Monday, March 26, 2012

If I Only Had A Heart


Old Dick Cheney has finally had a change of heart. Even though the former co-president has suffered five heart attacks and has been kept alive since 2010 by a small pump powered by special batteries worn in a fanny pack, he underwent successful heart transplant surgery last Saturday. The Cheney family thanked the anonymous donor, who was rumored to be an illegal, gay activist. Some doctors and ethicists are already questioning the wisdom of granting an organ implant to a sick, 71 year old man, but if I was on Cheney's death panel, I'd say more power to him. Give him a new heart, a fresh kidney, a clean lung; whatever it takes to keep his vital signs ticking. I want to see Dick Cheney healthy and hearty so he can be alert for his war crimes tribunal. It would be inhumane to have him show up trembling and frail, unable to defend himself. So what if the average heart recipient is in the 50-60 year old range? This man has a rendezvous with destiny, and destiny's pissed off. In Cheney's defense, he had waited 20 months to receive a donor heart. I understand that he was on the recipient's list just above Kony. In a single year, this man had a quadruple bypass, two angioplasties, and a pacemaker surgically implanted. No wonder he was so bitterly opposed to medical malpractice litigation. His doctor's assistant is a hunchback named Igor. 

According to Transplant Living, the cost of a heart transplant has gone up from $658,800 in 2007, to approximately $997,700 today. Of course, Cheney has the government, gold-plated health care plan, the kind that you can't get, so taxpayers will pick up the tab for cracking the old man's chest. This means I'm paying to keep Dick Cheney alive while going without health insurance myself. I have to wait until 2014 when a provision in the Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as "Obamacare," kicks in and prevents insurers from discriminating against "pre-existing conditions." I made the mistake of seeing a psychiatrist once, so now, no organization of any sort will insure me because I'm insane, you know. If it weren't for the generous people at Church Health Center, who offer discounted medical services to the working poor or otherwise uninsurable, I'd be lying in the back room on a ventilator and an IV drip, writing my last check. Dick Cheney gets to promenade around like the Energizer Bunny while 49 million people lack access to the most basic care. Yet the right-wing propaganda machine has convinced the proletariat that Obamacare is a government takeover of healthcare, when it's really just an effort to reign in the cut-throat insurance industry that makes its profits by denying care to the sick.

The controversial law will finally see a courtroom this week when the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of Obamacare. Why is it that I don't trust an impartial decision from virtually the same court that stopped citizens from counting votes in 2000 and gave the presidency to George W. Bush? At issue is the "individual mandate," which was originally a Republican idea. It assures that public health is a shared responsibility, requiring those not already covered by employee-based programs, Medicare, or Medicaid, to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty if not exempted by a  religious objection. The provision is waived in cases of financial hardship and subsidies are granted to lower-income customers. It's a windfall for insurance companies, but the conservative position is that the government should not have the right to force you to buy anything. As I said, I've been begging to buy insurance for a decade, so for me, money was never better spent; and they have to sell it to me. The insurers don't have the right to hang up a sign that says, "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone." Millions of people will be able to afford to stay alive without taking out second mortgages, and parents of "special needs" children will no longer be denied coverage. To me, it sounds like a Republican wet dream because everybody profits. But religious extremists don't believe contraception or womens' birth control pills should be covered with your other prescriptions.

The Republican presidential candidates grabbed the religious exemption controversy and pounded that wedge issue like John Henry hammered steel. Suddenly bills were stampeding through state legislatures limiting womens' access to contraceptives. In Arizona, they actually passed a bill that exempts an employer from covering birth control pills if they're not being used for "medical purposes." If a woman wishes the cost of her contraception to be covered by insurance, she has to "submit a claim" to her boss stating the reasons for its usage. In other words, you can still have intercourse in Arizona, but you'd damn well better not be having any fun. It didn't help that Planned Parenthood announced a massive giveaway of the "morning-after pill" while they are at the center of an election year anti-abortion crusade. I understand they were trying to make a point, but they unwittingly gave fresh ammunition to the Santorum disciples. By handing out free post-coitus pills, the zealots can rightfully say that Planned Parenthood is encouraging unmarried women to have unprotected sex. I know the beleaguered organization has been dragged into every election since 1973, but their Board of Directors needs to call the Susan G. Komen Foundation to ask how inserting yourself into the political arena has worked for them. To paraphrase Richard Nixon, Planned Parenthood just, "gave them a sword."

The Supreme Court's decision isn't expected until June, but right-wingers are already licking their chops and taking a victory lap. If Obamacare is struck down, it wounds the president just in time for the national political conventions. Imagine the crowing in Tampa if the individual mandate is struck down. There will be stemwinders over the tyranny of a government mandate; even though if you plan to operate a car, you must first have a drivers' license, then are required to procure insurance and register the vehicle. Or, if you ride a motorcycle or bicycle, you're required to wear a helmet. Even your pet Schnauzer needs rabies shots and a license, so don't say the government never mandates a purchase. Think of it this way: If an uninsured person gets sick, they go to the emergency room and the cost is passed on to you. If everyone were required to purchase some form of health insurance, the insurance pool will grow larger, costs will go down, and you will be responsible only for your own care. As it stands now, you're paying for Dick Cheney's heart surgery, when I believe he got the wrong procedure. What he really needed was a soul transplant, but that's considered a pre-existing condition.

45 comments:

Nellie Fox said...

I actually just love reading your writing....those flying shards of steel and glass of yours that have the core in their sites. You slide right on through the malodorous adiposity that tries to glaze over the realities of Al Franken's "lying liars".

I can see you in the abattoir your squinty eyes bright, full smiled, and glinting as you swing from the hips with your just machete and lay out slab after fatty slab of the foggy faux meat. You hack down to what looks like bone and then turning to face us you do an eyeball to eyeball with your readers. Holding up a femur you open your mouth. "See", you say. "This is what was underneath all that outrageous stuff. Looks like bone, doesn't it?" Then, you take some toilet paper and give it a once over and we watch it disappear into the Scott 1000 sheet roll to be flushed down the toilet just to your right. "Wasn't bone at all, folkies!" "How bout dat."

Muckraker's paradise.

Only love for you, old man.

Anonymous said...

