We Hold These Truths…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In the latter part of the 18th century, a group of citizens “declared” themselves. They continued a long history of the search for true freedom for all people. They wrote words, that in my opinion, represent the most outstanding statement on what is required to have a free society. They fought and died for these ideals. They founded a land on these ideals. When asked what had been the outcome of their work, Ben Franklin famously said “..a republic, if you can keep it.” To me it is these words that are America. This is the heart of the American Dream, the soul of “We the people.” No one can understand the Government they left to us without feeling the words are true. This came first, the Constitution was a codification of these ideals, a formulation of the American conscience. If you do not have the heart of America, you will not understand the conscience and morality of America.

As it turns out, Ben was right. “If you can keep it.” The idea of liberty was attacked from the outset by forces that desired only to enslave the citizens, and follow the Pirate’s Creed: “take all ye can, and give none back.” Now, two centuries later, the dream they had, and the plan they created to allow that dream to flourish are in tatters. Vigilance was required, if we wanted our republic, and we slumbered. It did not happen in a day, it has been happening all along, with wins and losses on both sides. In my youth I realized we had drifted far from the ideals of the founders, that even then, something was very very wrong. I spent my whole life search for an answer, trying to understand where and how we had gone wrong. What I learned was that we did not listen, ever.

From the start, we were warned of the wolves at our door, and all along the way patriots have stood to speak warnings, and even face down the evils that lurks nearby, ready to devour us. We did not listen. Jefferson (who actually penned the words of our declaration) warned of the dangers of an Elitist Tyrant or Oligarchy using our freedoms not as tools for liberty but as weapons for our destruction. He was followed by another and another. In every generation, patriots have stood tall and proclaimed the evil lurking in the shadows.

The Devil’s Pitchfork, the weapon that will destroy any hope ever of a free society, and enslave all men to the whims of a few. The tree prongs of its trident are Militarism, Corporatism, and Financiers. I say “financiers”, as I do not know a better word to describe those who make their living off usury. Those who fought to create this dream, and founded a nation based on the hope of a free society, knew the dangers. America was never intended to have a standing army. In the middle of the 18th Century, Corporations were widely considered bad things, powerful tools that could easily become deadly weapons and they needed strict controls to be useful. Interestingly enough, the father of Capitalism is considered a fellow named Adam Smith , who penned “The Wealth of Nations” Smith was not entirely interested in the idea of Corporations (and certainly saw them as a detriment to a free market). Given the horrific failures of Corporations in Europe at the time of his writing, he was certain they were a failed concept, and doomed to extinction. For Financiers, the history of America up until the 1860’s shows a constant ongoing war between the Government and the Financiers. Each time they managed to acquire some control over the economics of the America, they nearly destroyed it with their avarice and sociopath attitudes about the equality of all citizens.

The 20th Century was their reign. I am sure they believed that had won. And now, as I look around, I suddenly have hope. Each time in history, they have been thrown down by a citizenry that is, to be quite frank, sick of their shit. At one point their humiliation was so complete they had to abandon the name of their Political Party, it was so held in disdain by the general public. And now, right before us, it is happening again. While the corruption and maleficence of any elections make them little better than a bad Monty Python skit, this time I note with some interest the rise of not one but TWO wildly popular candidates, both who seem doomed at the hands of the establishment. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The corruption of the system is more apparent in this cycle than ever before (I watch Ron Paul robbed of not one but two nominations). While it is not uncommon for a candidate to get a certain amount of popular support on the fringes of politic thought, I can never remember a time when there were TWO of them at once, and both were actually the people’s choice. What I find completely remarkable is not the differences between them, but their similarities. Both are saying one thing. The Elite have taken too much, we the people must find a way to control, or eliminate, them to ensure a free society. It is the approach they take to that end that varies, but both have the same intent, and speak loudly of the Soul of America right now. While the Coronation of Queen Hilary still seems the inevitable choice of the Elite, and most likely outcome of the election, this time it bears the danger of a rebellious citizenry, tired to death of a overtly corrupt Government whoring itself out to a privileged elite, and anxious to do something about it. Once again I hear the words of John Kennedy: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

The Gangs of America by Ted Nace.

