It is clear to me that most people are scared of the little understood Mind, but that they are all troubled by its operations.
The Mind seems to be the spiritual part of the person which governs our perception of, interaction with, and effect on the universe. The spirit seems to be the psychological control center of the brain, especially the conscious part. It seems almost synonymous with God and definitely somewhat removed from our consciousness. It seems as if there are three parts to the life of the person: the body, the spirit, and the mind. The mind seems to observe and react to the situation of the body and the spirit so as to advance one's interests while protect oneself from harm, both bodily and spiritually.
By faith, the mind hears the suggestions of the spirit and works to establish peace and security for the individual. At times, this work appears to be real and miraculous, while at other times, it appears to be unreal and deceptive. The former appears to operate on the principle of industry and respect and peace, while the latter seems to be driven by anger, fear, doubt, idleness, and disrespect for nature.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Republican Failures and Government Shortcomings of 2006
Republicans appear to be unable to deliver on key promises and American expectations when it comes to:
- Fiscal Responsibility with a Balanced Budget Ammendment, Tax Reform/Simplification/Fairness (FairTax) and Elimination of Debt
- Social Responsibility with Welfare Reform/Privatization (especially Social Security)
- Civil Respect and Freedoms with Protections on civil liberties, privacy, justice, and legal and government transparency
- Stronger Democracy with measures which increase voter turnout and increased government dependence on the same
- Foreign Strength with Respectful Alliances and Clear, unilateral advancement of American interests; disable threats and respect foreign peoples
- American Independence with solely American command of American troops
- Military Superiority in space and especially against ICBM (long range missile) threats (work is just beginning in those areas
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Increasing the Population
A recent article commemorated the US population 300 million mark, and I salute her for it; though I believe that she should open her borders to much more legal immigration having only the requirements of English proficiency and lawful intent (free English courses offered and police background checks required). She should also reject criminals (after reparations) to their home countries (transfered to their home government's jurisdiction).
Some argue that an increase in population is bad, but I say that nothing could be farther from the truth, unless of course you are trying to make slaves of the existing population to your will. It is true that resources are finite, but we can hardly tap into them all, for nature is far greater than us and we keep getting smarter everyday. The important point is that every person earns at least as much as they spend (no subsidies or grants). True, every person adds their own set of needs and wants, but at the same time they must also offer services to meet the needs and wants of others, which in value exceeds their own consumption. Therefore the net result is that there is more of an increase in resources and services than there is a demand on the same concerning each individual, thus leaving a net increase for every addition to the population.
A study revealed that there is enough land in Texas alone for every American family to live on a 2 acre plot of real estate. Obviously, land is not an issue, for we are very good at building up even if the population rose to such heights that ownership of a quarter acre was not possible for every single American family (a population increase of 800%, assuming we are only limited to living in Texas, never mind California and Alaska, and the other 47 states for that matter).
An increased population brings increased competition, increased specialization and talent, increased culture, and more diverse ideas and communication. It brings a stronger country when the population is raised for success. The increase in demand for food with increased populations certainly raises the costs of food (which is good for the agricultural sector), thus revealing the insanity of our subsidized destruction of crops. Larger populations increase the potential for social and economic circulation (much like the life blood of the body). In conclusion, there exists no negative argument against an increased population which isn't immediately countered with a larger positive argument for it.
If there exists any problems associated with larger populations they are erroneously confused with the root problems of poor family, social, or governmental systems. Problems must be expected from children who are raised to fight goodness, and love evil. Societies which rejected children or foreigners border on the evils of isolationism and racism, and create selfish, foolish policies which quickly undermine the foundation of their strengths and successes. Governments undermine their economies and the freedoms of their citizens when they establish masters and slaves by creating inequality, as in the current partial, progressive tax system which allows no privacy or impartiality and by redistributing wealth by grants/subsidies, and by targeted, free services. All of these problems are independent of population and completely based on politics and inequality. So America, open your borders to good people interested in integrating into our english-speaking societies and remove your ïllegal' laws which establish inequality and injustice.
Some argue that an increase in population is bad, but I say that nothing could be farther from the truth, unless of course you are trying to make slaves of the existing population to your will. It is true that resources are finite, but we can hardly tap into them all, for nature is far greater than us and we keep getting smarter everyday. The important point is that every person earns at least as much as they spend (no subsidies or grants). True, every person adds their own set of needs and wants, but at the same time they must also offer services to meet the needs and wants of others, which in value exceeds their own consumption. Therefore the net result is that there is more of an increase in resources and services than there is a demand on the same concerning each individual, thus leaving a net increase for every addition to the population.
A study revealed that there is enough land in Texas alone for every American family to live on a 2 acre plot of real estate. Obviously, land is not an issue, for we are very good at building up even if the population rose to such heights that ownership of a quarter acre was not possible for every single American family (a population increase of 800%, assuming we are only limited to living in Texas, never mind California and Alaska, and the other 47 states for that matter).
