Stopping Forum Spam

Posted on May 27, 2011 by ehurst

(Yeah, it’s a slow day.)

A friend asked me to join a discussion forum. Then he gave me admin rights. I’ve been moderator on a handful of mailing lists and forums, in part because I tend to go after problems rather quickly. I have time and I’m proactive.

When moderating a forum with membership controls, one of the things we always hate is forum spam. Most of the time some weasel will sign up for a membership, then begin immediately posting crap with graphics and links. Their objective is not to advertise to the forum users; that’s not much of a market. It’s to create a large number of links which show up in search engines. This raises the profile for their spammy site. The first thing I do is delete their account, which has a switch to allow deleting all their posts. Nice trick, and it’s standard these days on the forums where I work.

Sometimes it’s a little more subtle. Perhaps the same person is joining dozens of these forums, not posting anything. Instead, they add a link to their profile which serves the same purpose. You have to actually check each profile to see if anything shows up. A few go so far as to post something innocuous, or perhaps even on-topic, but still their profile features links which are offensive. In the case of a forum set up to discuss Christian faith, it narrows the allowable topics a great deal, and it’s easy to spot purely commercial links.

Sometimes you just can’t tell. A good place to double-check is Stop Forum Spam. This is a place which keeps a database of profile details searchable by usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and so forth. Yes, it’s possible there are false positives, and you can still decide to hold off deleting the account until you run a broader search. Still, I’ve found all the checks I’ve run so far to be a reliable indicator someone belongs to way too many forums, and too many different types of forums, for their membership to make much sense.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Stopping Forum Spam

Two Chains of Slavery: Police and Debt

Posted on May 26, 2011 by ehurst

We’ve already seen how the key to enslaving America in particular (and the West in general) is debt. I’m hardly the only person who sees this coming, but I was focused on how I felt the Illuminati were using the tactic. Comes now Anthony Wile who warns us the particular tool for this might be the IMF.

Late last week, London’s prestigious Financial Times carried an editorial on the subject entitled Easter Parade of Worries. According to the FT, “S&P’s aim plainly was political. US politicians must agree on a policy to reduce the deficit. This must involve cutting spending, reducing entitlements and raising taxes. Who exactly bears the brunt of these remedies is a political question, not an economic one. No politician wants to be responsible for such things, so it is no surprise that they avoid the problem.”

Notice the telltale language in the article: “This must involve cutting spending, reducing entitlements and raising taxes.” This language is directly out of the IMF playbook. Rather than question the fundamental alignment between the public and private sector — the basics of regulatory democracy — the IMF treats a country like a business and prescribes cost-cutting, privatization and other methodologies that address the symptoms instead of the cause.

While I doubt the IMF has anywhere near enough funding to pretend it can bail out the US, I don’t doubt the same language will be used for the same ends via some other entity.

But the whole thing smacks of the last dying gasp of a fading regime. It’s a race to see whether the West will collapse completely before the US government does. When the money goes away, so does the power, so financial collapse is all it takes. The problem for us here on the ground is what we have to suffer as this thing topples. It’s not just personal debt, but the swelling rate of violent crime as social order collapses without it’s one defining factor. Never mind actual wealth, as long as people felt they had money, things were fine. When the sense of prosperity goes away, the society built on the knife edge of consumer/debt based economics will crash very hard.

It’s not the predatory gangs of criminals that worry me; it’s the police. Keep in mind, I was once in law enforcement, and I’ll be the first to warn you never, ever trust a policeman. And it only gets worse as their numbers increase, as they become more distant from the rest of us, regarding us as the enemy. Of all the functions of government, this is the one which can do you the most harm, and is frankly most likely to try. The pretense of accountability is long gone. On a purely utilitarian level, we are facing the certainty that we would be better off if there were no police, simply because less harm would come to us as a whole.

As always, I insist there is really very little we can do to change this; the train will follow the tracks until it eventually wrecks right next to the tracks. It was falling apart long ago, and is past the point of repair. Our best bet is on the small scale, trying to remove ourselves and whatever we value from the tracks.

Posted in social sciences | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Guns and Chariots

Posted on May 25, 2011 by ehurst

Brother Benjamin asks for some clarity on the issue of weapons and self-defense:

My own pastor claims to be for gun ownership, but when asked about carrying concealed in church he used a verse from Psalms about trusting not in chariots but in the name of the Lord to defend his stance against it. Could you generally speak to when self-defense makes sense and when it doesn’t, and whether being in a church building has a bearing on that? I find myself less reliant on Doctors and the medical system compared to my pastor (trusting rather in God). But when it comes to personal self defense, I see that as part of providing shelter for my family and not as a lack of faith in God. Plus I think using the verse he does is applying it out of context. Also, in the same vein of discussion, can you explain Jesus reasoning behind telling his disciples to buy swords?