The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin

 Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Times by Carroll Quigley 

Tragedy and Hope 101 by Joseph Plummer


“2012, Undisclosed Lab, Key Finding is FOXP2 fragment: Preliminary testing recovered what appears to be a fragment of the Starchild Skull’s FOXP2 gene. This fragment differs from the corresponding human gene fragment in 56 positions along the DNA strand. This gene is highly conserved between species and is essential to human development.  In humans, it is linked to speech and cognitive function. This particular gene fragment is absolutely identical in every human and apes and has only ONE difference in monkeys, lending weight to the hypothesis that the Skull, with 56 differences, is not a human being. This finding, if proven, will raise many questions about how it developed and what abilities it may or may not have had. The results obtained need to be reproduced, verified, and extended.”

I am so fascinated by anomalies. Anomalies show us the cracks in Science, they represent the stuff “outside the box”, the fertile ground of wonder and discovery. There is no doubt anomalies are real things, and yet, they can’t be, not without changing our worldview, at the very least. A perfect human skeleton dated 350 million years ago. Its really hard to explain that in terms of “our current understanding”. An iron tool found in the Great Pyramid in a place that HAD to have held since its original construction. A worm with no mouth or anus. Science rarely even tries, and the lengths they go to to avoid talking about anomalies can be as amusing as the anomalies themselves.

The Starchild Skull is a great example. According to wikipedia:

The Starchild skull is a deformed human skull, likely to have been that of a child who died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, which paranormalist Lloyd Pye has claimed is of extraterrestrial origin.

Oddly, the researchers don’t seem to make such grandious claims:

“THE STARCHILD SKULL is a 900-year-old bone skull found in Mexico in the 1930s. The Starchild Project has been working with independent researchers attempting to determine what this unusual skull is since 1999. The results uncovered by the research team ruled out all known deformities, and presented the scientific community with a genetic and physical profile so diffferent from human that it could be a new species.”

At the very least, the skull is interesting, and the anomalies it presents (far from the diagnosis of hydrocephalus) are worthy of exploration. I could go on and on about it, really, I could, but its all anatomy and physiology and science, so if you are interested go to the website and read as much as you like. I suggest comparing it to the explanation that is available on Wikipedia. This may reveal another crack in the facade of science, and certainly push you towards the light. At the very least, you may glimpse why I am so fascinated by anomalies.

I end up with this “annotated” Wikipedia definition:

The Starchild skull is a deformed human (there is no evidence this skull is fully human) skull, likely to have been that of a child (the evidence of its tooth wear suggests it lived quite some time) who died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus (the diagnosis of hydrocephalus is thoroughly wrong), which paranormalist (not sure Pye would appreciate that tag) Lloyd Pye has claimed is of extraterrestrial origin (never claimed as more than a possible explanation).

Now I do not know what the skull is, other than an artifact. I do not say it came from space, or died of a childhood disease. I simply do not know. But here I clearly see deliberate misinformation by established science, and the cracks in the facade that show the deeper underlying mythology under which science labors. I see the skull as a point of wonder, of a venue for research. The very purpose of science.

My Socialism is showing!

At the end of the day, I am an anarchist. I believe any law is a bad law, and any government is too much government. I am not so foolish as to believe such an ideal state could exist in today’s world, but none the less it is the ideal I believe I should strive for. As I see it, only one law is really necessary:

Do what you will, so long as it harms none.

One would imagine such a political philosophy would set me down somewhere on the Right, but on a recent trip to The Political Compass I ended up on the Libertarian left. A bit right of Gandhi, but still firmly planted on the left. I found some of the questions hard to answer from my point of view. *Are the rich taxed too highly?* is an example. One the one hand, no one should be taxed, but on the other, if there is going to be a tax, then the rich should pay their share (which they don’t). I found myself in that quandary a few times, and picked the *well, I don’t like it but that’s the way it is right now* answer.

My attitudes about economics, though, are what pulled me left. While I willingly advocate the idea of it, human kind is not yet ready to assume the responsibility for a laissez faire economy. Allowing what are basically economic warlords to rape and pillage the countryside is probably bad, it is not conducive to a free market, and leads to untold misery. We shouldn’t need to tell people its bad, but we do, obviously. I advocate a light hand by society on business, but a hand none the less. At least until we attain the moral fiber to know when our own accumulations are hurting others. I have long said a formal definition of avarice should do fine, but it still needs to happen.

