely pissed off if that thousands of years thing didn't work. It then just follows that God will then attempt to get it all done in an afternoon. This would not be something you would want, and you should see that, and maybe you would see that if you would bring to mind just what a miserable ruthless son of a bitch God has been.
There has been no salvation and no deliverance in this world. We can conclude that all religious doctrines of salvation and deliverance are discredited. They have been disowned by God for as we know God offers no salvation and no deliverance from evil. There are those proclaim a God of good fortune, who favors the few. However whatever small favors God gives to the few are taken away soon enough when they find themselves surrounded by evil. The days will be evil, and evil will prevail on the earth for a very long time, and God will do nothing.
God offers no salvation. Only religion does that. We can conclude that religion is rebellion against God, for what God so persistently and stubbornly refuses to do, and what God does most consistently, never wavering from that singular purpose, that very thing is the thing that religion is found to be doing. Religion does what God does not. What God does, religion does not do. These two are in opposition to each other.
It is for this reason that God has sent to speak to religion someone as notoriously rude and disorderly as myself. This is what is known as a point of emphasis. God wants to emphasize that previous point, the one about not wanting to participate in any religion. Therefore God has chosen to emphasize the point about not liking religion by making damn sure to send religion someone they really won't like. Someone deeply shocking to them. Someone like me.
That is step one. Step two is another one of those points of emphasis I mentioned previously. That's the step where, even though it wasn't supposed to happen, God then appeared and made that same damnable point over again, this time with special emphais, thus ensuring that enough emphasis got put onto that point so as to, hopefully, this time, after such a fucking long, long time, finally, at long last that point of emphasis got made.
Hopefully that will be the end of it, and there will be no more quarreling with God and forcing God to make another one of those points of emphasis. As we know so very well from our past experiences with God, it has never been a problem for God to toss even millions and millions of people into the jaws of wickedness. This sort of thing happens all the time, and so therefore, if we were to once again use simple common sense, we would draw the conclusion that it probably wouldn't be much of a problem next Tuesday, nor would it be a problem on the fifth of June six years ago or six years from now.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Iraq
The hidden holocaust Part 2
The announcement of British mandate rule in Iraq in 1920 led to widespread indigenous revolts, which were ruthlessly suppressed by British forces. That year, then Secretary of State for War and Air, Winston Churchill, proposed that Mesopotamia “could be cheaply policed by aircraft armed with gas bombs, supported by as few as 4,000 British and 10,000 Indian troops.” His proposal was formally adopted the next year at the Cairo conference, and Iraqi villages were bombed from the air. [Edward Greer, ‘The Hidden History of the Iraq War,’ Monthly Review, May 1991]
This policy in Iraq -- which included both the colonial phase of direct rule and the transition to effective indirect rule under decolonisation -- was candidly described by Lord George Curzon, then British Foreign Secretary, who noted that what the UK and other Western powers desired in the Middle East was an:
“Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff. . . . There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on.” [William Stivers, Supremacy and Oil: Iraq, Turkey, and the Anglo-American World Order, 1918-1930, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1982, p. 28, 34]
In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshalled opponents of the Iraqi regime,” notes the NY Times. “Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents.” Former Ba’athist leader Hani Fkaiki has confirmed that Saddam Hussein -- then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after attempting to assassinate Kassim in 1958 -- was colluding with the CIA at this time. [Aburish, op. cit.]
Thus, two gruesome CIA military coups brought the genocidal Ba’ath party, and with it Saddam Hussein, to power, in order to protect US strategic and economic interests.
Using United Nations data and the concept of “excess mortality” -- “the difference between actual deaths in a country and the deaths expected for a peaceful, decently run country with the same demographics” -- Polya calculates that since 1950, 5.2 million Iraqis died during the period in which the CIA and MI6 were fostering coups, installing and re-installing dictators, until Saddam himself obtained power [Gideon Polya, “Iraq Death Toll Amounts to a Holocaust," Australasian Science (June 2004, p. 43); Polya, Body Count: Global avoidable mortality since 1950 (Melbourne: LaTrobe, 2007)]
In 1989, a year after the attacks, the US government doubled its annual Commodity Credit Corporation aid to Saddam to more than US$1 billion. A declassified National Security directive issued by then President Bush Snr. in October that year prioritised the provision of funds and technology to Saddam’s regime, describing it as the “West’s policeman in the region.”
Of the several credible academic studies of civilian deaths in Iraq in the post-2003 invasion period, the most rigorous was the epidemiological study, published in Lancet, by John Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, which estimated 655,000 excess Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war.
The ORB poll found that 1.2 million Iraqi civilians had been murdered since the invasion. [Tina Susman, “Poll: Civilian Death Toll in Iraq May Top 1 Million," Los Angeles Times (14 September 2007)]
These are staggering figures. They suggest that since 1991, the total civilian death toll in Iraq as a consequence of Anglo-American invasions, socio-economic deprivation and occupation amount to a total of 3 million.
The ORB findings tally with those of the John Hopkins team, whose data-set, according to independent experts such as Australia biochemist Dr. Gideon Polya, calculated for a year later confirms at least one million post-2003 Iraqi deaths due to the war.
The announcement of British mandate rule in Iraq in 1920 led to widespread indigenous revolts, which were ruthlessly suppressed by British forces. That year, then Secretary of State for War and Air, Winston Churchill, proposed that Mesopotamia “could be cheaply policed by aircraft armed with gas bombs, supported by as few as 4,000 British and 10,000 Indian troops.” His proposal was formally adopted the next year at the Cairo conference, and Iraqi villages were bombed from the air. [Edward Greer, ‘The Hidden History of the Iraq War,’ Monthly Review, May 1991]
This policy in Iraq -- which included both the colonial phase of direct rule and the transition to effective indirect rule under decolonisation -- was candidly described by Lord George Curzon, then British Foreign Secretary, who noted that what the UK and other Western powers desired in the Middle East was an:
“Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff. . . . There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on.” [William Stivers, Supremacy and Oil: Iraq, Turkey, and the Anglo-American World Order, 1918-1930, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1982, p. 28, 34]
In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshalled opponents of the Iraqi regime,” notes the NY Times. “Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents.” Former Ba’athist leader Hani Fkaiki has confirmed that Saddam Hussein -- then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after attempting to assassinate Kassim in 1958 -- was colluding with the CIA at this time. [Aburish, op. cit.]
Thus, two gruesome CIA military coups brought the genocidal Ba’ath party, and with it Saddam Hussein, to power, in order to protect US strategic and economic interests.
Using United Nations data and the concept of “excess mortality” -- “the difference between actual deaths in a country and the deaths expected for a peaceful, decently run country with the same demographics” -- Polya calculates that since 1950, 5.2 million Iraqis died during the period in which the CIA and MI6 were fostering coups, installing and re-installing dictators, until Saddam himself obtained power [Gideon Polya, “Iraq Death Toll Amounts to a Holocaust," Australasian Science (June 2004, p. 43); Polya, Body Count: Global avoidable mortality since 1950 (Melbourne: LaTrobe, 2007)]
In 1989, a year after the attacks, the US government doubled its annual Commodity Credit Corporation aid to Saddam to more than US$1 billion. A declassified National Security directive issued by then President Bush Snr. in October that year prioritised the provision of funds and technology to Saddam’s regime, describing it as the “West’s policeman in the region.”
Of the several credible academic studies of civilian deaths in Iraq in the post-2003 invasion period, the most rigorous was the epidemiological study, published in Lancet, by John Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, which estimated 655,000 excess Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war.
The ORB poll found that 1.2 million Iraqi civilians had been murdered since the invasion. [Tina Susman, “Poll: Civilian Death Toll in Iraq May Top 1 Million," Los Angeles Times (14 September 2007)]
These are staggering figures. They suggest that since 1991, the total civilian death toll in Iraq as a consequence of Anglo-American invasions, socio-economic deprivation and occupation amount to a total of 3 million.
The ORB findings tally with those of the John Hopkins team, whose data-set, according to independent experts such as Australia biochemist Dr. Gideon Polya, calculated for a year later confirms at least one million post-2003 Iraqi deaths due to the war.
The ruthlessness of the market
The Hidden Holocaust
"In India, between 5.5 and 12 million people died in an artificially-induced famine, although millions of tonnes of grains were in commercial circulation. Rice and wheat production had been above average for the previous three years, but most of the surplus had been exported to England. “Londoners were in effect eating India’s bread.” Under “free market” rules, between 1877 and 1878, grain merchants exported a record 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat to Europe while millions of Indian poor starved to death.
Crucially, Davis argues that these people died “not outside the modern world system, but in the very process of being forcibly incorporated into its economic and political structures. They died in the golden age of liberal capitalism; many were murdered by the application of utilitarian free trade principles.”"
"In India, between 5.5 and 12 million people died in an artificially-induced famine, although millions of tonnes of grains were in commercial circulation. Rice and wheat production had been above average for the previous three years, but most of the surplus had been exported to England. “Londoners were in effect eating India’s bread.” Under “free market” rules, between 1877 and 1878, grain merchants exported a record 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat to Europe while millions of Indian poor starved to death.
Crucially, Davis argues that these people died “not outside the modern world system, but in the very process of being forcibly incorporated into its economic and political structures. They died in the golden age of liberal capitalism; many were murdered by the application of utilitarian free trade principles.”"
Capital Formation and the Slave Trade
When people refer to a 'third world debt' what is forgotten is how much was stolen and then never repaid, so that a correct balance sheet would indicate a debit rather than a credit.
The hidden holocaust ...
"University of Essex sociologist Robin Blackburn has demonstrated convincingly the centrality of capitalism to the growth of new world slavery, arguing that the profits of slavery accumulated in the “triangular trade” between Europe, Africa and America contributed fundamentally to Britain’s industrialization. For instance, the profits from triangular trade for 1770 would have provided from 20.9 to 55 per cent of Britain’s gross fixed capital formation. [Robin Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492-1800 (London: Verso), p. 572.]"
The hidden holocaust ...
"University of Essex sociologist Robin Blackburn has demonstrated convincingly the centrality of capitalism to the growth of new world slavery, arguing that the profits of slavery accumulated in the “triangular trade” between Europe, Africa and America contributed fundamentally to Britain’s industrialization. For instance, the profits from triangular trade for 1770 would have provided from 20.9 to 55 per cent of Britain’s gross fixed capital formation. [Robin Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492-1800 (London: Verso), p. 572.]"