An increased population brings increased competition, increased specialization and talent, increased culture, and more diverse ideas and communication. It brings a stronger country when the population is raised for success. The increase in demand for food with increased populations certainly raises the costs of food (which is good for the agricultural sector), thus revealing the insanity of our subsidized destruction of crops. Larger populations increase the potential for social and economic circulation (much like the life blood of the body). In conclusion, there exists no negative argument against an increased population which isn't immediately countered with a larger positive argument for it.
If there exists any problems associated with larger populations they are erroneously confused with the root problems of poor family, social, or governmental systems. Problems must be expected from children who are raised to fight goodness, and love evil. Societies which rejected children or foreigners border on the evils of isolationism and racism, and create selfish, foolish policies which quickly undermine the foundation of their strengths and successes. Governments undermine their economies and the freedoms of their citizens when they establish masters and slaves by creating inequality, as in the current partial, progressive tax system which allows no privacy or impartiality and by redistributing wealth by grants/subsidies, and by targeted, free services. All of these problems are independent of population and completely based on politics and inequality. So America, open your borders to good people interested in integrating into our english-speaking societies and remove your ïllegal' laws which establish inequality and injustice.
The Threat of North Korea
North Korea poses a grave threat to all and differs little from Iraq, except that she has no resources of value. Her dictator is killing her own people for the military power to fight America. The world strongly resisted the US invasion of Iraq against a ruthless dictator bent on the destruction of Israel and America. Similar resistance is found with this equally ruthless dictator. North Korea stole our nuclear secrets, secretly implemented a nuclear program based on them, took our money as funding for the very weapons they intend to use against us, openly broadcast their desire for war with us by a nuclear dud. We've put up with them long enough and now it is time to move our military assets to bear on the situation, as they leave no other option.
Secure all weapons of mass destruction. Leave a small force in Iraq to train the Iraqi forces to maintain security, and threaten the nuclear option for the next 8 years (on condition that Iraqi forces and operations remain inside her own borders) on any country, especially Iran, who attempts to violate her borders or fund any group which violates her borders or control any city within her borders. Posture all military units on the borders of North Korea, declare a DMZ on the country's borders, and tell them to stand down for a military invasion using strategies which expose us to minimum risk. Prepare the use of non-conventional weapons where needed/appropriate. Secure and destroy all weapons, and their systems, plans, technologies, and facilities, conventional and unconventional. North Korea will be united with South Korea under South Korean government. The nuclear option will be put on the table for any country which attempts to invade South Korea for the next 8 years (similar to the Iraqi deal). American forces will then leave. Post-war humanitarian aid will be limited to food and water donations from and by third party Red Cross and other neutral, non-military organizations (at their own risk). Ask Iran to consider her own fate in light of Iraq and North Korea.
US forces must leave Iraq quickly (9 months from now, June of 2007) with a native, trained security force in place, lest there be devastating results from nuclear attacks by North Korea and Iran and their militant, terrorist allies.
Secure all weapons of mass destruction. Leave a small force in Iraq to train the Iraqi forces to maintain security, and threaten the nuclear option for the next 8 years (on condition that Iraqi forces and operations remain inside her own borders) on any country, especially Iran, who attempts to violate her borders or fund any group which violates her borders or control any city within her borders. Posture all military units on the borders of North Korea, declare a DMZ on the country's borders, and tell them to stand down for a military invasion using strategies which expose us to minimum risk. Prepare the use of non-conventional weapons where needed/appropriate. Secure and destroy all weapons, and their systems, plans, technologies, and facilities, conventional and unconventional. North Korea will be united with South Korea under South Korean government. The nuclear option will be put on the table for any country which attempts to invade South Korea for the next 8 years (similar to the Iraqi deal). American forces will then leave. Post-war humanitarian aid will be limited to food and water donations from and by third party Red Cross and other neutral, non-military organizations (at their own risk). Ask Iran to consider her own fate in light of Iraq and North Korea.
US forces must leave Iraq quickly (9 months from now, June of 2007) with a native, trained security force in place, lest there be devastating results from nuclear attacks by North Korea and Iran and their militant, terrorist allies.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Telling the Truth
It has been said that "truth is the greatest virtue," and also that one should "learn the truth and the truth shall set you free," and some people even teach that one should always tell the truth. But is it true that to lie or to withold the truth is always bad?
I have long held that deceipt is a form of force in that it causes people to act against their rational will or self-interest contrary to their just desires. Is it ever proper to use force, or deceipt, and if so when and why?
Knowledge of the truth can be quite stressful, especially when you want things to be different than they are. Telling the "truth" forces others to confront ideas with which they may find conflict.
Typically, we do not possess the truth, but instead we know only our version of the truth, or our perspective tainted by our desires and philosophies. When we believe that a person is mean, we tend to only see those things which justify that view. When we are dishonest, we tend to superimpose that character upon all others, believing that other people are generally dishonest.