Perhaps the real answer is simply to disengage the entire system. Systems such as Uber, Bitcoin and the use of local currency, as is used in Ithaca, NY, are steps in this direction. Each time we strengthen the local community, we take a step towards regaining our freedom. Creating local markets, like farmer’s markets, that encourage local businesses to produce the products, decreasing reliance on corporate mediocrity. (That is all corporations have really given us. Our “furniture” is made of cardboard, trash. In the rush for profit, a corporation will do whatever is cheaper, faster, and inevitably of less quality.)

With localization comes control. it is far easier for a town to engage the avarice of a few of its citizens, to make meaningful change, than it is to hope to create meaningful change in a country of 300 million people.

Quantum Gnosticism

In the 20’s Einstein proposed a Unified Field Theory. He was reluctant to publish it, as he felt it was not quite fully baked. Some time later, Kaluza improved upon it, and a while later Klein improved it some more. All through the 20’s it was a fad type of thing. Kaluza offered that it was 5 dimensional, and all types of speculation as to what this 5th dimension might look like were the egghead equivalent of Water Cooler chat. In the end it was discarded by most. General Electric engineer Gabriel Kron took it up and actually showed that while it may not be complete, it may have applications. Of course, most of us know that Newtonian Mechanics is not complete, but it is very useful if you are playing pool, so it is reasonable to allow this idea.

There is no doubt that during the 30’s and 40’s a lot of people were looking at applications of the work, discarded though it was. Germany went so far as to pretty much republish the work in a Nazi friendly way. Joseph Farrell presents some interesting evidence that on both sides of the war, research, and even experiments, were conducted. Very recently, I read of a *proof of concept* that was performed.

I have always felt that that piece of self we call, variously, “consciousness”, “mind”, “spirit”, and “soul” referred to the perceived experience of a field, much like light. Light is a small part of a much larger field, EM. It just so happens our experience of a small part of it results in the sensation of light and color, but the field itself has vast reached outside of that, called infra red and ultraviolet. Likewise, I feel that our experience of consciousness is simply a portion of a larger *field*.

Here is the thing. We have never found the slightest hint of consciousness in all our science. Even the most current theories have little to offer, giving way to a mechanistic view of reality, or falling prey to some mythology. It seems to me that consciousness is a huge part of experience. One wonders why it doesn’t attract more interest, really. We keep running into walls that seem to say it is there in some fashion. Reality is only there is something observes it. Stuff like that.

So what do we have here? well, I see an undefined dimension and an undefined effect. Where, in our 4 dimensional universe, does this unique ability to observe and remember come from? it doesn’t. A description that it arises mechanically or chemically is sadly missing a very important aspect of it. It is everywhere, even in the absence of such mechanisms. Do you REALLY believe that Mount Everest exists in another state of being simply because you are not observing it? Why aren’t things in the world more based on what I see than what you see, or anyone else sees? A tree I see can be photographed, and we will all agree on WHICH tree, out of the billions that exist, it is in the picture. It exists outside of my observation of it. Well, then, who is observing it? God? Can we say it is observing itself? No floating being, no Great Omnipotent Deity. Simply nature unfolding.

Here’s a mind trip for you. I was at Cornell on the 5th of May in 1977. I was there to take part in a one of my favorite rituals, watching the Grateful Dead, a rock band renowned for their extended improvisations. While I was there I made a tape of the concert, in violation of a few copyright laws, I am sure, but the band tolerated, even encouraged it (they would actually allow a few to take the signal directly from the soundboard). Now I have a tape of it, which I can play anytime. When I do I will have a certain experience, memories will become active. Now let us suppose you were not there. I play the tape for you. How real is each level of this experience? The most real is me being there, next is me listening to the tape, and then you listening to the tape, having not been there.

I offer that the experience we call “consciousness” is the action of the lost dimension. Much as the varying frequency of EM moving through the vast volume of the universe manifests as light to us and can be observed, that is secondary to the fact that the EM exists because it follows a basic axiom. *I am, therefore I think*. As with a plane flying high over the ocean, we cannot SEE the ship, but we know where it is by the wake, so I see consciousness. We cannot see it yet, but we can see the results of its truth.

Subatomic particles are not always here. They come and go, vanish and reappear. What’s up with that? Clearly we can say it is part of the plan, since we can and do observe it. Where does science say they go? Ah, well, they do not know, but one explanation they will put forth is “another dimension”, and I will heartily concur. What we are seeing is the results of the 5th dimension.