I’m guessing your pastor is a typical American Protestant Christian in the sense he supports the popular ideals about church and government and the mainstream view of American History. Thus, for him it’s one thing to favor the 2nd Amendment as a civic virtue. That’s our duty to our nation, to be ready to defend against invasion, terror attacks, civil disorder and so forth. He probably sees it differently when it comes to defending the church as a physical entity, and perhaps defending life and safety while there. If you ask him, he would probably agree with the notion “this is God’s house” and He doesn’t need the standard human methods to protect His property and His people.

He does take that passage out of context. The issue for Israel was a matter of direct command from God not to use cavalry, but to rely entirely upon infantry tactics. We can guess at why God put that in the Covenant of Moses, and I agree with the scholars who note this is preventing pagan associations. It’s not simply clinging to some pure ancient ways versus a “sinful” technical innovation. God did not forbid using iron weapons, for example. So far as we can tell from ancient literature, every single nation employing chariots and horses in that part of the world welded their use to pagan worship. It was no possible to see them simply as good equipment and tactics. No one could imagine a separation between the thing itself and the pagan associations. All horses were dedicated to some deity; all chariots were places of pagan ritual, even with Rome. Our rarefied secularism would be wholly objectionable and silly to the ancients.

You have to understand how humanity as a whole viewed warfare in that historical context. It was always a battle between the respective gods of the warring nations. One entered into battle with the spirit of your particular war god. When you lost your courage, you lost your spirit, you lost your sense of your god’s presence. When the whole army turned tail and ran, it was said their god was not with them in the battle. Jehovah used this same language when He warned Israel, if they sinned by developing a cavalry, He would not be with them in battle. Literal superiority of forces meant nothing, because His Presence was necessary for the troops to hold their formations. He would abandon them to their own petty human passions and the resulting chaos, and they could not win in battle if they didn’t obey His Law. He meant it in a rather literal sense; it was not simply a quaint figure of speech from ancient times.

This is precisely the point when we discuss issues of human behavior under the Laws of God. The Nation of Israel was dedicated to One God, His personal divine property. Every other nation was shared among various other deities. The notable elements of daily life were covered by this or that deity. Most nations did have a chief deity, their national god, the one which was their own particular god who owned them under all circumstances. While this particular god might also be known for this or that particular area of concern, there were also deities of places, even types of places (mountains or valleys), and various critical functions of nature (weather, crops, etc.). It was considered necessary for the nomad nations to be aware of which god owned which place they passed through, and whether the perceived politics between these various deities made any difference. All religion was politics, and all politics had an underlying religious motive. There was no such thing as “secular.”

Granted, there is plenty in life where all humans do pretty much the same things. God didn’t command Israel to be utterly alien, but to be very circumspect when some particular issue was simply unjust, or if it smacked too much of honoring other gods. Frankly, a great many details of the Levitical Law (rituals) were a close echo, when not precisely the same as, accepted rituals for Baal and Astarte.  That’s part of the reason it was so easy for Israel to slip into local cult worship; it was quite familiar. They could rationalize it was the same God one way or another. Could not a woman’s husband be many different men, as it were? That it required a form of muddled thinking we find repugnant simply shows we don’t get it, not that they were so messed up and primitive. God chose to reveal Himself in this context, so there is something fundamental we must grasp here. Who’s to say whether Jehovah might masquerade as some Baal? The name “Baal” was simply a word for “lord” or even “husband” — the head man of a particular household. In a world where the pagan Balaam can get it right, and God speaks to him, it requires we study things from that ancient intellectual context to understand the subtle blending and differences presumed by Scripture. But one thing is obvious to even us: It made things peaceful with the natives to join their pagan feasts, made for good business. Again, business, politics and religion are impossible to separate in that historical context.

The Israelis were no different. When a prophet said to them, “There is no other god but God,” it simply did not register as monotheism in their minds. Such a concept was simply out of bounds, not possible. To them it registered in the mind as, “Jehovah won’t share you with other deities.” Those other gods were very certainly real and had powers in the minds of Hebrew people. It was for them a question of whether their own God could protect them from the consequences of angering some other god. This problem with polytheism and idolatry did not go away until the Exile in Babylon. Even then, it came at the awful cost of corrupting their pure Hebrew Mystical intellectual heritage, setting them up for being suckers to Hellenistic rationalism. That in itself was a form of idolatry, but not so overt. It was easy for the self-rationalization hamster to run that wheel as if accomplishing something, when they were still in the cage of idolatry. The problem with pagan idolatry, whether characterized as a named god with rituals, or whether it was simply the sublime delight of letting the intellect overrule the spirit, it drew on the same moral weakness which permitted someone to stray from their marital vows.

