I have frequently labelled myself as a Luddite. I have never seriously considered wrecking any kind of machinery, much less automated looms, however, there is no disputing that I am a very late-adopter of any technological advances and I do not consider all new technology as per se progress.
It turns out that social science has a more contemporary tag to hang on my toe: neo-Luddite.
"A Neo-Luddite is someone who believes that the use of technology has serious ethical, moral, and social ramifications. Operating under this belief, Neo-Luddites are cautious to promote early adoption of technology, and while they are not necessarily opposed to technology, they would prefer to see a more serious discussion of the role of technology in society. Some Neo-Luddites actually dislike technology, opting for a life of “voluntary simplicity,” but this is not always the case." http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-neo-luddite.htm
Yep, that about covers it for me.
I really do question the benefits of ever-increasing dependency and use of digital appliances. Are we healthier or do we just live longer? Are we safer or merely more observed? Are we wiser or simply possessed of more data.
There are some who will not even comprehend how I could question the progress. There are a few who will completely understand.
God told us we would wrest our bread from the ground through the sweat of our brow - perhaps that meant more than a command to "work hard".
Monday, October 18, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Conspiracy and Consensus
Conspiracy research is exciting, stimulating, infuriating and exhausting.
The world operates on conspracy...oh yes it does. For those of you now rolling your eyes, your skepticism merely reveals a lack of thorough consideration because it is not a matter of whether or not you believe in conspiracies - it is a matter of which conspiracies you believe.
For example, nearly everyone believes World War Two was the result of a conspiracy. Most view the conspiracy as including the Axis powers and a plan to dominate Europe, Asia and perhaps the world. Far fewer see the war as a result of machinations of a cabal of bankers, politicians, and the like who manipulated and then profited from the carnage.
Even in the case of this example, what is deemed historical "fact" and what is conspiracy "theory" is determined by consensus reality - and consensus reality is shaped by the information available and a cultural pressure to conform.
Still, even mainstream, pop culture history, reveals the heretofor hidden information that should move the consensus reality to another position and yet, more often than not, there is no movement.
Eventually, a lot of the nuggets unearthed by conspracy researchers make it into the mainstream, sometimes even become consensus reality, and yet nothing seems to change.
Why is that?
Perhaps it is because there is another consensus which overrides even an understanding that all is not right: consensus conformity.
Consensus conformity is the recognition that truth is irrelevant to success and achievement within the world system. This is the essence of the game, the darkest of the conspiracies, the road to hell.
In order to gain acceptance it is necessary to willingly suspend knowledge and promote, defend, publish what is self-evidently untrue. See this is the soul sacrifice, because an innocent cannot be turned until he is aware and voluntarily rejects what he knows to be true.
Does this help explain why grass roots movements fail?
The world operates on conspracy...oh yes it does. For those of you now rolling your eyes, your skepticism merely reveals a lack of thorough consideration because it is not a matter of whether or not you believe in conspiracies - it is a matter of which conspiracies you believe.
For example, nearly everyone believes World War Two was the result of a conspiracy. Most view the conspiracy as including the Axis powers and a plan to dominate Europe, Asia and perhaps the world. Far fewer see the war as a result of machinations of a cabal of bankers, politicians, and the like who manipulated and then profited from the carnage.
Even in the case of this example, what is deemed historical "fact" and what is conspiracy "theory" is determined by consensus reality - and consensus reality is shaped by the information available and a cultural pressure to conform.
Still, even mainstream, pop culture history, reveals the heretofor hidden information that should move the consensus reality to another position and yet, more often than not, there is no movement.
Eventually, a lot of the nuggets unearthed by conspracy researchers make it into the mainstream, sometimes even become consensus reality, and yet nothing seems to change.
Why is that?
Perhaps it is because there is another consensus which overrides even an understanding that all is not right: consensus conformity.
Consensus conformity is the recognition that truth is irrelevant to success and achievement within the world system. This is the essence of the game, the darkest of the conspiracies, the road to hell.