The wise have more or less told us this since times lost. The Chinese actually went so far as to attempt to codify it, or to explain an extant codification of it. We know it as the I Ching (yijing). Most people who know about it will speak in terms of Divination and Fortune Telling. It is actually much more developed, it talks about the arising of “all things” from the state of complete potential (Yang) to complete manifestation (Yin). It is quite specific, and very elegant. All things. No God, no spirits, no higher beings of any kind. Things cycle from a state of total potential to total manifestation. First they are here, in some sense of the word, then they are gone, in some sense of the word. The yijing also maps the actions of DNA with amazing accuracy. It is quite possible that “as above, so below” can take on an entirely new depth. The same order that allows everything in the universe to manifest follows the order that allows our biological form.

Once again, I cannot say enough that I believe it is ultimately possible for each of us to begin to explore this idea. The practice of Vipassana Meditation, done with even moderate regularity and intent, will reveal this to the individual. It exists there, but it is clouded by thoughts (what the teachers refer to as “Monkey Mind”). Once the thoughts are calmed, it arises and can be experienced directly.

Religion, Dogma and the Codification of Theology

If Science has failed to provide the explicit knowledge because it leans too heavily on belief and mythology, Theology has failed equally to provide implicit wisdom for the opposite reasons. Theology, in its most perfect form, is completely implicit, subjective and personal, “gnosis”. When attempts are made to codify the experience, theology becomes a religion, a set of commonly agreed upon beliefs that will guide and inform the individual in their path towards gnosis. When these beliefs become codified within the religion, it is called dogma. Like the imperfect schools of Science relying on common beliefs and mythologies to guide empirical investigations, religions attempt to create an explicit “proof” for itself, setting out the “proper” thoughts, behaviors and moral attitudes. As a result, an individual consciousness becomes mired in all kinds of ideas and perceptions that lead away from the idea of gnosis, or any meaningful personal experience of reality.

The Buddhists have a saying: “If you see Buddha on the road, kill him.” Any distraction from a personal experience of the Universe is a hindrance to attaining fulfillment. Thou art God. It can be said that most religions actually have this concept as a teaching, though it is ignored. In Christianity, this is the true meaning of the Christ, the anointed one. But as with the “rules” of empirical science, the notion is quietly ignored in favor of the use of common dogma as a path of enlightenment. Any search outside the parameters of accepted beliefs is reviled, prosecuted and its practice is punished, often severely. To the practitioner who discovers their own gnosis lies outside the accepted dogma goes the title “heretic”. It only stands to reason that if you have a group all practicing the development of a personal understanding of reality, you will invariably have differences, and while these differences could be seen as part of the tapestry of the Universe, in practice, most do not share them, and endure the shame and guilt of having the “wrong” experiences, feelings and beliefs, as well as the fear of the public humiliation that comes from expressing them as authentic.

I try very hard to limit the dogma in my theology. Obviously, it is as impossible to rid oneself of dogma as it is to practice “pure science”. I believe it can be minimized, though, and I believe that a method known as Vipassana Meditation provides that path. While there are varying levels of dogma present within the various schools, in its purest form, this technique is has one simple offering. “If one’s attention is placed upon one’s breath, remarkable things happen.” The closest it comes to any dogma is an idea called “the 5 Hindrances”; Desire, Aversion, Sloth, Restlessness and Doubt. It is easy to learn and practice. Focus attention of the breath, as the attention is distracted, simply note the distraction and return to the breath. Vipassana is taught almost everywhere in the world, the teachings are free, and beginning in a group can be very helpful. There are many wonderful writings on the subject, I like the book “Wherever You Go There You Are” by Jon Kabat-Zinn. The stated goal of this practice is to experience something called “Mindfulness”, which is defined simply as “living in the present moment.” My experiences using this technique are actually hard to talk about. One thing I know very well from it is that my thoughts are not all of me. Something inside me is able to observe each though. The sublime self, the beginning of being and knowing the true me and the first step towards a path of self fulfillment and a true understanding of my Universe.

The Mythology of Science

Theology and Science share much in common, and this makes sense, they are “two sides of the same coin”. They both attempt to describe the nature of existence, to make sense of our experience. They both start with a few commonly accepted “truths”, which are hardly self-evident, in both cases, and then use “rules of production” to produce a set of facts about the world.

I once attended a math lecture (perhaps it was Fuller, I really don’t remember) and the speaker pointed out that even the most basic “facts” of mathematics are explicitly taken from a certain point of view, and not necessarily one that is better than any other. The example 1+1=2 was used. The value of 2 is open for argument, and by changing our focus only slightly, a number of other answers can be derived.

