Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Politics! Yech!

Ooo, the socialists crow, we've defeated capitalism, the government can take care of everything NOW!

Communism(the USSR) collapses!!

Socialism takes a beating as the public loses confidence and votes for Conservative policy over most of the world.

Bitter 'belt-tightening' prevails for years as Conservative policies 'take-effect'. Not a problem for the rich though!

Conservative policies(total privatization) works for a spell but even as the last bitter pills of socialism are being spat from our mouths, THE FREE MARKET proves itself to be far from self-sustaining when it turns into a 'casino' and the public loses confidence.

And 'yea yea', if we were all 'free market' Conservatives and NOT SO GREEDY then it 'might work'.

What'll work? Oscillating back and forth between totally restrictive government (wage and price controls, deficit spending) and 'ridiculously free' government, total free market, letting the bullies grab everyone's toys.

Oooo.. do you see how absolutely wrong socialism is? The fixers will use the market as a club, showing it up!

O... do you see how absolutely wrong conservatism is? The fixers will use the market as a casino, crapping in their 'own' pool!

Communism tried to kill the fixers, but, much like the 'war on drugs' trying to jail all the dealers and users, the fixers are found to be us, albeit a 'bad side of us' that we don't want to admit to.

If you really want to be a really real fiscal Conservative, that'll be no 'war on drugs' please, let the free market decide!

But, I can almost here your thoughts 'screaming', Conservatism and religion go hand in hand, like, "It's all mine, stay away from my piece of the pie!", goes with, "Let's all share! Let's all be friends and love one another!"

It's like punitve justice goes with freedom!

Just 'not'. Right, just 'not'.

But the government can 'check' runaway free market greed by buying food corporations, fuel corporations etc. BEFORE they run themselves into the ground! Before we're all starving and walking and freezing! The government can create employment etc.

This is the exact opposite of Conservatism and ought not to be a smug 'rebuttal' of free market, because, in the end, public confidence will return and socialism will overdo it, holding back 'freedom' just as much as Conservatism does when THAT is hailed as the 'be all and end all'.

Unions having an iron grip on an industry is just as bad as Corporations having a totally free hand to employ wage-slaves.

The public are no better off with extreme socialism holding their 'feet in the fire'(as it were) than they(the public) are with extreme conservatism holding their 'heads in the fire'.

Seems to me that a dedicated zealot of either extreme would be just as happy switching allegience. The zealotry is 'the thing' for them.

And they have these 'hidden agendas', wilfully ignoring the public's "pain" as they yank us from extreme to extreme, each insisting that we'd ALL love to be living in their particular HELLISH vision of Utopia!

Where are all these economic egg-heads that graduate every single year from universities all over the world?

Can they not use spread sheets?

Reagan became president KNOWING that his policies would CAUSE hyper-inflation , fucking with the public's wealth, but he didn't TELL THAT to the voters!

Hmm, wonder why?

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

In God's Kingdom, CONFUSION reigns!

"In essence, it is no more than a presentation of a whole series of individually differing, contradictory suggestions, apparently all at variance with each other, differently directed, and requiring a constant shift in orientation by the subject. "

"As the subject accommodates himself to the seeming confusion..., thereby unwittingly cooperating in a significant fashion..."

"As the subject tries, conditioned by his early cooperative response to the ..apparent misspeaking, to accommodate himself to the welter of confused, contradictory responses apparently sought, he finds himself at such a loss that he welcomes anv positive suggestion that will permit a retreat from so unsatisfying and confusing a situation. The rapidity, insistence, and confidence with which the suggestions are given serve to prevent the subject from making any effort to bring about a semblance of order. At best, he can only try to accommodate himself and, thus, yield to the over-all significance of the total series of suggestions. "

"These suggestions are also recognized as carrying a weight of acceptable meaningfulness, and every effort the subject makes to understand it leads to acceptance of them."