Suck a Lemon
You know, over the years, I have watched as some tragic peasant was starved out or otherwise ruthlessly oppressed by Fu Manchu, while all the good hearted types of the world were left to harden their hearts and adopt that tough son of a bitch attitude, or be left with ashes in their mouths and deep mourning as their portion. As I watched all this, over the years, it seemed to me that God was a ruthless son of a bitch, perhaps something like Frankenstein, or like Godzilla, trampling down buses and pushing down skyscrapers and crushing Tokyo beneath those giant clawed feet.
Yes I thought that I was splitting a suite with Frankenstein, which came as quite a shock to me, for I had come out of a post-Christian culture and was therefore stupidly addled in my head and was trained to think of God as being like Santa, or perhaps a real nice parental type figure like my mom, and here it turned out that YAHWEH, the God of ancient Israel really was God, and that God was some kind of ferocious monster of some sort.
Well the years went by, and I began to realize that the plan of God was that these people would be left to their own evil devices, and therefore our ancestors could suck a lemon, a real sour lemon, a very, very sour lemon. "Oh, give us a King," they said, and so in anger YAHWEH handed them over to their King and left them to worship upon their High Places.
I also saw that our ancestors were a stupid, brainless people. Even a dog, when it is trained for a month or two, learns something from the experience, but our ancestors never learned a damn thing. A more stupid or stubborn creature would be hard to imagine.
One of the big problems that our ancestors had is that they wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. Now as you might have heard it said, you should be careful what you prayer for, because you might get it. So then, if our ancestors would cry out, 'oh give us a King', well, then because YAHWEH is God, that means they will get a King, even if that turned out to be a very bad idea. It turns out that they wanted a religion as well, and they could have that religion, because it was what they wanted at the time, and so they could eat that cake of theirs, because they had baked that cake so they could eat it and so they did. However they also wanted to have a cake, and because YAHWEH is God, it turns out that either you can have a cake or you can eat a cake, but not both at the same time. So therefore they had their King and they build up their High Places and offering their sacrifices there, when that King wasn't going on a rampage and chopping them to pieces with some sword in one of those maniacal conquests, and they also found the time to have a little religion, but they what they did not have was YAHWEH, but that didn't matter because they had already decided that God was the God of the dead and lived up in a place called 'Heaven' and so therefore the fact that they had no God was perfectly normalized for those idiots and was formalized as well becoming doctrines which then became dogmatic dogmas. God was up in heaven and all was right with their world, except for those times when it wasn't right, in which they would complain ('oh, if there was a God how could it happen?')
Now as it turned out, you can have a God up in heaven or you can have a God down here, and given how our ancestors, as we can tell from their dogmatism, selected a God up in heaven because they obviously did not want a God down here. It could also be true that after enough time went by spent with that good for nothing promise breaking do nothing god of theirs up in heaven they drew the conclusion that there was no god at all up in heaven, or, at the very least, the whole thing was debatable, and this would then encourage them to forget about having a god down here, since that you see is just utterly impossible. They would keep that god up in heaven and just roll the dice, and thus they adjusted their idiotic dogmatism accordingly so that guessing whether or not there was a god up in heaven then became the dogmatic plan of salvation, even though such a sadistic plot could only have originated in the mind of some miserable and ungenerous son of a bitch and not a very nice parental God who is just like your mom or your granny.
Yes, our ancestors were left to suck a lemon, and for that reason I have no tolerance at all for some modern day version of a similar type moron who extols our glorious traditions, as though we actually had a glorious tradition, which would seem to not be the case as you can tell by examining the ruinous mess of suffering and desperate poverty and oppression that we inherited from that collection of ruinous morons, our recklessly stupid and atrociously rebellious ancestors.
One of the great advantages of leaving our ancestors to suck that lemon for one hell of a hell of a long long time is that at the end of it all it is possible to take stock and do a thorough evaluation of just how wonderful those great fucking ideas really were, and as we can tell by the ruinous mess we must now work on repairing, those really were some atrociously fucked up ideas, which makes one wonder why our ancestors were brainless enough to quarrel with YAHWEH in the first place. It also makes one wonder why some modern version of a similar moron would waste any molecules of air by forcing those molecules through a larynx so as to make some pointless and futile argument in defense of the indefensible by attempting to defend our ancestors and their contradictory and fucked up traditions.
Yes I thought that I was splitting a suite with Frankenstein, which came as quite a shock to me, for I had come out of a post-Christian culture and was therefore stupidly addled in my head and was trained to think of God as being like Santa, or perhaps a real nice parental type figure like my mom, and here it turned out that YAHWEH, the God of ancient Israel really was God, and that God was some kind of ferocious monster of some sort.
Well the years went by, and I began to realize that the plan of God was that these people would be left to their own evil devices, and therefore our ancestors could suck a lemon, a real sour lemon, a very, very sour lemon. "Oh, give us a King," they said, and so in anger YAHWEH handed them over to their King and left them to worship upon their High Places.
I also saw that our ancestors were a stupid, brainless people. Even a dog, when it is trained for a month or two, learns something from the experience, but our ancestors never learned a damn thing. A more stupid or stubborn creature would be hard to imagine.
One of the big problems that our ancestors had is that they wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. Now as you might have heard it said, you should be careful what you prayer for, because you might get it. So then, if our ancestors would cry out, 'oh give us a King', well, then because YAHWEH is God, that means they will get a King, even if that turned out to be a very bad idea. It turns out that they wanted a religion as well, and they could have that religion, because it was what they wanted at the time, and so they could eat that cake of theirs, because they had baked that cake so they could eat it and so they did. However they also wanted to have a cake, and because YAHWEH is God, it turns out that either you can have a cake or you can eat a cake, but not both at the same time. So therefore they had their King and they build up their High Places and offering their sacrifices there, when that King wasn't going on a rampage and chopping them to pieces with some sword in one of those maniacal conquests, and they also found the time to have a little religion, but they what they did not have was YAHWEH, but that didn't matter because they had already decided that God was the God of the dead and lived up in a place called 'Heaven' and so therefore the fact that they had no God was perfectly normalized for those idiots and was formalized as well becoming doctrines which then became dogmatic dogmas. God was up in heaven and all was right with their world, except for those times when it wasn't right, in which they would complain ('oh, if there was a God how could it happen?')
Now as it turned out, you can have a God up in heaven or you can have a God down here, and given how our ancestors, as we can tell from their dogmatism, selected a God up in heaven because they obviously did not want a God down here. It could also be true that after enough time went by spent with that good for nothing promise breaking do nothing god of theirs up in heaven they drew the conclusion that there was no god at all up in heaven, or, at the very least, the whole thing was debatable, and this would then encourage them to forget about having a god down here, since that you see is just utterly impossible. They would keep that god up in heaven and just roll the dice, and thus they adjusted their idiotic dogmatism accordingly so that guessing whether or not there was a god up in heaven then became the dogmatic plan of salvation, even though such a sadistic plot could only have originated in the mind of some miserable and ungenerous son of a bitch and not a very nice parental God who is just like your mom or your granny.
Yes, our ancestors were left to suck a lemon, and for that reason I have no tolerance at all for some modern day version of a similar type moron who extols our glorious traditions, as though we actually had a glorious tradition, which would seem to not be the case as you can tell by examining the ruinous mess of suffering and desperate poverty and oppression that we inherited from that collection of ruinous morons, our recklessly stupid and atrociously rebellious ancestors.
One of the great advantages of leaving our ancestors to suck that lemon for one hell of a hell of a long long time is that at the end of it all it is possible to take stock and do a thorough evaluation of just how wonderful those great fucking ideas really were, and as we can tell by the ruinous mess we must now work on repairing, those really were some atrociously fucked up ideas, which makes one wonder why our ancestors were brainless enough to quarrel with YAHWEH in the first place. It also makes one wonder why some modern version of a similar moron would waste any molecules of air by forcing those molecules through a larynx so as to make some pointless and futile argument in defense of the indefensible by attempting to defend our ancestors and their contradictory and fucked up traditions.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The High Places
Probably no people in the world have been more revolutionary throughout long recorded history than the Chinese people. The history of China is the history of one revolution followed by another followed by another going back far into history. That most recent revolution when the Chinese people ran off after that Chairman Mao can only be understood within the context of the long history of China, since the Mao revolution was not some kind of historical first, but rather it was one of a long line of such revolutions in China, and it is also interesting for how it parallels the previous revolutions in China. What would happen is that the Chinese people would have a revolution, and then they would build up the High Places and the next thing you know they would be brutally oppressed by the Manchu dynasty. It is a common characteristic of Chinese revolutions that they would become convinced that the problem was not that they were building the high places and then offering their sacrifices and worship there, but rather the problem was that they needed somebody else up on that high place, such as a Manchu or perhaps a Chairman Mao. Then everything would be fine. Remarkably, no matter how many times they repeated that pattern of behavior they never seemed to be able to come to the conclusion that a high place is not a good place to be offering sacrifices nor should people be found worshiping at the high places. You might want to try that experiment of changing the oppressor at the top a few times and then perhaps, one might think, the human race would begin to grasp the elementary concept and learn that what is required is not a pyramid structure but rather a flat horizontal structure, for otherwise they will find themselves enslaved and building up those pyramids for some ambitious wannabe Pharoah.
You see those High Places everywhere, and it would appear that one of the functions of religion throughout history was to ensure that people did not wander off but would in fact be encouraged generation after generation to learn absolutely zero from accumulated human experience with those high places. We are told in some gospel that this 'Jesus' told his disciples that they were not to build up the High Places. "You must not call anyone on earth 'Father'", he told them, 'for you have only one Father, who is God." The term 'father' is used to indicate a type of patriarchal authority figure and so we can see that what this 'Jesus' was telling his disciples was that they were not to create a hierarchical church structure ruled over by the Pope, who, as we all know, is also referred to as 'the Holy Father', while even the most junior grade priest at that church is referred to as 'father', an indication of the authority invested in even some junior grade priest as compared to 'the laity'.
