Recently Jerry Lewis passed away. For decades I was involved in supporting the Muscular Dystrophy Association, MDA. Mr. Lewis had put on a annual fundraiser for the on Labor Day. He started doing it in 1966 and was let go in 2010. He did it for 44 years and raised over a billion dollars for the charity. In 1972 Lewis made a film called, "The Day the Clown Cried". I has never been shown in public, though at least one copy exists. Lewis said the film would never be seen because it was horrible and I believe it was; but, still want to see it because I think it could have been great. I read the script.
IMSDB- THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY.
The Greeks said there were only so many stories, they classified them as comedies and dramas and recognized the seven plots available to either. The essence of comedy is not the plot, it is the ending. Let me explain. Comedies have happy endings and dramas do not. This is true for action films too, it is true for all stories. If a story The feelings you have when you end a story is either happiness (comedy) or sadness (drama). The two masks that symbolize theater, the smiling mask and the frowning mask.
Comedy and drama both work best when there is something to cheer for. Most comedy goes for the silly underdog; but, the challenge he faces has to be real for the comedy to work. You have to care about him. You have to want to see him succeed, you have to wish him well and seek a happy ending.
The problem with "The Day the Clown Cried" is that they wanted to have humor in a movie with a horribly sad ending, a drama. You can mix humor into a drama; but, not too much and it has to be a very unique style of humor, gallows humor, not fun humor.
The film is about a clown in Germany who is sent to a concentration camp, jail, for Germans that ends up being side by side with a true concentration camp, one for Jews and Slavic people. The character that Lewis plays is a sad character, devoid of self. He is a broken man uselessly trying to fill out the papers that will get him released as he is a political prisoner, he insulted the idea of Hitler being the leader in front of the Gestapo.
Lets be clear about something, Jerry Lewis was a Jew and his parents were Russian Jews. Looking from the outside, attempting to make a comedy about the Nazi's gassing children seems like a really stupid and horrible idea; but, he wasn't making fun of them. It could have been his own family and he knew that.
I read the script for the first time tonight, it is linked above. The writing is terrible and the writer seems lost to me, he indicates which parts he thinks can possibly be played for laughs. I believe the writer was told to find places where the jokes could go in; but, it was never meant to be a comedy. There is a movie called "Life is Beautiful" that pulled off a very similar script; but, any humor was incidental to the story.
After making the film, Jerry Lewis stopped making films for years. He said he lost his artistic vision because of that film. Humor is tough, it is always a tight wire act and the performers usually die till they get really good at it.
Comedians frequently make great dramatic actors; but, in my opinion, Lewis never was. I think Don Rickles was a great dramatic actor (just watch Casino); but, Lewis played silly in comedy. Of silly comedians, I think Jim Carrey might just be able to pull this movie off.
I don't know that this movie deserves to be remade. I believe it could be powerful; but, too much time has passed and the dialogue is horribly immature. Francis Ford Coppola could have made this a good film; but, as much as I like him, Tarrentino could not make this film. If made, I don't think it would make tons of money, in fact, it is really depressing watching a clown lead children into a gas chamber. The biggest mistake the film made was focusing on the clown, on Lewis. It should have about the lack of compassion of the guards who were willing to send children off to be killed with a clown, just to make their jobs easier. If anyone bothers reading the script, let me know what you think.
Friday, September 15, 2017
Different Excuses Same Solution
YouTube - Irish Pay Water Tax - Corporations Dodge Billions: Russell Brand The Trews.
YouTube - A Tax on Bottled Water: Jorge Vinueles at TedXZurich.
YouTube - Bill English continues to attack Labour Plan over water tax plan: RNZ Checkpoint.
When you hear the same solution being suggested in different countries but the excuse changes, it is because they believe that one society will like one excuse more than another; but, it is still just excuses. The reality is, they want to tax everything except income. They want to tax you for living, but not succeeding. Watch the water games in your town and you will see it coming too.
YouTube - A Tax on Bottled Water: Jorge Vinueles at TedXZurich.
YouTube - Bill English continues to attack Labour Plan over water tax plan: RNZ Checkpoint.
When you hear the same solution being suggested in different countries but the excuse changes, it is because they believe that one society will like one excuse more than another; but, it is still just excuses. The reality is, they want to tax everything except income. They want to tax you for living, but not succeeding. Watch the water games in your town and you will see it coming too.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Hillary Clinton Does Not Believe in One Person One Vote But Hates the Electoral College?
MSN - CNN - Hillary Clinton: Time to abolish the Electoral College. You have to appreciate the hypocrisy. She is totally in favor of rigged primaries and super-delegates that represent only the donors a in crowd; but, is concerned about the electoral college. The electoral college is more representative of this nation than is the Democratic National Committee's rules for choosing nominees.
Without one state casting a single vote, she already had one third of the Democratic delegates for the primaries. I wrote about it at the time, still on this blog with links to the corporate mainstream media talking about it and why Bernie could not win. Just imagine if we had an electoral college that gave the votes of one third of the whole country to a specific party in advance of anyone voting. That is how the Democratic primaries work. The Republicans are not much better; but, they actually more democratic. I wrote about that too when the primaries began.
Both parties want to fix primaries so that you only have two choices and both parties choose corporatists who only look out for the wealthy. They only argue over homosexuality, what it means to be citizen, abortion and religion. They agree on not regulating banks or business and cutting back on how much we help the poor.
Without one state casting a single vote, she already had one third of the Democratic delegates for the primaries. I wrote about it at the time, still on this blog with links to the corporate mainstream media talking about it and why Bernie could not win. Just imagine if we had an electoral college that gave the votes of one third of the whole country to a specific party in advance of anyone voting. That is how the Democratic primaries work. The Republicans are not much better; but, they actually more democratic. I wrote about that too when the primaries began.
Both parties want to fix primaries so that you only have two choices and both parties choose corporatists who only look out for the wealthy. They only argue over homosexuality, what it means to be citizen, abortion and religion. They agree on not regulating banks or business and cutting back on how much we help the poor.
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Middle American and the Hypocricy and Bigotry of Hillary and the Corporate Media
Imagine growing up in the Midwest or South today, imagine being the kid of an unemployed auto worker or steel worker or manufacturing worker who voted for Trump because they wanted their jobs back and hearing day in and day out in the media that your father is a bigot, fascist and racist because you voted for Trump and he was the only one saying he would try and get your dad's job back. I want you to think about that.
The corporate media and the establishment are creating a hatred for themselves by constantly attacking those who complain that we are killing jobs in the Midwest. They are losing any trust with these Midwest kids whose parents voted for Obama and then Trump. They see the lie, they see the hypocrisy and that is why they are listening to alternative voices. What do you think these Midwestern kids will grow up to think about the establishment?