In order to gain acceptance it is necessary to willingly suspend knowledge and promote, defend, publish what is self-evidently untrue. See this is the soul sacrifice, because an innocent cannot be turned until he is aware and voluntarily rejects what he knows to be true.
Does this help explain why grass roots movements fail?
Monday, September 20, 2010
Purpose
One of the comforts of belonging to the Creator is that there is absolute certainty that there is purpose - not just a purpose for me or you or for events or actions - purpose. God has not wound a clock, He has constructed a chronometer, every wheel and bearing a specific and instrumental part in the whole. He set it in motion and He knows when it will stop.
What has been created for the purpose will not be discarded. The whole has been intended from the beginning to be whole. God will restore and recreate all to His intended whole. Nothing will be lost.
What has been created for the purpose will not be discarded. The whole has been intended from the beginning to be whole. God will restore and recreate all to His intended whole. Nothing will be lost.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Do You Know of Any Prophets?
Let me ask you a question: Do you know of any prophets?
No, not predicters, prophets. Men who agonize and wrestle with the truth. Visionaries, eccentrics, wild men in the wilderness, witnesses in the cities.
So do you know any?
If you do, you had better bless them, defend them, treasure them and store up their wisdom and exhortations - listen to them.
The prophets' time is short.
So do you know of any prophets? If you are not sure, you will be when they are gone and you are alone in the hands of the scorpions and the snakes.
No, not predicters, prophets. Men who agonize and wrestle with the truth. Visionaries, eccentrics, wild men in the wilderness, witnesses in the cities.
So do you know any?
If you do, you had better bless them, defend them, treasure them and store up their wisdom and exhortations - listen to them.
The prophets' time is short.
So do you know of any prophets? If you are not sure, you will be when they are gone and you are alone in the hands of the scorpions and the snakes.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
So a solitary judge in California overturned an expensive and divisive constitutional amendment...is anyone really surprised? His being a homosexual had nothing to do with his ruling, though, well not a lot.
This opinion now means a whole lot of money will be given to attorneys to do a lot of meaningless legal work (maybe they can get stimulus funds)and bunch of sweet, loving gays and lesbians can spend their boundless energy attacking and villifying people who dare to have an opinion and even more religious folk can fill the airwaves with senseless drivel about how the state licensing non-traditional marriage will destroy the moral fiber of the nation.
Well I call bullshit.
The judge made a correct ruling - probably for the wrong reasons, but correct.
Why, you may ask.
Because marriage licenses are issued by the state and the state makes the rules. Therefore, if the state wants to license same-sex marriage, it can. If the state wants to license polygamy, it can. If the state wants to enable NAMBLA's desires, it can and it probably will in the not too distant future.
Both sides of the conflict are populated by idiots - complete and cognitively defective idiots.
Why does anyone want the government, at any level, to decide and regulate and license who can marry who?
If either the pro or con side had spent any time in deep thought (and knew anything about history)they would be demanding the state get out of the marriage business.
Same-sex marriage will not bring the nation to ruin, it is a symptom of the ruin that already occurred because we made the state a god and forgot the real one.
This opinion now means a whole lot of money will be given to attorneys to do a lot of meaningless legal work (maybe they can get stimulus funds)and bunch of sweet, loving gays and lesbians can spend their boundless energy attacking and villifying people who dare to have an opinion and even more religious folk can fill the airwaves with senseless drivel about how the state licensing non-traditional marriage will destroy the moral fiber of the nation.
Well I call bullshit.
The judge made a correct ruling - probably for the wrong reasons, but correct.
Why, you may ask.
Because marriage licenses are issued by the state and the state makes the rules. Therefore, if the state wants to license same-sex marriage, it can. If the state wants to license polygamy, it can. If the state wants to enable NAMBLA's desires, it can and it probably will in the not too distant future.
Both sides of the conflict are populated by idiots - complete and cognitively defective idiots.
Why does anyone want the government, at any level, to decide and regulate and license who can marry who?
If either the pro or con side had spent any time in deep thought (and knew anything about history)they would be demanding the state get out of the marriage business.
