Zen is the remedy for the spirit. It puts out the roaring fires of zealous beliefs.
It teaches non-attachment.
The West is attached to the past. Attached to the future. If the present is recieved without attachment, we are bred to experience a form of guilt.
Where are you?
The sky is blue.
The air conditioner drones.
The Jasmine smells sweet.
What are you?
You have a name and a label. You musn't say or think either. This is non-attachment.
In Zen, the American will not look to some future wellness, but will be force to evaluate his or her present state. True honesty with oneself will require the immediate action, or non-action.
You say, "I will be happy." Or, "He will become a nicer person." While in the present, you are not happy and your boyfriend remains cruel.
Your will, or original nature, or non-formed being, when you reside in, will remove these blocks. There are no blocks; blocks are chickens, chickens are pencils.
Words are illusion; illusion is thought.
The Mississippi river is flowing.
White snakes in the sky.
The ground is cool.
Katz!
Friday, May 11, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Reality vs. Idealism Part One: Identifying Your Beliefs
Every belief that a human has is tested with the litmus test of truth. Truth is comparing reality and idealism. When an individual speaks of a certain belief that they have, they have to always make sure that they are not living in the world of idealism but instead living in a world of reality.
Where every individual think that they have a belief that they created one may find out that instead of creating their own beliefs their beliefs are instead hand pecked to them .many individuals go to different resources to create their own beliefs. Beliefs are things that individuals have different societies created either by the government of their country ,by the media of their country, or by the various institutions of education in their country .
Say, for instance, that an individual believes that the world is overpopulated. Where does the individual gather this information? Is the individual that believes this a statistician? If the individual believes that overpopulation is a problem, and he/she is not a statistician, nor a sociologist, nor any sort of accredited scientist, how did they come to believe this idea? The idea had to be given to them. The quality of the source as well as the sources intended outcome of a specific demographic believing an idea, are rarely questions brought up in today's Western individual.
So the individual believes the world is overpopulated. They had heard it from certain media outlets, and read it in certain textbooks printed by publishers that were owned by certain corporations headed by specific individuals who don't like too many people. The individual at the bottom may have been told a completely reverse arguement against overpopulation from the media corporation owned by the wealthier person higher up the economic food chain than the latter may actually personally stand by. What matters is that the individual citizen recieves the idea and believes it. That the citizens every action in his or her microcosmic level displays the psychological influence of the idea.
The idea is the basis of a belief. Is the idea a fact, or an opinion? If the idea is a fact, it is a thread in the fabric of shared reality. If the idea is an opinion, it can also be a fact. But an opinion can, and most usually is a product or piece of dilusion.
How does one find out?
This is what I have come to: A belief that someone holds, firstly, is usually not a negative. That is, one doesn't hold a belief that something will happen that is negative. At least, it will not be a belief that they actually subscribe to. If they did, their every action would illumine that fact. Therefore, if someone's belief was a negative, say, The Earth will blow up on December 21st, 2012, then most likely their every action would elude to their impending doom and they would be obviously fraught with nueroses.
Outside the spectrum of extreme cases of delusionalism, or negative beleifs, some people believe that when they vote, their vote is counted and that if enough people vote for a specific candidate, regardless of anything else, that that candidate will become the president. This belief is not, in itself, a negative belief. It is a positive belief. But is it the reality of the "election" process as it happens in the United States, or is it the ideal? As you will come to realize from here on out, ignorance is a strong impetus for idealism.
But why would someone think that this ideal, which is their belief, is a real idea? It is taught in our textbooks. It is parroted by our media. Our parents believe it. So, what riles this idealism? What shakes it in the mind of the individual? Is it a random news article by some freshmen reporter, buried on page 9 that our friend stumbles upon in a moment of boredom at their job? Is it a free press publication that flyered the night before? Is it someone's bumper sticker?
In regards to our specific example of the ideal of the American voting process, it has been well established that not only are our elections rigged, but the machines that we use to vote with have been proven to not only be tampered with, but tampered with remotely from areas far and away from the polling places. We forget about the lead up to the actual election, where the vast horizon of corporate interests and powers throw money at the politician that they want to win because he promised them a sweetheart deal if they did. And besides, for the voting process to work perfectly, you actually need an educated voting populace.
If our voting process actually worked in the idealistic way, it would almost be by accident. An accident that many would make sure never occurs.