"These suggestions are given not in the form of commands or instructions but as thought-provoking comments, at first. Then, as the subject begins to respond, a slow, progressive shift is made to direct suggestions.. "

from here

Theists will poo-poo the notion that they are being hypnotized. I can't imagine why they would do that though, can you? Religious leaders would certainly be able to keep better control of their flocks if, when being sermonized to, the flock were in a suggestible state.

The Godly Hebrews, according to the Bible, did the Godly thing, slaughtering in the name of God, but of course this is childs-play to counter! God himself saw their incorrigible evil and commissioned the Hebrews in HIS NAME to wipe their presence from the land that HE gave the Hebrews!

Any Christian would be more than willing to accept an explanation like that if he/she believes that Godly is good.

This is obvious stuff, obvious confusion technique where the recorded atrocious acts of the Hebrews can't be put down to them 'not being truly Godly' as is done with modern day genocidal religious fanatics. In the Bible, God not only wanted them to commit atrocious acts, HE commanded them!

But I wanted to talk about a more subtle confusion technique that modern religious leaders perpetrate today.

The pro-life movement takes it's cue from religious leaders who presumably feel that they are supported by the Bible using this vague, all encompassing quote, "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me."

But every Christian worthy of being called a Christian ought to know, and believe me that they DO KNOW, when it suits them, that the Gospels are backed up by the entire Old Testament, the truth of the Gospels falls if the truth of the Old Testament falls because then the prophecies prophesying the coming Jesus(as Christians would have it) would be meaningless.

I don't want to get into 'context wars' with Christians here, so I'll say that the context of the Old Testament PROVES the context of the New Testament to the Christians themselves.

Here's the crux of the confusion, if God related his LAWS to Moses, then left it to priests to pass that on, and to fathers to pass that on(which is kind of obvious, still happens today), THEN the father of a household is given complete authority over his children, to the point of stoning that child to DEATH for disobeying HIM, never mind GOD!

If a girl got pregnant out of wedlock then the father would have every religious right to have her stoned to DEATH! The notion that the fetus would die too doesn't even enter the equation.

The girl was a slut! The girl committed adultery! She disobeyed her fathers instructions to NOT do this.

Under GOD'S LAW, she ought to be condemned.

To stand at your altar and expound to your flock that they were 'funny old days' and we should pay that 'no never mind' is confusingly OPPOSITE to invoking the EXACT SAME GOD'S LAW trying to justify that fertilized human eggs are SACRED!

The whole notion that life is sacred and can be TERMINATED only for sacred reasons is just one example of priests/clergymen talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

The idea that the Old Testament's context proves the New Testament's context yet they were silly old buggers in silly old times, and that GOD'S LAW is changed now, but is the SAME(when you feel like it) is OPPOSITE, which is confusion technique, pure and simple.

Friday, November 14, 2008

'Good' is Godly, because Godly is 'Good'?

Here, Roger Mannrgmann at kc.rr.com quoted online book by Vincent Cheung entitled “Ultimate Questions”.

“Only the Christian conception of God, as revealed by God himself in Scripture, is consistent with a God that possesses all knowledge, and at the same time makes knowledge possible for man. In God dwells "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). Since God has all knowledge, he requires no one greater – there is no one greater – to justify his knowledge. His absolute sovereignty implies that he wills what he knows, that he knows what he wills, and that there can be no error in his knowledge. At the same time, "the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever" in the words of Scripture (Deuteronomy 29:29), and so we have knowledge as well. God has all knowledge – his knowledge consists of what he wills – and our knowledge consists of what he wills to reveal.”“On the other hand, since non-Christian religions and philosophies cannot produce an adequate and defensible – not to say infallible – epistemology, on the basis of non-Christian thought, there can be no knowledge at all. If non-Christian systems of thought cannot provide a foundation for knowledge – if they cannot know anything – then they cannot even begin or produce any content. If they cannot begin or have any content, then they can pose no challenge to Christianity. Without an adequate and defensible – and even infallible – epistemology, it remains that no intelligible proposition can be uttered on the basis of non-Christian worldviews, let alone objections against the Christian faith…”“However, since all non-Christian worldviews (including all non-Christian religions and philosophies) are without any ultimate justification, there is really nothing to prevent them from collapsing into total skepticism, but one cannot remain a skeptic because skepticism self-destructs – it is self-contradictory to affirm that we know that we cannot know. Only Christianity rescues the intellect from complete skepticism; therefore, rather than depending on a non-Christian foundation to construct a case for the biblicalworldview, the Christian adopts the revelational epistemology of biblical infallibility.”

