E-Klectic Stuff

Socialist Science Professors

2011-05-30T08:59:00.001-07:00

“Professor: noun. a person who professes something; esp., one who openly declares his sentiments, religious beliefs, etc” - yourdictionary.com.

It‘s my belief non-science college Professors are probably liberals, which would mean non-science college graduates are only half educated--they will be missing the “other sides.” However, to be fair, probably any graduate who has taken ‘extra’ science and math courses should be considered a little above the half educated mark. It would be interesting to do some research on the percentage of Professors falling into non-science categories, vs. math and science, but it would be too time consuming, and not meaningful for the point I want to share. But I would guess it’s more than half, which is just an educated estimation: mine. And, it appears to me, the primal cause for the left skewed non-science education trends is most likely aberrant physiology--ironically, a science.

Based upon the definition of Professor, given above, which I had no part in formulating, you’ll notice that it points to those who profess their ‘sentiments’ and ‘religious beliefs, etc’, i.e., it’s all non-science stuff. Of course there are other definitions of Professor: “teacher of high rank”, or “senior academic holding a departmental chair”, which are really co-definitions of nothing. The basic difference is, math and science are taught by ‘instructors’, those who ‘instruct and show’ students how something is done, or works, or operates, within those subjects that are math or science based, which disallow professed sentiments. Moreover, math and science instructors educate by teaching established laws and acceptable theories and axioms. You don’t hear math instructors talking about liberal slopes or conservative tangents, unless they're referring to some aspect of economics. Also, science and math instructors only ‘borrow’ the title Professor since they are not allowed to profess; but they do want to feel comfortable around the Professors in their work environment.

Those Professors, or rather ‘Expressors’, who are fooling students, and many government intellectuals, in the pseudo-science field of economics, you know, the socialist science subject that analyzes the production, distribution, wealth redistribution, and consumption of good and services, can be overheard expounding on illusive ‘theories and beliefs’, and expressing them to be either conservative or liberal ideology. In general, economic expressors are just another liberal arm of the government.

The reasons economists tend to be believable, as a “science”, are because they use math processes, like calculus, and all those colorful charts. Personally, I think Will Rogers got it right, “An economist's guess is liable to be as good as anybody else's.” Economics graduates who can’t make it in academia, or government, tend to fall back on writing political opinion columns or blogs for the New York Times, or its left coast sister, the Los Angeles Times. And they, too, feel important and worthy because they have the socially established medium in which they can be Professors of their liberal opinions.

My concept of the scienceless field of ‘socialist science’ is, mainly, it’s a collection of liberally slanted opinions and sentiments about why the government should provide for and take care of the people. I say this because, unlike conservatives, who tend to want less government, avoid welfare, believe in capitalism as the American way, take charge of their circumstances whether good or bad, buy their own health insurance, and mind their own business, the liberals arrive in my mind as a bunch of pre-school kids who need constant attention and supervision, and, who want the government to provide their ‘daycare-tv' support. The liberal arts programs and socialist studies Expressors generate the ‘higher’ basis and support for today’s liberal ideology: more government, higher taxes, more welfare programs, open borders, political correctness, abortions, imported oil, and diaper change instructions, with schedules.

I find it perplexing, no, curious; wait, I meant, it’s amusing, to think that higher education is really thought to be ‘higher’ than the good common sense found in most high school graduates who get a real job, pay their taxes to help support the welfare programs for those who won’t work, raise a family, kick back with a ‘cold one’ on Friday nights, go to church on Sunday, and vote as a conservative. It’s these folks who are the real backbone of America. When things go wrong and they get slammed down, while laboring under the government’s liberal Expressor driven adversities, they do what real Americans do: they continue to get up and go to work, take care of their family and resolve personal issues by relying on close friends and family, not the government.