As that 'Jesus' told his disciples, "you know that among the heathen nations their rulers lord it over them and those who are considered great and powerful among them are thought as being 'benefactors', but it must not be like that among you, for the greatest among you will be like a servant." One of the common themes of the Vatican is to encourage people to turn to the High Places while at the same time encouraging the Pharaoh on top at that high place to behave like a benefactor, thus helping to keep that whole scam going for another generation, by encouraging people to learn nothing from accumulated history but rather to continue to think of high places as being good places and any problems encountered there would then be the fault of a bad Fu Manchu. This sort of delusional thinking can only be encouraged if Pharoah takes the advice of some Pope or some preacher and agrees to behave like a benefactor, thus lulling the human race to sleep so that no one will begin to think that perhaps the problem was not to be found in the occasional Fu Manchu but rather the problem might be that there was this High Place, you see, and so therefore Fu Manchu was able to get away with murder since he was able to punch all those buttons and push all those levers which had been so generously donated to Fu and which Fu Manchu would require if he was to do his thing up on that High Place built for him by the human race.
Now as we can tell that Catholic Church is really no church at all, and really, when you consider the stark naked hypocrisy of that outfit, devoted as it is to the High Places in general (even though the Vatican is quite capable of attacking Fu Manchu, which is lauded by mobs as a sign of moral values, when actually the truth of the matter is that it is required that Fu Manchu be attacked if the sanctity of the High Places is to be preserved since it is required that the human race remain utterly stupid and ignorant if the High Places are to survive, and so therefore it is very important to attack Fu Manchu so that the Chinese peasants will then place Mao on the high place at which time they will be found living in a kind of ideal paradise from that time on because they had Father Mao rather than Stepdad Fu as their Pharaoh.)
The problem is not however restricted to the Catholic Church, although in the case of the Catholic Church the rancid hypocrisy is exposed in its most naked form (here I am referring to all that bullshit about communing in the bodily presence of that 'jesus' who apparently wanted to appear in the form of a snack cracker, and carrying on about 'preaching the gospel' and lots of that exorbitant piety so characteristic of both Pharisees and Catholic priests, combined with not giving a damn about what that 'Jesus' had to say, because, you see, they are just going to damn well do it anyways regardless, and as for that bastard Jesus, he can take his advice and stuff it up his own ass, because, you see, a joint like the Vatican is just not going to be doing what he said. They just won't, period. End of story. Just not going to happen. Quite the contrary really.)
In the case of that Roman Catholicism what we have is an outfit that is so atrociously rebellious and hypocritical that, quite frankly, given the serious break with the apostolic tradition we see manifested in the behavior of such a mob of gangster Pharisees, it is very hard to imagine how such an outfit could even be called a church in any proper sense of the term. However the problem is not only a Catholic problem, for although we see a little less of that stark naked hypocrisy in Protestant denominations, in that they sensibly ditched the Pope some centuries back, nevertheless all those Protestants did was to follow the traditional line of reasoning, and they did the typical Chinese thing, for they dumped Fu Manchu, the Pope, and now they are found visiting such High Places as the United Nations and will found making all their sacrifices and offerings there in the presence of Pharaohs, since, apparently, according to that line of reasoning, if you are having a problem getting anything at all done for the sake of humanity by appealing to your home Pharaoh, the logical solution is to appeal to a big pile of Pharaohs. Perhaps it is a numbers game. I don't know. About all that I can say for sure is that a study of history and when we consider results we can see that encouraging people to make one appeal and one sacrifice and offering and give up multiple acts of worship to multiple Pharaohs does not work and does not produce results any better than just offering all those sacrifices and offerings and worship at home to some home Pharaoh. You can see clear examples of this sort of thing when multiple Pharaohs agreed to halve child poverty by the year 2000, in response to many offerings and sacrifices offered up to the multiple Pharaohs by churches and NGO outfits, and then when the year 2000 came along it turned out that child malnourishment had actually doubled during the time frame of that supposed project, which is the polar opposite of being cut in half. As for not getting rid of it altogether, but just cutting child starvation in half, and taking a few decades to get around to doing it, one must suppose that even those who offer sacrifices to multiple Pharaohs at one great big and very, very High High Place, do understand that getting anything at all out of some Pharaoh on some high place is next to impossible, as history and the current resultant state of the world so clearly demonstrate, so therefore it would be best to be less ambitious.
Now good hearted people might want to pitch in and help out, and so there will always be a place for those worthless charitable donations, which as we know are only good for show, say, for example, in saving a fraction of one percent of the world's millions of hungering and neglected street orphans who have become the victims of late term abortions. As bad as the idea is of encouraging private charitable donations as a panacea for having Fu Manchu on some High Place, nevertheless it is still encouraged for good hearted people cannot do much else for their ancestors built up the High Places and now, as good hearted people know, they have been enslaved and disenfranchised and now there is nothing they can do except perhaps to exhaust themselves playing Don Quixote and by tilting at windmills, or they can join the sensible sorts who no longer give a damn and don't bother participating in scams, and will then be found watching television or puttering in gardens and joining the growing majority who no longer bother to vote.
You see those High Places everywhere, and it would appear that one of the functions of religion throughout history was to ensure that people did not wander off but would in fact be encouraged generation after generation to learn absolutely zero from accumulated human experience with those high places. We are told in some gospel that this 'Jesus' told his disciples that they were not to build up the High Places. "You must not call anyone on earth 'Father'", he told them, 'for you have only one Father, who is God." The term 'father' is used to indicate a type of patriarchal authority figure and so we can see that what this 'Jesus' was telling his disciples was that they were not to create a hierarchical church structure ruled over by the Pope, who, as we all know, is also referred to as 'the Holy Father', while even the most junior grade priest at that church is referred to as 'father', an indication of the authority invested in even some junior grade priest as compared to 'the laity'.
As that 'Jesus' told his disciples, "you know that among the heathen nations their rulers lord it over them and those who are considered great and powerful among them are thought as being 'benefactors', but it must not be like that among you, for the greatest among you will be like a servant." One of the common themes of the Vatican is to encourage people to turn to the High Places while at the same time encouraging the Pharaoh on top at that high place to behave like a benefactor, thus helping to keep that whole scam going for another generation, by encouraging people to learn nothing from accumulated history but rather to continue to think of high places as being good places and any problems encountered there would then be the fault of a bad Fu Manchu. This sort of delusional thinking can only be encouraged if Pharoah takes the advice of some Pope or some preacher and agrees to behave like a benefactor, thus lulling the human race to sleep so that no one will begin to think that perhaps the problem was not to be found in the occasional Fu Manchu but rather the problem might be that there was this High Place, you see, and so therefore Fu Manchu was able to get away with murder since he was able to punch all those buttons and push all those levers which had been so generously donated to Fu and which Fu Manchu would require if he was to do his thing up on that High Place built for him by the human race.
Now as we can tell that Catholic Church is really no church at all, and really, when you consider the stark naked hypocrisy of that outfit, devoted as it is to the High Places in general (even though the Vatican is quite capable of attacking Fu Manchu, which is lauded by mobs as a sign of moral values, when actually the truth of the matter is that it is required that Fu Manchu be attacked if the sanctity of the High Places is to be preserved since it is required that the human race remain utterly stupid and ignorant if the High Places are to survive, and so therefore it is very important to attack Fu Manchu so that the Chinese peasants will then place Mao on the high place at which time they will be found living in a kind of ideal paradise from that time on because they had Father Mao rather than Stepdad Fu as their Pharaoh.)
The problem is not however restricted to the Catholic Church, although in the case of the Catholic Church the rancid hypocrisy is exposed in its most naked form (here I am referring to all that bullshit about communing in the bodily presence of that 'jesus' who apparently wanted to appear in the form of a snack cracker, and carrying on about 'preaching the gospel' and lots of that exorbitant piety so characteristic of both Pharisees and Catholic priests, combined with not giving a damn about what that 'Jesus' had to say, because, you see, they are just going to damn well do it anyways regardless, and as for that bastard Jesus, he can take his advice and stuff it up his own ass, because, you see, a joint like the Vatican is just not going to be doing what he said. They just won't, period. End of story. Just not going to happen. Quite the contrary really.)
In the case of that Roman Catholicism what we have is an outfit that is so atrociously rebellious and hypocritical that, quite frankly, given the serious break with the apostolic tradition we see manifested in the behavior of such a mob of gangster Pharisees, it is very hard to imagine how such an outfit could even be called a church in any proper sense of the term. However the problem is not only a Catholic problem, for although we see a little less of that stark naked hypocrisy in Protestant denominations, in that they sensibly ditched the Pope some centuries back, nevertheless all those Protestants did was to follow the traditional line of reasoning, and they did the typical Chinese thing, for they dumped Fu Manchu, the Pope, and now they are found visiting such High Places as the United Nations and will found making all their sacrifices and offerings there in the presence of Pharaohs, since, apparently, according to that line of reasoning, if you are having a problem getting anything at all done for the sake of humanity by appealing to your home Pharaoh, the logical solution is to appeal to a big pile of Pharaohs. Perhaps it is a numbers game. I don't know. About all that I can say for sure is that a study of history and when we consider results we can see that encouraging people to make one appeal and one sacrifice and offering and give up multiple acts of worship to multiple Pharaohs does not work and does not produce results any better than just offering all those sacrifices and offerings and worship at home to some home Pharaoh. You can see clear examples of this sort of thing when multiple Pharaohs agreed to halve child poverty by the year 2000, in response to many offerings and sacrifices offered up to the multiple Pharaohs by churches and NGO outfits, and then when the year 2000 came along it turned out that child malnourishment had actually doubled during the time frame of that supposed project, which is the polar opposite of being cut in half. As for not getting rid of it altogether, but just cutting child starvation in half, and taking a few decades to get around to doing it, one must suppose that even those who offer sacrifices to multiple Pharaohs at one great big and very, very High High Place, do understand that getting anything at all out of some Pharaoh on some high place is next to impossible, as history and the current resultant state of the world so clearly demonstrate, so therefore it would be best to be less ambitious.