We struggle with this because we are intellectually unwilling to take the risks God commanded we take. The very warm loving context of a strong church family is precisely the same setting in which adultery is so very easy, because we struggle with separating one kind of warmth from another. We’d rather build all sorts of artificial barriers with formal social rules to prevent warmth itself because we imagine it prevents unseemly fraternization. It also kills marriage. It’s not for nothing Christ and the Apostles kept using the marriage covenant as a close parallel and parable of Covenant of Grace. Dismissing the mystical element of this world as primitive and barbaric is simply inserting an artificial construct which prevents the necessary spiritual warmth to understand God. If we can’t get comfortable with mysticism and all the spooky stuff men like Daniel had to wrestle with serving in the Babylonian Imperial Court, which required a PhD in Chaldean pagan literature, then we can’t ever see God’s truth from with the same depth of understanding which makes Daniel’s writing clear. Instead, we twist and pervert his prophecies to suit our frankly pagan fascination with literalism, and come up with some of the goofiest notions about modern Israel. We end up supporting some truly hideous injustices, even to the point of kissing the Devil, as it were, because we just have to make sure Israel gets whatever it is she wants. You and I might get it, but almost everyone we encounter in American churches will not get it.

Of course, in another sense, your pastor could be right to use that passage from Psalms if he were consistent about not doing things the way the world does them. The whole point in God demanding Israel stay with pure infantry tactics was to avoid anything which required an association with idolatry. To be holy means dedicated to a higher purpose, but is cast in terms of dedicated to God alone, not shared with other-and-lesser deities. Under the Law of Moses, the Temple was sacred ground. It was not to be treated as real estate elsewhere, to be bought and sold and used to keep you alive in one way or another. Other land was under human control, to do with as they liked (within certain limits established in other parts of the Law), but the Temple was not like that. You had to treat it differently. Almost everyone in Christian churches in the West tends to think that way about their facilities. It’s a temple of sorts. The problem comes in whether those same facilities are then used for purposes which were not ritually pure.

Is your pastor under Law or under Grace? If you ask him, he’ll surely say “under grace” even as he insists on certain matters of Laws. I seriously doubt he properly distinguishes between the two. I’ll be willing to bet he has no clear grasp of the concept of Two Realms, of the Spirit Realm versus the Fallen Realm, and how they properly overlap and interact. Is there an American flag in the auditorium? Then by that moral standard he has to allow concealed carry to be consistent. If the god of civic duty and virtue has a place in the sanctuary, then so does the civic virtue of gun ownership and gun-toting. I cannot possibly regard any part of American civic religion to be consistent with Scripture. It is a different thing entirely, and either the place is holy unto Christ, or it’s holy unto the civic religion. There’s nothing wrong with holding to a distinctly Christian lawfulness drawn from Scripture, because all tangible property is under God’s Laws, and church organizations must conduct themselves according to those Laws of God. I seriously doubt your pastor realizes what he’s mixing in together there.

Under the Laws of God, whether you are a mystic or not, you do have the burden of responsibility for guarding and guiding those God places under your authority. We bear a duty to all those who are weak and defenseless, and to the degree they are so. Your wife can negotiate as an adult something which you both agree is logically consistent in terms of what you will do to defend each other. Children are born utterly defenseless, and only as they mature and take responsibility under God’s Laws are they permitted to negotiate more and more of their own wishes. Other family relations will bring their own level of negotiation, and all of this within the context of the moment. And in a broader sense, I am my brother’s keeper on some level simply because he is a fellow human.

A pistol-packing mama who knows karate needs little help from me. A woman stupid enough to take a swing at me deserves whatever response I might give a man under the same circumstances. A kid who gets violent with me will be handled according to the actual level of threat I perceive coming from their hands. In the same way, I may or may not offer to defend others from various attacks. However, I am less likely to defend myself than I am to defend others. I can choose for myself how much suffering I will bear, but I am not so free when it involves others. It’s all a matter of my duty to God, but refusing to defend myself is not precisely the same as refusing to defend my own children.

My children are now adults, and my wife knows I am reluctant to use violence as a matter of conscience. She also knows I am trained and somewhat experienced, and we have weapons here at home. She knows how I am likely to react under various imaginable situations, and says she is at peace with that. Your choice for concealed carry is entirely a matter between you and God. The government wants a say in the matter, and you’ll have to work it out with God how much you will comply with those laws. Your pastor may or may not have the authority to say what happens on church property; that’s a matter of church by-laws and such. As you describe it, he’s wrong on several levels, but what you do about it is between you and God, particularly in evaluating the validity of the pastor’s objections and the church’s rules.