I will speak personal experience and I am a very educated coastal socialist. When I went to university in Boston, I found more bigotry by coastal elites against minorities than I ever did from southerners. I also found that Midwesterners were more bigoted than the easterners or southerners and found the west to be the least bigoted against minorities.
Lets look at women and men's perspectives on each other. What do coastal young men want from women? Just sex. I mean that's it, they don't want kids or families. The only value coastal young men see in women and the well to do too, is sex. The more they have, the less young men care about women other than for sex and they seek no commitment. The coastal women assume that because it is just for sex, their relationships have no other meaning and that it should be enough for a relationship. The modern feminists see no value in being a woman, only value in seeing being the same as men.
The coastal educated establishment sees no benefits in being either sex, no give, no take, no reason for commitment, just sex. The value of human relationship and commitment, unity, they see as limited to sex for a minute or two. The only value young coastal elites see in the opposite sex is the orgasm that they can achieve by being with them. They see no innate value in the opposite sex other than sex.
What could possibly be sadder than growing up in a home where your parents argue over who has to raise you and neither wants to be a parent? Why have kids when the only reason a man and woman should be together is for sex and not procreation?
Consider this, kings and queens inherit their wealth, status and power because of who their parents had sex with, not because their parents raised them to be better or deserving of trust by the rest of us. The exact same is true of our oligarchy. The whole idea of inherited wealth is due to the belief that who you have sex with should determine who owns the world. Why should who have you sex with determine who will own the earth or control a company or control an industry? I could ask this question of the Rockefellers or Fords; but, they would say that they tried to be deserving of it and trained for it. That is how oligarchies used to justify their position; but, now they don't bother justifying it other than saying they are better than the people who got screwed in the Midwest.
The benefits of having a stable society should go to those who benefit that society the most. What a concept. It is however a very old one and one that good kings used to understand. My professors begged me to become a professor and wanted me to be the world's expert on Polynesia. There are other ways to live and organize people. There are ways to organize society to benefit members based on how much they benefit the society. Not communism, under that everyone gets the same. Communism is stupid and based on the idea that all labor has the same value. It doesn't.
I doubt many will understand what I am about to write and it may seem totally disconnected from what I have just written; but, it is not. If you read the Unabomber Manifesto, you will find that he was really focused on one point. He was focused on what happens when we live in a world where your labor is no longer needed and his fear was that we would cease to have innate value because we were incapable of making a difference in any real way. He missed the point of our lives. He believed our lives only had value proportional to our ability to "achieve" more than others. Did you know that our tech leaders have written volumes on his writings? They have, you should research it.
If one were to actually bother learning from history, one would learn that technical achievement is meaningless and that human joy does not come from it. Human meaning comes from human interaction of a positive manner.
I met a missionary, I wrote about her once or twice on this blog. She moved to Papua New Guinea about 45 years ago and went to a place where the people had no written language and whose primary food source was a tree sap they made drier. The hardest thing she found teaching them was forgiveness and she was responsible for putting an end to a war that had gone on longer than they had recorded as they had no written language and only knew that they hated this other group. Still, there lives were meaningful and they continued to grow and get better and eventually made peace and enjoyed that peace with the other tribe. By the way, they are not Polynesians, they are black. Not all islanders are Polynesian, not even in the pacific. Australians are not Polynesians either. They are Melanesians.
The tech giants and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, see life about them and not about society. Life is not about what you can do to improve your situation unless you are starving to death, it is about what you can do to make things better for everyone and we are not even trying and seem to have stopped caring.
I do not expect children, sheep or the average person to understand the ways of the world. The establishment however expects them to follow right into the slaughter cages and then congratulate themselves that they won the game. This is why we teach children musical chairs is a good game when it is the opposite.
In the past a husband was expected to take care of the needs of the family, while the wife was expected to take care of the emotions and remind the husband of why what he did had value, that it had value to the family. That is the lesson of the middle class and now we are told that the only value of relationships is sex. Are we advancing as a society or in anyway when all we believe in is self?
The corporate media and the establishment are creating a hatred for themselves by constantly attacking those who complain that we are killing jobs in the Midwest. They are losing any trust with these Midwest kids whose parents voted for Obama and then Trump. They see the lie, they see the hypocrisy and that is why they are listening to alternative voices. What do you think these Midwestern kids will grow up to think about the establishment?
I will speak personal experience and I am a very educated coastal socialist. When I went to university in Boston, I found more bigotry by coastal elites against minorities than I ever did from southerners. I also found that Midwesterners were more bigoted than the easterners or southerners and found the west to be the least bigoted against minorities.
Lets look at women and men's perspectives on each other. What do coastal young men want from women? Just sex. I mean that's it, they don't want kids or families. The only value coastal young men see in women and the well to do too, is sex. The more they have, the less young men care about women other than for sex and they seek no commitment. The coastal women assume that because it is just for sex, their relationships have no other meaning and that it should be enough for a relationship. The modern feminists see no value in being a woman, only value in seeing being the same as men.
The coastal educated establishment sees no benefits in being either sex, no give, no take, no reason for commitment, just sex. The value of human relationship and commitment, unity, they see as limited to sex for a minute or two. The only value young coastal elites see in the opposite sex is the orgasm that they can achieve by being with them. They see no innate value in the opposite sex other than sex.
What could possibly be sadder than growing up in a home where your parents argue over who has to raise you and neither wants to be a parent? Why have kids when the only reason a man and woman should be together is for sex and not procreation?
Consider this, kings and queens inherit their wealth, status and power because of who their parents had sex with, not because their parents raised them to be better or deserving of trust by the rest of us. The exact same is true of our oligarchy. The whole idea of inherited wealth is due to the belief that who you have sex with should determine who owns the world. Why should who have you sex with determine who will own the earth or control a company or control an industry? I could ask this question of the Rockefellers or Fords; but, they would say that they tried to be deserving of it and trained for it. That is how oligarchies used to justify their position; but, now they don't bother justifying it other than saying they are better than the people who got screwed in the Midwest.
The benefits of having a stable society should go to those who benefit that society the most. What a concept. It is however a very old one and one that good kings used to understand. My professors begged me to become a professor and wanted me to be the world's expert on Polynesia. There are other ways to live and organize people. There are ways to organize society to benefit members based on how much they benefit the society. Not communism, under that everyone gets the same. Communism is stupid and based on the idea that all labor has the same value. It doesn't.
I doubt many will understand what I am about to write and it may seem totally disconnected from what I have just written; but, it is not. If you read the Unabomber Manifesto, you will find that he was really focused on one point. He was focused on what happens when we live in a world where your labor is no longer needed and his fear was that we would cease to have innate value because we were incapable of making a difference in any real way. He missed the point of our lives. He believed our lives only had value proportional to our ability to "achieve" more than others. Did you know that our tech leaders have written volumes on his writings? They have, you should research it.