Knowledge and wisdom are the cures for idealism. Ignorance is the enemy of reality.
Let's try another one:
You believe that when you die, you go to Heaven.
Empirically speaking, there is no hard science to prove, or disprove this belief. Experientially (aka realistically), there isn't any signs to prove or disprove this belief.
Let me try another way; say you were born on a desert island. There was food to eat, water to drink, and a hole that was just big enough to... well, you get my point. So, you live on this island, and your parents were mute and blind. No one else on this island. Stay with me. Would you have any beliefs? You would only have cause and effect. Some things were supercausal (i.e. the sun rising/setting, storms that came, etc.), but other things, like gravity (you wouldn't have a label for it) would be observed. Outside of these things, what would your belief be about an afterlife?
One day, a missionary shows up on your island. He can talk your brand of gibberish and seeds an idea in your head, that, in a nutshell, the Bible is the word of God.
So you start walking around, and you definately leave that hole in the ground you've been frequenting all these years alone. And now you stop working one day out of seven.
Your actions are now based on an idea. The idea cannot be proven to be true. That doesn't necessarily mean it is false. But, if it is false, all your actions are false. Why? They are based on a falsity. Or, if they cannot be proven to be true or false, like the above example, you are acting on faith.
One more:
You believe that the world is experiencing man-made climate change that will eventually melt the glaciers and it is cause by an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere that is trapping greenhouse gases.
Where is your data? It was colder than usual one winter? It was warmer than usual one summer? A little more rain than usual? Do you see where I am headed?
Even scientists disagree; it's a pretty big planet! But let's stay focused.
So, you believe this idea, because you had a teacher in high school who read it in the paper in the seventies, and they, in turn taught you, and you have had this idea reaffirmed by Al Gore's latest money maker. You are also: a) not a climatologist, b) not a historian, and c) not in possession of any samples of atmospheric particles that you can decipher.
So you have a belief that you cannot prove yourself. It is an idea that has been transmitted to you by someone else.
Now let's say you are going to buy a car. You can buy a cheaper, used car that runs on gasoline, but instead you buy a car "green" car. Instead of driving your car, you bike in the hot sun and get very sweaty and uncomfortable.
At your house, you shower every other day or two to save water. You don't flush pee and your bathroom has a little odor to it, and your toilet bowl starts to stain. You don't use plastic bags, or paper, and what plastic bags and paper bags you do have, have filled to the point of clutter your cabinets. You keep a big bin of stinky "compost" in your kitchen that stinks up the room. You don't buy new, nice furniture or technology because you "don't want to contribute" to the waste in the world, so you instead "put up" with musty, old, stained curb finds.
Now, I'm not defending consumption as it occurs in the United States, but there is a reason we have less disease, and a higher standard of living than "third world" countries.
But what you have done, is assimilated an idea into the actions and behavior of your life.
When you take a look at your life and stop acting and behaving according the beliefs that you hold that you cannot prove (or disprove), you will be on the road to freedom of your mind. Questions to be asked:
1) Do I believe something because of consensus? That is, if you believe something that makes many critical of you, will you still hold onto it?
2) Do my beliefs change my consumer spending patterns?
3) If I was born on a deserted island, and no one else was on the island, would I still hold the same belief?
There is a flip side though. It is a scary world to navigate through, I know, but we must all be vigilant. Our minds and beliefs are our own property, a muscle we cannot let atrophy in the comfortably of convenience. That is, are scientists the sancrosanct ideogogues we beleive them to be? Could they be paid to produce bogus "scientific proof"? Will we believe them? Will we not believe them? The man on the desert island doesn't know about physics or chemistry. If he had a layman's knowledge of them both, would he know what scientific paper to accept, and which to reject?
Stay tuned for part two: The Nature of Beliefs.
Where every individual think that they have a belief that they created one may find out that instead of creating their own beliefs their beliefs are instead hand pecked to them .many individuals go to different resources to create their own beliefs. Beliefs are things that individuals have different societies created either by the government of their country ,by the media of their country, or by the various institutions of education in their country .
Say, for instance, that an individual believes that the world is overpopulated. Where does the individual gather this information? Is the individual that believes this a statistician? If the individual believes that overpopulation is a problem, and he/she is not a statistician, nor a sociologist, nor any sort of accredited scientist, how did they come to believe this idea? The idea had to be given to them. The quality of the source as well as the sources intended outcome of a specific demographic believing an idea, are rarely questions brought up in today's Western individual.