It’s the same thing you do with medical treatment, even as you know the state claims an interest, and could conceivably view your faith as a threat to their “mandate” for child welfare. Particularly dark on our horizon is the increasingly intrusive claims they make over our very own bodies. You might need that gun to deter some attacks from the state, just as much as you might need one to protect from car-jacking thugs. What is in the Kingdom’s interest? The matter of child custody is one of the few issues where I openly promote violent resistance against civil governments, but I also promote smart tactics and strategy. On the basic question I take a nearly absolute stand that no human authority is permitted by God’s Laws to interfere with parental custody, unless that authority is directly related by blood or covenant. Covenant is on a different level from contract and civil law. Even then, I place limits on what blood/covenant authority can do. You’ll have to work out for yourself how such things apply in your situation.

Posted in religion, sanity | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Guns and Chariots

Open Line: Ask Your Questions Here

Posted on May 24, 2011 by ehurst

Please ask. I would very much appreciate if you would submit questions in comments to this post, or via email to user account “eddie” at my static domain. Anonymity at your request.

It occurs to me some of the things I have written in previous posts may have provoked some questions. Or, perhaps you simply have some rude personal query of me. Then again, maybe you just wish to poke fun at me. No matter; I delete very little here, and even less for something like this. Here’s your chance. If nothing happens, I probably won’t try it again.

Issues requiring a full article length answer will warrant another post. Anything less will appear as an edit to this post below…

Voting in elections

There is nothing wrong with civic participation. It’s no different from helping my neighbor with something like a tree blown down by the storms, or chatting playfully with their children. Getting involved in any community activity is most certainly the best way to promote the message of the gospel, and Christian Mysticism is no excuse for hiding out and playing hermit.

But when I see something unjust, it’s not always possible to fix the problem. It’s not always possible to even declare the thing unjust. Sometimes the best you can do is keep your distance. In the US in particular, the election system has long been a sham. I’ve studied it up close, seen the mechanism and talked to folks involved. Everything about it is broken, not at all consistent with the stated goals and purposes. It’s not what those who promote it claim it is. They are lying. Voting as it now exists cannot possibly achieve the stated ends of representing the will of the people.

That I don’t believe the will of the people can bring justice in the first place is actually a separate issue. Condemning democracy as a form of participatory government is a prophetic statement about changing our understanding of God’s Laws and civilization itself. So long as there is a vast system already in place which violates fundamentally violates God’s justice, we have to seek the level of justice available. Voting is not evil; it’s ineffective at best when it comes to delivering justice. Our problem is it’s not working at all. The entire political system is hopeless corrupt. That’s the natural result of a poor design, but I would be willing to play along in order to be involved in the community, if it actually accomplished even that lesser goal.

Posted in personal | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Berries and Plums in Season

Posted on May 23, 2011 by ehurst

It’s the berry and plum season again in Central Oklahoma.

This winter was cold enough, and it kept coming back again and again, but in short bursts. So while we had late freezes that required me to cover our vegetable garden several times after planting time, it still registered as a mild winter. I suppose that explains why the blackberries and sand plums are already ripening a couple of weeks earlier than last year. The problem is the big fire took out quite a few berry vines in one area. Then the grounds keeper crew cut back a bit too deep in the fancy neighborhood just west of here where most of the berry vines were so easy to reach. Most of my picking takes place along a very nice divided boulevard just over a half-mile long (approx. 1km). So the berry crop will be a bit thin this time around.

Still, the first walk through today yielded about a cup of berries. Once I’ve gotten a couple of quarts, we’ll puree them in the blender and cook them down into preserves. I’ll keep gathering so long as they keep producing. I’ve already been trying get the sand plums, so we have about a pint of them now. Because their pits are so large, we cook them down, then rice them and keep the pulpy juice for jelly.

Because of the threat of chiggers, I have to nearly bathe in insect repellent before I go. Because of poison ivy and certain thorny bushes which grow right alongside the berry vines, I have to cover up all but my face. I wear knee-high rubber boots and a long rubber glove on at least one hand. It’s a pretty sweaty exercise in the summer heat. So far, it’s been worth it.

Oh, and our apple tree is doing better this year. I’ve been careful to water it every day, so it’s not losing so many before ripening. We should get about a bushel this year.

Posted in personal | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Berries and Plums in Season

Just You and Me

Posted on May 23, 2011 by ehurst

The most important events on earth are always between individuals.

When measured by cosmic morality, the only thing that matters is two souls reaching out in communion. Not only are no two of alike in God’s eyes, but we cannot interact precisely the same with everyone we encounter. Whatever relationship develops between any two souls cannot be replicated precisely with any others. God forbid I ever be tempted to treat any two people exactly the same.

The concept of fairness was a lie from the start, particularly as expressed in Western Civilization. It’s a lie of Satan, a soul-destroying fantasy. It’s also the fundamental excuse used by psychopaths to herd us. At the very heart, it’s an ugly attempt to squash people into amorphous masses for the convenience of those in power. Your moral duty is to struggle against this lie, first within your own consciousness. Then you should fight it at every opportunity, even at the cost of alienating yourself from the happy herd, those willing to live in a perverted world of drab sameness. Don’t try to be fair in the common sense of the term, and say so every chance you get.