If one were to actually bother learning from history, one would learn that technical achievement is meaningless and that human joy does not come from it. Human meaning comes from human interaction of a positive manner.
I met a missionary, I wrote about her once or twice on this blog. She moved to Papua New Guinea about 45 years ago and went to a place where the people had no written language and whose primary food source was a tree sap they made drier. The hardest thing she found teaching them was forgiveness and she was responsible for putting an end to a war that had gone on longer than they had recorded as they had no written language and only knew that they hated this other group. Still, there lives were meaningful and they continued to grow and get better and eventually made peace and enjoyed that peace with the other tribe. By the way, they are not Polynesians, they are black. Not all islanders are Polynesian, not even in the pacific. Australians are not Polynesians either. They are Melanesians.
The tech giants and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, see life about them and not about society. Life is not about what you can do to improve your situation unless you are starving to death, it is about what you can do to make things better for everyone and we are not even trying and seem to have stopped caring.
I do not expect children, sheep or the average person to understand the ways of the world. The establishment however expects them to follow right into the slaughter cages and then congratulate themselves that they won the game. This is why we teach children musical chairs is a good game when it is the opposite.
In the past a husband was expected to take care of the needs of the family, while the wife was expected to take care of the emotions and remind the husband of why what he did had value, that it had value to the family. That is the lesson of the middle class and now we are told that the only value of relationships is sex. Are we advancing as a society or in anyway when all we believe in is self?
12 Links For You to Read, With Commentary.
Forbes - One Solution to California's Drought: Tax Water. The intent is to tax everything other than income in a time when most will not have any jobs.
The Mercury News - Opinion: Tax water to provide clean water to Californians whose supply is contaminated. They want to tax the water and the air; but, they apparently cannot agree on the excuse, and that is all it is.
Fox - Taxing organic products could solve California water problem, experts say. Now they argue about taxing organic produce to solve a water problem? NOOO, to increase the price of organic so the majority of people can only afford non-organic.
Yahoo - Newsweek - Robert Reich: On Labor, Tragically, Trump Was Right. The article points out that the wealthy are spending more and more to control elections and buy politicians which is why we are gutting public services like education and what workers are paid. We all know this, in fact, only one in ten even trust our businesses, banks or political leaders. This by the way is why there is an increase in propaganda to think about everything other than following the money.
MSN - Country Living - Parents Can't Figure Out Why This Student's Math Problem Was Marked Wrong. They are intentionally destroying education for all but the well off who attend private school. Want proof? Read the article or answer this question, what is 5 X 3? I would say the answer is 15, nope according to how our children are being taught it is 3 X 3 X 3 X 3 X 3. In fact if your answer it is 5 X 5 X 5, you are wrong. Why are we teaching kids that math is harder than it needs to be? Oh, yeah, so they won't learn or like learning.
Fox - Mark Hamill donates to campaign to remove Donald Trump from Twitter. I like this, people are actually willing to donate money to someone else to buy a majority position in Twitter, rather than getting the stock themselves, to prevent our President from being able to speak directly to us. Hmmm. Why not just start a new site that works like Twitter and say that what makes your site different is that you don't allow the President on it or other people you don't like? The people who control this nation really still have not figured out how to control the internet; but, they are trying.
MSN - Business Insider - Trump reversed regulations to protect infrastructure against flooding just days before Hurricane Harvey. I really enjoyed this one, they implied that Trump was responsible for the hurricane damage because he cancelled an executive order that Obama passed that has never been in effect and wasn't planned to be in effect by Obama.
Independent - Scientists think they have discovered the maximum age a human can live to. Something I have written about before. People are not living to be older, the top age has not changed. The difference is people are not dying as young as they used to, like we have impacted childhood deaths and early deaths; but, not the extent of life.
Fox - Trump, GOP should keep DACA but scrap birthright citizenship. Why are people on the left and right both against making these people citizens? DACA didn't make anyone a citizen, yet the media acts as if these people were safer under the rule which wasn't a law and the right wants to say being born in America doesn't make you a citizen. It is all about creating two levels or more of citizenship and watch if accomplished only a few will get the right to vote.
Fox - House moves quickly to pass self-driving technology law. Congress is moving right now to approve laws preventing states from making their own laws. Funny, I thought the Republicans were in favor of states rights. Hmmm. Oh, in addition, this is being done so that 150,000 self driving cars can be put on the roads by NEXT year.
Yahoo - The Independent - Donald Trump doesn't realise Ivanka 'isn't that impressive to people', says political analyst. Well, expect to see more and more articles attacking Ivanka. I guess she was the next member of his family to get all negative attention. Isn't it great that with only 6 corporations owning 90% of all the media it doesn't matter who you read or watch in the corporate mainstream media because they all speak with one voice.
Washington Examiner - FEC Dems renew bid to regulate Internet, Drudge, 'not done fighting'. Yep, the corporate Democrats want to regulate political speech on the internet because some Russians put ads on Facebook to the tune of $100,000. I wonder how many political ads the Democrats put on Facebook or the Republicans? It was a lot more. The elitists really do not understand the internet; but, they know they hate it. They hate it, free speech and democracy. They like control and monopolies.
The Mercury News - Opinion: Tax water to provide clean water to Californians whose supply is contaminated. They want to tax the water and the air; but, they apparently cannot agree on the excuse, and that is all it is.
Fox - Taxing organic products could solve California water problem, experts say. Now they argue about taxing organic produce to solve a water problem? NOOO, to increase the price of organic so the majority of people can only afford non-organic.
Yahoo - Newsweek - Robert Reich: On Labor, Tragically, Trump Was Right. The article points out that the wealthy are spending more and more to control elections and buy politicians which is why we are gutting public services like education and what workers are paid. We all know this, in fact, only one in ten even trust our businesses, banks or political leaders. This by the way is why there is an increase in propaganda to think about everything other than following the money.
MSN - Country Living - Parents Can't Figure Out Why This Student's Math Problem Was Marked Wrong. They are intentionally destroying education for all but the well off who attend private school. Want proof? Read the article or answer this question, what is 5 X 3? I would say the answer is 15, nope according to how our children are being taught it is 3 X 3 X 3 X 3 X 3. In fact if your answer it is 5 X 5 X 5, you are wrong. Why are we teaching kids that math is harder than it needs to be? Oh, yeah, so they won't learn or like learning.
Fox - Mark Hamill donates to campaign to remove Donald Trump from Twitter. I like this, people are actually willing to donate money to someone else to buy a majority position in Twitter, rather than getting the stock themselves, to prevent our President from being able to speak directly to us. Hmmm. Why not just start a new site that works like Twitter and say that what makes your site different is that you don't allow the President on it or other people you don't like? The people who control this nation really still have not figured out how to control the internet; but, they are trying.