Nothing shows the more arbitrary decisions of Science more than its own history. It seems that in the time roughly around -500, there were two civilizations making an important decision, how the search for knowledge would proceed. One chose “objectivity” that is, a study of the objects of reality, while the other chose to follow “process”, how all things come into being. It is worth noting that neither was right, nor wrong, and both have mutually failed humanity.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” -Robert Jastrow (Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute)

Knowledge is power, and to be in control of how people think is more important than what people think, power corrupts. The need for mythology, crafted stories to teach the masses. There is no better example for Western Science than “Evolution”. Certainly, the process of evolution is a powerful force in nature, and it is based on valid observations and experiments, but what began as an observation of a fact of nature has become the entire story of the history of life, and is accepted as a fact. Well, not really. Any honest biologist will tell you (informally, of course) that there are glaring holes in the theory of evolution as it is currently told. An entire book was written of some of the “anomalous evidence” that can be presented. Called “Forbidden Archeology” it is an encyclopedic look at valid archaeological finds that contradict the current model, and require huge adjustments to accommodate. Rather than do this, Science clung to the myth and behaved badly. They took the route of creating a confrontation of “Evolution” and “Creationism”, two equally false stories. If one didn’t adhere to “evolution” you were a “creationist”. Of course, as so many researchers have proven again and again, this isn’t true, the current model of human evolution does not describe all the facets of human existence.

In 1931 a mathematician named Kurt Gödel published a paper entitled “Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der “Principia Mathematica” und verwandter Systeme”, “On Formally Undecidable Propositions of “Principia Mathematica” and Related Systems”). In that article, he proved for any computable axiomatic system that is powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers that if the system is consistent, it cannot be complete and the consistency of the axioms cannot be proven within the system. In simple English, in any sufficiently powerful logical system there are errors which can not be anticipated.

With this stunning realization comes the need for mythology to fill in the blanks. Just like in theology, what can not be explained is turned into myth. Any detractors from the myth are heretics, and they meet much the same fate, they are politically and professionally ostracized, their work is banished and lives ruined.

But we believe Science, we believe the results, and this is through a filter of Mythology. In fact, believing Science is not a bit more reasonable than believing the Prophet Hermit who lives in a bread truck by the creek. But we have been taught the myths for so long that we can no longer see the forest for the trees. GMO’s (Genetically Modified Organisms) are the cutting edge of Science right now, humanity is exploring DNA, the very blueprint for bilogical life. Humanity, or members of it, are also actually changing it. From the point of view of research, I give my support to this. But, because of the way in which Science is run in the modern world, there is also a constant pressure to “make a profit” from something that, at least in its present state, is pure research. Turning rogue DNA loose in our biosphere is a terrible idea. For one thing what IF something goes wrong? We have no idea how to undo it. Every form of life on Earth shares DNA, and most of it is much the same as everything else (most life varies in its DNA construction by less than 30%) so if some mutation is placed into the DNA, it may quickly infiltrate all life, and possibly not in a good way, we don’t know. In fact, the genie is out of the bottle in this case, humanity has released many genetic modifications into the environment, with some foreseeable results. Rogue DNA has infiltrated the DNA of lifeforms it was not intended for. The outcome is unknown, but it is also inevitable.

And so bring out the myth. On the one side are “researchers” who claim to have experimental evidence that none of this is true, GMO’s are harmless, even beneficial, even as food. On the other side are “researchers” who claim to have experimental evidence that GMO’s are indeed harmful to nature, and probably shouldn’t be eaten. Both are groups of equal “researchers” and much of the work on both sides is valid, but can you see only ONE can be right? Both views cannot exist logically, yet both do. So we are back to Gödel, and his theory that any science powerful enough to describe DNA has errors that cannot be anticipated.

Of course, both schools of thought deride the other, saying they are liars and cheats, that they are deliberately ignoring evidence, and in some cases making it up. Well, yes, its part of the myth. I have no doubt that both sides are equally engaged in their respective mythology. Perhaps it is simply a point of view, if one expects a result, it is more likely to occur. Our oriental thinkers would nod knowingly here.

The downside here is we, especially in the US are needing to make a few decisions on this science. GMO’s have infiltrated our food supply to an alarming degree, considering how little is actually known about it. And if we attempt to educate ourselves, we find ourselves in the middle of a fairy tale battle of knights in armor. Perhaps the best course of action is to take the whole thing back to the lab, lock it away, disregard the need for “profit” in research and let Science try and do it job.