Here’s my point: non-science higher education Expressors are not teaching ‘complete’ subject matter but rather painting their sentiments and opinions over course subjects. Expressors don’t educate students by teaching reality, that there are always two, or more, sides to all issues. Professors write text books, and edit history; they are never lacking for subject matter to express in their lectures and tend to stick to their handy ‘book-draft’ lesson plans. I see them as basically academic politicians; they have their opinion planks, and a captive class of people they can fool. We would have a lot more conservatives if they were Instructors.

One last thought to share: all non-science expressors should be investigated for un-American involvements; and here’s why. In the little book “Making Socialists out of College Students-A Story of Professors and other Collegians Who Hobnob With Radicals”, written by Henry Woodworth Clum and published around 1920, the author provides some extensive details about high-ranking college Professors, and others, who formed the Inter-Collegiate Socialist Society, headquartered in New York City. Some of the professors mentioned were from such institutions as Ohio State University, University of Minnesota, and University of Illinois. The book lists the names of some twenty-four, or so, professors who attended the Committee of 48 conference in New York, June 24-30, 1919. I’m pointing this out because the Expressor infested socialist organizations in America at that time were so numerous. Many of the organizations withered and died, but I don’t think their ’ideas’ and socialist motivations died; and, the real havens for this kind of stuff have remained in our Universities. It certainly doesn’t originate at Joe’s Pizza Shop or McDonalds. There was the SDS, Students for a Democratic Society, in the ‘60s; and today, since 2006, there’s a new version of SDS taking roots--Oh, my, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky just slithered into my mind.

Just how entrenched this collectivist group of intellectuals is throughout higher education ought to be looked into, seriously; but I guess that would be analogous to Hitler going after Stalin because he professed to be a fascist--so it will continue to be overlooked.

“Hardly one in ten thousand will have the strength of mind to ask himself seriously and earnestly--is that true?” , Arthur Schopenhauer.

The Feudal Estates of America

2011-05-25T06:45:00.000-07:00

The Feudal Estates of America are, again, experiencing great disunity throughout the fiefdom. The current Lord of Vassals, coming into our reality through an unraveled array of associations within the blue estate of the Chicago Fief, is professing great feudal ‘wrecktitude’ unlike any previously experienced. Not since the rein of the 39th Lord of Vassals has the common-vassals had so much to fear.

The Allo-Vassals on the Hill, the “House Shrews”, are caught-up in aimlessly shuffling about for bits and pieces of ‘seisin’, upholding their fealty, ‘reliefs’, and vassalage to the Lord of Vassals. They have become too constipational to comprehend the reality of the fast declining allodial holdings of the common-vassals. The failures of the Allo-Vassals have never been so great, and so consistent, and so detrimental to the common-vassals as they are today. When aroused enough to venture outside, these subterranean talpidae and talpinae, blind by gradual reduction from disuse, fail to see the plumes of destruction rising from the activities over in the Herrschaft at the end of the avenue; and, with ears that are hidden, they do not hear the common-vassals’ bleats of pain.

You will, when paying close attention during their infrequent arousals over some meaningless activity, notice that Allo-Vassals fail to emit even ultrasonic squeaks of concern toward the Herrschaft; or expend any energy to pretend an appearance of being conscious, aware, or concerned. They just squint and scurry back into their dark marbled tunnels to continue their disservice to us common-vassals and gorge their egos through fealty and vassalage to the Lord at the Herrschaft; and, continue their drooling over the endless stream of dysfunctional, unenforceable legislative invertebrates they push-out to regulate the common-vassals.