Here are my concerns:
1)Anything that the government administrates becomes increasingly less efficient and more expensive. No need to give examples, because anyone with a pulse knows the horror stories. Both Social Security and Medicare were sold to the public with promises that their costs would be forever modest. Now they are bankrupting the country and Obamacare will just exacerbate that. It is already said to be twice as expensive as the original CBO estimate. Can any program be truly good if it kills the goose that lays the golden egg? It is like the baby starts off nursing the teat and winds up devouring its mother.
2)Other than the inefficiencies and costs of Obamacare (which will escalate over time like Social Security and Medicare), I am concerned about giving the carnivorous federal government the power to force citizens to buy a product. It can open a Pandora's box to give the flesh-eating ghouls in our government that kind of power. What will be next, mandating that everyone buy hybrid cars? There is no limit to the potential nightmare that this could unleash.
3)Finally, it blows my mind that the government is expected to pay for more and more things that the individual should be paying for themselves. Cheap birth control is everywhere. Nanny staters are overgrown cry babies who get testy if anyone tries to remove them from the government's teat. They are promoting dependency, and a growing lack of self-reliance in the populace of this country. Wouldn't you rather have a country in which responsible grown-ups are the norm, rather than whiney cases of arrested development? Socialism is the road back to serfdom. But, collectivists don't seem to mind the idea of being treated like cattle. Unfortunately, the broad and easy road that leads to perdition is winning the day. America and the rest of the free world will succumb to both socialism and totalitarianism. I mean someone has to change your government-issue diapers, right?

Anonymous said...

Nellie, is there any way that you could turn me on to some of that acid that you are taking. I haven't tripped like you just did in a very long time. Do you also see streamers and mosaics on the stuff? I would love to be as crazy as you are. Can you spare a hit? It may cause me to think like a hippie and fit in better here. I might even join the Occupiers and shit and fuck in the streets while setting fire to everything. That would give me some street cred here, huh?

Anonymous said...

It recently occurred to me that the outraged right may have given Obama a gift for the ages with the tag "Obamacare." His name is now permanently linked with providing health care for millions. No matter how the program is tweaked or expanded, the name will stick.

How many presidents have a program for the public good with their name on it?

Anonymous said...

You guys can chill. I can all but guarantee you that Obamacare will be upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supremes have been corrupt for a long tome now and they know how to play the shell game as well as any past or current Congress or President. We have been moving toward world governance incrementally for a long time now. Socialized health care is one of the mandates of Agenda 21 and the Supremes will not hinder that juggernaut. They have already made the Kelo decision which in effect gives developers the right to confiscate private property as long as they can prove that it is for the good of the collective. This ajudication was absolutely necessary to facilitate the gargantuan task of re-developing American cities to accord with the dictates of Agenda 21. Durbin's Livable Communities Act is all about that. It may take the rest of this century to fully implement. It will be very interesting to see what happens when that legislation is ready to be voted on. 'Smart money' says that enough Republicans will vote for it to pass. Both parties are behind the move for world governance and Agenda 21 is the mechanism to bring that into being. No one will stand in its way...not the Supreme Court, not Congress, and certainly not Obama. But, it is not a partisan issue. Both of the Bushes were and are fully behind it. The vote on the Livable Communities Act will force the Republicans to take off their masks. That will be very interesting to see...to say the least. My bet is that after that legislation passes, the conservatives will fold, because they will see that they are standing alone trying to put out a forest fire with their hands. If there is any attempt to start an armed revolt, it will be quickly extinguished by means of Obama's latest executive order giving him dictatorial powers. Congratulations...you guys have won the battle. We probably won't live to see the consummation of all of this, but your progeny will. They will marvel that there was once a free country.

Skyking said...

I really don't understand why so many uninformed people believe that the Affordable Healthcare Act is "socialized" medicine. I wish it were. Unfortunately it is still run by private insurance companies who will be raking in billions of dollars in profits for being the unnecessary middle men. What the bill is about is not allowing these insurance companies to exclude anyone for prior conditions. It also mandates that everyone will be covered and if they can't afford to pay they are eligible for help. It's become a political weapon for the far right to lie about.

Anonymous said...

Skyking, what you just described is pretty socialistic. The government, rather than the private sector, will be administering the whole thing and income will be re-distributed to pay for the insurance of those who cannot afford it. You must be aware of the fact that there are now a lot of permutations of socialism as opposed to the classical textbook definition. Whenever government takes over something that could be done by the private sector and uses income re-distribution to effect that end, it is on the socialist end of the spectrum as opposed to the free market. The private sector is being slowly, but surely squeezed out of existence. Those from the right know that Obamacare is not classical socialism. The government hasn't (yet) taken over the means of production. To most, re-distribution of income is the heart of socialism, and that is happening with impunity throughout our culture. Rather than socialism maybe it would be more accurate to speak of income re-distributionism. If anyone cannot afford something, the current government stands ready to use someone else's money to pay for it. I wouldn't be surprised if the government provides free ocean cruises for those beneath a certain income level...free food, free clothing, free utilities, free housing, free birth control, free toilet paper, etc., etc. But, a turd by any other name is still a turd.

Anonymous said...

You people speak of making profits as though it is a crime, and yet you insinuate that you are not socialists. How are you going to fullfill your material needs when the producers say, 'Fuck it! I quit'? If I had it all to do over again I wouldn't bust my ass studying or striving to make anything of myself. I would jump in the government safety hammock and draw all welfare that I could, and then supplement my income by growing and selling dope. Like a black welfare queen recently said in light of all of the government assistance that is available, 'Who would want to work in America when you can get most of what you need for free?' She makes an excellent point. But at some point the goose that lays the golden egg will be killed. Then who will provide the material needs for society...slave labor? It has happened before. The plan of original progressivism was to eliminate the non-producers, not to coddle them with welfare. They use welfare to weaken the fiber of capitalistic society so that they can take over. That is happening now. They will be not nearly as nice once they are fully in charge and if you don't believe that, you know nothing about real progressivism, or world history for that matter.

performs said...

Anonymous, the faults and weaknesses you see and ascribe to your fellow beings are in you. It is like looking in a mirror. Reread your last message, and you will see that you state, in different words, that you have a desire to be a lazy person living off welfare rather than engage in meaningful work. Yet you rail against this trait in others. All of us, more or less, hold conflicting desires and values within ourselves. The more one comes to understand this, the better chance these conflicts can be resolved and eliminate the self-made misery they create when ignored.

This is why the prophets throughout the ages have preached being compassionate and forgiving to one’s fellow beings. We are not as different as we appear--it is illusory. We are not separate in any real or lasting way. We can come into accord with the essential truth of our true connection by living lives of humility, honesty, harmony, and humor.

Change is happening constantly. Almost no one likes change--I know I balk at it. Typically the older we get the more conservative and crystalized in our thinking we become. Younger people are more adventurous but they have their own challenges. Accepting change can be fostered through suffering , by becoming fed up with the status quo. It can, also, be inspired by idealism.