As we can see, from this out-take, non-Christians, apparently, don't have 'a leg to stand on'.

"Right out of the gate" it is circular. Christian GOD because Christian concept of GOD therefore Christian GOD.

Certainly this is 'GOOD' from a Christian perspective and strangely ONLY from a Christian perspective.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Sermon from REALITY

What was I going to say again...Oh, yea.

The entire Bible is set up as a 'confusion technique' document.

It evolves to a certain extent but like an old, worn audio disc playing through it's tune, the needle(or stylus) just naturally 'skips' back, hence Creationism, Intelligent Design, Pro-life and other wedge issues.

The wedge issues are an important part of religion as believers want to force their opinions on the less devout.

Believers are on a 'mission from God' to have everyone subject to GOD. This becomes obvious when reading the famous TEN COMMANDMENTS right 'out of the gate', we hear that GOD HAS SPOKEN and he's telling us that it is a CRIME to worship any other god but HIM.

What believers are telling us, is that the church(their religion) IS 'GOD' and that it must be obeyed. They will deny it, of course. They use 'confusion technique' on everyone, including themselves to aviod facing reality.

They believe that there was, in order of appearance, God, various other spirit beings, the universe and all non-spiritual beings and things, semi-spiritual beings which are human beings(or MANKIND as they like to put it), a general 'falling from grace', a very few ELECT(intrinsically GODLY men who recorded history and prophecies of the future) who were IN CONTACT with GOD!(hence their GODLINESS!)

They are confused between 'the good' and 'the Godly' and they want us all to be confused about that too.
Example:- At this point in time(in 'the west') we are clear that slavery is wrong, that subjegating a person is inherently 'bad'.
But the Bible is unclear about this. We hear, in the story of the Exodus that slavery IS bad(for the Hebrews) but later we hear that slavery is not necessarilly unGodly!

Friday, November 7, 2008

I liked this so much...edit 1

... I read it over a few times and was amazed at my own brilliance!(LOL, that's not as difficult as you might imagine!)

I was thinking here, that you guys might give me some 'additions', some thoughts or pointers so that I might improve this into an open source multi-authored document putting into words the 'common sense' worldview opposing, not religion per se, but this disingenuous attempt at religification(and exposing it too).

Hey theists, throw in some of your mindless drivel if you think I can use that too!

I see possible 'expansion' points all over this! All the formatting disappeared into the 'spiritual realm'(DAMMMMYOUGOD!) so it is 'shit' to read right now, but I'm hoping that it will be an ongoing project.

The references to specific God's lawyers will be scrapped of course eventually.

"What God's lawyers don't want to see."

If life begins at conception, then the sperm wasn't alive.

If life begins at conception, then the ovum wasn't alive.

But "life doesn't come from non-life" is one of the cornerstones of God's lawyers, isn't it?
If we were all to be honest we'd admit that life is a continuum, an evolving continuum which has absolutely nothing to do with possible 'spiritual realms' or nonsensical beings that can be imagined 'living' in them.

We, each of us, individually, get to choose which points to amplify and which to decrease in our mind like a row of dials to magnify or diminish our worldview.Now historically a baby begins it's life at BIRTH.

We use this term for the beginning of actual things."The birth of a nation.", comes to mind, as opposed to 'the conception of a nation', where it might be an idea, a notion in people's minds.