Same-sex marriage will not bring the nation to ruin, it is a symptom of the ruin that already occurred because we made the state a god and forgot the real one.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Financial Regulation
"There will be no more tax-funded bailouts, period."
Technically, barring something unanticipated, President Obama told the truth when he said this today. If he could have left it there, he could have remained in truth...alas, he could not:
"Because of this law, the American people will never be asked again to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes,"
See, this statement is patently untrue. Is it a lie - who knows? Whether it is deception or ignorance, it is a false statement.
In order to see why it is false, we must examine how the regulation intends to deal with the possible (likely) failures in the future. The plan, in short, is to charge a fee (tax) to the banks which will be placed in a fund (haha, yeah, right...like social security and the highway fund). The fund will be used to deal with any financial failures which occur.
Now here comes the unspoken truth: where does the money actually come from?
Well the banks and financial institutions, of course. Right?
Wrong!
Self-evident truth of economics #1: businesses pay no taxes (fees, assessments, tribute). Businesses only collect taxes (etc.).
The way it works is that a business intends to make a profit. Now, since in the most basic sense, profit exists only when revenue exceeds expenses, if a business' costs increase, in order to stay profitable, it will have to increase its prices. (Of course there are other factors which could prevent the price increase, but lets set that discussion aside for the moment.)
A bank is a business which is organized to make a profit, therefore, if the bank is taxed or charged a fee, it will pass that cost on to the customer through increased prices.
Thus, the bailouts of the future will still be paid for by the American people - there just won't be a TARP to act as a lightning rod for public scorn (at least not at first).
Oh, by the way, the price increases passed to the consumer will be regressive, that is, the extra costs will cause greater harm to those with the least assets. If you want to know how that works, ask me.
This is just one of the problems with this legislation, but let's save them for another day.
Technically, barring something unanticipated, President Obama told the truth when he said this today. If he could have left it there, he could have remained in truth...alas, he could not:
"Because of this law, the American people will never be asked again to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes,"
See, this statement is patently untrue. Is it a lie - who knows? Whether it is deception or ignorance, it is a false statement.
In order to see why it is false, we must examine how the regulation intends to deal with the possible (likely) failures in the future. The plan, in short, is to charge a fee (tax) to the banks which will be placed in a fund (haha, yeah, right...like social security and the highway fund). The fund will be used to deal with any financial failures which occur.
Now here comes the unspoken truth: where does the money actually come from?
Well the banks and financial institutions, of course. Right?
Wrong!
Self-evident truth of economics #1: businesses pay no taxes (fees, assessments, tribute). Businesses only collect taxes (etc.).
The way it works is that a business intends to make a profit. Now, since in the most basic sense, profit exists only when revenue exceeds expenses, if a business' costs increase, in order to stay profitable, it will have to increase its prices. (Of course there are other factors which could prevent the price increase, but lets set that discussion aside for the moment.)
A bank is a business which is organized to make a profit, therefore, if the bank is taxed or charged a fee, it will pass that cost on to the customer through increased prices.
Thus, the bailouts of the future will still be paid for by the American people - there just won't be a TARP to act as a lightning rod for public scorn (at least not at first).
Oh, by the way, the price increases passed to the consumer will be regressive, that is, the extra costs will cause greater harm to those with the least assets. If you want to know how that works, ask me.
This is just one of the problems with this legislation, but let's save them for another day.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Separation
The purpose for writing what I do here is not to instruct or lecture but to express myself on select issues and to make public my search, our search, for a way for my family, friends and me to navigate The Way while residing physically in a foreign land.
I know that there is an answer to the question.
Much time has been invested in researching how to remove, or more correctly separate, from the world. Many schemes to rescind numbers, certificates and liscenses have been reviewed. Dozens of legal strategies for overcoming the state with tricks and avoiding traps have been heard.
All of the propositions have one major flaw: they use they system to subvert the system or to defeat the system. Going to one part of the secular government to try to win immunity from another part of the secular government is akin to a chicken going to KFC to be protected from Tyson...you are still gonna be dinner.