The ego thrives on comfort. Change nearly always requires experiencing some discomfort or the fear of it. It can be likened to the need for a new pair of shoes when your old broken in, comfortable ones are just not giving you the support you need for long term comfort. The new pair of shoes, if they are good one with appropriate fit, may be stiff and require breaking in. But we find it is worth it once we go through it.

Our cultural paradigm as regards health, healing and well being are very corrupted with ignorant ideas and selfish motives. Many individuals have already made many of the changes for the better for themselves and their families. As the society is owned and, thus, run by the owners (the PTB), the cooperative and cultural changes are yet to become conventional. The profit motive in conventional medicine is still the driving force for most decisions. They will in time. Change is inevitable. One can fear it or fight against it for only so long.

Alexander Fleming said...

Save your breath, performs.

I predict that Jerry will just say he was using hyperbole, and couldn't you tell?

Then he will suggest that you have forgotten to take your meds.

Then he'll throw in a couple of "shits" and "fucks" in there, since in his world, it makes him appear bold and authoritative, if only to himself--a real, plain-speaking, no-nonsense kinda guy.

He really isn't interested in dialogue.

Lay psychologist and sociologist. I think that means he's not a member of either profession. But he keeps bringing it up, as if it qualifies him to be anything more than a self-absorbed blowhard.

Former... high school guidance counselor? God protect children from people like this.

Anonymous said...

Performs and Alexander, I was using hyperbole. I have never sponged a dime off of anyone. Not my parents, not my friends, and not from strangers. I would rather die than be a leech. I have always been self-reliant and carefully planned my life. I am debt free, retired, and doing quite well. Being in education, I never earned more than $60,000 in a year. I started off with a master's degree and grossed $650 a month. Only a liberal could call that being wealthy. I was able to pay my bills and arrange for retirement primariy through sticking to a job, self-discipline, and sticking to a stringent budget through extreme frugality. I didn't own a home till I was 46, because I couldn't afford one. I lived in apartments for 36 years. Anyone, and I mean anyone could have done what I did. Liberals can't conceive of anyone doing well without massive hand-outs. I was a teacher. Where did you get the idea that I was a guidance counselor? Perhaps you are confusing me with another anonymous. By the way I love dialogue, but Performs is the only one on this blog who bothers to do that. I figure the rest are know-nothing cowards who fire a few shots and then disappear. Alexander, I don't hear much dialogue from you. Are you a know-nothing coward? Most liberals that I have known fall into this category. They tend to do badly when it comes to the exchange of ideas. They tend to machine gun ideas that they don't like, shut down all opposing points of view, and then disappear. Performs is a confused New Ager, as I used to be, but at least she speaks her mind in a civil way and doesn't go into hiding. I respect her for that.

Anonymous said...

I will be stunned if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare. It will be a hard one to figure if that does happen. It just won't add up in light of the way that the country has been moving since FDR. Either way America might find itself in a civil war....progressives vs traditionalists.

Anonymous said...

This is in regard to Alexander's comments. I don't approve of foul language, so I stand corrected. I will be more circumspect in the future. I have also been guilty of being sarcastic in regard to Performs. That is wrong and it will cease. I have accused Sput of being dishonest when the word 'mistaken' would probably have been better. I have said that he is ignorant, and ignorance is a relative term. Everyone is ignorant to one extent or another. We just haven't read the same books and see things through differnet lenses. Technically, Sput is an effective journalist. My only beef is not that he is a leftist, but that he is completely one-sided which should make any objective person leery. Any honest conservative should be able to admit that progressives have done a lot to alleviate human hardships. I draw the line on those progressives who are called by some 'coercive utopians'. These tend to be intolerant of opposing points of view, imperious, anti-constitution, anti-capitalist, and in many cases anti-American. My biggest sin is that I am a reformed liberal and am quite conservative. That shouldn't disqualify me from honest dialogue, unless the liberals here are so rabid as not be unable to endure any conservative opinions whatsoever. If I didn't offer counterpoints the only responses would be,'Yup, yup, you're right again, Sput. You are always right'. Is it not more entertaining to get a diversity of viewpoints and some critical thinking here and there?

Gregg "Nellie" Grinspan said...

To Anonymous who is a teacher. The police, the street lights, the streets themselves, the schools, you and the other teachers....all are part of, or because of, the social welfare (a generic term to describe what individuals in a society/country/civilization can't provide for themselves but which can be provided for everyone by the larger entity)...the army, the navy, a number of fire departments.....etc.

From my experience it seems that human beings can develop in many different ways much of which is determined in their very formative years. It is not for me to lecture other mature adults. But, I was given a big break by having a father who worked and had self respect and a mother who loved him. The acid I did take wasn't as good, actually, as being blessed with an intelligence that was nurtured and obvious goals that seemed expected by the people I respected. If not for that, who knows?

So, for instance, I can't know what it was like to grow up black in Memphis, Tennessee, when I grew up there white. I don't think it would have been so easy to get my fingers into my bootstraps to give them a tug if I was. White Haven? Are you kidding?

I'm not saying that because someone is black, or green, or grey, or 5th generation poor we should automatically presume that we have to bend over and pick them up. But, if any of our children have a learning defect we sure as hell do something to insure that they will have the best life they can get..........and we pay for it. And we do so gladly.

Where is the Golden Rule? It doesn't say "do for the poor and the black". It says stop for a minute and think "there but for the grace of God go I." So, who's going to really dive into the lake and save the flailing child? Seems unseemly to stand around on the beach and decide who and when or if....or worse, does this child really deserve it? Listen, this doesn't make us ogres, in my mind, it just shows us that we have the normal human frailty of our own fears and our own self absorption. If we slow down maybe we see it. Yay.

My pleasure in reading Randolph Jay Haspel is due to my love for his prose and my agreement with his outrage. I especially enjoyed "If I Only Had a Heart" for all the reasons mentioned by the former White Sox Second Baseman.

Anonymous said...

Gregg, that is the most lucid response that I have ever read by you. You went a little heavy on the race issue, though. I don't remember downplaying blacks in my posts. Many, if not most, of the problems that the black community faces can be attributed to the actions of misguided white liberals. Blacks were not nearly so dysfunctional back in the bad old days. Misguided liberalism has been their undoing. There is much more to being a conservative than the race issue, though. I do think that there is a fine line between giving someone a hand up and inadvertantly enabling them to be their worst selves by over doing it. The Golden Rule is wonderful as long as you remember that sometimes what a person needs is a proverbial kick in the ass. I certainly needed plenty of kicks in the ass growing up. I am now glad for every one of them. The Golden Rule still applies in those situations as long as you are also open to having your ass therapeutically kicked as needed. I did a lot of experimenting in the classroom. My experiences forced me from being a flaming liberal in the beginning to taking a more conservative viewpoint. I now have more of a 'teach a man to fish...' point of view. Through a misguided desire to help, in the past I unwittingly did some disservice to my minority students. I played into their weaknesses and made them worse. I unwittingly taught some of them that they can get something for nothing. Meaning that I passed some of them out of pity and a sense of white guilt when they did absolutely nothing to deserve it. That did not help them. It showed them that liberal whites can be gamed. On the other hand, some just didn't have the intelligence to pass tests, so I would pass them if they did all of their written work and cooperated in class. I don't feel bad about that, because there was an element of effort involved from them. I don't know why some people here think that I am so draconian without bothering to ask questions to see what I am really about. I became more conservative because of my own liberal failures. Over the course of 36 years in education I saw things that the average person wouldn't believe, but I usually keep them to myself to avoid having the dread the R-word used against me. The things that I could relate are merely factual experiences and have absolutely nothing to do with pre-judgment, better known as prejudice. One of the difficulties in trying to make things better is that a truthful person runs the risk of being crucuified for his honesty. If I had been a conservative all of my life, I could see grounds for suspicion. But, I converted rather late in life based upon personal experiences. The race thing plays a very small part in my conservative agenda. In fact I pretty much leave it alone. I am mainly about preserving private property and individual freedom. I am a freedom junkie and that is why I was a hippie for many years. One more correction. In my last post I said that I lived in apartments for 36 years. I lived in apartments for 22 years and taught for 36 years. My bad. By the way, Gregg, I appreciate the fact that you engaged in a reasoned discourse and did not stone me which is what usually happens when I make a post here. Performs also displays fairness in her remarks. Heretofore, she is the only one that I have a hope of dialoging with and that is why I apolgized for sometimes being sarcastic with her. That has been shameful on my part and I hope that she can forgive me.

performs said...

Anon, consider yourself forgiven by me. You can also switch to using the male gender pronouns when referring to me (Ron, aka performs).

The following is my thought for today as regards this idea of being a conservative or being a liberal/progressive. I suggest that no one is a conservative or liberal, but is, instead, drawn to conservative or liberal thinking on various issues at various times. Using a car metaphor, one can view liberal-thinking as the accelerator and conservative-thinking as the brake. Both are need for a successful and safe journey. This holds true for individual lives and for communities and societies.

Again, I must encourage that reality can be approached more successfully with and/both thinking rather than either/or thinking.

Being a lover of freedom, Anon, this way frees you from identifying AS a conservative but allows you to offer conservative cautionary thinking on issues raised here and elsewhere that contribute toward the clearest vision and most practical path. Contending for the ideal (the best one/we can do) is quite different than fighting against perceived enemies who are seen as wayward liberals, new agers, hippies, progressives, etc.

I believe the future of socioeconomic decision making will be accomplished by groups (12) randomly selected, who will draw on their inner wisdom without representing any limited side, and come to unanimity. See this:
http://www.wisedemocracy.org/index.html
We can no longer allow the ignorance, arrogance and greed of ownership, elite classes to make decisions that effect all the stake holders. I am not suggesting that a council will spend time deciding which drawer you must keep your spoons in. We can however quit allowing the planet and our fellow beings to be harmed through unwise, uncaring, selfish behavior.

Anonymous said...

I too have contended that both liberlaism and conservatism in balance are necessary. With only conservatism nothing would change and with only liberalism there would be chaos. We can just agree to disagree on economic issues. I am not omniscient and in the end who knows what is ultimately the best course. History will judge that.

Anonymous said...

I thought that I should clarify what I meant by the statement that misguided liberalism has been the undoing of blacks. When I began teaching as a young, flaming liberal with very little life experience I was placed in a 100% black, 100% housing project school. It was my first experience with blacks en mass. I am not being judgmental, but stating a matter of fact that I was stunned by the barbarity of the situation. Years later I was placed in a school in a conservative, middle-class neighborhood. Most of the blacks in that school were from two-parent families and had been well parented. The differnce relative to my former experience was stunning. There was no bad behavior, no bad language, in short, none of the sterotypical behavior of the inner city blacks. In fact, in terms of dress, behavior, and general manifestation of character, there was no discernable difference between the white and black students. It was a living testimony to King's dream of a culture in which blacks were not judged by the color of their skin, but he content of their character. I came to see that the crux of the matter involved stable, two-parent homes and effective parenting. I also came to see that liberals had been addressing the symptoms of a social disease rather than the root cause...broken families and poor parenting. If their programs were to address this problem, rather than just throwing money at it, the vast majority of the problems between the races could be eliminated. The bottom line is that well-parented blacks are not essentially different than well-parented whites. Needless to say, what is called white trash is also a problem of parenting. Let's put the money and programs where the problem is and quit assuming that it is all about income disparity. Welfare does not address the root problem, and in fact has contributed to the break up of the black family.

performs said...

“...in terms of dress, behavior, and general manifestation of character, there was no discernable difference between the white and black students.”

Maybe this notion, and that of the “conservative” think tanks, are really speaking to the content of their whiteness not their character. This is a type of insidious racism, but one that seeks to purge the blackness factors by affirming what are considered white and superior. People will react to this style of racism consciously or unconsciously. Is it not better to seek to purge the superiority/inferiority paradigm? Check out the movie, Rabbit Proof Fence.
Remember, I think it was Biden who complimented Obama for being “clean” or something like that. This stuff runs deep and will take time and individual effort to purge it from our collective psyche.

Anonymous said...

Performs, you are stretching the point that I made in an attempt to ascribe an insidious form of racism where there is none. I did not say anything about 'white' behavior being superior. I was addressing CIVIL behavior that is or should be common to all members of Homo sapiens. There is an element of the black, and apparently the liberal community, that equates the elements of civil behavior with 'whiteness'. Civil behavior is neither white, black, yellow, brown, or red. I have with my own ears heard blacks equate things such as telling the truth, studying, using proper language, etc. with 'whiteness'. This is absurd. It is an attempt to bring those down who are trying to make something of themselves. This was admitted to me by a black counselor who said that this is a big problem in the black community. You have heard of the 'soft' racism of low expectations for blacks. That is frequently a crime of liberalism. You could be accused of an oblique type of racism by insinuating that the elements of civil behavior are the domain of caucasions...as though civil behavor is purely a cultural issue. The students that I was referring to were simply raised in stable, two-parent families, with good parenting. Their exemplary behavior should be a cause of celebration and hope, not an opportunity to find some form of oblique racism where there is none. As usual, you are a liberal who pontificates without the requisite experience. Have you ever taught in an inner city school, or in any school for that matter? The deceitful web that you are spinning is counter-productive. I remain firm in my contention that stable, two-parent homes and effective parenting will close the disparity gap between the races. Simply doling out welfare never will. I have witnessed this up close and personal and I can guarantee you that the insidous racism that you see in this is a chimera. One more thing is that a lot of very civil, principled, blacks would be deeply offended with your contention. Basically, you are saying that their sterling character is foreign to 'real' blacks and that they are dupes of selling out to white values...the old 'oreo cookie' contention which is designed to get blacks to turn away from civil, productive behavior because it is deemed to be race-based.

Anonymous said...

This is for Gregg. I agree that you can't expect members of the underclass to pull themselves up by their bootstaps. It can and does happen, but it would be unrealistic to assume that this could be done in a wholesale manner. Star Parker did so as have some others, but they are the exceptions. One of my favorite stories along this line is that of an illiterate, black sharecropper who taught himself to read and then amassed a library of thousands of books and became a very well-educated man. We seem to have lost sight of the fact that an education is acquired by each individual through personal EFFORT. But, back to my original thought. What you can expect of every mentally healthy person in this country is that they avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by a free public education and/or vocational training. As everyone knows there is plentiful college scholarship money that is especially available to minorities. But, it has been my experience over the years in education that the very people who most need to take advantage of their opportunities to acquire a good, free, public education are so often the least likely to take advantage of their opportunities. I became aware of this problem at the very start of my teaching career. What can you do about people who choose not to put forth the effort to develop their God-given aptitudes? Let them live on welfare for the rest of their lives? I always felt that a big part of this problem is 'safety net consciousness'. They know that their basic needs will be provided for by all of the countless welfare programs, so why bust a gut to become something? This only applies to the underclass. Middle class minorities are not nearly so subject to this type of thinking.

Aurabass said...

One of the great things about Randy and Born Again Hippies is how much time is wasted by "Anonymous" in a futile attempt to ???? Well I guess it's impossible to know what a wingnut blowhard is trying to accomplish on this website. At least he isn't out there bothering others with this particular brand of insanity and that's a blessing. We can at least enjoy laughing at his particular idiocy.

Anonymous said...

So much for dialogue. Most liberals don't seem to be interested in dialogue. It is their way of the highway. Opposing views are not welcome. What's so bad about exchanging ideas?

performs said...

Anonymous, I feel certain that readers of this blog do not wish to enter into a debate for the sake of defending a side they supposedly represent, but it seems you do. It would be like playing catch with someone who only wishes to show you how far they can throw the ball without having a concern whether the other catches it. Then, when the other person gets frustrated, you says, “How come nobody wants to play catch?” It is not catch and not fun. There is a difference between contending and defending.

This is the problem with our representative government which no longer works. There is no cooperation, no collaboration, only fighting for “turf.” We need to change from a taking sides, square-shaped paradigm to a collective wisdom, circular-shaped paradigm. Once you get fed up with this old, worn out taking sides method, you will agree. Not before. A game of catch is for fun, practice, and exercise. It is not a competition. Players are seeking mutual success, just like in a real game a players throws the ball with the intention that his teammate will catch it and be successful at making the play.

Our country and world are doomed unless we get on the same team. What we play (work/do) or how well we play it is of little consequence compared to this.

Guru said...

If the New Agers are right, there is a momumental problem for egalitarians coming our way. According to the New Agers, mankind is approaching an event that will produce a new humanity called the Omega Point. This event will cause a quantum leap in consciousness for those who have adhered to New Age teachings and have prepared themselves for this planetary initiation through meditation, cleansings, etc. They will form a new race of god-beings called by some Homo noeticus. These god persons will have seemingly divine powers and will be so much more evolved than ordinary Homo sapiens that the latter will seem to be just higher animals by comparison. This will create a problem for the less evolved. There are at least two schools of thought amongst New Agers as to what to do with them. One school of thought believes that those who don't make the leap to divinity didn't do so because they are 'separatists'. That is, they held themselves as separate individuals and didn't go along with the collectivism of the New Agers. They didn't cooperate with New Age teachings and practices and therefore were not fit to evolve and were left behind. All Christians and religious Jews are considered to be separatists, but there are many others besides. One group of New Agers go so far as to say that the 'separatists' are holding back the great planetary initiation known as the 'Omega Point' and must be eliminated, so that the others who are prepared for it may continue to evolve to divinity. They would have to kill an awful lot of people to effect that...hardly the egalitarian thing to do. Another school of thought doesn't agree with this and says that the separatists won't hamper the coming leap in consciousness. They realize that there will still be lots of manual labor needed in the new world and that since those who don't evolve are mere animals compared to the god-beings, they they could be conscripted to do the necessary labor....made to be slaves. They would be seen as a higher type of beast of burden and since mankind has always used beasts of burden to do his work, they could continue with unevolved humanity. If the New Agers are right, either way we will have the mother of all egalitarian problems. How can the gap between the race of god-beings and the unevolved possibly be closed so that equality will reign supreme? Maybe they could be integrated into the classrooms of the god-beings. But, think of how that would dumb-down the education of the god-beings. What a quandry. Is there a viable solution?

performs said...

Guru, you offer a prediction of a future solidly based in the fear, domination, heartless hierarchical-thinking world view of today, only with a “mystical” spin to it. Maybe it could be the basis of a script for yet another scary, Apocalyptic movie.

The truth is that all beings and things are of the Oneness. All are children of God, the infinite and eternal existence. And God is Divine Love. Every member of Humanity moves through all the stages of maturity. The limitimg ego-mind will come up with ways of dividing us through hierarchical thinking and elitism, but the pure heart feels compassion for one and all. One does well to listen to the heart, to obey its promptings, not the fears and theories of the mind.

The “viable solution” gets presented age after age by prophets and masters of compassion. There are always some who are receptive to the precepts and resolve to live them. Everyone benefits from these efforts and this grace.

Here is a current and challenging dispensation: “Do not try to conquer others. Conquer yourself and you will have conquered the world. The simplest way to do this is to love God. Begin to love God by loving your fellow beings. Begin to see God by seeing Him in all beings and things. Give without thought of return; serve without thought of reward.” --Meher Baba

Guru said...

No, Performs, what I said IS the heart of modern New Age teaching. By modern I mean from the latter part of the 19th century. You will learn these things if you go into it far enough. However, I fudged a little bit. Here is what most New Agers believe. They believe that the 'Omega Point' is a new region of space that the Earth is entering (relates to the Aquarian Age). It is believed that the hippie 'awakening' is related to this. The higher rate of vibration has begun and will reach its climax at the Omega Point. When this occurs it will suddenly raise the vibratory level of everything on Earth. It is this sudden increase of vibratory level that will raise the consciousness of those who are prepared for it by proper New Age practice to become god-beings. Those who aren't prepared, mainly the 'separatists', will be beamed up to the 'other side', so to speak, and receive instruction from those who direct the course of evolution on Earth so that they will be prepared to be re-born on Earth and be able to advance with the rest of humanity. Sort of a cosmic special education program. There won't be two classes of people, only one, Homo noeticus. So, I was just bullshitting about the egalitarian problem. There will be no draconian messiness. Just a sudden change that will bring about a new state of consciousness in some while the rest just disappear to be re-tooled and to re-join the parade later. If you don't know this you must not be a New Ager. You are into some other cosmic fluff. I learned all of this over 35 years ago after receiving the 'initiation of illumination' in a large New Age cult that I was part of back then. Study some of Helena Blavatsky's books or Alice Bailey's books. Hitler borrowed from Blavatsky to form some of his racial theories and his ideas about a race of supermen, but he obviously missed the boat made a mess of things. It would be a hard sell to make people believe that he was an example of 'cosmic consciousness'. Here's another tip, check out the UN's involvement with Alice Bailey's work and their ideas about a world religion. By the way, I no longer am part of the New Age and have disavowed everything that I learned while I was a part of it.

Guru said...

P.S. There is an element within the New Age that does believe that the separatists will have to be physically removed (killed) in order for the evolution of consciousness to proceed. I don't know where they stand now or how numerous this faction is. It has been many years since I was involved. I have just given a very brief summary. Many other things could be said. One interesting aside concerns a former UN operative and New Age maven named Robert Muller. He was a devotee of Alice Bailey and her spirit guide Djwal Khul (DK). He developed a world core curriculum which is designed to make students globalistic and socialistic rather than nationalistic and capitalistic. In the introduction to the original curriculum, Muller said that the underlying philiosophy of his curriculum was drawn from the books of Alice Bailey and her spirit guide, DK. This curriculum has been adopted by the boards of education of 38 states here in America. New Age carries some considerable clout. It is insinuating itself into our lives, but you have to know what to look for to be able to discern much of it.

performs said...

Guru, what possessed you to swallow this load of weirdness? One word with many meanings expresses the dismay, pain, annoyance, grief, etc., I feel in response to what you apparently take seriously. Oy.

Guru said...

Performs, all you have to do is to do a little research. Nothing that I said was original. There are lots of books available on the subject. I was merely providing factual information about the beliefs of the New Age movement. If you do't like it, start an anti-New Age campaign, but don't accuse me of fabrication or error. I am just the messenger. Why shoot the messenger? Actually, I am surprised that you seem to be ingorant of the whole affair. I can almost guarantee you that Sput and some of the older participants on this blog are privvy to it. Agree of disagree with New Age doctrine, but it is a fact, like it or not. I think that it is a bunch of crap now, but I used to believe in it. One more thing, please get an education before you start putting down things that you apparently know NOTHING about. It makes you look foolish to educated people.

performs said...

The following Wiki description seems quite different than your organized conspiracy description, G. I understand that you read about this. A wise man once said that learning to read is overrated and that if one learns to read, the responsibility for choosing what to read falls upon that person. Just because something finds its way on to the printed page does not make it true or worthy of being taken seriously.
Unless one exercises some discernment over what is going into the old intellect via reading, it might be better to spend the time singing and dancing.
On the other hand, you seem quite pleased with these opinions and beliefs. They seem to me intended to scare people rather than uplift. What good do you see coming out of this scenario? Any worthwhile destruction clearing the way for rebuilding something better? Any enlightenment or freedom or joy that will come to pass?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New Age movement is a Western spiritual movement that developed in the second half of the 20th century. Its central precepts have been described as "drawing on both Eastern and Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology, holistic health, parapsychology, consciousness research and quantum physics".[2] It aims to create "a spirituality without borders or confining dogmas" that is inclusive and pluralistic.[3] It holds to "a holistic worldview,"[4] emphasising that the Mind, Body and Spirit are interrelated[1] and that there is a form of Monism and unity throughout the universe.[5] It attempts to create "a worldview that includes both science and spirituality"[6] and embraces a number of forms of mainstream science as well as other forms of science that are considered fringe.
According to author Nevill Drury, the origins of the movement can be found in the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly through the works of the esotericists Emanuel Swedenborg, Franz Mesmer, Helena Blavatsky and George Gurdjieff, who laid some of the basic philosophical principles that would influence the movement. It would gain further momentum in the 1960s, taking influence from metaphysics, self-help psychology, and the various Indian gurus who visited the West during that decade.[7] The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions ranging from atheism and monotheism through classical pantheism, naturalistic pantheism, pandeism and panentheism to polytheism combined with science and Gaia philosophy; particularly archaeoastronomy, astronomy, ecology, environmentalism, the Gaia hypothesis, psychology and physics. New Age practices and philosophies sometimes draw inspiration from major world religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Chinese folk religion, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism; with strong influences from East Asian religions, Gnosticism, Neopaganism, New Thought, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Universalism and Western esotericism.[8] The term New Age refers to the coming astrological Age of Aquarius.[1]

Guru said...

Performs, communicating with you is an exercise in futility. Apparently, you put a lot of stock in Wikpedia. Go to some source documents like Alice Bailey. I am not trying to scare anyone. I am relating facts that any informed New Ager knows about. I am sorry that this doesn't include you. Are you to lazy to do any meaningful research? I am going to terminate this exercise in futility. If you don't want to know, that is fine. But, please don't wear your ignorance as a badge of honor.

Anonymous said...

Aurabass, I overlooked your post somehow. You must be someone who is very intelligent, very informed, and maybe even famous to make such a scathing and sweeping pronouncement. I would like to sit down with you, share a cup of coffee, and have a chat with you to find out if you have the goods or are just another leftist blowhard passing indictments on those that you know nothing about. It would be interesting to this wingnut blowhard if you would say something specific about my particular brand of idiocy. I have noticed that when most leftists make sweeping condemnatons and are challenged to give one single concrete example they are unable to do so. My bet is that you are one of these...more interested in shutting up opposition by name-calling than in engaging in dialogue. When I say something that appears to you to be idiocy, why not write a post challenging me? Are you afraid that you will lose the argument? Would you rather have a temper tantrum, take your toys and go home because the bad, conservative boogie man said something that displeases you? I can't tell from your post if you are even literate. Are you another Performs? Read anything other than the funnies or the sports page?

Obviousman said...

Well, Jerry,

Since you disavow all that you have learned since being part of the New Age movement, then it would suggest that you do NOT actually believe that the limb of one of the spiral arms of our Milky Way galaxy, the one containing our Solar System, on its majestic procession through spacetime, is actually on a trajectory which will cause the Earth to intersect a "new region of space" which, through some mysterious vibratory mechanism hitherto unarticulated, will suddenly and abruptly transform the Earth and everyone in it.

Therefore, no Omega Point, no transformation. All of the New Agers who are waiting gleefully to be the new masters of the world, with all of us unbelievers working for them at less than minimum wage, will be standing around with nothing to do, no investment portfolios, and a lot of pissed off "untermenschen" eager to send them to the Phantom Zone whether they want to go or not.

If that is the case, then what does it matter? If it is actually going to happen (which is highly unlikely, especially since you don't actually believe it yourself), then it will happen with or without us. If it is NOT going to happen then why should anyone dwell on it? Or waste time reading obscure books about nonsense?

Because a former UN Assistant Secretary General liked Alice Bailey? So what? Hitler liked Wagner. *I* like Wagner. Ok, I like *some* Wagner... especially that Hi-yo Toe-Ho stuff. The rest puts me to sleep. Does that make me a Nazi?

Alice Bailey didn't rule the world. Neither did Robert Muller. For that matter, neither did Kurt Waldheim. Secretary General of the UN? So what?

Who cares if a handful of people try to capitalize on them, and sell books and memberships in secret societies to the gullible? Walk down the street and you won't find two people who are either aware of, or care about Alice Bailey, or Robert Muller, or Seth, or RA.

This "Omega Point" and "RA" and "Seth" stuff makes at least as much sense as the idea that 5,700 years ago a male diety created the universe, including the Earth and all life on it in six days. But unfortunately he didn't like his own handiwork so he created genocide and drowned everybody on earth except the family of Noah, a 600 year old man who was charged with saving the animals. So Noah took two of everything, including microbes and viruses, and put them on a boat, and rode out the storm, but forgot about dinosaurs, which is why there aren't any around today.

And if you don't believe the facts presented in the foregoing paragraph, then you are an atheist and an apostate and after you die your awareness will be transported to an extradimensional reality where you will be tormented for eternity for failing to accept all of it without any question or skepticism.

You say that the Boards of Education of 38 states have adopted this curriculum? I see that Texas is the home of one of the main "Robert Muller Schools". Is Texas one of those 38? What about the others? Which states are they? Are they all "red states" like Texas? What is the likelihood that highly conservative state governments will voluntarily embrace the same nonsense that you, yourself, have rejected?

Voice Crying In The Wilderness said...

"Collectivist slaves are often people who have felt weak and inadequate since childhood. You know the type, ninety pound weakings who had sand kicked in their faces. They dream of being a part of a collective that can avenge them. Through the state the cowardly,and stupid have the ability to 'show the world who's boss' and get revenge for a life filled with meaninglessness. For all of their talk about 'unity' and 'the greater good', collectivists are for the most part self-deceived and subconsciously deeply selfish. They don't really support or participate in the collective for the sake of others. That is just window dressing. They look to the state to bolster their weak selves and to satiate their personal desires. That is easier than doing it themselves. On the other hand, an individual takes responsibility for himself, learning over time to provide his own structure which works to serve his own unique needs. A collectivist doesn't have the energy or the drive to do that. This is why so many of them look like disheveled beggars like their hero Karl Marx who despised work and lived off of others. He looks to the collective to tell him how to live. For this reason, the collectivist mentality shares much in common with slave mentality".

Anonymous said...

Obviousman, you do a pretty good job of passing yourself off as someone who is knowledgable and wise. But, only to the poorly informed. You sound like another one of those who get their information from Wikipedia. Though I have disavowed my participation in the New Age, many millions have not. Apparently you do not realize the extent to which New Age thinking has influenced the UN. Are you acquainted with the meditation room at the UN and Sri Chinmoy who does guided meditations there? It is not a matter of an isolated individual or two. Check out Share-international.org. I only mention this to show that New Age ideas are alive and well amongst millions. Share International is only one of countless New Age organizations that form a web of communication and cooperation world-wide. The Robert Muller curriculum doesn't mention (except in the introduction to the original) all of the New Age gobbeldy-gook. The curriculum merely is designed to produce globalist citizens as opposed to nationalistic citizens. No offense, but you sound like a piker to those who are truly informed. I guess you had to be there. One more thing, get a better understanding of Christianity before you make yourself out to be a complete boob...and I mean a COMPLETE boob.

Anonymous said...

Obviousman, you are right about one thing. "Walk down the street and you won't find two people who are either aware of, or care about Alice Bailey..." In case you haven't noticed, the average man doesn't know shit from Shinola, because the average man cares nothing for the effort that it takes to read substantve books. He thinks that by reading the newspapers or watching the evening news he knows everything of importance. That being the case, I can't believe that you would use the example of the 'average man' to be the litmus as to the truth of anything that has been said. OF COURSE THEY DON"T KNOW A DAMN THING! And you are one of them. You are just better than the unwashed masses at appearing to be knowledgeable...thanks to Wikipedia.

Guru said...

If you are able to keep your head while all about you people are losing their's, perhaps you don't understand the situation.

Obviousman said...

Jerry, I am the product of twelve years of a Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, and Jewish education.

I have visited Israel, and celebrated Pesach at a kibbutz in HaGalil. I was at the Western Wall in Jerusalem on Tisha B'Av in 1973, one of many times that I have stood there. I have visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and , in Bethlehem the Church of the Nativity. I have climbed to the top of Masada. I briefly stayed at a Yeshiva in Jerusalem. I celebrated Shabbos in Jerusalem with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, personally. I don't expect that you will know who he was, but you can look him up, I'm sure.

I have been to Assisi. I have been to Notre Dame. I have been in the Duomo of Florence.

In 1969, I was in Rome, and visited St. Peter's Basilica on a day that Pope Paul VI held a public audience, and so I saw him up close and personal too. I have been in the Sistine Chapel, where I saw for myself the incredible frescoes of Michelangelo, every one of which I was quite familiar from books I had studied about them as a child.

These are only a very small sample of the places that I have been, and the people I have been privileged to spend a few moments with. I'm a pretty well-travelled guy!

Now, I'm not claiming that my simply "being there" at all of the foregoing accords "understanding". My visits to these people and places certainly didn't convey that understanding. I already had it. These visits and encounters were pilgrimages that I made in my youth, and they have held powerful significance for me ever since.

So, I believe that in my life experience, I have acquired a thoroughly sufficient "understanding" of Christianity, and of a lot of other things besides, Mr. BOOB.