Pregnancy is a 'chance' thing, everyone knows this. The woman will visit a doctor to improve her 'chances'.There is a good chance that a fertilized egg will just not 'stick' and the woman will never even know that "God gave her a child!", to put it in religious terms.

We need modern technology for a woman to know if she is pregnant before her body 'let's her know',(No doubt breaking a few would-be mothers hearts), it is an 'iffy' thing.

We, by convention, start counting a baby's life at their first breath. This has religious significance from when breath(which people didn't have a scientific understanding of) was considered 'spirit' AND the fact that some babies were 'born' DEAD.

I'll call this position 'the timeless common sense view'.

We can contrast this with the God's lawyer's recent(on generational timescales) view that for 'new' religious purposes we now ought to consider the beginning of a human life much earlier, as a wedge to force God's law into common law.

(Observant, Janesophie, I'm not being 'smug', I'm just RIGHT, and you are just WRONG!)

Most folk have enough common sense, even if it is just a feeling in their hearts, to know that the GOD'S lawyers are deviously trying to force a religious agenda on this Constitutionally secular society.

D'Souza practically admits that he thinks even Islam is better than secularism. Same as 'the Decider' was when he said that the Constitution was 'just a piece of paper'.

BAD Christians!

Deceitful Christians!

(Observant. You're really not very observant since you have read a lot of my comments and you imagine that you are 'rattling my cage' when it must be obvious that I LIKE nothing better than a good argument.It must be obvious that I have the patience of 'Job'(LOL) when it comes to 'rewording' my position to make clear to anyone who is willing to read EXACTLY how daft, cheaty, evil, dispicable, disingenuous etc. etc... xenophobic YOU GOD'S LAWYERS are.I know what you're thinking, Observant.I don't need to be psychic or Nostradamus-like.You're thinking, "But the Bible says(some drivel or other!)!"('cos you're ALWAYS thinking that, you simpleton!)

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Fermat's "margin" PROOF!

Fermat's theorem was supposedly cracked by an English mathematician a few years back using math SOOOO complicated that they couldn't begin to explain it on the NOVA show about it.

I spent quite a few 'odd hours' puzzling over why it would be 'SOOOO' complicated. I seemed to always get stuck when I would ask myself that one damning question, "Why does that solution mean that it only works for whole numbers? It never did!

My attempted solution was always along the lines of, if there is a whole number

Solution to x(cubed) + y(cubed) = z(cubed) all being whole numbers then there couldn't be a whole number solution to yx(squared) + y(cubed) = yz(squared), which there obviously IS!

Seriously now, there is no way in HELL that, if the second equation is 'true' that you could decrease the value of y to x and also increase the value of y to z!(THAT IS FERMAT'S PROOF that fits in the margin, that no-one til I, pboyfloyd figured it out!)

I think that there needs to be a visual aid in the real-life not complicated solution because of the difficulty defining a whole number.

Picture a room with a tile floor. The tiles are layed first one white one in the corner to represent the 1(square)(duh!).

Three black tiles(unit squares) 'surround' the white tile making a four tile square representing 2 squared(or 4).

Five white tiles are layed 'surrounding' the "2 squared" to represent "3 squared"

All this is a question of 'can you "see"?

The 'stumbling block' is ... do the sides need to follow the 'rules' for squares?

If you 'see' it, YES THEY DO!

Here's the proof!

Imagine that there IS a solution to x(cubed) +y(cubed) = z(cubed)

This equals x times x(squared) + y times y(squared) = z times z(squared)

But to rearrange this equation to a similar one which we KNOW is true :-

k times x(squared) + k times y(squared) = k times z(squared)

all we need to do is make k (any constant whole number) equal to x or y or z.

But if we do that then we see that we are ADDING to the left side of the equation and SUBTRACTING from the right side of the equation!

This happens no matter what 'power' above 2(above squaring).