At the very least, label it. Hey, Monsanto’s cafeteria serves ORGANIC food. The President eats ORGANIC food, in fact, it seem, a great number of the proponents of GMO in the wild avoid it in their diet. Telling, if you ask me.

Concerning wealth inequity in America

I was going to talk a bit about the idea that Science has betrayed itself, and humanity. Then I came across this observation:

“The discomfort of the American people is not entirely surprising, given that inequality in America today is twice as bad as in ancient Rome, worse than it was in Tsarist Russia, Gilded Age America, modern Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen, many banana republics in Latin America, and worse than experienced by slaves in 1774 colonial America.”


I have to say, I am certainly aware of the inequity that exists in America right now. I am aware that if *minimum wage* in the US had grown along the same lines as the rest of the economy, it would now hover around 20 USD an hour, or about 40,000 usd a year. I am aware that 80% of Americans share about 8% of the economy. And that is just using the US numbers. If one were to look globally, the situation would be MUCH worse.

Now my income is around 18K a year, and I make more than the minimum. I am thinking of how much different my life would be if I made 40K. My weekly paycheck would increase from around 300 a week to 800 a week. Right now I clear my expenses with about ten dollars a week of “disposable” income. I cannot go to a movie, out to dinner, or out for drinks. Yet if you added 500 USD a week to my pay, well, I would have 510 USD disposable income each week! What a massive difference it would make in my life. Of course, there is no talk of keeping the minimum wage in line with the economy, the talk now is about $10.10, or roughly half of that. While this would increase my income from 300 wk to 400, the difference would simply be a slightly better subsistence lifestyle. I would be able to eat a little better, maybe even have a treat once in a while. I would be able to get some badly needed clothes and shoes and the such. But really, it won’t make much of a difference, and when I imagine the inflationary effect of any increase, I simply imagine that my life would largely be unchanged, and the inequities of American Corporatism would remain largely unchanged.

As a conservative, this brings up two issues for me, the first is the belief that a free market is the best economy, and the second is a cautious stance towards any actions by the government, since that means I am less free. When I consider the free market, I realize there is no “free market” in America. 90% of all consumer products are made by 10 Corporations. I believe this is exactly because we have allowed the government to meddle in the Economy is unhealthy ways. This makes me even more hesitant to imagine the government trying to “fix” the inequities America is facing. If society moves too much towards Socialist answers, we will pay the price for it, loss of productivity, loss of innovation, and most seriously, the loss of motivation.

Avarice (greed, for the vocabulary challenged Americans of the 21st century) is one of the “7 deadly sins”. We all know greed is bad, we are all taught as children to share and be nice. Yet, there is no economic definition of greed. there is no point where society looks at a CEO and remarks their actions are immoral. sinful, hurtful. Clearly, anyone would agree that taking all and giving back none is bad, sinful, shameful, but there is no point at which we can say it is happening in any particular situation. I am sure the 1% think this is just fine. I am also sure the other 99% realize something is wrong, but have no compass by which to express it.

To me any meaningful change has to address the ideas of Capitalism and Free Markets. Right now I lean towards the idea of proportional resource distribution, that is, limit growth across the board to keep things fair and equal, and still allow for reasonable rewards for innovation and motivation. Switzerland recently failed to pass a law that I thought was quite a good start. They wanted to limit income within an organization to a 12:1 ratio, meaning no one in any organization could make more than 12 times the least paid individual. In real terms this means that if someone is paid $10 an hour, then no one could make more than $120 an hour with that company. This is exactly what I believe is the core of Regan’s “trickle down economy” and maintains the ability for any motivated individual to be well rewarded for their endeavors, while at the same time setting up a guideline of when one crosses the line into avarice. I read a while ago that in a survey, most Americans were more strict, favoring 10:1 (and, in fact, believe that was the case, more or less).


I am not foolish enough to believe that any of this will ever come to pass without a true miracle. A brief survey of history will confirm that as peasants are lowed to subsistence lifestyles, and then even farther, they will revolt in an attempt to change things, and become the elite, doing the same thing, beginning the same cycle. Perhaps this is what Jefferson meant when he quipped that a Democracy needs a good revolution ever once and again. I fear that this only spreads the wealth on an ocean of blood. Recently, an area of Spain had some massive “communist” revolution, where startups were making all employees shareholders, and trying to improve the distribution of wealth within and organization. It worked. Until they outgrew their staff and had to hire more people, then the existing staff became the shareholders, and the new staff became the slaves. They changed nothing, they simply turned the page. Inequity immediately sprung up everywhere in this semi-utopian dreamland, and I even read the beginnings of Unionization. What goes around, comes around. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I believe there is some good to be had by realizing it doesn’t have to be this way. Perhaps the story of the 100th Monkey is actually true.

