The Sunni Empire Strikes Back

I''m going to try and get my head together this afternoon just after three, and put down some thoughts on the Iraq crisis at hand.  First of all I wondered how the right wing was going to "spin": the thing, but I knew however they chose to spin it, it would be a way to make President Obama look bad.  Rush Limbaugh had a quotation of Joe Byden from early 2010 in which he said "Our administrations believes in the power of the ballot box over the power of guns." This remark alone was enough to set Rush Limbaugh off, who believes in a perpetual state of War for the government.  Keep in mind the war in Iraq lasted but a few weeks and by May first of 2003 that was won and Saddam was no longer in power.  The rest of the eight, plus years there was not a War but an "Occupation" and Thom Hartman points out "People have a tendancy not to like foreign governments occupying their country".  We didn't in Revolutionary War days.  Even here you have a problem.  Because as you know the tea poarty right as in that Obama hatchet job of the "2016" movie warns that President Obama has an obsessive anti colonial bias, as though our Founding Fathers didn't.  And then we have the people who said that our job was "To bring democracy to the middle east".  Well, we did that.  The people voted and they chose Meliki, who was a Shiite.  According to Hartman one of the first business to get going after the Iraq war was the Bank of Iran.  You have people like Judy who say however, that the Islamic people's have an inherent incapable of self government.  If that's true than one of our reasons for having gone to war in 2003 to begin with is gone.  The other reason, of course, was "Weapons of mass destruction" but here again it was only a few months later that everybody in the news media knew there were not now or ever were "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that were intended to be used on us.  This story was invented.  Thom Hartman states that someone said to William Randolph Hurst in 1898 or whenever, "You get me photographs and I'll give you the war you want".  But it turns out, and many people have known since the forties- - that the whole story about the Spanish sinking the SS Maine itself, was bogus, and that they have proven through modern forensics that the so called "explosion" occurred from the inside of the ship, and not from without.  The boiler was of an unsafe design, and two other ships blew up due to the same thing, and we didn't go to war over them.  Since Bush came out and admitted to a book author in 1999 that the whole Iraq War was something he always intended to carry out- - it's silly to even state that we went to war for some external reason.

Now if we look at the effects of the war - - Rush Limbaugh and perhaps John Mc Cain and Ted Cruz and whoever would say 'We need to send troops back to Iraq" or start bombing raids immediately.  But from what I've heard the Meliki government right now is on the verge of toppeling and Meliki has not had the support of the People of Iraq for over two years now, and has conducted oppressive crackdown measures- - particularly on Suni Muslems.  One report on Thom Hartman show states that the minute this Isis or Al Qaeda type revolutionary force took over, "Things immediately became peaceful and back to normal like they haven't been in a long time".  That's interesting.  The corporate Media has been relentless in portraying this Isis organization as "More brutal than Al Qaeda and very repressive and dangerous".   In other words all of the advances they have made in both Syria and in Iraq is portrayed as some major military crisis the Obama Administration has been sleeping through.  In reality though, it's a good thing.  Because it removes the danger that Iran will "take over everything in that part of the world".  In other words it's a good counter-balancing force, just as Saddam Hussein was.  It keeps the extremism of the Shiites at bay.  And the people are desperate to escape Shiite tyrany both in Syria and now in Iraq.  Really the worst stratigic thing we did in that part of the world was to take out Saddam Hussein to begin with, and were the US to choose its ideal candidate to be ruler in that part of the world once more, it would be someone very much like Saddam, who may not care for individual rights of dissenters, but he keeps the terrorists at bay and promotes stability among nations.  But we'd feel silly admitting that.  So I'm not distressed as other people are, over this "land mass" of the Mideast that is now being occupied by this Isis army, or whatever they're calling themselves.

In terms of Eric Cantor the media has been playing that one all wrong, too.  Because this David Bratt or whatever his name is- - is basically a populist who won on an anti Wall Street banker money platform.  If anything there was just a tinge of anti semitism because Cantor is a Jew.  But basically he won the appeal of the people on populism sentaments- - Vox Populi and all.  But Sean Hannity will never admit this.  Even when he's interviewing someone like a soldier in Afghanistan- - he is constantly trying to put words in their mouths - - so that they end up saying exactly what Shawn wants them to say.  And of course all these callers on the shows have absolutely no independent thoughts.  They only parrot back the things the Host of that particular show just got through saying, to begin with.  Every incident or event the callers bring up has an anti Obama spin put on it.  I guess if a trucker is denied Health Coverage by his company now- - the easy thing to say is "It's all President Obama's fault" like that caller on the Stephanie show today.  It couldn't be because either the employer or the insurance company just changed their philosophy on their own.  No it had to be because the rules in the Affordable Care Act mandated the termanation of Health Care to employees.  Of course Jackie Sheckner said she'd read the ACA and there was no such provision in the bill.  It never ends.  And then you have this anti gun control guy calling Hartman about Chicago.  When informed that the statistics they cited about out of state weapons being found ninety percent of the time- - this right wing caller said "Well those records are all just manufactured by the democratic mayor Ron Emanuel" and of course the Police Department has to be in on this conspiracy too.  Or like when Global Warming is brought up the media will have one scientists supported by the 97% majority of qualified scientists, and this one scientists will be pitted against a right wing whack job in some debate, and naturally if this debate is on FOX news- - the moderator will be a Global Warming denier, too.

 It’s so strange that you tell someone “I’d really rather not answer that question” when you sense a topic is being beaten to death.  But in the spirit of “total honesty” Jennifer answers the question, and then of course Dr Jonas gets even madder at her.  You can’t win for losing.  What’s wrong with saying “Does it really matter at this point?”  It’s like Hillary Clinton’s exasperation over Bengazi.  At some point you don’t care whether it was an anti Muslem video or a “terrorist attack”.  It’s like the old “Less filling – Taste Great” argument.  Certs is a candy mint.  Certs is a breath mint.  If I were Jennifer my last line would be “You know this is proof Nicole has you wrapped around her little finger because not only has she gotten away with mischief in the past, she’s Still Doing It.  And I would say “Are you going to let Nicole destroy our relationship built up over years of working at it?”  But in general, this was pretty much a wasted “filler material” day.

I was reading the Theosophy platform of sixteen points.  They use a lot of the same terms I do, but haven't thought them through as I have.  It's like someone up on some stage doing hand gestures and you think he's signing to the deaf, but all of the gestures are just gibberish.  If you were to actually pin one of these Theosophy guys down, just like a suspect who's lying under police questioning, this would become apparent.  When they speak about terms like "The Universe" or "What is real", it must be understood by both of you what they really mean.  For instance I used the term "Objectivist" to define my own metaphysical philosophy, as opposed to either the term "Empericism", or even the term "realist".   My problem with the term is "Realist" is that often the speaker is attempting to "limit your options" by such devices of "It's either this way or that way" where other points of view are banned by him a prior.  Someone once said "Even if you claim all things are possible to you, it has to be at least logically Possible for something to be that way to BE possible.  There are things that are logically Impossible, and an inability to do these is no fault or lacking.  But like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, I darkly suspect that when push came to shove -  they would phase out on you the minute they are forced to give an answer to a question of yours that isn't in the prepared script.   One thing struck me early on.  They state "All things can be divided into two classes".   OK so far.  Sure you can divide things into "Artifacts of human thought" that don't really exist- - like Corporations aren't people, and no man is perfect, even Jesus.  And then you have everything else that has some sort of physical measurable form.  You could class this is the primary subdivision.   But Theosophy goes someplace else that I don't venture.  Theosophy won't even admit to 'artifacts of the human mind" being that OTHER class of what they call "things".  Theosophy claims there is a "shadow world' out there filled with "invisible things".  They aren't hidden through some trick of physics or whatever- - they really - - are inherently - - "Not There" unless you're a Believer in them or something.  Here is where I part company.  If you are going to speak of a shadow world - - give me something to hang onto - - some reasoning for said "shadow world' to even exist to begin with, other than like with Little Children, who by reason of immaturety, like the concept.  Because almost invariably this "shadow world" is realm they are the self appointed Emperor of- - and they and They Alone- - seem to be the only one "blessed" with knowing all that is in their little shadow world, like CS Lewis and Narnia or Peter Pan and Never Land, or something.   (Selah)  Sometimes though - - if you haven't defined your terms - - the listener is lost already and you'd better stop before going a bit further and define your terms, like Ron Hubbard instructs us to do.  To NOT immediately stop when you see the hearer is genuinely confused- - is what is known as "fogging" where some people almost "use" the hearer's confusion to their own advantage, like some hype of a salesman, for instance.  It is my contention that Truth is often "a tough pill to swallow".  For instance- - I teach the paradox that- - yes- - a Universe is "Everything that exists".  It's all how I define existance as something demonstrably measurable and provable by Scientific method.  So I would say "This is the only Universe that exists- - but there ARE other Universes out there".   Though not provable in a test tube some things can be logically inferred - - and under a certain philosophy are not only a logical Posability (as opposed to an emperical one) but virtual logical necessities.  That's confusing to these people.  There are also things like Event Horizons - (for example, and I won't elaborate here) - where the TRUE meaning of the theory of relitivity- - the whole Relitivity part of the thing, actually - - comes into play.  Because MOST of the time when people talk about "The theory of relativity" they, strangely enough are NOT referring to the relitivity part of the Theory.  These are concepts that need to be nailed down, but they require clear thinking to do that, and I have covered these topics at some length in many of my previous postings.  One thing I say that Theosophy doesn't seem to agree with me on is that GOD himself created- -  -Infinity Itself.   Infinity itself is a creation of God.  This revelation came to me about three years ago in 2011 or maybe it was 2010.   In other words "Infinity" itself is not some Absolute, transcend concept.  But the other thing I believe in from my techy background- - is the idea of Program flow- - we went into this a few postings back in a different blog.  You need a beginning point, and you need a termanation point.  You always have to be, one way or another- - going forward.  Any computer programmer will tell you that Circular Logic or reasoning, just won't fly.  There are no self perpetuating motion machines.  If someone could invent one they could rule the world.  I would answer one question some of you have.  "You said that lines of Logic cannot cross.  Why is that?"   Well maybe you've seen these cartoons or perhaps a Three Stooges thing where you see people running through halls one way and then the other- - and then crosswise- - and you get so confused you don't know whether you're coming or going, literally.  This is one problem.  Another is a problem I ran into on my "Distribution" program.  It's called the "Last to tag the base gets the credit" principle.  In other words you have this "variable reassignment problem" where one flow of logic runs one way- - and then a train of logic going the other way reassigns that variable to another value and screws the whole program up for the first line of logic when it passes that way again.  I don't expect most readers to understand all the minutia of what I have written here.  It's just to let you know that as the saying goes "The devil is in the details' and you have to think things out- or the whole thing falls apart.