If you use a process, designed into the system, to escape the world, what is there about that process that makes you believe you are free?
It seems to me that there are only three ways to separate completely from the world:
1. Leave the territory under their control,
2. Overthrow the rulers,
3. Be set free.
Since the entire world is under the control of the usurper and his forces, there is no where to go.
There are few, a remnant as it were, who seek this liberty, Rebellion is neither possible nor acceptable. I can find no-where where we are instructed by God or true Apostles to engage in an overthrow of any government of the world - locally, nationally or internationally. In fact, i can't even find a suggestion, much less a command, to engage with the world system to modify it. This precludes a dominionist concept of rule on the part of believers.
That leaves liberty by release. Either the slavemasters must voluntarily free us or our price must be paid (i.e. our debt satisfied).
The idea of redemption, Christ as kinsman redeemer, would have to come into play here.
Here are some references to explore:
http://threshingfloor-radio.com/index.php/2010/07/gospel-of-kingdom/
http://www.hisholychurch.org/index.php
http://www.oneradionetwork.com/liberty%10geopolitics_-_podcasts/%93how_to_be_free_in_an_unfree_world%94/david_williams_says_there_is_a_reason_the_constitution_is_not_working_for_us__live_monday,_may_31st._201005311720
http://www.oneradionetwork.com/liberty%10geopolitics_-_podcasts/%93how_to_be_free_in_an_unfree_world%94/david_williams_says_the_constitution_does_not_apply_here_thursday_,_july_1st_10_am_central_201006301749/
Read and listen.
Come back and talk with...and with them. Clever tricks and word games are not enough. We have other work to do.
P.S. Apologies for the roughness of the post. It was written in one pass. I will edit and expand in the coming days. This is the point of all of it.
I know that there is an answer to the question.
Much time has been invested in researching how to remove, or more correctly separate, from the world. Many schemes to rescind numbers, certificates and liscenses have been reviewed. Dozens of legal strategies for overcoming the state with tricks and avoiding traps have been heard.
All of the propositions have one major flaw: they use they system to subvert the system or to defeat the system. Going to one part of the secular government to try to win immunity from another part of the secular government is akin to a chicken going to KFC to be protected from Tyson...you are still gonna be dinner.
If you use a process, designed into the system, to escape the world, what is there about that process that makes you believe you are free?
It seems to me that there are only three ways to separate completely from the world:
1. Leave the territory under their control,
2. Overthrow the rulers,
3. Be set free.
Since the entire world is under the control of the usurper and his forces, there is no where to go.
There are few, a remnant as it were, who seek this liberty, Rebellion is neither possible nor acceptable. I can find no-where where we are instructed by God or true Apostles to engage in an overthrow of any government of the world - locally, nationally or internationally. In fact, i can't even find a suggestion, much less a command, to engage with the world system to modify it. This precludes a dominionist concept of rule on the part of believers.
That leaves liberty by release. Either the slavemasters must voluntarily free us or our price must be paid (i.e. our debt satisfied).
The idea of redemption, Christ as kinsman redeemer, would have to come into play here.
Here are some references to explore:
http://threshingfloor-radio.com/index.php/2010/07/gospel-of-kingdom/
http://www.hisholychurch.org/index.php
http://www.oneradionetwork.com/liberty%10geopolitics_-_podcasts/%93how_to_be_free_in_an_unfree_world%94/david_williams_says_there_is_a_reason_the_constitution_is_not_working_for_us__live_monday,_may_31st._201005311720
http://www.oneradionetwork.com/liberty%10geopolitics_-_podcasts/%93how_to_be_free_in_an_unfree_world%94/david_williams_says_the_constitution_does_not_apply_here_thursday_,_july_1st_10_am_central_201006301749/
Read and listen.
Come back and talk with...and with them. Clever tricks and word games are not enough. We have other work to do.
P.S. Apologies for the roughness of the post. It was written in one pass. I will edit and expand in the coming days. This is the point of all of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)