Say it in your own way. Be as utterly individual and unique as possible. If you do not stand alone, you do not stand, but lie prostrate under whomever’s boot you lick.

More than just fancy words, I want you to study how to fight this thing. Take a look at this summary of techniques, covering everything from government spin techniques, to spotting spinmeisters, to the Delphi Technique for mass manipulation. It won’t matter if you like lefty or righty politics, it’s pretty much the same techniques we encounter when people strive to herd us in any direction. My emphasis here is not so much political propaganda on the grand scale as propaganda wherever it is used, from the public to the private, down to personal interactions.

By no means do I claim to have arrived. I’ll be the first to tell you: Disregard anything I write which won’t work for you. I strive to use that same principle every day with the folks who share my home. Never demand something you don’t really have to have. Take it farther; reevaluate often just what it is you have to have. When I preach here about things on this plane not mattering, it comes from having first striven to make sure they don’t matter to me. Breakage of stuff is a pretty small matter. It does no good to throw a big fit, even when the breakage was intentional. The bigger question is: What do we do now?

Part of that may well be removing trust from your hands as much as I can. If you show you can’t be trusted to understand what matters to me, I’ll try to remove myself from your destructive hands. It’s not always possible, but it’s part of being free. All the more so if someone I encounter is trying to manipulate me. When I sense that is the purpose behind any action, I do my best to insulate myself from exposing any ragged edges, any sensitive places which can be picked at to destroy my focus. I am not superman; I can be hurt and harassed.

Given so very many in the world are programed to be destructive without even knowing it, we are wise to remain closed in the sense of holding back anything not required for the encounter itself. Yes, even while I’m striving to demonstrate the ultimate truth of this universe, I keep the focus on that truth by deflecting it from myself. It’s not merely some Alpha Male game to be mysterious. Most people don’t need to know much about you to learn the truth. All they need is just so much a glimpse of the truth as the moment demands. A critical part of our self-consciousness is seeking to read the moment, to live in the context of now so that we can keep truth alive and breathing. In every situation, I strive to remain focused on what really, truly matters on the cosmic level, and address myself to that — they don’t need more of me, but more of the truth.

A fundamental element of manipulation is getting you to focus on yourself and how you feel. It’s a paradox of cosmic truth we are most alive and individual when we deny ourselves. One of the biggest advantages we have in dealing with propaganda is to avoid making any part of the encounter about ourselves. On the one hand, I deny truth can be objectified and depersonalized; on the other hand, I am not the person who matters here. Truth is the Person who matters. So I can afford to take a lot of personal insult as long as it gives me leverage to demand the focus stay on unanswered questions that matter.

It’s no different when I exercise the role as household elder. This is not about placating my whims. I’m not a king and there are precious few emergencies requiring I take harsh command and make demands. Most people panic about things which just do not matter that much. Yes, it’s better in the summer if the A/C works, but if it doesn’t, we’ll simply adjust our actions to meet the moment. If that means I can’t use my computer — computers don’t work well with heat — then I’ll find something else to do. There’s always something I’ve been putting off that isn’t hindered by high temperatures. Millions of humans got along fine without A/C until it was invented a century ago. Most of humanity still doesn’t have effective climate controls in their home today. I can’t turn off someone else’s panic, but I can keep the conversation focused on things we can change.

When someone shows disrespect to my role as elder, it’s not about me. It’s about disrespect itself. It shows itself in a thousand ways, like chasing a frightened animal simply because it entertains the pursuer. It’s not right to entertain yourself at the expense of others, and such an attitude to animals indicates a major character flaw. To paraphrase a still popular Country and Western song: “Mommas, don’t let your babies grow up to assholes.” If you didn’t fight your child’s predatory instincts, you failed the whole universe. Since no one ever really grows up enough, it’s something we watch for in everyone under our authority, not to mention in the mirror. If I take too much liberty with a very limited authority, I am no better than the predatory child who is such a nuisance.

Even when I declare something as a prophecy from God, I still have to leave the door wide open for you to receive it or reject it. I’m not God, just a messenger. If He doesn’t make you a believer, what could I do to make it any better? The only authority I have is what He puts in my hands, and it’s surely more than I can handle, any way. I have enough trouble with making myself behave; I don’t want the responsibility for making anyone else behave properly. My greatest need is your freedom, and all the authority I have is wholly focused on helping you shake your own bondage. At that, I only know to help you with hindrances I’ve already broken in my own soul. Maybe you can help me with those you’ve experienced.

Just you and me.

Posted in sanity, social sciences | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Just You and Me

Gang Aft Agley

Posted on May 22, 2011 by ehurst

In God’s eyes, no one is more than a mouse in the house.