There was a time when the house shrews played an important part in the “balance of power” within the Feudal Estates, and could check the abuses by a Lord of Vassals, or another Allo-Vassal, by simply calling attention to any misguided intent. Of course this was back when the U. S. Constitution actually played a key role in their work, and our life. But now, our Lord of Vassals has usurped their powers, and dignity, and installed legislative czars in his court, so now the shrews’ importance is withering away and they just scurry about aimlessly throughout their tunnels. In addition to their sight, both fore and hind, and their hearing, they have also surrendered their voice of the people. They did not speak-out when the Lord of Vassals and his “Star-nose moles” granted bailouts to the failed capitalists; they did not hear the common-vassals’ cries of pain from having to pay larger “reliefs” so the Lord of Vassals' fiefdom didn't fail; blind, they didn’t see the common-vassals moving out of their foreclosed homes -- foreclosed on by the same capitalists the Lord of Vassals and his moles saved from failure with the “reliefs” paid in by the common-vassals, and those who were kicked into the street.

‘In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is lord’ - Machiavelli

There was a time when a Lord of Vassals and the Allo-Vassals actually worked to help the common-vassals; there was a time when the Estates shared in government, to ensure their rights; there was a time, before the socialist controls got out of hand, when the common-vassals were comfortable with the rules for their behavior; there was a time the fiefdom was free of debt and enjoyed great credit; there was a time, before the imperial Lord of Vassals usurped the Allo-Vassals’ powers, when we had checks and balances through the separation of powers: administrative, legislative, and judicial. But, the Allo-Vassals have forfeited their share of power; and while the emperor's court-vassals will mumble a little, occasionally, they tend to sigh and go back to sleep. If only they would stay awake long enough to read and comprehend the Constitution, and stop confusing the “written words" with something they were dreaming about while napping.

All the social systems throughout the ages that have failed was because of “change”. A change in a ruler’s power structure or from a lost war; and in most cases, it involved both. The major ‘change’ that is affecting our feudalistic society today is the Allo-Vassals’ failure to rein-in abusive change, through public challenges; the abusive “loose construction” of the Constitution, and the abuse of “implied” powers. Our Lord of Vassals is using implied powers and ignoring those specifically granted by the Constitution. This abuse of power, and the Hills comatose house-shrews, has led to out of control spending, expanding government programs, meaningless baby-sitting regulations, and curtailment of personal liberties in every area of our fiefdom. The shame of it is: 300 million people are being led by the nose, and regulated, by fewer than 600 house-shrews.

We the people…are the solution; but only if we use our voices in a way the Allo-Vassals can understand--please, vote wisely!

Thinking About Thoughts

2011-05-23T16:00:00.000-07:00

When I go out walking, I think. Lately, I’ve been stuck on our political nightmare. The other day, while walking my three mile route around the “plantation”, I was thinking, about thinking, which led me to think about the relationships between the thought processes and politicians. While trying to sort out these hard to understand relationships between thinking and politicians I began wondering whether thinking begins with internal stimuli or from external stimuli. Perhaps this came into my mind because I recently read somewhere that Voltaire said, “The first philosophers, whether Chaldeans or Egyptians, said there must be something within us which produces our thought.”

This idea doesn’t actually hold up when considering a politician's thoughts, which I think baffles most of us at times. Their thinking usually stems from ego, favors, pay-backs, promises, contributions, votes, etc., which is really a mixture of both internal and external stimuli. For example, when I see President Obama or Senator Reid on TV, I immediately begin thinking about how my America is being kicked to the curb, that’s external provocation. Which immediately brings to mind various genres of thinking, and thoughts; fear, hate, disgust, plus other stuff I won’t describe here.

In this respect, it’s valid to say that emotional relationships can be built upon thoughts and imagination; obviously, deep emotions can be quickly provoked by a bunch of politicians in Washington. It was because there are so many possible “relationships” that exist within the many kinds and uses of thoughts, or thinking, that I began wondering about the nature of thoughts; like, just how many classifications of thought are there and how might thoughts in so many thought processes fall into more than one genre, e.g., “thought process”, “thought pattern“, “thoughtless” (a liberal identity), “thoughtful” (a conservative process), and so on. So my thought process for thinking about thoughts made me think I should drill down. “Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid…”, Bertrand Russell.