How about the power of 2, does it work there?

3 + 4 = 7 (let k = 4)

k3 + k4 = k7

12 + 16 = 28

Subtract 3 from both sides...


This becomes essentially a 'trap' because we can see that if we multiply by k (again letting k be the same as 'y', that is 4 in this scenario, we get:-

k9 + k16 = k25 or..

36 + 64 = 100

forcing another solution of power 2!

Attempting to jam a solution for power 3 means subracting 9 to make the first term 3^3 from the left side of the equation but now we must ADD 25 to the right side of the equation.

Attempting solutions for powers higher still only results in EVEN MORE ludicrous disparity!

The visualization part comes in when looking at what 'happens' when the third dimension is added.



(# and $ Both being unit squares)


MUST follow this 'look' whether we are dealing with just the 'squares' or with ONE FACE of the cubes!

The 'tiles' earlier looked like this(BTW)

(and so on down as far as you need)

if any added layer is a complete square, if any 'L' (or backward L in this case) of black or white tiles) then x^2 +y^2 = z^2

There are also a huge amount of 'non-solutions'. i.e. 7^2 + 7 along + the corner 1 + 7 up whch is 8^2 but 15 is not itself a 'square'.(hey, almost tho!)

Then there is the 'double layer' solutions. 8^2 plus the 9th and the 10th layer = 10^2

AND the the ninth layer of tiles plus the tenth layer add to 36, a perfect square(6^2)!

So, the general expression of true(and the trivial non-) solutions are x^2 + n2x+n^2 = z^2!(where n is a whole number duh!)

Or, visually pick a square on the floor made up of black and white rows and colunms, add the next row/column or the next two rows/columns or the next 3 etc. etc.

Example x^11 + y^11 = z^11 cannot be 'reconciled' with the 'truth' of y*x^10 + y*y ^10 equaling y*z^10!


Looney-tunes Fundies are likely still letting the fact that Armageddon has been put on hold for another four years sink in!

Bet they are wishing they hadn't gotten that sub-prime loan NOW!

Still and all, the American people are a fickle bunch and one has to wonder if a lot of them didn't vote in Obama because they felt that he was the man to 'work wonders'!

Don't want to come off as a pendejo(wet prickly blanket, as is my understanding) here so, "WooHoo! Obama, Obama, Obama!, Obama RULES(in 100 days approx.)

Bush can't destroy the world in that time, can he? NAW, he must have seen what a dork he is/was in the movie 'W'.

On a completely different note, did anyone notice if Sarah Palin was allowed to say anything or is she supposed to lay low and keep 'mum' for the 2012(end of times) election?

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Plan B(from outside of spacetime!)

So, here you are after drinking the equivalent of an entire lake of booze and you never did find the answer at the bottom of that glass, did you?

Life has stopped being fun!

You are, as the AA slogan goes, "Sick and tired of being sick and tired!"

What to do, what to do?

Well, you do what everyone else does, you find yourself a 'higher power!'.

As you forgive yourself for being busted for impaired driving(again?), or beating the wife(again?), or waking up with a layer of shit between your bum and your underwear(again?) or any one(or combination of) of a myriad of sins, several things will start to penetrate that thick fog that you call your consciousness.

1) The 'higher power' is Jesus!
2)The unforgivable things you've done are called 'sins'.
3) The 'power' that Jesus has is the power to forgive you of your sins, which is the power to forgive yourself!
4)It's not easy to forgive yourself and the only way to make it permanent is to be BORN AGAIN!
5)Suddenly, you'll see the deceitful world for what it is. It was the deceitful world's fault that you did those unforgivable things, it was Satan's fault all along!
6)Now that you are BORN AGAIN, no matter how many lives you've screwed up with your drinking or drug addiction or whatever, it wasn't your fault at all!

How easy is it now to look down your humble nose at the 'world'? Well, how easy is it to fall off a log?

Is there more? Shit yea!