I sincerely hope we don’t have US troops invading Iran. I really don’t like the idea of slaughtering humans in mass quantities, but I am utterly convinced God has said that would happen if we do send troops there. Another part of me is pretty sure we will, and the whole thing makes me painfully sad. I don’t care a whit about the US government, and frankly wish it was those who rule whose lives were at risk. Nor do I care a whit about our much vaunted national identity, because it’s all a pack of lies. What I care about is the unconscionable waste of human lives at the behest of psychopaths. Good and honest people have no interest in governing others, so human governments with any measure of success are always run by psychopaths.

My feelings about Iran arise from what I am certain is a prophetic word from God to me. Everything else I have to say about these things, for now, is a combination of intuition and educated guess. The guess work will shift all over the place as things develop and I learn from those who know a lot more than I. There is no time factor attached to my prophecy about invading Iran, so I’m watching events as closely as I can. I’m pretty sure I can’t understand half of what I see.

This morning I read China has formally announced their intention to support Pakistan against further incursions by the West. This gets complicated very quickly. Not that anyone is surprised by this announcement, but the timing on the heels of our alleged “get bin Laden” operation is sure to steer things, even if China’s announcement is pure propaganda. I don’t pretend to know how much China is tied into the Illuminati schemes of ruling the world through banking and debt, but I do know China is not a friend of the West. I’m still trying to understand even small parts of this thing, particularly in terms of timing.

Part of the big question is who is steering what moves and why. Most people know Big Oil is a major reason we invaded Afghanistan. That is, Western Big Oil, since the point of this exercise is cutting Russian Big Oil and Chinese Big Oil out of the pool by running a pipeline from Central Asia out to Western controlled waters. That much is transparent, but it is hardly the whole story. I tend to think petroleum is a real issue, but is often merely an excuse for something else. There are many players playing each other. This is part of the reason I believe whomever the Illuminati are, they are hardly a single united group with a single plan. Place them too far above the rabble of human existence and the image requires you believe they aren’t quite human. I can’t justify that by my convictions about things in general, and it’s why I reject a lot of noise in the alternative/underground news. I tend to think there are real people involved with their own multiple loyalties, and Big Oil is just one concern among many.

Indeed, I believe Israel itself is just a ploy, a tool of distraction in the grander scheme, but that’s another article.

Between my convictions on the one hand, and my intuition and guessing on the other, I figure we won’t back off Pakistan, but will tread more lightly in the future. I believe the original plan was to break up Pakistan so as to control Baluchistan, where our convoys were operating, providing the bulk of our expensive supply line into Afghanistan. I can’t guess how committed our government is to charging ahead with that plan. Expect at a minimum nasty propaganda about Pakistan’s alleged evils, but the official narrative may be mostly quiet after a short time. Instead, we’ll be hearing more about Syria, and probably Saudi Arabia and her close neighbors. The Saudis are never secure, never so powerful as we are led to believe. The current picture could change in less than a week if someone told the CIA to turn up the heat. With Syria, I’m convinced there’s a direct link to our government’s plans for Iran.

Domestically, I expect to see a lot of shuffling military assets around in such a way as to justify a renewal of conscription. There is currently a serious effort to negotiate with the Taliban, which signals to me an intention of moving troops from Afghanistan to other places. I’m not sure it will be enough in the eyes of the strategic planners for the next move, but I can’t help believing it’s part of the plan. I just don’t see how our ruling regime can press ahead with other military adventures without a major increase in personnel. I don’t pretend to know how that will play out, but I would expect some very creative policies on the way to it. This isn’t so much a central issue, but one which will signal bigger things. I’m convinced a renewed military draft is a small part of the larger enslavement plans.

Strictly as a matter of my own guessing, I feel some really big moves are coming in the next three months.

Posted in globalism, social sciences | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Gang Aft Agley

Stating the Obvious: Satan Hates People

Posted on May 21, 2011 by ehurst

The entire mission of Satan is dehumanizing people.

You don’t have to believe in a literal Satan to understand how that name represents the collective evil consciousness within the human race. We see his hand prints throughout history. Today we have a plethora of theorists who describe various threads of his awful plans to bring the whole world under his thumb through his human proxies. Some of those proxies are depicted as willing, knowing participants, but most are simply tools who don’t really understand what they are doing. Either way, we end up with a lot of discussions about satanic this and that because it’s an appropriate adjective to describe the unconscionable injustices we see around us today.

Sometimes it serves a useful purpose to break down the various diabolical schemes by examining how this or that plan serves Satan’s purpose. Too often those efforts to expose and explain will end up calling for people to embrace some noble hope which misses the point. Those hopes assume we can fix things on this plane of existence, that we can defeat him, albeit temporarily, by erecting some sort of system which excludes the bulk of Satan’s influence. This misses the point because all systems are his, in a manner of speaking. Ask anyone alive on this planet today about what ought to be in order for justice to be served, and you’ll almost surely get a description of something which often sounds like the popular notion of “Rule of Law.” That such a notion holds so great a sway on all humanity today is simply proof how thorough is Satan’s power.