MSN - Business Insider - Trump reversed regulations to protect infrastructure against flooding just days before Hurricane Harvey. I really enjoyed this one, they implied that Trump was responsible for the hurricane damage because he cancelled an executive order that Obama passed that has never been in effect and wasn't planned to be in effect by Obama.
Independent - Scientists think they have discovered the maximum age a human can live to. Something I have written about before. People are not living to be older, the top age has not changed. The difference is people are not dying as young as they used to, like we have impacted childhood deaths and early deaths; but, not the extent of life.
Fox - Trump, GOP should keep DACA but scrap birthright citizenship. Why are people on the left and right both against making these people citizens? DACA didn't make anyone a citizen, yet the media acts as if these people were safer under the rule which wasn't a law and the right wants to say being born in America doesn't make you a citizen. It is all about creating two levels or more of citizenship and watch if accomplished only a few will get the right to vote.
Fox - House moves quickly to pass self-driving technology law. Congress is moving right now to approve laws preventing states from making their own laws. Funny, I thought the Republicans were in favor of states rights. Hmmm. Oh, in addition, this is being done so that 150,000 self driving cars can be put on the roads by NEXT year.
Yahoo - The Independent - Donald Trump doesn't realise Ivanka 'isn't that impressive to people', says political analyst. Well, expect to see more and more articles attacking Ivanka. I guess she was the next member of his family to get all negative attention. Isn't it great that with only 6 corporations owning 90% of all the media it doesn't matter who you read or watch in the corporate mainstream media because they all speak with one voice.
Washington Examiner - FEC Dems renew bid to regulate Internet, Drudge, 'not done fighting'. Yep, the corporate Democrats want to regulate political speech on the internet because some Russians put ads on Facebook to the tune of $100,000. I wonder how many political ads the Democrats put on Facebook or the Republicans? It was a lot more. The elitists really do not understand the internet; but, they know they hate it. They hate it, free speech and democracy. They like control and monopolies.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Let's Talk About DACA and Immigration
Congress establishes the rules for immigration, that is their job. Congress has not changed the immigration laws which prohibit people coming to the United States to live without approval by the federal government. Immigration is not a state's rights issue, it is a federal issue. If Congress wanted they could eliminate all immigration laws and allow for open borders.
Imagine for a moment what would happen if we eliminated all immigration laws. If you want an example of what it would look like, look at Europe. Few openly call for open borders. Hillary Clinton was exposed by WikiLeaks for calling for it in private while she denied it in public. The reason is pretty simple, the vast majority of Americans do not want open borders.
Instead of passing laws to outline what is and is not acceptable in order to move to this country, Congress left it up to Obama to institute the policy of not enforcing immigration laws. President Obama instead instituted a policy known as "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" or DACA. The biggest problem was that it didn't change the immigration "laws" one bit. Congress did not pass DACA which means it was never a law to begin with, merely a policy of not enforcing the law for the moment, that is what deferred means.
Now lets look at some other facts. It is estimated that there are millions of people in the United States illegally. Some call them undocumented but that is just word play. They are undocumented because they haven't sought or obtained legal citizenship. Children who are not citizens of this country; but, came to this country when they were under 16. In fact, you may recall the influx of minors who came to this country after Obama instituted the DACA program.
YouTube - Why So Many Migrant Kids are Coming to the U.S. alone.
The fact is Mexico allowed these people to come here from central America; but, did not allow them to immigrate to Mexico. This is a fact that the corporate mainstream media chose not to address.
The DACA program has actually exacerbated the problem by adding even more confusion over what the countries immigration policy is and that is the single biggest problem with it. DACA was never the law of the land. Because of that, President Trump is not and never has been bound by it. DACA gave an out to congress so that they did not have to actually address the issues or change the immigration laws.
With all the discussion in the media about Trump ending DACA, there is practically no discussion about what our immigration policy should be and that is a problem. We should be openly discussing it and if changes need to be made, congress should make them. That is how laws work. While the media would have you think the questions are difficult, they are not.
Lets start with the basics. Should we have immigration laws? Most people would say yes. Should those laws allow people from other countries to move here and become citizens? There are those who say we should allow people to move here; but, not become citizens. The corporations would love to have them come here to reduce wages; but, would say these immigrants should not get any benefits. In fact, our tech and business leaders have not offered to pay more in taxes to provide benefits for immigrants. They are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. That is hypocrisy.
When Trump announced his run for President, he stated he wanted to stop illegal immigration. He announced he would enforce the immigration laws passed by congress and remove people who are breaking those laws. People seem to believe in immigration enforcement and that is one of the reasons Trump was elected whether you like it or not. It should be noted that our laws allow for making asylum seekers citizens. I know, I worked with people at the church who were seeking asylum because otherwise they would be killed for being gay in their home countries.
The options available to us are vast. We can totally open our borders and give full citizenship upon people reaching this land, we can open our borders and let people come here but restrict which rights they have, we can change our immigration laws permanently allowing anyone under 16 that gets here to automatically become citizens or allow anyone under 16 that comes here to stay; but, receive no benefits or limited rights. Yu can have any combination of these things.
It should be noted that Mexicans account for an estimated 6.5 million illegal immigrants to the United States, yet, Mexico does not contribute to their well being here. Mexico sends no money to care for their people who are here illegally. Again hypocrites unwilling to put their money where their mouths are.
The media seems to think that enforcing immigration laws is wrong; but, is not willing to openly call for ending all immigration laws. Perhaps they would be willing to pay additional taxes to support those here illegally. Nope.
Living in California, these questions are not new to me.
YouTube - Harvest of Shame is the video above. It is from 1960. I recommend that you go to 49 minutes into the video and you will see that these issues are far from new, yet we continue to defer making a decision on immigration policies.
A question to be considered is one of illegal immigration and crime; but, the answer may surprise you. We do know that a large number of illegal immigrants become drug dealers. You may think this is an outrageous thing to say; but, you might want to look at the type of crime they commit. It is estimated that 80% of the 50,000 or so members of the notorious 18th Street gang are illegal immigrants. Rather than being innately bad people, selling drugs is a way to earn an income when you cannot obtain benefits or legal employment. Telling minors that they can come here; but, not receive benefits guarantees this. The question is not just one of what should our immigration policy be; but, what do we do with poor people who come here. That is not being addressed at all and DACA did not clarify it. I blame that on Obama.
The economist Milton Friedman discusses illegal immigration from an economic perspective. His conclusion was that immigration only made sense if it is illegal.
You will find that agricultural states love illegal immigration; but, they are unwilling to provide benefits to these people. It's been that way in California for as long as I have been alive. Nothing has changed and those promoting illegal immigration don't address it now.
Another question has to do with people who say that we are overpopulated and need to reduce our carbon footprint; but, then say we should allow unfettered and uncontrolled immigration. Hmmm. Lets think about this, our birthrate is negative and sperm counts in the west are down over 50%; but, we want to allow millions of people into the country that have much higher birth rates. I guess we are not really that concerned with global warming or overpopulation.
If we consider the environmental treaties that are being promoted by globalists then let me ask this. If we increase our population by 10% will we be able to increase our carbon footprint by 10% too? No, the Paris Climate Accord had us as the only country committing to decreasing our climate footprint, not China or India who are now the biggest industrial producers and don't regulate their pollution with the same technologies that we require in the west for our own industries.
Let me explain this to everyone in the simplest terms I can think of. The establishment wants the United States to agree to never use more resources in the future than we do now. That is why they talk about carbon limits. At the same time they want us to take in millions of immigrants which would otherwise increase our carbon footprint; but, they have a solution. They want Americans that already are citizens to give up what they grew up with. The tech gurus such as Zuckerberg know that there will not be any jobs for the immigrants or the current Americans so they are willing to share the table scraps with the useless eaters, the middle class and working class. They now refer to them as the precariat. You should look that up and look up the last Bilderberg meeting where it was discussed. I already wrote about it. They anticipate a world where most people have no job and live in 150 to 250 square foot rooms with virtual amusements to simulate a meaningful life. What was it the Democratic National Committee email from Bill Ivey said to John Podesta? Oh yeah he said, "And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry." Read the actual e-mail at this link, WikiLeaks.
Imagine for a moment what would happen if we eliminated all immigration laws. If you want an example of what it would look like, look at Europe. Few openly call for open borders. Hillary Clinton was exposed by WikiLeaks for calling for it in private while she denied it in public. The reason is pretty simple, the vast majority of Americans do not want open borders.
Instead of passing laws to outline what is and is not acceptable in order to move to this country, Congress left it up to Obama to institute the policy of not enforcing immigration laws. President Obama instead instituted a policy known as "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" or DACA. The biggest problem was that it didn't change the immigration "laws" one bit. Congress did not pass DACA which means it was never a law to begin with, merely a policy of not enforcing the law for the moment, that is what deferred means.
Now lets look at some other facts. It is estimated that there are millions of people in the United States illegally. Some call them undocumented but that is just word play. They are undocumented because they haven't sought or obtained legal citizenship. Children who are not citizens of this country; but, came to this country when they were under 16. In fact, you may recall the influx of minors who came to this country after Obama instituted the DACA program.
YouTube - Why So Many Migrant Kids are Coming to the U.S. alone.
The fact is Mexico allowed these people to come here from central America; but, did not allow them to immigrate to Mexico. This is a fact that the corporate mainstream media chose not to address.
The DACA program has actually exacerbated the problem by adding even more confusion over what the countries immigration policy is and that is the single biggest problem with it. DACA was never the law of the land. Because of that, President Trump is not and never has been bound by it. DACA gave an out to congress so that they did not have to actually address the issues or change the immigration laws.
With all the discussion in the media about Trump ending DACA, there is practically no discussion about what our immigration policy should be and that is a problem. We should be openly discussing it and if changes need to be made, congress should make them. That is how laws work. While the media would have you think the questions are difficult, they are not.
Lets start with the basics. Should we have immigration laws? Most people would say yes. Should those laws allow people from other countries to move here and become citizens? There are those who say we should allow people to move here; but, not become citizens. The corporations would love to have them come here to reduce wages; but, would say these immigrants should not get any benefits. In fact, our tech and business leaders have not offered to pay more in taxes to provide benefits for immigrants. They are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. That is hypocrisy.
When Trump announced his run for President, he stated he wanted to stop illegal immigration. He announced he would enforce the immigration laws passed by congress and remove people who are breaking those laws. People seem to believe in immigration enforcement and that is one of the reasons Trump was elected whether you like it or not. It should be noted that our laws allow for making asylum seekers citizens. I know, I worked with people at the church who were seeking asylum because otherwise they would be killed for being gay in their home countries.
The options available to us are vast. We can totally open our borders and give full citizenship upon people reaching this land, we can open our borders and let people come here but restrict which rights they have, we can change our immigration laws permanently allowing anyone under 16 that gets here to automatically become citizens or allow anyone under 16 that comes here to stay; but, receive no benefits or limited rights. Yu can have any combination of these things.
It should be noted that Mexicans account for an estimated 6.5 million illegal immigrants to the United States, yet, Mexico does not contribute to their well being here. Mexico sends no money to care for their people who are here illegally. Again hypocrites unwilling to put their money where their mouths are.
The media seems to think that enforcing immigration laws is wrong; but, is not willing to openly call for ending all immigration laws. Perhaps they would be willing to pay additional taxes to support those here illegally. Nope.
Living in California, these questions are not new to me.
YouTube - Harvest of Shame is the video above. It is from 1960. I recommend that you go to 49 minutes into the video and you will see that these issues are far from new, yet we continue to defer making a decision on immigration policies.
A question to be considered is one of illegal immigration and crime; but, the answer may surprise you. We do know that a large number of illegal immigrants become drug dealers. You may think this is an outrageous thing to say; but, you might want to look at the type of crime they commit. It is estimated that 80% of the 50,000 or so members of the notorious 18th Street gang are illegal immigrants. Rather than being innately bad people, selling drugs is a way to earn an income when you cannot obtain benefits or legal employment. Telling minors that they can come here; but, not receive benefits guarantees this. The question is not just one of what should our immigration policy be; but, what do we do with poor people who come here. That is not being addressed at all and DACA did not clarify it. I blame that on Obama.
The economist Milton Friedman discusses illegal immigration from an economic perspective. His conclusion was that immigration only made sense if it is illegal.
You will find that agricultural states love illegal immigration; but, they are unwilling to provide benefits to these people. It's been that way in California for as long as I have been alive. Nothing has changed and those promoting illegal immigration don't address it now.
Another question has to do with people who say that we are overpopulated and need to reduce our carbon footprint; but, then say we should allow unfettered and uncontrolled immigration. Hmmm. Lets think about this, our birthrate is negative and sperm counts in the west are down over 50%; but, we want to allow millions of people into the country that have much higher birth rates. I guess we are not really that concerned with global warming or overpopulation.
If we consider the environmental treaties that are being promoted by globalists then let me ask this. If we increase our population by 10% will we be able to increase our carbon footprint by 10% too? No, the Paris Climate Accord had us as the only country committing to decreasing our climate footprint, not China or India who are now the biggest industrial producers and don't regulate their pollution with the same technologies that we require in the west for our own industries.
Let me explain this to everyone in the simplest terms I can think of. The establishment wants the United States to agree to never use more resources in the future than we do now. That is why they talk about carbon limits. At the same time they want us to take in millions of immigrants which would otherwise increase our carbon footprint; but, they have a solution. They want Americans that already are citizens to give up what they grew up with. The tech gurus such as Zuckerberg know that there will not be any jobs for the immigrants or the current Americans so they are willing to share the table scraps with the useless eaters, the middle class and working class. They now refer to them as the precariat. You should look that up and look up the last Bilderberg meeting where it was discussed. I already wrote about it. They anticipate a world where most people have no job and live in 150 to 250 square foot rooms with virtual amusements to simulate a meaningful life. What was it the Democratic National Committee email from Bill Ivey said to John Podesta? Oh yeah he said, "And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry." Read the actual e-mail at this link, WikiLeaks.
An Open Letter to Stefan Molyneux
I was watching a video by a man named Stefan Molyneux. He openly states that he is an Atheist, nothing wrong with that; but, his reason for being one is a little weak and not that uncommon. As my long time readers know, I am a Christian and even preached for five years receiving not one penny, not even for gas for my car. In fact, preaching cost me thousands of dollars which went to the church and a food pantry. In fact this blog began as a discussion of reality which eventually became a proof of God. That version of this blog was deleted years ago as was the second iteration of this blog.
The current version of this blog does not focus on philosophy or religion, it mainly focuses on technology and social, economic and political corruption. This third iteration of this blog is more about the lies we are told than the truths that are out there.
Mr. Molyneux is an intelligent and articulate person seeking the perfect moral code while arguing there is no God. I usually do not address such people because I am not evangelical. I believe that if God wants your attention he can get it without my intervention. I believe it is my job to have an answer for the hope that is within me when asked. As for my blog, it is just where I express my beliefs and all are free to leave a comment telling me I am an idiot or don't even bother reading it. My blog is not my mission and I still have that many readers. Currently I have approximately 120,000 views is 7 years or so. Hard to say how many when I deleted the first two versions. I do not advertise, monetize or promote this blog anywhere. Never have.
The video I watched of Mr. Molyneux made it clear to me that he would like to know if there is a God. In the video he discussed why he became an Atheist. It wasn't because he did not see the world around him. He did another video where he said the greatest proof for God was our sentience, what our thoughts do and are capable of. He became an Atheist because he could not understand how a God could let us be so evil to each other and how people who claimed to believe in him could ignore the morals of the bible. His discussion was very sincere and deeply personal and emotional for him. Perhaps I am wrong; but, I think he wants to believe. He also wants to believe we will get better here on earth, we will not. People have not improved over time, the same follies, the same corruption and the same selfishness exist side by side with the love and selflessness. We each make our own choices and none are bound by the decisions of the past by others.
Life is very much about seeing how the range of people, emotions, deals with a range of environments. Life is about defining ourselves, not having God define us completely. That is the thing about free will, it is a gift that allows us to choose who we will be and we only really know ourselves when tested to the fullest extent and we only really know others when they are too. Each person's test is individual. The people that have it easiest in life tend to be the most smug, selfish and heartless; but, not all. It is harder for people to find true empathy for the pain of others when they have been raised believing all others are here to make their lives better. That is the mistake Mr. Molyneux makes. My brother used to say that if he was born on earth to make everyone happy, he sure did a bad job of it. It was a joke he used to explain that it was not his job to please the world and it is a pretty good one.
Where does the concept that God is your personal concierge come from? Where is the reasonableness in saying I won't believe in God unless he turns the world into a gigantic fricking Disneyland where all are happy all the time come from? Not the bible, not history. If we only focus on the evil men do then we miss the good that they do. Jesus said to focus on the good.
This is a video about one of the greatest chefs in the world, Thomas Keller. He is the owner of "The French Laundry" a world renowned restaurant in California. It is my ambition to go there one day, one of the few things I would like to do before I die. Mr. Keller lives to bring joy to others through his cooking. The four going to taste his food are famous food people who other chefs look to; but, Mr. Keller blows their minds and they say his food is perfection. His response it perfect, you cannot attain perfection because as soon as you do it is gone. He is not a philosopher by trade and may not have said it perfectly; but, he is right. Perfection is not one thing, one result or even one concept. Perfection is a process, a progression which results in ongoing change. Perfection is not a rock, it is a process. It is seeking a simple question, what is the best that I can be and what is the best we can be, one question because in the end we are all connected and we all effect the world around us. Learning that simple answer takes a lifetime. I had to die to learn it.
The second heart attack was different than the first. The first was scary and I was alone. My wife at the time had filed for divorce and was having an affair with another man, not her first. It was Christmas and our tradition involved seeing an aunt of mine. I wasn't feeling well. I told the kids and their boyfriends and my wife at the time to visit my aunt as usual but that I could not make it as I was not feeling well. While nobody knew it but me, my aunt did not want to see my wife at the time as she knew about her adultery and our impending divorce, so did my kids but they were adults almost or mostly. After they left, I felt the pains and dizzy and confused and everything I was taught I should expect when having a heart attack (which doctors had said I would have for years). I lay in bed by myself while everyone else is celebrating Christmas and had my first heart attack. I didn't bother calling anyone, not ever 911. As it occurred I could only feel fear. I was absolutely terrified, embarrassed and didn't want to call anyone. Maybe I just couldn't feel any worse than I already did.
The second heart attack happened in Baker, California. I think it was about a year later. I was headed to Las Vegas from Los Angeles and it began, or at least I knew it was coming for some reason, about three miles out in the middle of nowhere. I knew I had to get off the freeway or I could kill someone. I drove into Baker and parked in the Starbucks parking lot. It was worse than the first one, it hurt more physically and I went away for a moment. I was between here and there. I was just as scared as the first time; but, something else happened. I had to decide how I wanted to leave this world and I decided that I wanted to leave it with no excess baggage. I was happy with my choices and results except one, the divorce. I resented her deeply and what she had done to our family. I forgave her and the man she was cheating on me with, in front of our kids. I believe that was the moment I was saved, at least I immediately got better and my blood pressure went back to normal. Well, normal for me at the time, it was still dangerously high. I didn't see a doctor for a few years later and he told me that he could tell from my tests that I had a heart attack. He also didn't think I would last a year; but, I have lasted a few.
A couple of years after the second heart attack, or at least one I think, I had a different kind of experience. God communicated with me. I wasn't on any medication at the time. After the second heart attack I saw my first doctor and he put me on a whole bunch of pills for my high blood pressure. I stopped taking them before I had my God experience. I won't call it a "religious" experience. It was just me communicating with a higher being, another sentience that was vastly more expansive than me. I call that being God; but, God never told me his name. Well sort of. I asked him his name and he said he didn't have one, I pressed the question (the only time I remember pressing any question, hmmm) and he said I could call him Jaime. I laughed because the only Jaime I could think of was on an old comedy show called "Get Smart". Months later I got the joke, Jaime sounds like "I am me". He told someone else that was his name and I knew that. I laughed like nobody's business when I figured it out months later.
My regulars know my writing is usually a mess until you get to the end and see the conclusion I draw. Mr. Molyneux was talking to a person who believed in God because he had an experience. I don't believe in God because of the experience I had, I was believer before. One of the things that occurred to me while I was my experience was that we can only reach so high, to meet God he has to want to reach down to us and that means that we see something really scary to us. When yo meet God you see just how imperfect you are and it hits you hard. I don't believe anyone who says they spoke to God and didn't immediately feel shame for their imperfection. That shame is then overwhelmed by how much he loves us.
People tell me they would like to hear from God, NO they wouldn't. I didn't away from experience that I can at least prove to myself, thinking that I was holy. LOL. I didn't walk away thinking how great I was. I walked away wanting to do better and he didn't tell me what that was or what to do. That is the God I met, the one that told me it was okay to choose who I wanted to be. Mr. Molyneux wants a vengeful and controlling God. That is my answer to those who say they cannot believe in a God that allows evil in the world.
People don't want proof of God's existence, their existence is proof, sentience is proof, the universe is proof. God said it in the old testament, he doesn't need to talk to you to prove he exists, his proof is everything around you, all you observe and all you feel. God is the greatest sentience in the universe and he made us sentient and free to chose who we become and continue to become. He is the process that lets us grow, that lets us say I am me.
I believe spiritual experiences are individual and not proof that God exists except for the person who has it. I don't believe most people that claim to have them and I didn't believe the guy that Mr. Molyneux spoke to. I believe Mr. Molyneux wanted to believe the person in the video, I believe Mr. Molyneux would like proof of God. He already has it. Sentience is the proof of God, not what you see or experience, the fact that you see and experience. To prove there is not God, one must prove that they are the only sentience in the universe or prove they do not exist. Good luck with that.
I amazed when people try and control God or define him. I cannot and I met him. He joked with me and it took a couple of time to even believe that he told jokes. He deals with us as we able to be dealt with and only when we are able to deal with him. I think that means when we no longer hate. That's a tough one.
I will say this, if you wish proof of God to the extent where you need to communicate with him, you have to forgive every harm ever done you first and everyone that has cause harmed. That sounds difficult; but, it is only after that that you can forgive yourself for everyone you harmed. You have to accept that you are not perfect to accept that neither is anyone else, it is a paradox. You have to forgive all sin to help you to forgive your sin so that you can communicate with God. Why seek a world where forgiveness is unnecessary if forgiveness is the only way to accept all sentient beings as being of importance? Why believe that the only that can exist is Santa Clause bringing only joy to good little boys and girls. Why not accept that we chose to be good or not and that carrots and sticks used to make our decisions for us is preferable to choosing for ourselves?
I am amused by Christian and Atheists that believe that being chosen by God for anything means good times. LOL. I think the Jews are the chosen people, how is that working out for them? They were chosen for the concentration camps, they were chosen to be hated by the world. Even black Africans don't accept the Jews. I went to college with the educated blacks from Africa and a couple of them wanted to nuke Israel and had never met a Jew in their life. The Jews have been welcomed and thrived in three places, New York, Los Angeles and Israel. To be chosen by God is to be tested not given unlimited cookies. Jews give more to charity than other groups as a percentage of income.
Why do bad things happen to good people. There is none good but God. Show me that you are good or tell me a story like the Masons do how about you can become perfect, the unobtainable/ Show me how you are perfect and have never caused harm to another before you tell me how the world is bad because we are not all perfect or don't stop all imperfection.
We all wake up to a slap on the butt. We breath our first breath and try and figure out what it all means. We grow and begin to question. We are immediately beset upon by people trying to manipulate us to their advantage. Those benefitting the most from how things are spend the most effort trying to convince the rest of us that the world is fair, it is not. We can se that but try to find an explanation for it, to justify the world or figure out what needs to change. Nothing needs to change and it is unfair while we are growing. Growth is about defining ourselves faced with an unfair world. One does not grow when one is not tested and challenged to make real choices.
You can go 60 minutes into his video to hear what I am responding to.
The current version of this blog does not focus on philosophy or religion, it mainly focuses on technology and social, economic and political corruption. This third iteration of this blog is more about the lies we are told than the truths that are out there.
Mr. Molyneux is an intelligent and articulate person seeking the perfect moral code while arguing there is no God. I usually do not address such people because I am not evangelical. I believe that if God wants your attention he can get it without my intervention. I believe it is my job to have an answer for the hope that is within me when asked. As for my blog, it is just where I express my beliefs and all are free to leave a comment telling me I am an idiot or don't even bother reading it. My blog is not my mission and I still have that many readers. Currently I have approximately 120,000 views is 7 years or so. Hard to say how many when I deleted the first two versions. I do not advertise, monetize or promote this blog anywhere. Never have.
The video I watched of Mr. Molyneux made it clear to me that he would like to know if there is a God. In the video he discussed why he became an Atheist. It wasn't because he did not see the world around him. He did another video where he said the greatest proof for God was our sentience, what our thoughts do and are capable of. He became an Atheist because he could not understand how a God could let us be so evil to each other and how people who claimed to believe in him could ignore the morals of the bible. His discussion was very sincere and deeply personal and emotional for him. Perhaps I am wrong; but, I think he wants to believe. He also wants to believe we will get better here on earth, we will not. People have not improved over time, the same follies, the same corruption and the same selfishness exist side by side with the love and selflessness. We each make our own choices and none are bound by the decisions of the past by others.
Life is very much about seeing how the range of people, emotions, deals with a range of environments. Life is about defining ourselves, not having God define us completely. That is the thing about free will, it is a gift that allows us to choose who we will be and we only really know ourselves when tested to the fullest extent and we only really know others when they are too. Each person's test is individual. The people that have it easiest in life tend to be the most smug, selfish and heartless; but, not all. It is harder for people to find true empathy for the pain of others when they have been raised believing all others are here to make their lives better. That is the mistake Mr. Molyneux makes. My brother used to say that if he was born on earth to make everyone happy, he sure did a bad job of it. It was a joke he used to explain that it was not his job to please the world and it is a pretty good one.
Where does the concept that God is your personal concierge come from? Where is the reasonableness in saying I won't believe in God unless he turns the world into a gigantic fricking Disneyland where all are happy all the time come from? Not the bible, not history. If we only focus on the evil men do then we miss the good that they do. Jesus said to focus on the good.
This is a video about one of the greatest chefs in the world, Thomas Keller. He is the owner of "The French Laundry" a world renowned restaurant in California. It is my ambition to go there one day, one of the few things I would like to do before I die. Mr. Keller lives to bring joy to others through his cooking. The four going to taste his food are famous food people who other chefs look to; but, Mr. Keller blows their minds and they say his food is perfection. His response it perfect, you cannot attain perfection because as soon as you do it is gone. He is not a philosopher by trade and may not have said it perfectly; but, he is right. Perfection is not one thing, one result or even one concept. Perfection is a process, a progression which results in ongoing change. Perfection is not a rock, it is a process. It is seeking a simple question, what is the best that I can be and what is the best we can be, one question because in the end we are all connected and we all effect the world around us. Learning that simple answer takes a lifetime. I had to die to learn it.
The second heart attack was different than the first. The first was scary and I was alone. My wife at the time had filed for divorce and was having an affair with another man, not her first. It was Christmas and our tradition involved seeing an aunt of mine. I wasn't feeling well. I told the kids and their boyfriends and my wife at the time to visit my aunt as usual but that I could not make it as I was not feeling well. While nobody knew it but me, my aunt did not want to see my wife at the time as she knew about her adultery and our impending divorce, so did my kids but they were adults almost or mostly. After they left, I felt the pains and dizzy and confused and everything I was taught I should expect when having a heart attack (which doctors had said I would have for years). I lay in bed by myself while everyone else is celebrating Christmas and had my first heart attack. I didn't bother calling anyone, not ever 911. As it occurred I could only feel fear. I was absolutely terrified, embarrassed and didn't want to call anyone. Maybe I just couldn't feel any worse than I already did.
The second heart attack happened in Baker, California. I think it was about a year later. I was headed to Las Vegas from Los Angeles and it began, or at least I knew it was coming for some reason, about three miles out in the middle of nowhere. I knew I had to get off the freeway or I could kill someone. I drove into Baker and parked in the Starbucks parking lot. It was worse than the first one, it hurt more physically and I went away for a moment. I was between here and there. I was just as scared as the first time; but, something else happened. I had to decide how I wanted to leave this world and I decided that I wanted to leave it with no excess baggage. I was happy with my choices and results except one, the divorce. I resented her deeply and what she had done to our family. I forgave her and the man she was cheating on me with, in front of our kids. I believe that was the moment I was saved, at least I immediately got better and my blood pressure went back to normal. Well, normal for me at the time, it was still dangerously high. I didn't see a doctor for a few years later and he told me that he could tell from my tests that I had a heart attack. He also didn't think I would last a year; but, I have lasted a few.
A couple of years after the second heart attack, or at least one I think, I had a different kind of experience. God communicated with me. I wasn't on any medication at the time. After the second heart attack I saw my first doctor and he put me on a whole bunch of pills for my high blood pressure. I stopped taking them before I had my God experience. I won't call it a "religious" experience. It was just me communicating with a higher being, another sentience that was vastly more expansive than me. I call that being God; but, God never told me his name. Well sort of. I asked him his name and he said he didn't have one, I pressed the question (the only time I remember pressing any question, hmmm) and he said I could call him Jaime. I laughed because the only Jaime I could think of was on an old comedy show called "Get Smart". Months later I got the joke, Jaime sounds like "I am me". He told someone else that was his name and I knew that. I laughed like nobody's business when I figured it out months later.
My regulars know my writing is usually a mess until you get to the end and see the conclusion I draw. Mr. Molyneux was talking to a person who believed in God because he had an experience. I don't believe in God because of the experience I had, I was believer before. One of the things that occurred to me while I was my experience was that we can only reach so high, to meet God he has to want to reach down to us and that means that we see something really scary to us. When yo meet God you see just how imperfect you are and it hits you hard. I don't believe anyone who says they spoke to God and didn't immediately feel shame for their imperfection. That shame is then overwhelmed by how much he loves us.
People tell me they would like to hear from God, NO they wouldn't. I didn't away from experience that I can at least prove to myself, thinking that I was holy. LOL. I didn't walk away thinking how great I was. I walked away wanting to do better and he didn't tell me what that was or what to do. That is the God I met, the one that told me it was okay to choose who I wanted to be. Mr. Molyneux wants a vengeful and controlling God. That is my answer to those who say they cannot believe in a God that allows evil in the world.
People don't want proof of God's existence, their existence is proof, sentience is proof, the universe is proof. God said it in the old testament, he doesn't need to talk to you to prove he exists, his proof is everything around you, all you observe and all you feel. God is the greatest sentience in the universe and he made us sentient and free to chose who we become and continue to become. He is the process that lets us grow, that lets us say I am me.
I believe spiritual experiences are individual and not proof that God exists except for the person who has it. I don't believe most people that claim to have them and I didn't believe the guy that Mr. Molyneux spoke to. I believe Mr. Molyneux wanted to believe the person in the video, I believe Mr. Molyneux would like proof of God. He already has it. Sentience is the proof of God, not what you see or experience, the fact that you see and experience. To prove there is not God, one must prove that they are the only sentience in the universe or prove they do not exist. Good luck with that.
I amazed when people try and control God or define him. I cannot and I met him. He joked with me and it took a couple of time to even believe that he told jokes. He deals with us as we able to be dealt with and only when we are able to deal with him. I think that means when we no longer hate. That's a tough one.
I will say this, if you wish proof of God to the extent where you need to communicate with him, you have to forgive every harm ever done you first and everyone that has cause harmed. That sounds difficult; but, it is only after that that you can forgive yourself for everyone you harmed. You have to accept that you are not perfect to accept that neither is anyone else, it is a paradox. You have to forgive all sin to help you to forgive your sin so that you can communicate with God. Why seek a world where forgiveness is unnecessary if forgiveness is the only way to accept all sentient beings as being of importance? Why believe that the only that can exist is Santa Clause bringing only joy to good little boys and girls. Why not accept that we chose to be good or not and that carrots and sticks used to make our decisions for us is preferable to choosing for ourselves?
I am amused by Christian and Atheists that believe that being chosen by God for anything means good times. LOL. I think the Jews are the chosen people, how is that working out for them? They were chosen for the concentration camps, they were chosen to be hated by the world. Even black Africans don't accept the Jews. I went to college with the educated blacks from Africa and a couple of them wanted to nuke Israel and had never met a Jew in their life. The Jews have been welcomed and thrived in three places, New York, Los Angeles and Israel. To be chosen by God is to be tested not given unlimited cookies. Jews give more to charity than other groups as a percentage of income.
Why do bad things happen to good people. There is none good but God. Show me that you are good or tell me a story like the Masons do how about you can become perfect, the unobtainable/ Show me how you are perfect and have never caused harm to another before you tell me how the world is bad because we are not all perfect or don't stop all imperfection.
We all wake up to a slap on the butt. We breath our first breath and try and figure out what it all means. We grow and begin to question. We are immediately beset upon by people trying to manipulate us to their advantage. Those benefitting the most from how things are spend the most effort trying to convince the rest of us that the world is fair, it is not. We can se that but try to find an explanation for it, to justify the world or figure out what needs to change. Nothing needs to change and it is unfair while we are growing. Growth is about defining ourselves faced with an unfair world. One does not grow when one is not tested and challenged to make real choices.
You can go 60 minutes into his video to hear what I am responding to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)