Now good hearted people might want to pitch in and help out, and so there will always be a place for those worthless charitable donations, which as we know are only good for show, say, for example, in saving a fraction of one percent of the world's millions of hungering and neglected street orphans who have become the victims of late term abortions. As bad as the idea is of encouraging private charitable donations as a panacea for having Fu Manchu on some High Place, nevertheless it is still encouraged for good hearted people cannot do much else for their ancestors built up the High Places and now, as good hearted people know, they have been enslaved and disenfranchised and now there is nothing they can do except perhaps to exhaust themselves playing Don Quixote and by tilting at windmills, or they can join the sensible sorts who no longer give a damn and don't bother participating in scams, and will then be found watching television or puttering in gardens and joining the growing majority who no longer bother to vote.
Funding Scientific Research
Good Calories, Bad Calories "Funding agencies like to support studies that will give positive results, and they like to support studies that themselves support the beliefs of the funding agents -- i.e., the dogma. So it's hard to get money to really test a hypothesis, because such a test implies that you might find out that your hypothesis is wrong and not worth pursuing further. And it's certainly hard to get money to pursue a hypothesis that conflicts with the establishment's beliefs, because everyone involved with deciding whether your grant proposal is worth funding will also believe that you're dead wrong about what you say, and so why bother spending money to find out? The result is a world in which, in general, the funding helps to assure that only established beliefs are tested, and when they are, that they're confirmed -- whether they're actually right or not."
Shrinking the dollar
Offshoring Interests and Economic Dogma "If it were not for the Internet that provides Americans with access to foreign news sources, Americans would live in a world of perfect disinformation. Offshoring interests and economic dogmas have combined to create a false picture of America's economic position. "
The Solar Hot Plate and the Solar Lamp
Among the advantages that phosphorescent medium has over silicon semiconductors as a solar energy source is that the phosphorescent medium is a natural solar collector, a type of big sponge that soaks up solar energy with relative ease, and the phosphorescent medium also incorporates its own battery and so could function as a storage medium for energy as well, whereas with silicon you would require a separate battery or otherwise you would be restricted to using the energy produced by the silicon device only 'on demand' and then only when time and day and weather permitted.
The advantage of silicon is that when you want a charged electron you can get a charged electron and that is not going to be a really big problem. With the phosphorescent medium you pretty much have to resort to an armed robbery and an assualt so as to rob that phosphorescent atom of an electron at gun point if a charged electron was what you wanted.
However sometimes you want to feud and fight with a phosphorescent medium while at other times you might want to adopt a more cooperative approach. There are times when a photon might come in handy.
One example of this would be the solar lamp. The lamp charges up during daylight hours and then releases its photons to provide light at night. The solar lamp would be a device which could depend upon doping in order to function, since we know that doping can increase the battery life and prolong the release. We also know that doping results in red, green, and blue phosphorescence, and as you know when you look at a television screen or a computer monitor (RGB or 'red green blue' devices) you can make any color, including white light, by combining red, green and blue. We can therefore picture the solar lamp as being composed of long lasting, slow release doped phosphorescent material. It is at this point that we need to consider emulating the silicon solar collector and we have to consider perhaps an 'NPN' or "PNP' type of arrangement. Here I am picturing in my mind the way that in a silicon type solar cell can have the charge carriers separated by employing layers of material with different electrical properties. The purpose would be to once again emulate the way a plant employs a type of cascade effect to move an electrical charge away from the surface and into storage down below so as to keep the surface area free and ready to collect more photons. I am also assuming that it would be possible to create this type of leaky battery using only doped phosphorescent materials and the correct circuit arrangement of layers of material, which would simplify the device and exclude such elements as magnetics and resonating circuits, since we are now cooperating with the phosphorescent material and are willing to accept a photon as an output. Along with this idea we can also think about incorporating a switch (on / off) since the device begins to resemble a transistor of sorts.
A second device we can imagine constructing would be the 'solar hot plate'. Keep in mind that one of the big reasons that trees get chopped down by the populations in poorer areas of the world is meet energy requirements, and then because the watershed is destroyed over time, this then results in floods when it rains and the washing away of valuable soils and so on. A solar hot plate would also rely upon the release of photons, and in this case we would have to imagine a device engineered to release infrared, or we could imagine including in our design a substance that when bombarded with photons reacts by heating up. One possible design concept that has occurred to me is that the hot plate element would function as a type of solar collector, heating up when placed in the sun. Now below this plate and enclosed in a container would be hidden our phosphorescent based storage battery, for some of the heat collected by the hot plate would radiate downwards from the bottom of the heated plate into the container. At this point we have to imagine that we have a phosphorescent collector which is sensitive to infrared radiation. Therefore the device becomes like a heat sink and later on when it is 'turned on' it begins to release the stored energy in the form of infrared radiation, heating the cooking plate from the bottom up.
The advantage of silicon is that when you want a charged electron you can get a charged electron and that is not going to be a really big problem. With the phosphorescent medium you pretty much have to resort to an armed robbery and an assualt so as to rob that phosphorescent atom of an electron at gun point if a charged electron was what you wanted.
However sometimes you want to feud and fight with a phosphorescent medium while at other times you might want to adopt a more cooperative approach. There are times when a photon might come in handy.
One example of this would be the solar lamp. The lamp charges up during daylight hours and then releases its photons to provide light at night. The solar lamp would be a device which could depend upon doping in order to function, since we know that doping can increase the battery life and prolong the release. We also know that doping results in red, green, and blue phosphorescence, and as you know when you look at a television screen or a computer monitor (RGB or 'red green blue' devices) you can make any color, including white light, by combining red, green and blue. We can therefore picture the solar lamp as being composed of long lasting, slow release doped phosphorescent material. It is at this point that we need to consider emulating the silicon solar collector and we have to consider perhaps an 'NPN' or "PNP' type of arrangement. Here I am picturing in my mind the way that in a silicon type solar cell can have the charge carriers separated by employing layers of material with different electrical properties. The purpose would be to once again emulate the way a plant employs a type of cascade effect to move an electrical charge away from the surface and into storage down below so as to keep the surface area free and ready to collect more photons. I am also assuming that it would be possible to create this type of leaky battery using only doped phosphorescent materials and the correct circuit arrangement of layers of material, which would simplify the device and exclude such elements as magnetics and resonating circuits, since we are now cooperating with the phosphorescent material and are willing to accept a photon as an output. Along with this idea we can also think about incorporating a switch (on / off) since the device begins to resemble a transistor of sorts.
A second device we can imagine constructing would be the 'solar hot plate'. Keep in mind that one of the big reasons that trees get chopped down by the populations in poorer areas of the world is meet energy requirements, and then because the watershed is destroyed over time, this then results in floods when it rains and the washing away of valuable soils and so on. A solar hot plate would also rely upon the release of photons, and in this case we would have to imagine a device engineered to release infrared, or we could imagine including in our design a substance that when bombarded with photons reacts by heating up. One possible design concept that has occurred to me is that the hot plate element would function as a type of solar collector, heating up when placed in the sun. Now below this plate and enclosed in a container would be hidden our phosphorescent based storage battery, for some of the heat collected by the hot plate would radiate downwards from the bottom of the heated plate into the container. At this point we have to imagine that we have a phosphorescent collector which is sensitive to infrared radiation. Therefore the device becomes like a heat sink and later on when it is 'turned on' it begins to release the stored energy in the form of infrared radiation, heating the cooking plate from the bottom up.
Cheaper than Coal? More discussion of a phosphorescent solar cell
The following is a continuing discussion of the development of a solar cell based upon phosphorescence begun in my first post on the subject located here.
In my previous post I discussed employing an effect similar to that used in a laser in order to create an amplified electrical current.
One of the problems with my discussion of this topic is confusion on my part concerning the process of ‘ionization’ and so therefore I wanted to say a few words about this subject so that no one else will be confused by my confusion on the subject.
In the process of ionization an electron is stripped or ‘kicked out’ of an atom. An electron is not ‘created’ it is ‘kicked out’ and when an atom is missing an electron it is referred to as an ion. A phosphorescent medium can be thought of as a type of ‘semiconductor’ and so therefore ionization is possible.
By the way, you cannot ‘create an electron’. Rather what you can do is create an electron-positron pair, provided that the absorbed radiation is in the form of gamma rays, and so therefore such a device would only be useful in outer space and not down here. Furthermore and electron and a positron annihilate each other releasing a gamma ray, and exposure to a gamma ray is much worse than becoming sun burned, and given that it is unlikely that people will be converted into the Incredible Hulk by exposure to such gamma radiation, and given that such a device would probably just kill everyone who was exposed to it, this an idea not worth considering down here on earth, not that there is much to worry about since the earth’s magnetic field protects us from gamma rays and therefore such a device would not work here in any case.
One of the reasons why silicon is currently used for solar cells and phosphorescent material is not being used is that with phosphorescent material you get that nasty problem of the emitted photon, and we want useful electrons. However at the same time the metastable state that we find in phosphorescent material, which gives us that useless photon, is also the source of a potential battery, so that with a phosphorescent solar cell the collector is also the battery, whereas with silicon while you don’t have the problem of emitting a photon, you require a separate battery or you must use the power in real time. Now given Einstein’s famous equation E=MC(2), we know that it is possible to store a great deal of energy within a very small quantity of matter and so therefore the promise offered by the more troublesome and stubborn phosphorescent material seems well worth the effort to exploit, since it brings with it the promise of a large amount of energy and promises to be much more powerful than a silicon solar cell for that reason.
Now if there is some other method of extracting electrical energy from phosphorescent material, other than exploring ionization, at the moment I cannot think of what that might be. Perhaps I might come across something else in my research but at the moment ionization and exploiting the Auger effect would seem to be about it. You see, we have a problem with phosphorescent material in that the energy it releases is in the form of a photon, and we don’t want that. In the process of ionization an electron is kicked out of an atom, creating an ion, and we can think of that electron leaving behind a kind of ‘hole’ which can then be filled by an electron, and once again, when the hole is filled the electron would release energy in the form of radiation (a photon once again) so we would hope that once the electron is replaced it has already lost enough energy (we used it) that there isn’t much left to radiate.
Anyone who is interested in an introduction to ionization might consider consulting the link to the wikipedia page on the subject. For our purposes we would be more interested in the more modern treatment of ionization (based upon quantum physics) rather than the older classical treatment.
Plants employ solar collectors (their leaves) and they also employ a small battery in which they store electrical energy at the center of each leaf. You see, a plant, like us, really has not use for a photon, and so therefore a plant stores electrical energy in electrons.
Like us, plants also have a problem in that only the surface of the leaf is useful as a solar collector, and so therefore plants employ this very interesting effect of creating an electro-chemical electron cascade effect, sending the energy converted from sunlight cascading downward towards the center of the leaf where it is stored as useful electrical energy in a form of chemical battery.
Now in order to exploit Einstein’s equation, we must mimic the plant, because we have the same problem confronting a plant, in that just as the surface layer of the leaf of the plant is the only useful portion of the solar collector so to only the surface layer of the phosphorescent medium is a useful solar collector. Therefore we need to create a type of electron cascade effect, much as we see the plant doing in its leaf, since this is the sensible solution to that problem, and given that it is sensible that explains why we see plants employing that solution, and so must we.
For this reason I am now picturing a modification of the design of the solar collector. What we need is a metal disk upon which the phosphorescent medium is applied as a coating.
One way of thinking about the phosphorescent solar cell is that the cell is like a big capacitor. In a capacitor a charge accumulates upon two metal plates because of the difference of voltage between the two plates and the charge must build up because of the presence of an insulator or dielectric between the two plates (sometimes this is nothing more than air). Another way of thinking about the phosphorescent solar cell is to compare the metal plate and the phosphorescent medium to an anode and a cathode.
The purpose of introducing a metal plate into the design is to allow us to use techniques based upon electronics to imitate what the plant accomplishes using chemistry (an electron cascade effect, which frees up the surface to function as a solar collector by moving the charge carriers down to the center of the medium, in order that the solar cell can function properly as a battery).
One of the problems our solar cell will encounter is that phosphorescence is a temperature dependant phenomenon, and for this reason, because we are not operating our device at super cool temperatures, the battery will have a tendency to leak, releasing photons (which is why a phosphorescent toy glows in the dark).
In my previous post I discussed an intuitive hypothetical means of preventing such leakage by employing resonance and damping to create a type of electromagnetic trap. It turns out that this idea relates to a form of electromagnetic cooling known as ‘Stochastic Cooling’ which employs electromagnetic traps and radio frequencies. to create a damping effect that results in cooling. So it would seem to be possible to operate such a solar cell at ambient temperatures while at the same time the device itself remains cool. This would reduce the efficiency of the device since power would have to be directed towards cooling, which would a percentage of the energy not available to the end user (the sun provides about 1000 watts per square meter at the equator, and that figure would be less at higher or lower latitudes). We also probably do not need ‘super cooling’, and what is required for our purposes is that the device by ‘just good enough’, and even if it leaked a little that also wouldn’t be problem, just so long as it did not leak a lot, and was therefore a useful device. We should also keep in mind Einstein’s equation (E=M(2)) and this suggests that if we design a device whereby we can keep ahead, it all adds up.
There are a few other approaches to getting useful energy out of phosphorescent material that I did not mention above. Both involve doping. Think of a plate of food. You sprinkle salt and pepper on the food and in a way we could say that you were doping the food with salt and pepper.
It has already been demonstrated that doping a phosphorescent medium with rare earth minerals results in a large increase in the battery life (the substance will still be found glowing after hours have passed). Unfortunately the term 'rare earth mineral' sounds expensive to me, and perhaps it might be possible to achieve similar results with further experimentation with not so rare earth minerals.
Researchers working with DNA have found it necessary for their purposes to invent a technique referred to as 'phosphorescent quenching by means of electron transfer.' The way this works is that the medium is once again doped, this time with donors (the phosphorescent substance which will be transferring an electron) and receptors (a substance which will receive a donated electron). This quenches the phosphorescence preventing the release of a photon, and it is possible that a similar idea could be employed in a solar cell which would simplify the design. We could imagine a design somewhat similar to a conventional silicon solar cell where a charge is separated between 'holes' and charged particles, however such a device, while it could conceivably work much like a silicon solar cell, would lose its function as a battery since it is the 'metastable state' of the phosphorescent medium that provides the battery potential. However, given that silicon solar cells are only 12 percent efficient, it might be interesting to find out if a phosphorescent solar cell which functioned like a silicon cell would prove to be more efficient than a silicon cell.
The Auger Effect, Resonance, and Ionization
In my previous post I discussed employing an effect similar to that used in a laser in order to create an amplified electrical current.
One of the problems with my discussion of this topic is confusion on my part concerning the process of ‘ionization’ and so therefore I wanted to say a few words about this subject so that no one else will be confused by my confusion on the subject.
In the process of ionization an electron is stripped or ‘kicked out’ of an atom. An electron is not ‘created’ it is ‘kicked out’ and when an atom is missing an electron it is referred to as an ion. A phosphorescent medium can be thought of as a type of ‘semiconductor’ and so therefore ionization is possible.
By the way, you cannot ‘create an electron’. Rather what you can do is create an electron-positron pair, provided that the absorbed radiation is in the form of gamma rays, and so therefore such a device would only be useful in outer space and not down here. Furthermore and electron and a positron annihilate each other releasing a gamma ray, and exposure to a gamma ray is much worse than becoming sun burned, and given that it is unlikely that people will be converted into the Incredible Hulk by exposure to such gamma radiation, and given that such a device would probably just kill everyone who was exposed to it, this an idea not worth considering down here on earth, not that there is much to worry about since the earth’s magnetic field protects us from gamma rays and therefore such a device would not work here in any case.
One of the reasons why silicon is currently used for solar cells and phosphorescent material is not being used is that with phosphorescent material you get that nasty problem of the emitted photon, and we want useful electrons. However at the same time the metastable state that we find in phosphorescent material, which gives us that useless photon, is also the source of a potential battery, so that with a phosphorescent solar cell the collector is also the battery, whereas with silicon while you don’t have the problem of emitting a photon, you require a separate battery or you must use the power in real time. Now given Einstein’s famous equation E=MC(2), we know that it is possible to store a great deal of energy within a very small quantity of matter and so therefore the promise offered by the more troublesome and stubborn phosphorescent material seems well worth the effort to exploit, since it brings with it the promise of a large amount of energy and promises to be much more powerful than a silicon solar cell for that reason.
Now if there is some other method of extracting electrical energy from phosphorescent material, other than exploring ionization, at the moment I cannot think of what that might be. Perhaps I might come across something else in my research but at the moment ionization and exploiting the Auger effect would seem to be about it. You see, we have a problem with phosphorescent material in that the energy it releases is in the form of a photon, and we don’t want that. In the process of ionization an electron is kicked out of an atom, creating an ion, and we can think of that electron leaving behind a kind of ‘hole’ which can then be filled by an electron, and once again, when the hole is filled the electron would release energy in the form of radiation (a photon once again) so we would hope that once the electron is replaced it has already lost enough energy (we used it) that there isn’t much left to radiate.
Anyone who is interested in an introduction to ionization might consider consulting the link to the wikipedia page on the subject. For our purposes we would be more interested in the more modern treatment of ionization (based upon quantum physics) rather than the older classical treatment.
Photosynthesis and the Electron Cascade
Plants employ solar collectors (their leaves) and they also employ a small battery in which they store electrical energy at the center of each leaf. You see, a plant, like us, really has not use for a photon, and so therefore a plant stores electrical energy in electrons.
Like us, plants also have a problem in that only the surface of the leaf is useful as a solar collector, and so therefore plants employ this very interesting effect of creating an electro-chemical electron cascade effect, sending the energy converted from sunlight cascading downward towards the center of the leaf where it is stored as useful electrical energy in a form of chemical battery.
Now in order to exploit Einstein’s equation, we must mimic the plant, because we have the same problem confronting a plant, in that just as the surface layer of the leaf of the plant is the only useful portion of the solar collector so to only the surface layer of the phosphorescent medium is a useful solar collector. Therefore we need to create a type of electron cascade effect, much as we see the plant doing in its leaf, since this is the sensible solution to that problem, and given that it is sensible that explains why we see plants employing that solution, and so must we.
For this reason I am now picturing a modification of the design of the solar collector. What we need is a metal disk upon which the phosphorescent medium is applied as a coating.
One way of thinking about the phosphorescent solar cell is that the cell is like a big capacitor. In a capacitor a charge accumulates upon two metal plates because of the difference of voltage between the two plates and the charge must build up because of the presence of an insulator or dielectric between the two plates (sometimes this is nothing more than air). Another way of thinking about the phosphorescent solar cell is to compare the metal plate and the phosphorescent medium to an anode and a cathode.
The purpose of introducing a metal plate into the design is to allow us to use techniques based upon electronics to imitate what the plant accomplishes using chemistry (an electron cascade effect, which frees up the surface to function as a solar collector by moving the charge carriers down to the center of the medium, in order that the solar cell can function properly as a battery).
Stochastic Cooling
One of the problems our solar cell will encounter is that phosphorescence is a temperature dependant phenomenon, and for this reason, because we are not operating our device at super cool temperatures, the battery will have a tendency to leak, releasing photons (which is why a phosphorescent toy glows in the dark).
In my previous post I discussed an intuitive hypothetical means of preventing such leakage by employing resonance and damping to create a type of electromagnetic trap. It turns out that this idea relates to a form of electromagnetic cooling known as ‘Stochastic Cooling’ which employs electromagnetic traps and radio frequencies. to create a damping effect that results in cooling. So it would seem to be possible to operate such a solar cell at ambient temperatures while at the same time the device itself remains cool. This would reduce the efficiency of the device since power would have to be directed towards cooling, which would a percentage of the energy not available to the end user (the sun provides about 1000 watts per square meter at the equator, and that figure would be less at higher or lower latitudes). We also probably do not need ‘super cooling’, and what is required for our purposes is that the device by ‘just good enough’, and even if it leaked a little that also wouldn’t be problem, just so long as it did not leak a lot, and was therefore a useful device. We should also keep in mind Einstein’s equation (E=M(2)) and this suggests that if we design a device whereby we can keep ahead, it all adds up.
Other Angles
There are a few other approaches to getting useful energy out of phosphorescent material that I did not mention above. Both involve doping. Think of a plate of food. You sprinkle salt and pepper on the food and in a way we could say that you were doping the food with salt and pepper.
It has already been demonstrated that doping a phosphorescent medium with rare earth minerals results in a large increase in the battery life (the substance will still be found glowing after hours have passed). Unfortunately the term 'rare earth mineral' sounds expensive to me, and perhaps it might be possible to achieve similar results with further experimentation with not so rare earth minerals.