In the end, what it comes down to is people want to be happy and free. “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. If they do not experience this, they start becoming dissatisfied. Once the dissatisfaction reaches a critical state, then, and only then, will they decide to do something about it. A government that does not keep the citizens from this point deserves what it gets. The people, on the other hand, do not. The horror and bloodshed of a revolution is both unnecessary and unacceptable, especially when it is so easily fixed that an idiotic right wing conservative can find an answer. Of course, in saying that, I wish to point out that the right wing in America is not very conservative, and I find the ignorance and hate flowing from the right in the US now a betrayal of true conservative thought, and a detriment to the American Culture. Hey, but that’s me.

A Perfect Storm

Every generation has, as it advanced in years, declared the world is about to end, and longed for a mythological time known as *the good old days*. The fact that as I approach 60, I have developed these exact feelings can therefore be considered the normal and average response of some of my generation towards the future. This being said, I have to wonder if the other generations that muttered these dark words faced the challenges the modern world does, for it certainly seems to be that there is a perfect storm brewing that doesn’t bode well for humankind.

First, I see the condition of the planet, our home. There is no small amount of argument as to its causes, and very little attention paid to its reality. The water is polluted and filthy, and so is the air. The natural actions of the planet aside, this is reaching a critical point. Whether the planet is warming or cooling, it is most certainly changing, by its own action or the actions of humanity, the conditions are becoming both bizarre and hostile. I have noticed the wind seems both stronger and harsher lately, and so does the weather. The sun is fierce. I won’t even start here on humankind actually meddling with the weather except to say that some are quite proud of their ability to do so, and even have conventions.

And second is the condition of the Human Family. In every aspect, humanity is facing problems undoubtedly of its own making. In my own country I expect to see a revolution, and I actually believe in many ways it has already begun, and I am reminded of the words of John Kennedy: if peaceful revolution does not succeed, violent revolution is inevitable. One thing I notice is that while a portion of the US population tries as it may to change things peacefully, there is a strong movement by officials to militarize against the people.  At the same time these same forces work constantly, and often illegally, to disarm the people so they are unable to defend themselves.

“I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: ‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.’ The Commissioner refereed to this and said that he appreciated my presence in the conference in spite of the differences between us. And I had to justify my standpoint as courteously as I could.” — Mahatma Gandhi

Peaceful revolution works much better when Kennedy’s “inevitable” is a possible response to continued refusal to accept the will of the people. In the early days of the American experience, secession provided a similar check against an over reaching Federal government. If a state disapproved, it could leave, and they threatened to on a regular basis.

Thomas Jefferson was, ideally, an anarchist. He believed the smaller the government, the freer the people, and no laws to be the ideal state. He realized that such a society would have to be intelligent, well informed and morally responsible. The primary purpose of government is to provide these tools, through education for all citizens, the honest and open access to information and the absolute freedom to seek moral guidance without interference of discrimination.

Gnosticism posits that moral guidance is found through personal reflection on the sacred. Buddha once mentioned “If you see Buddha on the road, kill him”. By this, I believe he meant that any distraction from the seeking of a personal knowledge of the sacred is at best a crutch, at worst a chain. Robert Heinlein would echo this thought in his novel *Stranger In A Strange Land*. Thou art God.

Science and Theology represent the  polarity of knowledge, and as such are bound together by the rules of polarities: opposition, inter-dependence, inter-consuming, inter-supporting and inter-transforming. They oppose each other, yet neither can exist without the other. As one grows, so the other shrinks, Science grows by consuming Theology, and Theology grows by integrating Science. In the end, Science will never supplant Theology, nor can Theology exist without Science, their dance is eternal. These days, it seems to me, Science and Theology have taken stances of opposition, and forsaken the other qualities they share, to their own demise, as well as humankind’s. We have arrived at a time when we can do the unthinkable, and have no moral compass with which to tell us not to do it. Science is, by decree, absent of moral considerations.

The Perfect Storm.