The concept “Rule of Law” is based on a certain raft of assumptions. I wish I didn’t have to harp on epistemology all the time, but that’s where the problem lies. I wish I could find a way to put this same challenge out there and force everyone to deal with it. You can search the Net and find any number of people very adept at using reason and logic, and I highly recommend you read their works, because it will help to clarify your own grasp of how propaganda works. It will sharpen your perception, cut through a lot of confusion and quicken your wit in slicing off all the crap encrusting most thinking and communication today. But once you get some of that under your belt, recognize this is not the end of understanding. What most people think of as logic is merely one kind of logic; it is not the ultimate and universal truth. Nor is that universally admired logic superior to other valid forms of logic. It is simply the most popular today. Don’t be a sucker for the arrogance it brings when you “get it.” That business of “Rule of Law” assumes too much, and rejects the ultimate source of truth, which comes from outside this broken plane of existence.

The whole foundation here constitutes a surrender to whatever you imagine Satan to be. As long as we buy into the analytical thought process as the quintessential path to ultimate truth, we have entered Satan’s realm. This is so very much what he has tried to accomplish throughout history, starting from the Garden of Eden. When you boil it down to the essence, that business of the Tree of Knowledge is all about placing the highly limited human intellect in the driver’s seat so nothing higher than the objective reality can be involved in our decision making process. It was as if to say, “I don’t need revelation any more; I can work this out for myself!” In other words, to be Aristotelian in your approach is the whole point behind the temptation in the Garden. Being consummately rational is being precisely fallen and wide open to evil.

The opposite of this, even on this human level of existence, is opening up your understanding, your decisions and actions, to another level of reasoning. You cannot stand on the grounds of Aristotelian epistemology and drop a chunk of revelation on top. You cannot insist all revelation has to say can be processed and evaluated by reason and logic. To insist on reason and logic is to reject revelation, because revelation never comes to the mind directly. Those who wrote Scripture and left it for us to read did not get it by their reason and logic; it come to them by mysticism, by some process which was above the intellect. Their minds kicked in only after they had a powerful burning impression in their spirits. They had to grasp revelation with an entirely different faculty far above mere intellect, a sort of logic which is entirely in the subconscious, which includes intuition and all manner of things despised by Aristotelians. Once revelation was absorbed through that higher faculty, they could then let their minds understand what to do by way of reflecting off the divine imperatives of conviction.

That path to understanding is where we find the cosmic moral law, which I equate with the Laws of God. While those Laws demand first a recognition and worship of God, I want here to emphasize the second aspect: treating your fellow humans fully as human. Jesus proposed it this way:

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

So the whole issue of justice among your fellow humans can be expressed as recognizing your fellow humans as humans (“neighbors”), and investing the same compassion in their needs as you would for your own needs. Thus, the entire issue of justice is the reverse of dehumanizing. The whole of our existence on this plane is rightly a matter of a human focus. People are the most important thing in the universe. In some fundamental way, you should be placing your needs in the same basket as those you encounter.

Granted, what you can do to make life better for people may well mean spending a lot of time and energy on activities which take you away from human interaction. For example, a great many serious computer hackers are so good a computers precisely because they are so bad with people. But social ineptitude is not a sin; not caring about people is sin. If all your basement hideout hours spent facing that phosphorescent screen is fired by a genuine wish to help your neighbor the best way you know how, then you are doing justice. It’s not about the activity itself, nor actively engaging other humans, so much as it’s about the reason and motives. If the only real motive you have is the purity of computing logic, then you are lost.

If people are not your mission, then you don’t have a mission — you have an obsession, a false religion, or whatever you want to call it. The whole of the Laws of God is compassion for other people. An orientation which objectifies anything as a good or an end in itself is failure from the start. I keep using the phrase: Ultimate truth is a Person. That’s my way of trying to get your focus off what’s merely rational. If your intellect is fully capable of grasping it, then it’s not truth, and it will not lead to justice. If what you seek is as fuzzy as human nature itself, then you are on the right track.

We cannot defeat Satan with mere logic. Getting you to try that is the key to all his work.

Posted in sanity | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Stating the Obvious: Satan Hates People

No Surprises for Dominque Strauss-Kahn

Posted on May 20, 2011 by ehurst

Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) is probably one of the few people completely unsurprised by what’s happening to him right now.

First, let me refer you to an excellent analysis of the DSK case. So far, this is the best one I’ve seen. It indicates he was set up, and it’s what I first thought, as did many others a lot smarter than me. Wenzel’s outline leaves room for debating whether it was DSK’s bosses or competitors, but at any rate, we can be sure the Illuminati bankers permitted things to go this route. I take the line it was permitted, not directed.