Researchers working with DNA have found it necessary for their purposes to invent a technique referred to as 'phosphorescent quenching by means of electron transfer.' The way this works is that the medium is once again doped, this time with donors (the phosphorescent substance which will be transferring an electron) and receptors (a substance which will receive a donated electron). This quenches the phosphorescence preventing the release of a photon, and it is possible that a similar idea could be employed in a solar cell which would simplify the design. We could imagine a design somewhat similar to a conventional silicon solar cell where a charge is separated between 'holes' and charged particles, however such a device, while it could conceivably work much like a silicon solar cell, would lose its function as a battery since it is the 'metastable state' of the phosphorescent medium that provides the battery potential. However, given that silicon solar cells are only 12 percent efficient, it might be interesting to find out if a phosphorescent solar cell which functioned like a silicon cell would prove to be more efficient than a silicon cell.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Gravitational Field
If we think of gravity as being the consequence of the curvature of 'space-time' then the idea of 'anti-gravity' makes no sense. It is only if the gravitational field is the result of some kind of force that we can make sense out of such ideas as 'attraction' and 'repulsion' when thinking about gravity.
In order to explain how an object can be 'repulsed' by a gravitational field it is required that we introduce the idea of a gravitational 'charge'. The gravitational force would parallel the behavior of the electric force with the difference being that gravitation would be 'anti-symmetrical', in that in a gravitational field like charges would attract while unlike charges would repel. Now it is said that gravitation parallels the electromagnetic field phenomenon in many ways, with some noticeable differences, among them being that there is no 'negative charge' and that gravitation is always attractive and never repulsive for that reason. However saying this is much like saying 'there is no anti-matter in the universe' or 'there are no positrons'. We don't see anti-matter in the universe and we don't see many positrons, which is fortunate given that positrons and electrons, which we do see, annihilate each other and release high energy gamma rays in the process. It has been said that the 'Law of the Conservation of Charge' is invariant, but it is obvious that this is not true under a certain specific set of circumstances, for while it is true that electrons can only be created when at the same time a corresponding positron is created (thus preserving the zero charge of the energetic photon) it is also true that electrons exist and positrons do not exist, at least not for very long in this universe, and the fact that the universe exists at all is evidence that the Law of Conservation of Charge is not invariant. We do not see 'anti-gravity' or a 'negative gravitational charge' in the universe for if we did we would not see much of a universe, and the sublimation of this negative charge is required if this particular universe is to exist at all, just as positrons or anti-matter must not exist if the universe as we know it is to exist.
I say that the 'negative gravitational charge' is 'sublimated' because I believe that we do see it but we do not recognize that we are seeing it, because it is weak. Weak as this charge might be it is still required if we are to see any universe at all. If a mass is to have a 'positive gravitational charge' this would suggest that the 'charge' is a characteristic of the mass. As we know the gravitational force increases with the size of the mass and so therefore it would seem that the same force that holds a small together is the same force that holds a large mass together, and so therefore the forces that operate on the subatomic level and are holding together sub-atomic particles with a small mass, such as protons in a nucleus, are cumulative and so as mass increases so do the cumulative forces. At the same time we can see evidence for an 'anti-gravitational force' in that there is also a weaker force at work which prevents collapse under the positive gravitational force, and we could say that it is this stronger gravitational force which is responsible for the fact that matter exists while it is this weaker negative force which is responsible for the fact that space exists. As mass increases it must be true that the stronger attractive force and the weaker repulsive force increase in such a fashion as to be nonlinear for at some point gravitational collapse does occur.
Here I am assuming that 'gravitational charge' is an inherent property of 'mass', and I am aware that physicists consider the 'strong force' and the 'weak' force to be forces separate from the force of gravity which is a very weak force in quantum physics. The concept of 'negative mass' seems meaningless and nonsensical and this then leads me to consider the following hypothetical scenario.
If the gravitational charge is an inherent property of a mass then we can imagine the creation of a type of 'anti-mass'. This would be a 'negative mass' only in the sense that the 'charge' of the mass would be 'negative'. So we would imagine that we would have a nucleus composed of 'anti-protons' with a net negative charge bound together with the ubiquitous neutrons surrounded by a cloud of positrons and this would be an 'anti-atom'. My assumption here is that we only see mass in this universe and we do not see 'anti-mass' just as we see electrons and we do not see positrons (even though a positron is not an imaginary particle). If 'charge' is a property of mass then we would expect that an 'anti-mass' must also be possible and that the given that 'opposite charges' should be repulsive as far as it concerns gravity we might for the first thing see something which 'falls up and away' rather than what we always see in this universe which is something which falls down.
My observations of floating craft maneuvering within a gravitational field suggest that three vectors are required to explain the range of possible movement, and here what comes to mind is the picture given to explain angular momentum. The index finger is pointed straight ahead, the middle finger is then moved to become perpendicular to the palm (and at a right angle to the index finger) and then the thumb is pointed upwards in the 'thumbs up' position. The thumb corresponds to movement in the up down direction, the index finger forward and back and the middle finger left to right. Movement up and down within a gravitational field makes sense to me, and is easy to picture. Now as for movement left or right or forward or back or combinations of pairs giving a full range of motion, the only possible explanation I can come up with that makes any sense to me is the notion of 'differentials'. So if it was true that our craft was 'neutral' with respect to gravitational charge, then perhaps we could imagine ourselves hovering (or we could be 'negative' with equality and our velocity would therefore be zero). If we wanted to move to the left then perhaps we could be 'neutral' on the right but positive on the left and thus 'fall to the left'.
In order to explain how an object can be 'repulsed' by a gravitational field it is required that we introduce the idea of a gravitational 'charge'. The gravitational force would parallel the behavior of the electric force with the difference being that gravitation would be 'anti-symmetrical', in that in a gravitational field like charges would attract while unlike charges would repel. Now it is said that gravitation parallels the electromagnetic field phenomenon in many ways, with some noticeable differences, among them being that there is no 'negative charge' and that gravitation is always attractive and never repulsive for that reason. However saying this is much like saying 'there is no anti-matter in the universe' or 'there are no positrons'. We don't see anti-matter in the universe and we don't see many positrons, which is fortunate given that positrons and electrons, which we do see, annihilate each other and release high energy gamma rays in the process. It has been said that the 'Law of the Conservation of Charge' is invariant, but it is obvious that this is not true under a certain specific set of circumstances, for while it is true that electrons can only be created when at the same time a corresponding positron is created (thus preserving the zero charge of the energetic photon) it is also true that electrons exist and positrons do not exist, at least not for very long in this universe, and the fact that the universe exists at all is evidence that the Law of Conservation of Charge is not invariant. We do not see 'anti-gravity' or a 'negative gravitational charge' in the universe for if we did we would not see much of a universe, and the sublimation of this negative charge is required if this particular universe is to exist at all, just as positrons or anti-matter must not exist if the universe as we know it is to exist.
I say that the 'negative gravitational charge' is 'sublimated' because I believe that we do see it but we do not recognize that we are seeing it, because it is weak. Weak as this charge might be it is still required if we are to see any universe at all. If a mass is to have a 'positive gravitational charge' this would suggest that the 'charge' is a characteristic of the mass. As we know the gravitational force increases with the size of the mass and so therefore it would seem that the same force that holds a small together is the same force that holds a large mass together, and so therefore the forces that operate on the subatomic level and are holding together sub-atomic particles with a small mass, such as protons in a nucleus, are cumulative and so as mass increases so do the cumulative forces. At the same time we can see evidence for an 'anti-gravitational force' in that there is also a weaker force at work which prevents collapse under the positive gravitational force, and we could say that it is this stronger gravitational force which is responsible for the fact that matter exists while it is this weaker negative force which is responsible for the fact that space exists. As mass increases it must be true that the stronger attractive force and the weaker repulsive force increase in such a fashion as to be nonlinear for at some point gravitational collapse does occur.
Here I am assuming that 'gravitational charge' is an inherent property of 'mass', and I am aware that physicists consider the 'strong force' and the 'weak' force to be forces separate from the force of gravity which is a very weak force in quantum physics. The concept of 'negative mass' seems meaningless and nonsensical and this then leads me to consider the following hypothetical scenario.
If the gravitational charge is an inherent property of a mass then we can imagine the creation of a type of 'anti-mass'. This would be a 'negative mass' only in the sense that the 'charge' of the mass would be 'negative'. So we would imagine that we would have a nucleus composed of 'anti-protons' with a net negative charge bound together with the ubiquitous neutrons surrounded by a cloud of positrons and this would be an 'anti-atom'. My assumption here is that we only see mass in this universe and we do not see 'anti-mass' just as we see electrons and we do not see positrons (even though a positron is not an imaginary particle). If 'charge' is a property of mass then we would expect that an 'anti-mass' must also be possible and that the given that 'opposite charges' should be repulsive as far as it concerns gravity we might for the first thing see something which 'falls up and away' rather than what we always see in this universe which is something which falls down.
My observations of floating craft maneuvering within a gravitational field suggest that three vectors are required to explain the range of possible movement, and here what comes to mind is the picture given to explain angular momentum. The index finger is pointed straight ahead, the middle finger is then moved to become perpendicular to the palm (and at a right angle to the index finger) and then the thumb is pointed upwards in the 'thumbs up' position. The thumb corresponds to movement in the up down direction, the index finger forward and back and the middle finger left to right. Movement up and down within a gravitational field makes sense to me, and is easy to picture. Now as for movement left or right or forward or back or combinations of pairs giving a full range of motion, the only possible explanation I can come up with that makes any sense to me is the notion of 'differentials'. So if it was true that our craft was 'neutral' with respect to gravitational charge, then perhaps we could imagine ourselves hovering (or we could be 'negative' with equality and our velocity would therefore be zero). If we wanted to move to the left then perhaps we could be 'neutral' on the right but positive on the left and thus 'fall to the left'.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Experimental Observations
In my quest to see that a solar cell is developed I have decided to discuss what I have observed as being the result of an 'experiment'. One thing that concerns me is that someone might take out a patent, and thus ruin everything by using the solar cell to generate profits, and so it is my hope to do it myself so as to ensure that my purpose in seeking these answers (transforming the lives of people without a lot of money) does not become subsumed by another purpose (generating a profit).