First, I looked-up the definitions of both “think” and “thought” in my 1970 edition of Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary and was totally overwhelmed by the definitional implications of the word think. Maybe Bertrand Russell was wrong; and maybe politicians have a valid excuse. So I must admit, I had to retreat from Webster’s positions on thinking to my own thoughts about thinking and thought, in which case I thought, “I gotta think about this!” So, I started looking into thoughts, which is easier to deal with because thinking is now over.

Thoughts! Think about this: there are billions of people on this earth, and most likely more than half are awake and thinking at any given moment in time, except for politicians. So we’re talking about billions of thoughts here, but little political thinking, and that’s not even thinking about animal thoughts. This is heavy-duty thinking, which produces a lot of thoughts. Well, except maybe there are other issues related to the liberal thought process, e.g., "Belief is when someone else does the thinking." (Buckminster Fuller, 1972). Since thoughts are the past of think, I suppose I could think of thoughts as mental exhaust, trailing behind thinking, you know, the residue of thinking. And this raised the question, “exactly when, in the process of thinking, does thinking become a thought?” It's tricky, because with liberals, thinking does not always lead to thoughts and this could leave you hanging.

I’m not sure I really understand the relationships between thinking, as a mental process (or a series of thoughts) and a thought (past of think); I find it hard to grasp the concept of an isolated thought, a thought. Like, does a think become a thought? Just kidding. But consider the statements, “I have a thought!”, or “don’t give it another thought!”, in both cases there is at least an underlying concept of a thought. That or we are simply not saying it correctly: should we say, “I have some thoughts” or “don’t even give it more thoughts?” Realize, though, we are using the concept of a series, one thing following another, which implies single, isolated thoughts, one following another. I‘ve been trying to pull down an isolated thought from a series, but its like trying to find a meaning from a single word in a sentence; it leaves my mind begging. But, I was rather intrigued by the idea behind this thought, because I thought I had found the riddle of the liberal thought process.

My final conclusion is: there’s no such thing as a thought. The only way the idea of a single thought can even be considered is to apply it to the liberal thought process, if there is such a thing. Conceptually, since liberals don’t appear to be capable of connecting thoughts, they can only collect them into “disconnected think." In order to understand this, one would have place their disconnected think within parenthesis (using set theory), and then call it a thought process, even though it wouldn't make sense.

Now consider the many, many kinds of thoughts: serious thoughts, fleeting thoughts, passing thoughts, amusing thoughts, exciting thoughts, stimulating thoughts, dirty thoughts, frightening thoughts, disturbing thoughts, wonderful thoughts, religious thoughts, political thoughts, complete thoughts (conservative), incomplete thoughts (liberal), rational thoughts, irrational thoughts, considerate thoughts, inconsiderate thoughts, rash thoughts--okay! I know, enough is enough. Realizing that there are so many ways to think about thoughts, you have to know there must be some interesting aspects of thoughts to think about.

If you were able to actually track thoughts, you would immediately see that they are a constant, though not consistent; thoughts are jumping around like crazy, from one classification to another, and back. Good thoughts get hit on a lot (next date with Alice) and we tend to keep them foremost in our mind (man, was she wild or what). The good stuff. Unfortunately, there is always a downside; the depressing, bad, political thoughts keep coming to mind: news coverage of President Obama, or Nancy Pelosi. And, you never know what power hungry politicians may be thinking..."What luck for rulers, that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler.

My conception of thoughts, for the most part, resemble flat-lines that are subject to non-routine spikes, returning to flat-lines, then spiking again, as stimuli comes and goes. It’s just a mental picture I have of our thought processes. The classifications which cause the flat-lines are simply low adrenalin thinking; the spikes are caused by high adrenalin, or maybe testosterone. Each thought type has a color: the flat-lines tend to be dark colors, where the total absence of thought is black. For example, black or bark brown could indicate a liberal who is trying to think. It of course would be reflected on the far left side of the flat-line, while spikes travel to the right into the brighter colors, like orange and red. Red would certainly be the highest thought process, and this might be indicative of conservative thoughts; but, it could also be a Muslim's radical, genocidal thoughts as they are also derived from intense thinking.