So the individual believes the world is overpopulated. They had heard it from certain media outlets, and read it in certain textbooks printed by publishers that were owned by certain corporations headed by specific individuals who don't like too many people. The individual at the bottom may have been told a completely reverse arguement against overpopulation from the media corporation owned by the wealthier person higher up the economic food chain than the latter may actually personally stand by. What matters is that the individual citizen recieves the idea and believes it. That the citizens every action in his or her microcosmic level displays the psychological influence of the idea.
The idea is the basis of a belief. Is the idea a fact, or an opinion? If the idea is a fact, it is a thread in the fabric of shared reality. If the idea is an opinion, it can also be a fact. But an opinion can, and most usually is a product or piece of dilusion.
How does one find out?
This is what I have come to: A belief that someone holds, firstly, is usually not a negative. That is, one doesn't hold a belief that something will happen that is negative. At least, it will not be a belief that they actually subscribe to. If they did, their every action would illumine that fact. Therefore, if someone's belief was a negative, say, The Earth will blow up on December 21st, 2012, then most likely their every action would elude to their impending doom and they would be obviously fraught with nueroses.
Outside the spectrum of extreme cases of delusionalism, or negative beleifs, some people believe that when they vote, their vote is counted and that if enough people vote for a specific candidate, regardless of anything else, that that candidate will become the president. This belief is not, in itself, a negative belief. It is a positive belief. But is it the reality of the "election" process as it happens in the United States, or is it the ideal? As you will come to realize from here on out, ignorance is a strong impetus for idealism.
But why would someone think that this ideal, which is their belief, is a real idea? It is taught in our textbooks. It is parroted by our media. Our parents believe it. So, what riles this idealism? What shakes it in the mind of the individual? Is it a random news article by some freshmen reporter, buried on page 9 that our friend stumbles upon in a moment of boredom at their job? Is it a free press publication that flyered the night before? Is it someone's bumper sticker?
In regards to our specific example of the ideal of the American voting process, it has been well established that not only are our elections rigged, but the machines that we use to vote with have been proven to not only be tampered with, but tampered with remotely from areas far and away from the polling places. We forget about the lead up to the actual election, where the vast horizon of corporate interests and powers throw money at the politician that they want to win because he promised them a sweetheart deal if they did. And besides, for the voting process to work perfectly, you actually need an educated voting populace.
If our voting process actually worked in the idealistic way, it would almost be by accident. An accident that many would make sure never occurs.
Knowledge and wisdom are the cures for idealism. Ignorance is the enemy of reality.
Let's try another one:
You believe that when you die, you go to Heaven.
Empirically speaking, there is no hard science to prove, or disprove this belief. Experientially (aka realistically), there isn't any signs to prove or disprove this belief.
Let me try another way; say you were born on a desert island. There was food to eat, water to drink, and a hole that was just big enough to... well, you get my point. So, you live on this island, and your parents were mute and blind. No one else on this island. Stay with me. Would you have any beliefs? You would only have cause and effect. Some things were supercausal (i.e. the sun rising/setting, storms that came, etc.), but other things, like gravity (you wouldn't have a label for it) would be observed. Outside of these things, what would your belief be about an afterlife?
One day, a missionary shows up on your island. He can talk your brand of gibberish and seeds an idea in your head, that, in a nutshell, the Bible is the word of God.
So you start walking around, and you definately leave that hole in the ground you've been frequenting all these years alone. And now you stop working one day out of seven.
Your actions are now based on an idea. The idea cannot be proven to be true. That doesn't necessarily mean it is false. But, if it is false, all your actions are false. Why? They are based on a falsity. Or, if they cannot be proven to be true or false, like the above example, you are acting on faith.
One more:
You believe that the world is experiencing man-made climate change that will eventually melt the glaciers and it is cause by an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere that is trapping greenhouse gases.
Where is your data? It was colder than usual one winter? It was warmer than usual one summer? A little more rain than usual? Do you see where I am headed?
Even scientists disagree; it's a pretty big planet! But let's stay focused.