Here is what I have observed. I have observed three small craft hovering about twenty feet above the ground in a straight line row, equally spaced. The craft were shaped like two shallow soup bowls placed face to face (yes, this was the archetype of the 'flying saucer', which suggests then that reason why this 'flying saucer' shape has become part of the public consciousness and began showing up in Hollywood movies in the fifties is because those things exist and were observed and then accurately described by witnesses). According to a witness who saw them around the same time that I saw them, when they come close to the ground they are capable of scorching the earth, this effect being produced by a strong electrical current which flows within a magnetic field surrounding the device. That this effect is produced by a magnetic field is obvious since magnetism is the only force in nature which is capable of producing the 'anti-gravity' effect which then causes an object to float in midair. The 'flying saucer' shape is not a random design, but rather conforms to the shape of the magnetic field. These craft are small and unpiloted (perhaps about twelve feet wide and maybe about six or seven feet deep. A second type I have observed is shaped like a circular disk (when viewed from the side people report seeing a 'cigar shaped object'). These much larger circular craft are piloted and once again I make the assumption that the flat, circular disk shape is dictated by the shape of the magnetic field.
The three small 'flying saucers' were glowing with what I immediately recognized as a phosphorescent glow. One was the traditional color of the glow in the dark toy (that lime greenish glow), one was a blue hue, something like turquoise, and the third was a deep blood red. Since phosphorescent medium is both a collector and a battery capable of storing solar energy the obvious conclusion to draw is that a massive quantity of energy is being stored in this manner (enough to power both a brilliant glow as well as allow the craft the hover and to produce momentum, and as we know from watching the flames shoot out of the space shuttle or a rocket, a considerable amount of energy is required to keep a craft hovering or to produce momentum...however given Einstein's equation (E=mc(2)) I am not surprised when I consider just how much energy is being stored by those phosphorescent solar cells, since an enormous amount of energy can be stored in a very small mass.
Based upon my observations, such craft probably absorb energy at a wide range of frequencies. At the place where I work, if I look over the fence, I see the airport right next door, and I cannot count the number of times I have been paid a visit by these craft, flying right over the airport, and apparently they absorb radar and are therefore one hundred percent stealthy, since despite the fact that they have flown over the airport countless times over the years, I have never heard any reports that some radar operator kept noticing them as they popped up on the radar screen night after night.
It also seems obvious to me that the manner in which these craft manipulate energy is through the magnetic field, and so therefore the creation of a solar cell requires the combination of phosphorescent material and the magnetic field. I am going to asssume that the phosphorescent medium is 'doped' since the range of colors I have seen is not produced in nature as far as I know.
One form of communication that I have with my friends is that I ask a question and the craft becomes brilliant by increasing the glow (which means 'yes') or sometimes it will become extremely brilliant (which means 'yes, with emphasis'). About a month or two ago I caught hell, you might say, for giving into a feeling of despair, and I was told that I had a promise of assistance, and in this case the craft become extraordinarly brilliant, until finally the light actually went from white light to a noticeably bluish white as the intensity and brilliance increased (or in other words it is possible to employ the magnetic field to change the frequency of the emissions, when the stored energy is being released in the form of photons of light rather than being used to create momentum.
Now speaking of momentum, for years I used to think to myself that these craft were able to float and to fly by means of some kind of interaction with the earth's magnetic field. To explain flight out in space I developed the theory of 'bouncing' whereby a craft would bounce off the magnetic field and then given that an object in motion in a vacuum will maintain its speed this would allow space flight. The reason why I thought in this way is that my mind was trapped within the mental framework provided by Albert Einstein and the theory of general relativity, which explains gravity as being not a force, as proposed by Newton, but rather as the consequence of the curvature of 'space time'. Now lately I have come to reject Einstein, and I am assuming the geometry of Einstein may be correct but his assumptions are not. I am also assuming that one of the reasons why we do not have a quantum theory (or rather the reason why we have to many quantum theories) is because, like me, our scientists are also trapped within the box.
Zt is obvious to me that gravity is in fact a 'force', and so therefore it is required that we 'go back to Newton'. Now as we know, when we combine classical mechanics with quantum mechanics, the results come into conflict with Einstein's theories of relativity. For example, we get a fast electron. Yes, it is a very speedy electron, much faster than the speed of light. In fact, it can even be an instantaneous electron, and in a certain sense, such concepts as space and distance or time are meaningless to our electron, since certain quantum effects are transmitted instantaneously throughout the universe, and since this involves the transmission of information at faster than light speeds, this is impossible, because it violates Einstein's theory of relativity. We also know that Einstein devoted his life to discovering a unified field theory, and that he excluded quantum physics, and I would assume that the reason why he felt this antipathy towards quantum physics was because intuitively and unconsciously Albert Einstein knew that if he went there that would overturn his assumptions, so he stayed away. Since then, all of our scientists have also stayed away, which is a problem. Therefore if I were to ask a simple question, such as 'why does an electron have a net negative charge', I cannot get an answer. I will be told that it does have such a charge, but as to why it does, there is no answer that I have ever found. This is quantum physics. I must simply take it for granted that a photon has no net charge and no mass, and as to why that would be true, there is no theory.
It is only in the last few years that technological development has reached the place where it is now possible for an electron to tell us that it is an electron that is faster than light. Actually it is an instantaneous electron. It is an electron with a message. It is telling us that it is time to move on and start thinking outside the box.
It has occurred to me that my panic stricken behavior of late is more than likely not required, since it is very unlikely that someone will invent this solar cell and then take out a patent. As for my panic, my goal is to produce these inexpensive solar cells and then distribute them to women or children who spend hours each day walking many miles to gather a bundle of sticks, since all the sticks keeping getting further and further away. This is quite different than the idea of generating a solar cell to 'make a profit'. Don't misunderstand me. I can see how 'generating a profit' could be useful to my purpose in that I can now distribute more solar cells, since distributing solar cells is my goal, and 'generating a profit' is not my goal but rather a method, which is a different concept altogether. When we think of a 'profit' in this sense, we can think of a 'profit' as being a measure of 'work' and since it will require 'work' and 'allocation of resources' to distribute solar cells I am not opposed to the idea of 'profit' since in this case it is just an abstraction employed to describe the work required to generate and distribute the aforementioned solar cells. However, the conclusion I have drawn is that I need not worry myself sick at the moment since it is unlikely that anyone will beat me by crossing the finish line, and there are two reasons for this. First, no one ever listens to me, and so therefore our scientists do not have the experimental evidence at hand which would allow them to ask the right questions and thus develop the solar cell. Second, our scientists are still thinking in the box, and so therefore Albert Einstein will prevent them from developing the solar cell and then taking out a patent for some corporation so that some corporation can generate profits for some shareholders rather than developing a profit so as to distribute more solar cells, which is an entirely different concept.
For this reason I have decided to relax and spend the next little while studying classical mechanics, since I do not have to rush. You see, I know that gravity is actually a force. I know that a strong relationship exists between gravitational force and electric force, so I will need to spend some time studying Newton and classical physics in general in order to find the answers I am looking for. It seems to me that 'anti-gravity' and electromagnetic propulsion are probably byproducts of this solar cell I am interested in. I also know that there exists a relationship between the weak force and the electron, and that it is the strong force that holds things together, and since it is a force that I am looking for, it is obvious then that somehow gravity is related to the strong force. The electron has also told me that such effects are actually independent of such concepts as those of 'space' and 'time' (they are instantaneous, everywhere in the universe). Therefore I know that somehow the electron and the weak field are involved in this electromagnetic propulsion and this anti-gravity effect, although just what a strong field is or a weak field is I do not know, and I don't think anyone else knows at this time. I know that anti-gravity and propulsion involves attraction and repulsion, and I know that an electron has a net negative charge, and that there is a relationship involving attraction and repulsion between the 'strong' and 'weak' forces, but I do not understand just exactly why there would be a charge or why a pure energy particle like a photon has no mass and no charge while an electron has both. Apparently having a charge is a property of mass, although why that would be true I do not know, although I do know based upon my observations that having a charge is essential to the phenomenon of anti-gravity and propulsion and is also important in the design of a solar cell.
Here is what I have observed. I have observed three small craft hovering about twenty feet above the ground in a straight line row, equally spaced. The craft were shaped like two shallow soup bowls placed face to face (yes, this was the archetype of the 'flying saucer', which suggests then that reason why this 'flying saucer' shape has become part of the public consciousness and began showing up in Hollywood movies in the fifties is because those things exist and were observed and then accurately described by witnesses). According to a witness who saw them around the same time that I saw them, when they come close to the ground they are capable of scorching the earth, this effect being produced by a strong electrical current which flows within a magnetic field surrounding the device. That this effect is produced by a magnetic field is obvious since magnetism is the only force in nature which is capable of producing the 'anti-gravity' effect which then causes an object to float in midair. The 'flying saucer' shape is not a random design, but rather conforms to the shape of the magnetic field. These craft are small and unpiloted (perhaps about twelve feet wide and maybe about six or seven feet deep. A second type I have observed is shaped like a circular disk (when viewed from the side people report seeing a 'cigar shaped object'). These much larger circular craft are piloted and once again I make the assumption that the flat, circular disk shape is dictated by the shape of the magnetic field.
The three small 'flying saucers' were glowing with what I immediately recognized as a phosphorescent glow. One was the traditional color of the glow in the dark toy (that lime greenish glow), one was a blue hue, something like turquoise, and the third was a deep blood red. Since phosphorescent medium is both a collector and a battery capable of storing solar energy the obvious conclusion to draw is that a massive quantity of energy is being stored in this manner (enough to power both a brilliant glow as well as allow the craft the hover and to produce momentum, and as we know from watching the flames shoot out of the space shuttle or a rocket, a considerable amount of energy is required to keep a craft hovering or to produce momentum...however given Einstein's equation (E=mc(2)) I am not surprised when I consider just how much energy is being stored by those phosphorescent solar cells, since an enormous amount of energy can be stored in a very small mass.