Using my concepts, let’s have some fun with a quick thought exercise. We are all familiar with thought exercises, you know, we’re thinking all the time. Well, maybe there are some exceptions. But, anyway, let’s do an exercise: first, we want to think of a globe, let's use the earth, and we’re high above it. Now, think of thoughts as a mass of electrical impulses covering the earth, which will represent the billions of impulses from the thinking minds that cover the earth. We’re up in the ionosphere, in about the middle of it, 125 miles or so, looking down on this mass of quivering thoughts, and thinking. We can see the colors of the different kinds of thoughts, and thinking that’s taking place. Wow! What a color spectrum; and this spray of colors is identifying all the thought processes taking place at every instant, and the colors are constantly changing in kaleidoscope fashion. We can see where the various thought processes are actually concentrated. See! Over there! Those in the Muslim countries, streaked with large areas of yellow, orange, and red; totally different from the mostly pinks, pastel yellows, and tinges of orange we see in the U.K. Oh, but there, you can see a couple of little red spots around London. Now, if you look close, you can see Washington D.C. Yeah, rather hard to detect, so little color; nothing serious going on there. Wow! Look at the San Francisco area. What the---? What kind of color is that? There's some strange thoughts and thinking going on there. Stop! If you followed this exercise to this point, it just goes to prove, you can be easily led to follow the thinking of anyone.

We can invent all sorts of ways to stretch our thoughts, twist our thoughts, and thinking, and amuse, or torture, ourselves. You must admit, “some” thoughts and thinking by others may just be convincing enough to grab you, and you'll be a follower. And I use the word, “some”, because we know that realistic and meaningful thinking isn’t consigned to everyone.

The greatest thing and the worst thing about thoughts: they come first in bringing about a reality--nothing was ever done or made by man that was not first a thought; but, they also arouse emotions, and bring forth such motives as, kill.

George Washington: America's Only President

2011-05-23T15:58:00.001-07:00

I just finished reading a biography of George Washington, a two-volume set written by Henry Cabot Lodge and published in 1899. Volume I is an in-depth account of Washington's early years, up through the Revolutionary War; while Volume II covers his life from the time he resigned his military commission until his death.

These two books, unlike contemporary history books, offer an imposing amount of detail, all of which is richly significant, while blazing a wide swath of new insights to ponder, and seemingly leaving “no stone unturned.” When I finished reading volume II, I found I was filled with the notion that, after George Washington left office, America has yet to elect a bona fide president.

It was Washington and the congress who initially set up the office of President of the United States; and in so doing, drew-up the blueprint for how the policies and affairs of the office were to be addressed. It was Washington’s nature to be efficient and thorough in all aspects of his life; and he set the bar high as to just principles and strict standards of morality. In a letter to Timothy Pickering he wrote: "The Executive has a plain road to pursue, namely, to fulfill all the engagements which duty requires; be influenced beyond this by none of the contending parties; maintain a strict neutrality unless obliged by imperious circumstances to depart from it; do justice to all, and never forget that we are Americans ."

Washington was the only president to serve before the “two-party” system became an accepted reality; although, during his two terms in office, Thomas Jefferson was busy building the leftist Democratic Party, which troubled Washington deeply, and about which he expressed many warnings. But, sadly, his successors being blinded by their ego nurturing and divisive party schemes, paid no heed to the conventions, methods and standards that he had so clearly laid-out; and none followed. Thank God he has been spared our reality.

As a man, Washington embodied everything that is American, and he was single minded on the issue of immigration: people who came to live within the United States and make it their home, should become and then be true Americans. He made this point clear in a letter to John Adams: "My opinion with respect to emigration is that except of useful mechanics, and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement; while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing they retain the language, habits, and principles, good or bad, which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they or their descendants get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws; in a word, soon become one people."