So, you believe this idea, because you had a teacher in high school who read it in the paper in the seventies, and they, in turn taught you, and you have had this idea reaffirmed by Al Gore's latest money maker. You are also: a) not a climatologist, b) not a historian, and c) not in possession of any samples of atmospheric particles that you can decipher.
So you have a belief that you cannot prove yourself. It is an idea that has been transmitted to you by someone else.
Now let's say you are going to buy a car. You can buy a cheaper, used car that runs on gasoline, but instead you buy a car "green" car. Instead of driving your car, you bike in the hot sun and get very sweaty and uncomfortable.
At your house, you shower every other day or two to save water. You don't flush pee and your bathroom has a little odor to it, and your toilet bowl starts to stain. You don't use plastic bags, or paper, and what plastic bags and paper bags you do have, have filled to the point of clutter your cabinets. You keep a big bin of stinky "compost" in your kitchen that stinks up the room. You don't buy new, nice furniture or technology because you "don't want to contribute" to the waste in the world, so you instead "put up" with musty, old, stained curb finds.
Now, I'm not defending consumption as it occurs in the United States, but there is a reason we have less disease, and a higher standard of living than "third world" countries.
But what you have done, is assimilated an idea into the actions and behavior of your life.
When you take a look at your life and stop acting and behaving according the beliefs that you hold that you cannot prove (or disprove), you will be on the road to freedom of your mind. Questions to be asked:
1) Do I believe something because of consensus? That is, if you believe something that makes many critical of you, will you still hold onto it?
2) Do my beliefs change my consumer spending patterns?
3) If I was born on a deserted island, and no one else was on the island, would I still hold the same belief?
There is a flip side though. It is a scary world to navigate through, I know, but we must all be vigilant. Our minds and beliefs are our own property, a muscle we cannot let atrophy in the comfortably of convenience. That is, are scientists the sancrosanct ideogogues we beleive them to be? Could they be paid to produce bogus "scientific proof"? Will we believe them? Will we not believe them? The man on the desert island doesn't know about physics or chemistry. If he had a layman's knowledge of them both, would he know what scientific paper to accept, and which to reject?
Stay tuned for part two: The Nature of Beliefs.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Social Issues versus Survival Issues
In this day, we are witnessing the duel of a two dinosaur political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. On the Republican side, we are watching four contenders vie for the top spot to go after the incumbent Democratic president. The two side battle is a divide between market run society (Republican) and government/welfare state run society (Democrat).
As we are watching these two sides duke it out, I believe that neither side represents the will of the educated populace.
To counter the position of the Republicans, you can't put the money changers in charge of a country and expect the same libertarian/sovereign rights you got from the founding fathers. If you believe that you are better/stronger by being richer, than you have subscribed to the mental illness known as social Darwinism. Further, you will tend to see the bottomline ideal, as opposed to the human cost reality of cutting spending on social programs.
To counter the position of the Democrats, you need to maintain a strong middle-class in order to allow the citizen to have the choices of what and how to live their life according to their beliefs; you need to bring the jobs back home, and you need to do it now. The ideal that the government can help everyone and still have enough money is based on a reality in which manufacturing and living wages are occurring. Without living wage jobs, there will only be fiat (or without effort) money being pumped into the currency pools of nations.
The Republicans and the Democrats are running on social issues. These are issues that are only relevant when the country that they crop up in is an economically healthy and prosperous country.
Issues like gay marriage, pro-life/pro-choice, affirmative action, immigrant amnesty, birth control, etc. These are important issues. I agree that they are. But as a passenger on the seat of the Titanic, it is like watching two ship captains argue over whether there should be a vegan option on the menu as opposed to agreeing how best to steer around an iceberg.
Icebergs like WW3, bringing manufacturing jobs that left overseas, how to maintain our civil liberties and Bill of Rights, how to get rid of the income tax, crony capitalism, and getting rid of corporate person hood.
People that you know, people that subscribe to the Right or the Left, tend to get hung up on the social issues. Social issues are moral choices. They are easily solved by using the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court just ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. Case closed. Or at least it should be.