Based upon my observations, such craft probably absorb energy at a wide range of frequencies. At the place where I work, if I look over the fence, I see the airport right next door, and I cannot count the number of times I have been paid a visit by these craft, flying right over the airport, and apparently they absorb radar and are therefore one hundred percent stealthy, since despite the fact that they have flown over the airport countless times over the years, I have never heard any reports that some radar operator kept noticing them as they popped up on the radar screen night after night.
It also seems obvious to me that the manner in which these craft manipulate energy is through the magnetic field, and so therefore the creation of a solar cell requires the combination of phosphorescent material and the magnetic field. I am going to asssume that the phosphorescent medium is 'doped' since the range of colors I have seen is not produced in nature as far as I know.
One form of communication that I have with my friends is that I ask a question and the craft becomes brilliant by increasing the glow (which means 'yes') or sometimes it will become extremely brilliant (which means 'yes, with emphasis'). About a month or two ago I caught hell, you might say, for giving into a feeling of despair, and I was told that I had a promise of assistance, and in this case the craft become extraordinarly brilliant, until finally the light actually went from white light to a noticeably bluish white as the intensity and brilliance increased (or in other words it is possible to employ the magnetic field to change the frequency of the emissions, when the stored energy is being released in the form of photons of light rather than being used to create momentum.
Now speaking of momentum, for years I used to think to myself that these craft were able to float and to fly by means of some kind of interaction with the earth's magnetic field. To explain flight out in space I developed the theory of 'bouncing' whereby a craft would bounce off the magnetic field and then given that an object in motion in a vacuum will maintain its speed this would allow space flight. The reason why I thought in this way is that my mind was trapped within the mental framework provided by Albert Einstein and the theory of general relativity, which explains gravity as being not a force, as proposed by Newton, but rather as the consequence of the curvature of 'space time'. Now lately I have come to reject Einstein, and I am assuming the geometry of Einstein may be correct but his assumptions are not. I am also assuming that one of the reasons why we do not have a quantum theory (or rather the reason why we have to many quantum theories) is because, like me, our scientists are also trapped within the box.
Zt is obvious to me that gravity is in fact a 'force', and so therefore it is required that we 'go back to Newton'. Now as we know, when we combine classical mechanics with quantum mechanics, the results come into conflict with Einstein's theories of relativity. For example, we get a fast electron. Yes, it is a very speedy electron, much faster than the speed of light. In fact, it can even be an instantaneous electron, and in a certain sense, such concepts as space and distance or time are meaningless to our electron, since certain quantum effects are transmitted instantaneously throughout the universe, and since this involves the transmission of information at faster than light speeds, this is impossible, because it violates Einstein's theory of relativity. We also know that Einstein devoted his life to discovering a unified field theory, and that he excluded quantum physics, and I would assume that the reason why he felt this antipathy towards quantum physics was because intuitively and unconsciously Albert Einstein knew that if he went there that would overturn his assumptions, so he stayed away. Since then, all of our scientists have also stayed away, which is a problem. Therefore if I were to ask a simple question, such as 'why does an electron have a net negative charge', I cannot get an answer. I will be told that it does have such a charge, but as to why it does, there is no answer that I have ever found. This is quantum physics. I must simply take it for granted that a photon has no net charge and no mass, and as to why that would be true, there is no theory.
It is only in the last few years that technological development has reached the place where it is now possible for an electron to tell us that it is an electron that is faster than light. Actually it is an instantaneous electron. It is an electron with a message. It is telling us that it is time to move on and start thinking outside the box.
It has occurred to me that my panic stricken behavior of late is more than likely not required, since it is very unlikely that someone will invent this solar cell and then take out a patent. As for my panic, my goal is to produce these inexpensive solar cells and then distribute them to women or children who spend hours each day walking many miles to gather a bundle of sticks, since all the sticks keeping getting further and further away. This is quite different than the idea of generating a solar cell to 'make a profit'. Don't misunderstand me. I can see how 'generating a profit' could be useful to my purpose in that I can now distribute more solar cells, since distributing solar cells is my goal, and 'generating a profit' is not my goal but rather a method, which is a different concept altogether. When we think of a 'profit' in this sense, we can think of a 'profit' as being a measure of 'work' and since it will require 'work' and 'allocation of resources' to distribute solar cells I am not opposed to the idea of 'profit' since in this case it is just an abstraction employed to describe the work required to generate and distribute the aforementioned solar cells. However, the conclusion I have drawn is that I need not worry myself sick at the moment since it is unlikely that anyone will beat me by crossing the finish line, and there are two reasons for this. First, no one ever listens to me, and so therefore our scientists do not have the experimental evidence at hand which would allow them to ask the right questions and thus develop the solar cell. Second, our scientists are still thinking in the box, and so therefore Albert Einstein will prevent them from developing the solar cell and then taking out a patent for some corporation so that some corporation can generate profits for some shareholders rather than developing a profit so as to distribute more solar cells, which is an entirely different concept.
For this reason I have decided to relax and spend the next little while studying classical mechanics, since I do not have to rush. You see, I know that gravity is actually a force. I know that a strong relationship exists between gravitational force and electric force, so I will need to spend some time studying Newton and classical physics in general in order to find the answers I am looking for. It seems to me that 'anti-gravity' and electromagnetic propulsion are probably byproducts of this solar cell I am interested in. I also know that there exists a relationship between the weak force and the electron, and that it is the strong force that holds things together, and since it is a force that I am looking for, it is obvious then that somehow gravity is related to the strong force. The electron has also told me that such effects are actually independent of such concepts as those of 'space' and 'time' (they are instantaneous, everywhere in the universe). Therefore I know that somehow the electron and the weak field are involved in this electromagnetic propulsion and this anti-gravity effect, although just what a strong field is or a weak field is I do not know, and I don't think anyone else knows at this time. I know that anti-gravity and propulsion involves attraction and repulsion, and I know that an electron has a net negative charge, and that there is a relationship involving attraction and repulsion between the 'strong' and 'weak' forces, but I do not understand just exactly why there would be a charge or why a pure energy particle like a photon has no mass and no charge while an electron has both. Apparently having a charge is a property of mass, although why that would be true I do not know, although I do know based upon my observations that having a charge is essential to the phenomenon of anti-gravity and propulsion and is also important in the design of a solar cell.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Manufacturing busted toasters
I was reading this piece coming out of the Vatican titled The Virgin Without Sin. It is all about how Mary, for the reason that she was going to push a divine human hybrid such as Hercules out of her pussy later on in life, was granted the one time offer of being born without so much as a taint of the original sin on her. Among the many benefits this gracious act bestowed upon the wife and mother of God was that her pussy did not bleed once a month and she was also blessed to have no sexual hormones, thus meaning that it is very unlikely that she ever felt horny in her life and thus it was easy for her to become a role model for the perfect married wife because she never allowed Joseph to touch her pussy throughout her entire life. Unfortunately there is no doctrine about the immaculate conception of Joseph since he wasn't going to be getting laid and besides Mary was going to get it on with a ghost and so there was no reason to give Joseph perfect sinless sperm because he really wasn't involved in the divine plan except that he was going to get married to Mary for strictly formal reasons, I must suppose. Either that was true or it could be that Joseph married the Virgin Mary and then much to his shocked surprise he found out about that immaculate conception thing later on when it was to late. Either way, given that Joseph was born with a sinful penis and didn't get in on that immaculate conception deal that would mean that he must have had wet dreams probably about once every two weeks, when involuntarily his sinful flesh would force him to imagine that he was actually screwing Mary. I assume that he never jerked off and so wet dreams it was, for the only way that Joseph could have avoided that wet dream business is if he was born with an immaculate penis that did not pull such stunts and was therefore only used for urination, but sadly for Joseph that did not happen because he wasn't going to be donating any sperm to that project and so he lost on that wonderful fucking deal.
Fortunately there was emperical evidence to back up that immaculate conception tale otherwise there might be some skeptics around who would feel that this was some fiction cooked up by some Pope and not something that actually happened in the real world, and so it is good that we have the rock solid word of Bernadette.
I find it interesting to note that apparently being born very sinful is an arbitrary thing, for it would seem that the only reason why anyone has sin is because God is like a manufacturer who produces nothing but defective toasters. Now we know that it is possible for God to manufacture a half decent toaster once in a while, should the mood come upon God to create a human being without a sin so that like Mary, God's wife, people could be born into the world saved rather than being born damned thus making a lot of work for priests who must exhaust themselves trying to rectify God's mistakes. It turns out that only Mary, the mother of God, could get in on that deal of being arbitrarily born without any sin, since apparently that isn't a requirement and being born sinful and damned is just something that God does on purpose simply because God is God and therefore there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. So there.
For Mary it would be birth without a sin and for everyone else it would be sacraments and penance and lots and lots of religion, since keeping a priest busy was apparently all part of the divine plan of God. Either that or this must be some kind of make work project cooked up by priests, because, after all, who wants to be out of a job?
With the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the Catholic Church affirms that Mary, on account of a singular privilege bestowed by God and in view of the merits of Christ's death, was preserved from contracting the stain of original sin and came into existence already completely holy. Four years after being defined by Pope Pius IX, this truth was confirmed by the Madonna herself at Lourdes in an apparition to Bernadette with the words: "I am the Immaculate Conception."
Fortunately there was emperical evidence to back up that immaculate conception tale otherwise there might be some skeptics around who would feel that this was some fiction cooked up by some Pope and not something that actually happened in the real world, and so it is good that we have the rock solid word of Bernadette.
I find it interesting to note that apparently being born very sinful is an arbitrary thing, for it would seem that the only reason why anyone has sin is because God is like a manufacturer who produces nothing but defective toasters. Now we know that it is possible for God to manufacture a half decent toaster once in a while, should the mood come upon God to create a human being without a sin so that like Mary, God's wife, people could be born into the world saved rather than being born damned thus making a lot of work for priests who must exhaust themselves trying to rectify God's mistakes. It turns out that only Mary, the mother of God, could get in on that deal of being arbitrarily born without any sin, since apparently that isn't a requirement and being born sinful and damned is just something that God does on purpose simply because God is God and therefore there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. So there.
For Mary it would be birth without a sin and for everyone else it would be sacraments and penance and lots and lots of religion, since keeping a priest busy was apparently all part of the divine plan of God. Either that or this must be some kind of make work project cooked up by priests, because, after all, who wants to be out of a job?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)