Writing on the Subject of Writing

I would like at this time to address the motives for my writings, so you could call this essay “writing on writings”. As you know I self published a prophecy book in 1980. Of course I made the assumption that I had a marketable talent. So what do I mean by that? Well, some may verbally express ideas to people to see how they react. I do that with my theories all the while keeping the other person’s mental reference point in mind. If they aren’t up for what I have to say, then saying it is unproductive. One may even submit writings like to Dr. Levy to be published in a news latter. I have written a lot of good stuff that Dr. Levy hasn’t used. I wrote that thing on the Holocaust over two years ago I thought was really great. Some of the truths expressed in that essay transcend specific reference to the Jewish Holocaust. But Dr. Levy chose to use a much more banal piece of work instead like “what are my plans for the rest of my life”. Well, I have the whole rest of my life to work out that one. I’m not going to come up with a definitive answer in five minutes. About three months ago I wrote Dr. Levy a series of letters referring to three different blog postings. All three kind of put God’s morality on trial and demonstrated cases in which man’s morality is superior. The first I submitted was called “A Question of Values”. He said he was going to publish it but decided to yank it at the last minute. Another, austensively with the word “Libya” in the title heading, could more rightfully be called “Don’t let your enemies set your agendas”. The third was originally a two parter in letters called “Choice God approved of man making, and choices I have made”. I stick them side by side to gauge which indeed is the more morally enlightened of the two. A big thesis of this letter was to say “If my fate were solely based on my own choices, it would be very different”. We now return to my book. Pete Richards criticized the introduction of it in saying “You exclude all those people who don’t believe in God; you exclude all the people who are into various occult arts; you exclude all the people who don’t believe in an after life; and you exclude all the people who don’t believe in a Last Judgement”. That’s right. The book wasn’t for them, since it was tagged as a book on Biblical Prophecy, so lets get that straight. Nowhere in the book do I try to prove either that God exists, or if he does that he is a moral God, and nowhere in the book do I endeavor to prove that there is an afterlife. So if you lack these prerequisite beliefs the book won’t help you anyhow and you shouldn’t buy it. Pete should have realized that I knew this. We then come to the idea of whether it’s “moral” for a Christian to earn money with his talents, and should other Christians help him do it. Oddly I got the feeling that Mark Bove didn’t believe in helping out other Christians economically or in any other way (such as romantic woes, or just needing a time to vent feelings in a “safe” environment) In my defense I turn to the movie “Loving You” where Elvis says “If you wanted work done reappolstering your car- - you would not expect to go to a total stranger and have it done for free, would you?” Sure if he’s a friend he might do it as a favor to you. But the same would go with a professional singer. What he will do for his friends is not necessarily what he’d do for a total stranger. The trouble with Mark Bove is essentially one of guilt in my opinion. He’d hate others putting a mirror up to him and seeing himself because he wouldn’t like it. And every time he looks at you he sees a superimposed picture of himself. That’s his problem. We now come to the value of conversation. If I only had another five or ten minutes of Dr. Levy’s time he could spend that time reading my stuff, if he hasn’t so far. It’s strange to think I am capable of composing and writing things faster than another person can read them. And then we have the whole idea of the idle monologue. “Sister Irene” and her son are guilty of this. They will go on and on about “Dying to self” or “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” and they think if I don’t respond to it when they say it once, if somehow they repeat it ten times, that somehow I will. In Scientology they always say to define your words, and if a person has a problem with a word or term to stop the speaker right there and ask for a definition. The same may apply to a concept label that is not properly defined. I myself would prefer to be stopped in my tracks, if the listener is no longer following me or “tracking with me”. The goal being to get the listener “back on the track”. Many like Marcus Blackwell or Mark Bove or Sister Irene don’t see communication that way. They see it as some sort of “free psychotherapy” where they can go on some kind of a rant monolog - - free of all restraints. The final area which I would like to explore is the one of accidently or deliberately distorting a person’s position when you do offer feedback to what they said. This is of key importance for dialog between hustands and wives having a spat. They will introduce some inflammatory inference or statement that the other person never said, because they weren’t listening carefully. I imagine foreign diplomats must spend a lot of time undoing the Damage caused to this sort of distortion. Sometimes the feedback from the other tells you a lot more about THEM than it does about you. Nobody looks at their images in funhouse mirrors and exclaims “Gee, do I really look like that?” They know it’s the mirrors and maybe they say something like “I’d like to have a funny mirror like that”. A lot of the feedback from Jesus Christ on KFI 640 fits into this category. Sometimes, and I’ll mention Mark Bove again- - he will “strip out” all spiritual “God talk” from my words and interpret it as though he didn’t have a spiritual bone in his body and expected that I didn’t, either. I would be stunned by such feedback. But it would drive home the fact that “Pastor Mark is just putting on an Act on Sundays, and the rest of the time when he deals with real people he actually cares about, he’s not like this”. Well, that’s about all I had to say. I hope this little essay on “Thinking Straight” has been helpful.

On the subject of morality- - - I think it may well be that “Darma” or Destiny owes us moral recompence from friends, associates, and superiors who have wronged us, if not in this life then in the next. I don’t think “God” owes us for damage or injury caused by natural phenomenon due to physical laws of cause in effect. Only those changes in the ecology that were caused by human irresponsibility. In the sixth dimension we deal with Living entities and not inanimate ones. We cannot hide things from each other in the sixth dimension. I don’t believe personal that God is a moral being but that the laws of cause in effect are “just” – as far as they go. But I think it’s best to think of wrongs done us by actual People rather than that caused by Nature. In terms of the "Why was I born who I was?" question, I've thought about that. It could be in the sixth dimensional psychic realm they have instituted some of a cosmic draft pick system. You may get a number of 1 billion 5 hundred and 52 or something. Somebody else might have a draft number of 987,654,321 and they would be that many ahead of you. You would thus be free to pick any life that is equal to or a lower value than your priority number. Or simply- - you get to pick after those with a lower number have gone before you. Your number won't rise as attrition occurrs because people coming into the sixth dimension (new arrivals) may have a better number. You may ask "who computes all that stuff?" The people themselves do, because remember everybody "up there" is as fast as a computer. (Selah) The question arises is "If God is not moral, what is the justification for Morality?" Good question. Glad you asked it. Well morality can be seen as "integrity". Such as products being built with integrity. That is they are "build right". A well engineered archetectural structure is a thing to behold. It takes some form of "intelligent design". But the Intelligence comes from the Human Mind and not from any outside deity or power. (as a rule) Were an idea to come into a mind from a power with higher karma, then that idea would be in part Their idea, and it would STILL be an idea that comes from a person and not from "God". Thus morality can see seen is intelligent design with the absence of error. (one of those Scientology words) Thus, like mathematics, morality is it's OWN justification. (Selah) Hitler would not long survive in such a perfect place of "integrity" because neither could they hide their loathing for him, and he could not "shut them out" but would be naked and exposed 100% of the time. (Selah) Consequently he would have a desire to leave.

Congress just voted to end the Ethanol tax subsidy, which has been around for years. Ethanol is an inefficient energy source. It's produced by corn, and the corn costs energy to cultivate, and it's only about 60% the efficiency of petroleum. Apparently if this law gets passed the president will ignore it. I think it passed the House but is having trouble in the Senate. I think the President needs to be forthcoming as to which energy sources he wants to "push". It seems now he is "pushing" all forms of energy even subsidizing oil and coal production. You know if we just yank all subsedies and let the free market solve the situation, we just might find a solution. It would mean lower profits for the big oil companies. People say that they have ideas for increased efficiency but the oil companies buy the patents and kill them. If people didn't lack faith in their own "product" and doubt its marketability, they wouldn't even have to make this choice. Were they"really on to something" I doubt they would sell out so cheaply. Short of duress, with a gun to your head or something, people freely choose to give up the rights to their own creative property. My advice to these people is "Don't".

I would like to talk about what would be a proper Health Care Insurance situation. I like the idea of “results oriented health care”. This means that if you get someone like “House” who appears not to know his ass from a hole in the ground, you won’t pay because the doctor keeps changing his mind, or uses an expensive form of care over a less costly one and thinks he’s doing you a favor. There are a lot of sheister Dentists out there who will make fake diagnoses requiring work that doesn’t really need to be done thinking they can just soak the insurance companies for it. The issue arises pertaining to a patient’s responsibility to maintain health. While I don’t deny that diet and other stuff plays a role in health, I don’t like the idea of a centeralized federal government dictating such policies. For one thing there besides the problem of enforcement of these policies, which would require “food police” and other squandered manpower to check up onyou, but also there is the issue of knowing for sure exactly how you are living. I believe you may contract your rights away if it’s an agreement you freely enter into. I know there are ante-nuptulal agreements people sign all the time signing away their legal rights. Personally I think these are immoral and flauting the institution of marriage itself. Some would sign away their rights to sue someone. I don’t like these either. If you, like me, believe human rights come from God, then only God should be able to take them away. I don’t like employers that require you not to smoke, even on your own time. I believe you are hired to do a specific job. The employer is owed your specified service, he’s not entitled to control every aspect of your life. But I’m just saying that these “Good rate insurance policies” should polifferate as more Insurers realize that they are subsidizing bad risks (and bad people) at the expense of good people (good risks) - - by not requiring responsibility from anybody, so the good suffer high rate with the bad. In terms of these people being dropped from policies and such, as far as I know even the Republicans are also concerned about certain aspects of the health insurance industry. What if it turns out the insurance companies are right most of the time? What if you are an irresponsible flake who is trying to jerk them around and “get away with something”? I continue to think that this idea that “Death” is somehow a curable disease is a phalocy. The idea that “normally” we just go on living forever – is a pipe dream. You know, God had “death panels” before any anti Obama people thought of the term. I think at a certain point further treatment becomes “unreasonable”. Police don’t provide 24 hour security guard service for free, and we should not expect a government remove all perils from our lives. As some wise man said long ago “Shit happens”. (Selah)