Now, returning to your rant... I know all about Sri Chinmoy. His organization has a store on Connecticut Avenue here in Washington, D.C., just 3/4 mile from where I live. "Transcendance, Perfection-Bliss of the Beyond". They sell a smorgasbord of cute little chotskes and party favors.

Sri Chinmoy has been dead since 2007, so if he's still leading meditation at the U.N., it must be after the seance.

You still haven't responded to my questions. What are the 38 states whose Boards of Education have adopted this "World Core Curriculum?"

If you think that something is a load of crap, then why should anyone want to waste time or brain cells "researching" it? Isn't that a little bit like researching phrenology? Or alchemy? Or orgone energy? Or engram theory?

You say that "millions" believe this shit? Are you sure that isn't more of your hyperbole? When do you ever make a statement here without resorting to wild exaggerations? Your entire mode of communication is hyperbolic.

Please answer the questions. Straight. No hyperbole. Thank you.

performs said...

"Collectivist slaves are often people who have felt weak and inadequate since childhood.....”

Name one person who has ever lived that has not felt weak or inadequate at times when facing their unsatisfied desires, disappointments, difficult circumstances,and confusion. Is this not the human condition to which all must contend? Slavery is part of that conditioning. Each person is a slave to both his/her own self-centered desires and to heartfelt aspirations to abide by higher ideals and principles. To rise above these is the only true freedom and real fulfillment.

No one needs to be blamed for how he views the world. We can share our views and contend as to our motives for holding to our perceptions as part of our collective search for truth. We can choose to be open to learning and growing or resist by clinging to the ephemeral as if it were unchangeable. The lessons of life are ready to teach us. If one allows his intellect and reason to lead the way rather than his loving heart and conscience, he will remain temporarily unconscious of his delusions, with life having little meaning and significance.

People struggle between the opposing ego-identities of “rugged individualism” versus “collectivist slavery”, both residing consciously or unconsciously within one’s mind. Neither is who one really is but only an identity taken up to satisfy the fears and loves, the wanting and longings to connect that drive our lives. Thus, the wiser choice, when one is ready to make it, is to be in the world yet not of it; to take loving/serving God (Oneness, Truth, Divinity) more seriously and one’s self and the world less seriously. Letting go is difficult and nearly impossible.

Self-effacement and self-sacrifice are not weaknesses, but one sees what one wants...Ah, facing one’s wants, now there’s a battle.

Anonymous said...

I can't list the 38 states that have adopted the World Core Curriculum. I was present at a meeting during which this issue was discussed by a woman of impeccable credentials. She is no liar and she was specific about the number being 38 (that was a couple of years ago, so the number may be different now). The curriculum no longer goes by the term 'World Core Curriculum'. The name has been changed several times since Robert Muller developed the curriculum and it may be that each state has its own name for it. The curriculum doesn't get into any of the esoteric New Age teachings, even though Muller credited Alice Bailey with providing the underlying principles in the original introduction to it. Basically, its emphasis is upon globalism as opposed to nationalism...nothing too far out. You seem to take a rather jaundiced view of biblical teachings for someone who has had the experiences that you described. My remark about learning the truth in regard to Christianity could also apply to a majority of those who call themselves Christian. Most are too lazy to read exegetical books to find out on their own. Christian doctrine is a minefield of conflicting opinions, so I try to avoid discussions of the matter, especially with those who seem to look askance at Christianity. One is not likely to radically alter another's deeply held religious or political beliefs through discussion. My own spiritual wakenings were more a matter of personal epiphany, and I suppose that that is true of most people. By the way, millions ARE involved in this New Age 'shit'. The difference between you and me is that I spent nine years in what was once a highly respected global New Age organization. It is now defunct, but there are countless other New Age organizations all over the world. I just wish that you would stick to things that you know about and quit pontificating on subjects that you obviously know nothing about. By the way, Teilhard de Chardin gave us the term 'Omega Point', not some Trekkie. Check out Chardin's writings and see if you can understand anything that he says. I'll be waiting to grade your report. Why would you go off so half-cocked on matters that you don't know anything about? Do you suffer from delusions of grandeur? I wish that I hadn't brought the topic up. I can't believe that no one on this blog knows anything about the heart of New Age teachings. I assumed that any number of people would enter into the discussion. I still can't believe that Sput doesn't know anything about it. One last thing, it was my bad for not knowing that Chinmoy had passed. You got me on that one. I no longer keep up with the going-on in the world of the New Age. Did you check out share-international.org? It is a good source of New Age teachings. Listen to some of Benjamin Creme's teachings on Youtube. He does some lectures that are an excellent introduction to fundamental New Age teachings. Check this out...it is rather long (12 parts), but quite informative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHyOfh17qok
If you really want to be informed I could give you a list of authors to check out. That way, you could speak with some authority and credibility when the subject comes up. As it is now, you blow it off because you know absolutely nothing about it and it shows.

Obviousman said...

Jerry, the difference between you and me is that your insolence is exceeded only by your hubris.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to answer the question in regard to why anyone should care about the New Age movement today. There is an effort being made to form a world religion to accompany the coming world government. Even most atheists can see the desirability of inculcating certain spiritual values in the populace, but to them they must be anything but Christian. Since 2000, an Episcopal bishop named William Swing has been working on the United Religions Initiative which is designed to create a syncretic world religion to go along with the mission of the United Nations which is to eventually to form a world government. Before you go crazy and scream 'bullshit', at least google United Religions Initiative' to see for yourself, or even better read 'False Dawn: The United Religions Initiative, Golbalism, and the Quest for A One-World Religion' by Lee Penn. There are competing schools of thought as to how this world religion will ultimately manifest. A large percentage of those who watch this phenomenon believe that the New Age will predominate once the infrastructure is laid. I don't dismiss any of this out of hand. I am a world watcher and I want to know as many variables as possible. I don't even dismiss Benjamin Creme and his message that the supernatural 'star' of Lord Maitreya is now present to herald his earthly ministry. Not that I put any stock in it, I just like to be aware of all that is going on in regard to the coming world government and world religion. Eventually, what we now 'see through a glass darkly' will become apparent for all to see. This is why I think that people shoud be apprised as to what the New Age is about beneath the superficialities. Take it or leave it, I am now going to drop the subject.

Anonymous said...

OK...insolence and hubris, but also the fact that I lived the New Age for 9 years (that was 30 years ago) and know something about the topic. Maybe that is why I come across as insolent and hubristic. One has confidence when he speaks from that which he knows.

Randolph Haspel said...

I believe that you boys need a new post to chew on..and I'm fixin' to give you one.