Take abortion. A very hot topic that some people don't even want to talk about because of past experiences of conversations becoming to "hot" for them to handle. Well, you can talk to me about it, because I don't get "hot" anymore. I'm going to say something that is the crux of the entire pro-choice/pro-life: No one, not one side or the other can adequately decide when life begins. Even if one side brought "scientific" evidence proving their side was right, the other side wouldn't believe it. Pro-life people take the side that, well, we don't know when life begins, so let's err on the side of immediately. Pro-choice people take the side of somewhere in the middle of the second trimester to the first breath... oh, it's my body, I'll do what I want with it (a very Libertarian view point). So, what abortion is is a moral question. As such, it has no place in the law that separates church from state (or sacred from secular). The law hasn't, nor will ever adequately be able to, define when life begins. All it can do is assume that as long as the baby is inside the mother, the law can only deal with the mother. So it is always, and always has been, and always will be, the mother's choice of what to do with the baby. In Rome, the woman would take abortificients, nowadays, it's the morning after pill. The State makes no law on abortion but in terms of a position, looks at abortion as socially deviant, or taboo. That's all it can do. It can only say, "No one likes abortion. No one is excited to have one, and if one is going to happen, it is a result of stupidity, safety, and/or rape." But they exist.
I just gave two examples of social issues. As I said, these are important issues for people as individuals; details in individuals lives that as counted as single in every separate case, is the minority in a country majority.
As long as it takes before we hit an iceberg issue, will be as long as we will all squabble and bicker about the single, social issues.
And that is a pity. Right now, the Left should be mobilized in every city decrying any future war with Iran. The Left should be educating others about the prevalence of "false flag" attacks used to goad the American people to war. The Gulf of Tonkin was a "false flag" attack. In 2005, Robert McNamara admitted that the Navy had dressed a laundry ship up like a fighter ship and then blew it out of the water, blaming the North Vietnamese and getting us into a war that lasted years and killed scores of men, women, and children.
A war with Iran will be met by Russia, China, the entire Middle East and a host of other allies and enemies. It will create a world war.
Instead the entrenched Left is squabbling about what the Republicans are doing.
What is the Right doing? The theological base of the Right is Christianity. As Christianity is being turned into a superstitious "pagan-like" pariah of the masses by the rising belief system known as "science" (I say belief system because most people are not members of the scientific community and therefore take as truth that which is, in the "scientific community" are known as hypothesis, therefore a "relying on the belief" state of mind of masses who aren't scientists, more on this later), it can only turn it's withering, dying, clenched fist on things that it claims to be the last word on, i.e. the social/moral issues of society, yet holds an ever tenuous grip on. That is why there is such debate. The Religious Right can fight the evils of transsexuals, but what about economic theory? What about science? No. Not science. Birth control? You got it. Anything that is, and only is, mentioned (or not mentioned!) within the first and last covers in one book can the Religious Right take cause and fight.
Both the left and the right, for the most part are fighting an inane battle amongst themselves over issues that the majority a) don't experience, or b) are already cool with. This battle that, as I said, is like a little cat fight between two alley cats in the alley's of Hiroshima at about 8:10 A.M. on August 6, 1945, it will not be remembered.
What will be remembered is whether the American people stood up and took offence at our eroding civil liberties. Whether we stood up to rulers in Washington and said, "We don't want your fucking war, so you better fucking not get involved, and if you try to blow something up, like the Statue of Liberty, you're going to see Greece-style rioting in the streets."
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/statue-of-liberty-next-on-hit-list/
Survival issues are these issues. The real issues. Without jobs, there is no economic stability. Without economic stability, there can be no peace. Without peace there can be no justice. Without justice there can be no freedom.
As we are watching these two sides duke it out, I believe that neither side represents the will of the educated populace.
To counter the position of the Republicans, you can't put the money changers in charge of a country and expect the same libertarian/sovereign rights you got from the founding fathers. If you believe that you are better/stronger by being richer, than you have subscribed to the mental illness known as social Darwinism. Further, you will tend to see the bottomline ideal, as opposed to the human cost reality of cutting spending on social programs.
To counter the position of the Democrats, you need to maintain a strong middle-class in order to allow the citizen to have the choices of what and how to live their life according to their beliefs; you need to bring the jobs back home, and you need to do it now. The ideal that the government can help everyone and still have enough money is based on a reality in which manufacturing and living wages are occurring. Without living wage jobs, there will only be fiat (or without effort) money being pumped into the currency pools of nations.
The Republicans and the Democrats are running on social issues. These are issues that are only relevant when the country that they crop up in is an economically healthy and prosperous country.