In general, we can only have two effects on others: positive (empowering) or negative (harmful). The only rational course of action is to influence our friends positively and our enemies negatively. Contrary to the well-known saying: Knowledge is not always power. Knowledge may destroy desire, morale, and even oneself, if one is unprepared to receive it, understand it, and accept it.
While it is no person's duty to empower their enemies, you are always much better off winning friends from enemies when possible (assuming the risk of betrayal is managed appropriately). Conversely, it is your duty to empower your friends, that your alliances may stand stronger in the face of adversity.
Therefore care must be taken to ensure that you always empower your friends to the degree of power with which they may be safely trusted, for no person may be assumed to hold an infinitely strong bond of friendship, except perhaps God Himself, Who is already infinitely powerful (perhaps for that very reason). Care must also be taken that your enemies are fought in such a way as to miminize one's own loss of power by the consumption of resources in the war, and to lower the overall threat to oneself consisting of the summation of all of the individual threats from each of one's enemies. Again, the authentic transformation of enemies to friends is of vital importance in that it simultaneously saves the expenditure of resources in confrontation and adds strength to your alliance.
In conclusion, the only truth which should be said is that which empowers and inspires your friends according to the respective degrees of trust, and which harms or discourages your enemies according to the threats they pose to your alliance. Insufficient inspiration and empowerment limits the potential to increase trust with one's friends, and strengthen one's alliance. Excessive harm costs excessive sacrifice in the conflict and reduces the opportunities for winning friends of your enemies. The optimal balance requires great wisdom and rational consideration.
-by Andy Landen
I have long held that deceipt is a form of force in that it causes people to act against their rational will or self-interest contrary to their just desires. Is it ever proper to use force, or deceipt, and if so when and why?
Knowledge of the truth can be quite stressful, especially when you want things to be different than they are. Telling the "truth" forces others to confront ideas with which they may find conflict.
Typically, we do not possess the truth, but instead we know only our version of the truth, or our perspective tainted by our desires and philosophies. When we believe that a person is mean, we tend to only see those things which justify that view. When we are dishonest, we tend to superimpose that character upon all others, believing that other people are generally dishonest.
In general, we can only have two effects on others: positive (empowering) or negative (harmful). The only rational course of action is to influence our friends positively and our enemies negatively. Contrary to the well-known saying: Knowledge is not always power. Knowledge may destroy desire, morale, and even oneself, if one is unprepared to receive it, understand it, and accept it.
While it is no person's duty to empower their enemies, you are always much better off winning friends from enemies when possible (assuming the risk of betrayal is managed appropriately). Conversely, it is your duty to empower your friends, that your alliances may stand stronger in the face of adversity.
Therefore care must be taken to ensure that you always empower your friends to the degree of power with which they may be safely trusted, for no person may be assumed to hold an infinitely strong bond of friendship, except perhaps God Himself, Who is already infinitely powerful (perhaps for that very reason). Care must also be taken that your enemies are fought in such a way as to miminize one's own loss of power by the consumption of resources in the war, and to lower the overall threat to oneself consisting of the summation of all of the individual threats from each of one's enemies. Again, the authentic transformation of enemies to friends is of vital importance in that it simultaneously saves the expenditure of resources in confrontation and adds strength to your alliance.
In conclusion, the only truth which should be said is that which empowers and inspires your friends according to the respective degrees of trust, and which harms or discourages your enemies according to the threats they pose to your alliance. Insufficient inspiration and empowerment limits the potential to increase trust with one's friends, and strengthen one's alliance. Excessive harm costs excessive sacrifice in the conflict and reduces the opportunities for winning friends of your enemies. The optimal balance requires great wisdom and rational consideration.
-by Andy Landen
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The Physician
The world needs physicians, not doctors, and counselors, not psychiatrists. Physicians heal the root problem, while doctors merely bandage the symptoms. Counselors resolve the mind, while psychiatrists simply numb its pain. Now pain killers are valuable in many ways, but they themselves are not the solutions to our problems. To many people trying to escape reality, only to realize that the fight only complicates and creates further problems.
The foundation of healing is identifying root causes and resolving them and ultimately, each individual solely holds that responsibility for oneself. Just as the body is the best physician for its physical wounds, the mind is the best physician for its mental/spiritual wounds. But unlike the body, the mind must choose whether to live or to die, to hope or to fear, to love or to hate, to be at peace or at anger. Thus the physician of choice is self, and salvation comes through this embrace of life: hope, love, and peace.
The foundation of healing is identifying root causes and resolving them and ultimately, each individual solely holds that responsibility for oneself. Just as the body is the best physician for its physical wounds, the mind is the best physician for its mental/spiritual wounds. But unlike the body, the mind must choose whether to live or to die, to hope or to fear, to love or to hate, to be at peace or at anger. Thus the physician of choice is self, and salvation comes through this embrace of life: hope, love, and peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)