So, at the end of two terms, and from the heights of great achievement, he said farewell to the people he had so greatly served. Every word expressed the purest and wisest patriotism: "Be united," he said; "be Americans. The name which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. Let there be no sectionalism, no North, South, East or West; you are all dependent one on another, and should be one in union. Beware of attacks, open or covert, upon the Constitution. Beware of the baneful effects of party spirit and of the ruin to which its extremes must lead. Do not encourage party spirit, but use every effort to mitigate and assuage it. Keep the departments of government separate, promote education, cherish the public credit, avoid debt. Observe justice and good faith toward all nations; have neither passionate hatreds nor passionate attachments to any; and be independent politically of all. In one word, be a nation, be Americans, and be true to yourselves."

In those times when America was forming itself into the nation of United States of America, the people were truly blessed to have had such a great and capable statesman as George Washington in their midst, ready to accept the honor and responsibility to serve the people as our first president; it was truly a divine miracle.

I wish every American, especially presidential candidates, would read volume II of this set of books so they can understand and appreciate how the President of the United States should serve the American people.

By a slow evolution we have well-nigh discarded from
the lives of our greatest men of the past all human
faults and feelings; have enclosed their greatness in
glass of the clearest crystal, and hung up a sign,
" Do not touch."(PAUL LEICESTER FORD)

Conservative Media Mind Control

2011-05-05T14:45:00.000-07:00

The conservative media is hammering the point that the upcoming 2012 presidential election will be the defining election for America. Thanks to the conservative media folks, there is ongoing exposure of the political mess in Washington, and the reasons behind it.

As conservatives, we know the biased and misdirected liberal mainstream media fails to see the reality of the political and economic mess that's glaring in their face. Oblivious, they simply continue pushing and supporting the Obama driven left-field socialist agenda; more spending, more taxes, more socialist programs, and failed foreign policies; all the while labeling conservatives as stupid or crazy or both. And sadly for conservatives, the liberal media operates on a single track, all clamoring to endorse the President’s schemes and plots. It's rather amazing how ‘together’ the libs are in embracing absurd policies and programs. As a result, conservative hopefuls are up against a huge challenge in overcoming liberal minds and ousting President Obama. So how can the conservatives win back the White House in 2012? As I see it, there's only one answer: get the conservative votes, get the moderate democrats’ votes, and get the independents’ votes. There is no other way. While it won’t be easy, there is a way.

Keeping conservatives aware of the political and economic crisis must be the daily task of our conservative media; no letting up on the spending issues, border issues, culture issues, security issues, constitutional issues. And, there’s one card that must be played by the media: put the issues squarely in the lap of congressional members through daily interviews with senators and house reps, really hammering the conservative planks. Congress has been out to lunch. Hardly a word is uttered by a member of congress about the sad state of affairs in Washington. It’s as if they’re asleep at the wheel. The media needs to pound on these folks, hard and often. I find it amazing that we have so many elected politicians on the Hill and none have guts enough to stand up to the White House and point out all the “out-of-bounds” crap that’s going on. This is a fact the media ought to point out and drive home. The people are not being represented; none in congress have expressed my concerns , or anger.

We must get back to sane conservative principles if we are to salvage our country and that’s why the 2012 election is so important. This election will call for making every possible effort, and then every extra effort that can be mustered by conservative media to get a solid, effective nominee elected in 2012. We’ll soon know who will be running and there must be an endless stream of talk radio dialogs, opinion columns, and blogs covering the candidates and bringing into focus those best qualified to save the country. Through the impact of media exposure we can forge and focus opinions which will eventually translate into votes. We must come together and elect a conservative savior.

Our only hope is Conservative Media Mind Control and it will have to be more powerful and more effective than the lefts'; it will have to become ONE MIND.