Issues like gay marriage, pro-life/pro-choice, affirmative action, immigrant amnesty, birth control, etc. These are important issues. I agree that they are. But as a passenger on the seat of the Titanic, it is like watching two ship captains argue over whether there should be a vegan option on the menu as opposed to agreeing how best to steer around an iceberg.
Icebergs like WW3, bringing manufacturing jobs that left overseas, how to maintain our civil liberties and Bill of Rights, how to get rid of the income tax, crony capitalism, and getting rid of corporate person hood.
People that you know, people that subscribe to the Right or the Left, tend to get hung up on the social issues. Social issues are moral choices. They are easily solved by using the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court just ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. Case closed. Or at least it should be.
Take abortion. A very hot topic that some people don't even want to talk about because of past experiences of conversations becoming to "hot" for them to handle. Well, you can talk to me about it, because I don't get "hot" anymore. I'm going to say something that is the crux of the entire pro-choice/pro-life: No one, not one side or the other can adequately decide when life begins. Even if one side brought "scientific" evidence proving their side was right, the other side wouldn't believe it. Pro-life people take the side that, well, we don't know when life begins, so let's err on the side of immediately. Pro-choice people take the side of somewhere in the middle of the second trimester to the first breath... oh, it's my body, I'll do what I want with it (a very Libertarian view point). So, what abortion is is a moral question. As such, it has no place in the law that separates church from state (or sacred from secular). The law hasn't, nor will ever adequately be able to, define when life begins. All it can do is assume that as long as the baby is inside the mother, the law can only deal with the mother. So it is always, and always has been, and always will be, the mother's choice of what to do with the baby. In Rome, the woman would take abortificients, nowadays, it's the morning after pill. The State makes no law on abortion but in terms of a position, looks at abortion as socially deviant, or taboo. That's all it can do. It can only say, "No one likes abortion. No one is excited to have one, and if one is going to happen, it is a result of stupidity, safety, and/or rape." But they exist.
I just gave two examples of social issues. As I said, these are important issues for people as individuals; details in individuals lives that as counted as single in every separate case, is the minority in a country majority.
As long as it takes before we hit an iceberg issue, will be as long as we will all squabble and bicker about the single, social issues.
And that is a pity. Right now, the Left should be mobilized in every city decrying any future war with Iran. The Left should be educating others about the prevalence of "false flag" attacks used to goad the American people to war. The Gulf of Tonkin was a "false flag" attack. In 2005, Robert McNamara admitted that the Navy had dressed a laundry ship up like a fighter ship and then blew it out of the water, blaming the North Vietnamese and getting us into a war that lasted years and killed scores of men, women, and children.
A war with Iran will be met by Russia, China, the entire Middle East and a host of other allies and enemies. It will create a world war.
Instead the entrenched Left is squabbling about what the Republicans are doing.
What is the Right doing? The theological base of the Right is Christianity. As Christianity is being turned into a superstitious "pagan-like" pariah of the masses by the rising belief system known as "science" (I say belief system because most people are not members of the scientific community and therefore take as truth that which is, in the "scientific community" are known as hypothesis, therefore a "relying on the belief" state of mind of masses who aren't scientists, more on this later), it can only turn it's withering, dying, clenched fist on things that it claims to be the last word on, i.e. the social/moral issues of society, yet holds an ever tenuous grip on. That is why there is such debate. The Religious Right can fight the evils of transsexuals, but what about economic theory? What about science? No. Not science. Birth control? You got it. Anything that is, and only is, mentioned (or not mentioned!) within the first and last covers in one book can the Religious Right take cause and fight.
Both the left and the right, for the most part are fighting an inane battle amongst themselves over issues that the majority a) don't experience, or b) are already cool with. This battle that, as I said, is like a little cat fight between two alley cats in the alley's of Hiroshima at about 8:10 A.M. on August 6, 1945, it will not be remembered.
What will be remembered is whether the American people stood up and took offence at our eroding civil liberties. Whether we stood up to rulers in Washington and said, "We don't want your fucking war, so you better fucking not get involved, and if you try to blow something up, like the Statue of Liberty, you're going to see Greece-style rioting in the streets."
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/statue-of-liberty-next-on-hit-list/
Survival issues are these issues. The real issues. Without jobs, there is no economic stability. Without economic stability, there can be no peace. Without peace there can be no justice. Without justice there can be no freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)