One of the few Hollywood products I can recall actually liking was The Package. The only reason I still like it is simple: It illustrates just how utterly powerful the Illuminati are, and how hopeless the fate of anyone they intend to hurt. The movie is meant to create fear, but in the process, it reveals something discerning watchers can read clearly: The agents of the Shadow Government can be anyone and anything they need to be in order to do the job. The system itself is their creature, so we should realize no pivotal positions or moves are left to chance. Wherever you go, whatever you do, they have an agent there ready to ensure their plans are not frustrated. Obviously, it doesn’t require anything so dramatic as the plot of the film, and frankly the level of competence is not always that high. Still, it is illustrative.

DSK may yet escape serious jail time; it depends on whether his current woes provide sufficient discipline to bring him back in line with Illuminati plans. He may yet be useful to them. I don’t pretend to know those plans all that well, only some estimate of them. Don’t ever doubt the justice system will produce whatever results are decreed from the Shadow Government. The noise over Indiana’s recent State Supreme Court decision regarding resistance to unlawful police entry, and similar court decisions, are carefully selected for purposes not entirely clear, but most assuredly not simply the random results arising from generic human vagaries. On the one hand, it seems to be testing the public reaction, but I suspect it also intends to help identify who might resist, how, and on what grounds, should the same sort of conflict arise elsewhere in the US. Some of the folks who post belligerent comments on the various forums, news sites, etc., are fakes. They were sent by the Shadow folks, agents provocateur, trolling with bait to get a rise from the noble-minded fools. But we should all realize any resemblance to genuine justice would be purely accidental, while the actual outcome of court cases is not.

If knowing this makes you fearful, then the Illuminati have succeeded. If it makes you determined to arm yourself and prepare for war, they have still succeeded. If you realize this is all background noise, and merely provides an opportunity to explain why it doesn’t really matter in the long run, there may be hope for you.

Posted in globalism | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Taming False Instincts

Posted on May 20, 2011 by ehurst

We can’t afford to do simply what comes naturally in dealing with our fellow humans.

Think about it: If we did what comes naturally, none of us would be potty trained. We know from vast human experience people can be trained to modestly place waste where it can be safely disposed. Too many other things have become loaded and larded with false notions, and we pay no attention to the vast human experience of history. We previously discussed on this blog the necessity of understanding socio-sexual interactions using the Game Theory Model. Most people simply do not recognize what goes on, and they build a mythology which blinds them in various ways. It was necessary to recognize the real game so we could avoid being trapped by it.

So it is when I write the only real revolt against unjust government is ignoring the various provocations and focusing on simply living justly. The whole emphasis was personal interaction which assumes the other is a real human, and taking them seriously. If more of us did that, many governments would eventually collapse, dying from starvation of the one thing which feeds their power. Take people seriously, not governments.

But we need to understand how and why we fail to take each other seriously. Let’s focus on just one element: how we typically regard those around us. It’s not particularly earth shaking news to note we naturally tend to put people in one of three categories:

1. People have significance to us. We feel obliged to interact with them and take them seriously, regardless whether we actually like them.

2. Machines are people who serve some purpose for us, but aren’t otherwise that important on our radar screens.

3. Scenery is all the other folks out there who fill up the visual space and sometimes require us to go around them, but aren’t at all important to us.

This is our nature; this is what we do when we don’t pay attention. Obviously, the answer is to stop giving so much attention to all the things which distract us, and focus on the people. Nobody imagines you can pay equal attention to every person in Times Square on New Years’ Eve, but you will encounter a significant number if you are there. And it’s not as if every knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fool warrants our kindness and love in the sense of giving them what they request or demand. The point is to make it a mental habit to evaluate people as people, to break the bad habit of dropping the majority of the world into the scenery category, many in the machines, and only a tiny fraction regarded as real people. The starting point is simply noticing you are doing this.

At some stage, you realize you will surely set many aside as unreachable, or even as a threat. Some people don’t merit your direct interaction. Still, you don’t make that decision until you actually evaluate them, take them seriously. You also decide whether that difficulty is long-term or whether you’ll have to run through it again the next time. But whatever you do, it’s not about you, but the truth — including the truth people are people.

This has nothing to do with your public persona, the image you project, and personality which the world encounters in you. That is often shaped by the environment, but most of us have our own way of handling it. Rather, it’s a matter of awareness, of engaging the brain actively, not simply running on autopilot. Build your persona, adjust it as the situation warrants, but don’t ever nail it all down to a routine. The whole point is people cannot be reduced to a routine until they choose it for themselves. Don’t use your persona as the excuse to drop other humans below their humanity.

This is a part of breaking the programming, because governments are all about dehumanizing. You can’t change what governments do, but you can change what you do. Take people seriously first as a better mental habit, then keep an open mind about how you need to interact so as to live by justice and truth.

Posted in sanity, social sciences | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments