Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom Solar System

There's the rub: you are too clever for your own good. Linda

I'm smart and stupid, simultaneously. I'm a genius and a retard, simultaneously. Then, add emotional instability and spiritual warfare to forbidden information and off the wall speculation, and things get nasty and messy in a hurry. It's a good thing that I know how to mostly keep quiet. I think that 'waking people up' should be done in a very calm, cool, and calculating manner - probably by the same media machine which has been keeping us in the dark for so many years. Again, I want the whole solar system governance thing to be managed properly, without being completely reinvented. I continue to like the hijacking idea, rather than the anarchy model. I think I could visit the nerve-center of solar system governance, and get along with everyone. I think I could go to Bilderberg, and get along with everyone. But I would probably disagree with them on most things. I'd even hang out with Dracs and Greys for a while, if I knew for certain that no harm would come to me. I hear that Henry Kissinger and the Bilderberg Group are having problems in St. Moritz, Switzerland. Go Swiss Parliamentarians! Alex is giddy! http://www.prisonplanet.com/ I like to listen to Alex, and then try to find ways to deal with all of the problems in a positive and constructive manner. Alex is very quick, and can deal with a lot new information with amazing skill. But really, if the Bilderbergers rule the world, one would think they could figure out how to have a completely secret meeting. I really think this meeting is a front, and that the real decision-making occurs under the polar icecaps or on the darkside of the moon. Follow the Nazi phenomenon - before, during, and after World War II. Also, take a close look at Germany - beginning with the Protestant Reformation. This is not a negative reflection on the German people, but something very different seems to have been centered in Germany throughout the centuries. BOTH the Old World Order AND the New World Order need to be studied in a comparative manner. Are they really two sides of the same coin, or are they at war with each other? I hear that Hillary wants to be Queen of the Banksters! What would Queen Beatrix say?? What would Weiner say?

Swiss Politicians to March on Bilderberg to Demand Arrest of Kissinger. http://www.prisonplanet.com/bilderberg-2011-day-3-interviews-with-activists-journalists.html

Bilderberg 2011 Attendee List. http://www.prisonplanet.com/bilderberg-2011-full-official-attendee-list.html

Belgium

Coene, Luc, Governor, National Bank of Belgium
Davignon, Etienne, Minister of State
Leysen, Thomas, Chairman, Umicore

China

Fu, Ying, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
Huang, Yiping, Professor of Economics, China Center for Economic Research, Peking University

Denmark

Eldrup, Anders, CEO, DONG Energy
Federspiel, Ulrik, Vice President, Global Affairs, Haldor Topsøe A/S
Schütze, Peter, Member of the Executive Management, Nordea Bank AB

Germany

Ackermann, Josef, Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank
Enders, Thomas, CEO, Airbus SAS
Löscher, Peter, President and CEO, Siemens AG
Nass, Matthias, Chief International Correspondent, Die Zeit
Steinbrück, Peer, Member of the Bundestag; Former Minister of Finance

Finland

Apunen, Matti, Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA
Johansson, Ole, Chairman, Confederation of the Finnish Industries EK
Ollila, Jorma, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell
Pentikäinen, Mikael, Publisher and Senior Editor-in-Chief, Helsingin Sanomat

France

Baverez, Nicolas, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Bazire, Nicolas, Managing Director, Groupe Arnault /LVMH
Castries, Henri de, Chairman and CEO, AXA
Lévy, Maurice, Chairman and CEO, Publicis Groupe S.A.
Montbrial, Thierry de, President, French Institute for International Relations
Roy, Olivier, Professor of Social and Political Theory, European University Institute

Great Britain

Agius, Marcus, Chairman, Barclays PLC
Flint, Douglas J., Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings
Kerr, John, Member, House of Lords; Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell
Lambert, Richard, Independent Non-Executive Director, Ernst & Young
Mandelson, Peter, Member, House of Lords; Chairman, Global Counsel
Micklethwait, John, Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
Osborne, George, Chancellor of the Exchequer
Stewart, Rory, Member of Parliament
Taylor, J. Martin, Chairman, Syngenta International AG

Greece

David, George A., Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A.
Hardouvelis, Gikas A., Chief Economist and Head of Research, Eurobank EFG
Papaconstantinou, George, Minister of Finance
Tsoukalis, Loukas, President, ELIAMEP Grisons

International Organizations

Almunia, Joaquín, Vice President, European Commission
Daele, Frans van, Chief of Staff to the President of the European Council
Kroes, Neelie, Vice President, European Commission; Commissioner for Digital Agenda
Lamy, Pascal, Director General, World Trade Organization
Rompuy, Herman van, President, European Council
Sheeran, Josette, Executive Director, United Nations World Food Programme
Solana Madariaga, Javier, President, ESADEgeo Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics
Trichet, Jean-Claude, President, European Central Bank
Zoellick, Robert B., President, The World Bank Group

Ireland

Gallagher, Paul, Senior Counsel; Former Attorney General
McDowell, Michael, Senior Counsel, Law Library; Former Deputy Prime Minister
Sutherland, Peter D., Chairman, Goldman Sachs International

Italy

Bernabè, Franco, CEO, Telecom Italia SpA
Elkann, John, Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.
Monti, Mario, President, Univers Commerciale Luigi Bocconi
Scaroni, Paolo, CEO, Eni S.p.A.
Tremonti, Giulio, Minister of Economy and Finance

Canada

Carney, Mark J., Governor, Bank of Canada
Clark, Edmund, President and CEO, TD Bank Financial Group
McKenna, Frank, Deputy Chair, TD Bank Financial Group
Orbinksi, James, Professor of Medicine and Political Science, University of Toronto
Prichard, J. Robert S., Chair, Torys LLP
Reisman, Heather, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. Center, Brookings Institution

Netherlands

Bolland, Marc J., Chief Executive, Marks and Spencer Group plc
Chavannes, Marc E., Political Columnist, NRC Handelsblad; Professor of Journalism
Halberstadt, Victor, Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings
H.M. the Queen of the Netherlands
Rosenthal, Uri, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Winter, Jaap W., Partner, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek

Norway

Myklebust, Egil, Former Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, sk Hydro ASA
H.R.H. Crown Prince Haakon of Norway
Ottersen, Ole Petter, Rector, University of Oslo
Solberg, Erna, Leader of the Conservative Party

Austria

Bronner, Oscar, CEO and Publisher, Standard Medien AG
Faymann, Werner, Federal Chancellor
Rothensteiner, Walter, Chairman of the Board, Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG
Scholten, Rudolf, Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG

Portugal

Balsemão, Francisco Pinto, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister
Ferreira Alves, Clara, CEO, Claref LDA; writer
Nogueira Leite, António, Member of the Board, José de Mello Investimentos, SGPS, SA

Sweden

Mordashov, Alexey A., CEO, Severstal
Schweden
Bildt, Carl, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Björling, Ewa, Minister for Trade
Wallenberg, Jacob, Chairman, Investor AB

Switzerland

Brabeck-Letmathe, Peter, Chairman, Nestlé S.A.
Groth, Hans, Senior Director, Healthcare Policy & Market Access, Oncology Business Unit, Pfizer Europe
Janom Steiner, Barbara, Head of the Department of Justice, Security and Health, Canton
Kudelski, André, Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group SA
Leuthard, Doris, Federal Councillor
Schmid, Martin, President, Government of the Canton Grisons
Schweiger, Rolf, Ständerat
Soiron, Rolf, Chairman of the Board, Holcim Ltd., Lonza Ltd.
Vasella, Daniel L., Chairman, Novartis AG
Witmer, Jürg, Chairman, Givaudan SA and Clariant AG

Spain

Cebrián, Juan Luis, CEO, PRISA
Cospedal, María Dolores de, Secretary General, Partido Popular
León Gross, Bernardino, Secretary General of the Spanish Presidency
Nin Génova, Juan María, President and CEO, La Caixa
H.M. Queen Sofia of Spain

Turkey

Ciliv, Süreyya, CEO, Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S.
Gülek Domac, Tayyibe, Former Minister of State
Koç, Mustafa V., Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
Pekin, Sefika, Founding Partner, Pekin & Bayar Law Firm

USA

Alexander, Keith B., Commander, USCYBERCOM; Director, National Security Agency
Altman, Roger C., Chairman, Evercore Partners Inc.
Bezos, Jeff, Founder and CEO, Amazon.com
Collins, Timothy C., CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC
Feldstein, Martin S., George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University
Hoffman, Reid, Co-founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn
Hughes, Chris R., Co-founder, Facebook
Jacobs, Kenneth M., Chairman & CEO, Lazard
Johnson, James A., Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC
Jordan, Jr., Vernon E., Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC
Keane, John M., Senior Partner, SCP Partners; General, US Army, Retired
Kissinger, Henry A., Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Kleinfeld, Klaus, Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
Kravis, Henry R., Co-Chairman and co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis, Roberts & Co.
Kravis, Marie-Josée, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.
Li, Cheng, Senior Fellow and Director of Research, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution
Mundie, Craig J., Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation
Orszag, Peter R., Vice Chairman, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
Perle, Richard N., Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Rockefeller, David, Former Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank
Rose, Charlie, Executive Editor and Anchor, Charlie Rose
Rubin, Robert E., Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury
Schmidt, Eric, Executive Chairman, Google Inc.
Steinberg, James B., Deputy Secretary of State
Thiel, Peter A., President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC
Varney, Christine A., Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust
Vaupel, James W., Founding Director, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research
Warsh, Kevin, Former Governor, Federal Reserve Board
Wolfensohn, James D., Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC

I love this sort of thing! 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PP2ce71Eo4 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3s6UieB24A&feature=related 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0OPQt01YtU&feature=related 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgwh4qSY8i0&feature=related It wouldn't surprise me if God turned out to be a Formula 1 driver.

Check this out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYgx3fM4mgo I keep worrying about the Cornered and Hurt Animal Syndrome. The PTB - visible and invisible - might be capable of just about anything. I am rather apprehensive. I don't want them to go away mad. I just want them to go away. I'd still like to know the entire ancient story of our existence, including any star wars. Bilderberg and the People We Love to Hate might be subject to a lot of ancient baggage. I'm not saying they aren't sell-outs, but the galactic and theological aspects of this present darkness should not be ignored. According to Bill Cooper, Henry Kissinger worked around the clock, and wouldn't talk to anyone, when he was learning about all of the forbidden knowledge. Might he have been learning the terms of our enslavement? I'm trying to place myself in the shoes of both Alex Jones and Henry Kissinger, as well as in the shoes of Osiris, Isis, Ra, and Horus. I'd still like to read a thousand-page, eyes-only, secret-document which spells everything out, with absolutely no bullshit, regarding this solar system and the predicament of the human race. I know this sort of thing exists, and it would probably completely change the way I think about a lot of things. I continue to think that the worst of the worst should be incarcerated and reeducated, even if it takes millions of years to get them back on track, and to properly deal with all karmic-debt issues.

What do you think about the theory of an Isis-Led Old World Order vs a Ra-Led New World Order? What do you think of both Isis and Ra as being Anti-Christ (opposed to, and in place of, Michael/Horus/Jesus)? What if Jesus never left Earth? What if it is God the Father who is returning to Earth to clean-up the mess? Incoming Annunaki vs Local Annunaki? The Second Coming of God the Father to Demote Isis and Ra - and Promote Horus? Might we be dealing with an Isis Dominated Old World Order Vatican vs a Ra Dominated New World Order Nazi Party? But might they be two sides of the same coin? Has a good, but relatively powerless, Jesus been pushed off to the side by these two bad@$$ powerhouses? Is Jesus basically holding their coats while they fight it out, with millions of human beings as collateral damage? Have we been dealing with the Bavarian/Nazi/Sirius B/Aldebaran/Teutonic-Zionist Branch of Gizeh-Intelligence vs the Roman/Vatican/Sirius A/Zionist Branch of Gizeh-Intelligence? Raiders of the Lost Ark vs Custodians of the Lost Ark? Once again, who rightfully owns this solar system? Please think about this, instead of just ignoring me.

I'm considering taking a close look at Vatican I (1870), Vatican II (1962-1965), and the period between the First and Second Vatican Councils, especially regarding Italy and Germany. I'm reading about Pope Pius XII, who was born in 1876 and died in 1958. This is just a suggested area of research, especially as it relates to a possible Nazi<>Gizeh-Intelligence<>Vatican relationship, and as it relates to possible reincarnations of Osiris, Isis, Ra, and Horus. This is about seeking understanding, rather than digging up dirt. I don't know if I'll really pursue this, but someone should. Please forgive me for asking so many questions, and making so many speculations, but I think there is a hidden story of our origins, history, and current plight, which might explain a lot of things, but which might also make us even less happy than we are presently. I'm currently toying with the 'Disfunctional Egyptian Royal Family Theory', to try to make sense out of the madness. I want to be reverent and religious, yet I keep rebelling against a lot of religious doctrine and practice. I keep trying to find the holy grail of politics and religion, but so far, my efforts have been unsatisfying, possibly because there are no happy answers to all of the problems. I remain a mixture of incurable optimism and unyielding despair. Look at the faces of the Bilderberg attendees. Do they look happy and on top of the world? I keep talking about solar system governance, but I really and truly believe that if all of my tentative ideas and solutions were accepted, and I became involved in a United States of the Solar System, that I would probably be less happy than I am presently, and that's not very happy. I see lots of struggling and suffering in our future, but I will continue to seek more sane ways to manage the insanity, whether or not anyone listens, and whether or not it does anyone any good. It's sort of fun to complain and speculate, with no responsibility. If the complainers got what they wanted, they would find something else to complain about, and I'm sure it would be that way with me. I continue to seek understanding, more than condemnation, even though I am quite indelicate and irreverent in my pseudo-intellectual truth-seeking. I'm not hateful and angry, but I'm not very friendly or loyal. I continue to think that pain is the cost of doing business in the universe. Consider reading 1. 'The Great Controversy' by Ellen White. 2. 'Hitler's Pope' by John Cornwell. 3. 'The Keys of This Blood' by Malachi Martin. I'm currently trying to be a neutral student of Rome, the Vatican, and the Papacy - because all roads lead to Rome - and this is true whether one believes in God, the Pope, the Virgin Mary - or not. Perhaps the best way to be a Catholic is to be a Catholic Watcher. I don't rant and rave against the church, but I'm not particularly supportive either. Actually, I like the idea of being a City-State Watcher, in a rather neutral manner. I support more research than action. These trying times require level-headedness. Well, that sure excludes me...

Consider watching the ten-part documentary 'How Should We Then Live?' by Francis Schaeffer. Unfortunately, I could only find the first two episodes on Google Video, and the rest on You Tube. (three parts per episode) Consider buying the DVDs. The series in quite old, but still very relevant and profound. I think you guys and gals are missing the boat if you fail to watch this sort of a series. I don't agree with everything in it, but it is a very thoughtful historical analysis, which should not be ignored. As you probably know, I am trying to combine a Minimalist Traditionalist Approach with Evolutionary Change. Thank-you for taking the time to look at this series. I like the idea of taking a long, hard look at history - and then positively reinforcing the best of the past. Why not positively reinforce the best of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Old World Order, and the New World Order? I'm trying not to just write off the past as a mostly failed experiment. I'm also trying to keep this world from being destroyed. Somehow, we need to responsibly create utopia in our own backyard. Perhaps this would be a good time to read or re-read 'The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire'. Also, notice that Francis Schaeffer fails to focus upon the Teachings of Jesus - or even mention them. Herein lies a HUGE problem for Christianity - historically and presently - that of being insubordinate to the Words of Christ. And I see many signs that Christianity is poised to reject Jesus and His Teachings in many new and innovative ways.

1. The Roman Age. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1998035952933796581#

2. The Middle Ages. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1998035952933796581#docid=-1719484135143407458

3. The Renaissance. 3-1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_8R4SOH_8Y&feature=related 3-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzXQJTa95V0&feature=related 3-3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqrQpsNqWXE&feature=related

4. The Reformation. 4-1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSLT8cJdH2o&feature=related 4-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOV2NQtCx8Y&feature=related 4-3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1UURw-1MVY&feature=related

5. The Revolutionary Age. 5-1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHo1lAuqek0&feature=related 5-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5G_Fq_SnOA&feature=related 5-3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV8XMIQmJrQ&feature=related

6. The Scientific Age. 6-1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_UWGzQ4kBs&feature=related 6-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1omQBESyZ6c&feature=related 6-3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4VjnAdLi-M&feature=related

7. The Age of Non-Reason. 7-1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQOgar6dVyY&feature=related 7-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKUYqXOuNxM&feature=related 7-3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxPzeV_bK3c&feature=related

8. The Age of Fragmentation. 8-1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npoCzPwoWP0&feature=related 8-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh2oejTc0hs&feature=related 8-3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTOVTPURdY8&feature=related

9. The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence. 9-1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa0ASLKJzeI&feature=related 9-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPrruqivIY&feature=related 9-3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG-Bl8UTclk&feature=related

10. Final Choices. 10-1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6-z0GJiDB8&feature=related 10-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqTqEX1e8pU&feature=related 10-3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Hl-28mFW4&feature=related

What if one focused upon Art, Music, Nature, and Athletics? The idea is the positive development and perfection of the human being. I continue to have huge problems with BOTH Catholicism and Protestantism, to the point that I no longer go to church, or even pray. Yet, I continue to try to be an idealistically ethical and spiritual person. I shun most New Age alternatives to Christianity, and I continue to attempt to follow the Red-Letter Teachings of Jesus. Once in a while, I even succeed. But really, Art, Music, Nature, and Athletics are Universal. I benefit from Pagan Art as well as from Christian Art. I make no distinction between Catholic and Protestant Music. Nature itself is vastly superior to most scientific activities. And think of how athletics brings the whole world closer together. I am quite dissatisfied with the results of my internet activities, including those on Avalon 1 and the Mists of Avalon. I am very tempted to become lost in Art, Music, Nature, and Athletics - and wait for the Reptilians, Greys, UN Troops, Chinese, et al to come and take me away - or for the mushroom-cloud, wall of water, poison-cup, or last-supper to put me out of my (and everyone elses) misery. I stand by nearly everything I have posted on the internet, and said on my cell-phone, and I know you spooks have a record of ALL of it, complete with expert analysis. But I'm really sick of all of this. I know I whine a lot, and I think that part of the reason is the spiritual-warfare aspect to my life and activities. I think there is a lot going on beyond the veil. But perhaps a focus upon Art, Music, Nature, and Athletics will be my final attempt at self-development. I might go away for a while. But then again, I might just keep doing what I'm doing, even though I don't really want to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZBPu7jJbJU

I think I'm going to change gears for a while. I'm going underground, sort of, by being my own United States of the Solar System Secret Government - of one. I will try to watch Washington D.C., the City of London, the Vatican, and the United Nations - and then imagine what I would say and do if I were interacting with all of them on a daily basis. Eventually, all of the above might be united into a harmonious whole called 'The United States of the Solar System', hopefully, by 2112. (immediately would be optimal, but I'm trying to be a realist) I'm going to try to step back from a lot of what I've been looking at, because I think I got too close, too speculative, and too emotional. There's another aspect to all of this that I don't want to talk about. I'll be watching Bloomberg today, at least until Alex Jones starts broadcasting live! Perhaps these two sources might counterbalance each other in a constructive manner. Have you heard about the Watchers and Holy Ones? Well, I'm going to be a Holy Watcher. Guess what I'm going to do? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS6WYqm4pC0&feature=related I want to make it clear that I support evolutionary change, rather than revolutionary change. Getting rid of violence of all kinds is at the top of my list. Anyway, I think I've said quite enough, and I think I need to be quiet for a while. Again, despite my speculative irreverence, I still don't have an enemies list - but I'm working on one. Sometimes I think that that smartest beings in the solar system simply decided to exploit the human race, rather than futily try to reform it. I keep trying to help, by simply trying to make sense out of things. This seems to have fallen on deaf ears. It seems to have done no good - for me, or anyone else. The exploitive approach seems to garner results - even if the ethics are reprehensible. Should one simply be a hypocrite? Clean and pure on the outside? Dirty and corrupt on the inside? You really don't give a $hit - do you??

I'm still waiting for a long-term intelligent conversation with someone. Anyone - human or otherwise. Perhaps I will have to be content with not participating in the absurdities of the world, yet not destroy myself by trying to change things. Or, perhaps the millionaires and billionaires have the right idea. Should we seek fame, fortune, power, and pleasure - by whatever means - no matter how reprehensible or corrupt? A lot of people have sold their souls to you know who, to get what they want. Did they make the right decision? Somehow, it seems as if Isis, Ra, and Horus rebelled against Osiris (who might've been dysfunctional) - expelling him (and his loyal followers) from this solar system. Then it seems as if Isis and Ra completely disempowered the idealistic but naive Horus (who was, and is, in complete agreement with the non-dysfunctional aspects of Osiris) - and then proceeded to exploit the human race for thousands of years - milking humanity, in order to build the secret and very high-tech Gizeh Intelligence civilization throughout the solar system, which was, and is, predominantly reptilian in nature (but not from distant galaxies). It seems as if Osiris decided to let the whole bunch stew in their own juice, to teach them a lesson, but now may be back to clean up the mess. I might've gotten some of the details wrong, but this is my current impression. No one seems to have really listened to the powerless Horus (who is for humanity). Everyone seems to want to deal with the powerful Isis and Ra (who are against humanity). Did everyone willfully rebel against Osiris? Was this the original sin? Again, I might have the names and details wrong, but I'm sensing some variation on this theme. Humanity seems to keep making the wrong decisions - over and over and over again - even though they are presented with enough information to make proper choices. At this point, I'm angry at everyone, including myself.

NEW WORLD ORDER <> GIZEH INTELLIGENCE <> OLD WORLD ORDER?

All of this makes me want to cry and cry and cry, but I think I'm just getting my feet wet, on the shores of the Sea of Misery. Even though I am going mostly underground, I just had to repost this one more time, in the hope that someone might take the bait, and talk to me.

Thank-you Mercuriel. I'm thinking of various possibilities regarding Coordinate Representation - but I don't wish to post them until I have a better idea of what you mean by the term. Your post was quite interesting, especially this part:

The Outer Doctrine Trinity = Father - Son - Holy Spirit.

The Inner Doctrine Trinity = Father - Mother - Only Begotten Son and Daughter.

The Unholy Trinity = Lucifer - Jahbulon - Mehabone...

The Father seems to be absent - and this really bothers me. I keep seeing Hollywood representations of a Queen killing a King. Or even the story of Oedipus. I fear that somehow God the Father (Osiris?) has been removed or murdered. I'm sensing a Vengeful Mother (Gabriel?) Assisted by a Sinister Son or Daughter (Lucifer?) - and a Despised Out of Power Son or Daughter (Michael?). I have speculated that the Obelisk and the Crucifix are symbols of the Vengeful Mother and Sinister Child's victory over Osiris and Horus. But this is just more speculation. I'm suspecting a Family Feud / Civil War - spanning tens or hundreds of thousands of years - throughout our solar system and Sirius. But I could be completely wrong. A galactic tug of war could REALLY get out of hand in a hurry. When I speculate about all of this - I mean no harm or disrespect to any and all involved parties. I'm just trying to figure out what the hell is going on - and how to defuse whatever madness exists in this neck of the woods. The official history is horrible - and I think the real truth will prove to be unimaginably horrible. I am VERY concerned regarding what part I might've played in the madness. I have no peace - even on a good day. Take a long, hard look at 'East of Eden' and 'Rebel Without a Cause'. Guess who Osiris, Isis, Ra, and Horus might be. God the Father, Mary/Isis/Queen of Heaven, God of This World/Amen Ra/Lucifer, and Michael/Horus/Jesus? Righteous Parent and Child vs Rebellious Parent and Child? Local Annunaki vs Incoming Annunaki? Was Michael/Horus/Jesus a Rebellious Annunaki who became a completely Human Being - and became Persona Non Grata and Galactic Enemy Number One - of both the Local and Incoming Annunaki? Are we facing a Three-Way Showdown? Is there any way to properly unite the three hypothetical parties - and to avert Armageddon? Would a Vatican-Based Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System be a possible solution? Would uniting the Secret Government, the United Nations, the United States, the City of London, and the Vatican - under the Teachings of Jesus, the U.S. Constitution, the Latin Mass, and Classical Sacred Music - in a completely transparent and minimalist union of church and state - provide at least a transitional modality - which might maximize Responsible Freedom - going forward for thousands and millions of years??? But wouldn't this just piss everyone off???!!! Can you imagine the editorials, speeches, sermons, conspiracy theories, talk shows, and running in the streets???!!!

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdMjKq8xk-E
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyKy8_sF4xY
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDbXeOvGIgE
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atWqEdyuy8U
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7lAagZA-H4
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3A6_blpqpU
7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42rcr6fwH8E&feature=fvwrel
8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95E9Mbbj6PE&feature=related
9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zUBa_FF6Vo&feature=related


Thank-you Mercuriel. I will give this some thought - and make a detailed reply later today. I am not dogmatic in all of this. I am really terrified. The possibilities regarding the way things REALLY are - are staggering. I've known something was very, very wrong throughout my life - but I've been very passive - probably because I didn't have a clear picture of what was really wrong. It turns out that just about everyone was wrong - including me - and I'm still trying to sort things out. Anyway, I will research the contents of your post - and create the best reply possible. Actually, I'll be adding to this post as I get insights and ideas. I will probably just lay the groundwork for a refined answer, which I will include in a subsequent post. This is to help me think, more than anything else. Namaste.

1co·or·di·nate adj
\kō-ˈȯrd-nət; -ˈȯr-də-nət, -də-ˌnāt\
Definition of COORDINATE http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coordinate
1a : equal in rank, quality, or significance b : being of equal rank in a sentence <coordinate clauses>
2: relating to or marked by coordination
3a : being a university that awards degrees to men and women taught usually by the same faculty but attending separate classes often on separate campuses b : being one of the colleges and especially the women's branch of a coordinate university
4: of, relating to, or being a system of indexing by two or more terms so that documents may be retrieved through the intersection of index terms
— co·or·di·nate·ly adverb
— co·or·di·nate·ness noun
See coordinate defined for kids »
Origin of COORDINATE
probably back-formation from coordination
First Known Use: 1641

rep·re·sen·ta·tion noun \ˌre-pri-ˌzen-ˈtā-shən, -zən-\
Definition of REPRESENTATION http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/representation?show=0&t=1305217030
1: one that represents: as a : an artistic likeness or image b (1) : a statement or account made to influence opinion or action (2) : an incidental or collateral statement of fact on the faith of which a contract is entered into c : a dramatic production or performance d (1) : a usually formal statement made against something or to effect a change (2) : a usually formal protest
2: the act or action of representing : the state of being represented: as a : representationalism 2 b (1) : the action or fact of one person standing for another so as to have the rights and obligations of the person represented (2) : the substitution of an individual or class in place of a person (as a child for a deceased parent) c : the action of representing or the fact of being represented especially in a legislative body
3: the body of persons representing a constituency
— rep·re·sen·ta·tion·al \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ adjective
— rep·re·sen·ta·tion·al·ly adverb
See representation defined for English-language learners »
See representation defined for kids »
Examples of REPRESENTATION
Each state has equal representation in the Senate.
The letters of the alphabet are representations of sounds.
First Known Use of REPRESENTATION
15th century

sov·er·eign·ty noun
\-tē\\ˈsä-v(ə-)rən-tē, -vərn-tē also ˈsə-\
plural sov·er·eign·ties
Definition of SOVEREIGNTY http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty
1obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : autonomy c : controlling influence
3: one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state
See sovereignty defined for English-language learners »
See sovereignty defined for kids »
Variants of SOVEREIGNTY
sov·er·eign·ty also sov·ran·ty \-tē\ \ˈsä-v(ə-)rən-tē, -vərn-tē also ˈsə-\
Examples of SOVEREIGNTY
<upon leaving home she felt that she had achieved sovereignty for the first time in her life>
<as parts of the same sovereignty, the states should not enact laws intended to harm one another economically> Nor was the sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian race recognized at the time Hawaii became a state. —Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review, 18 July 2005
Cesaire's wrenching chant of self-affirmation announced a new era of intellectual and cultural sovereignty for black writers in French. —Lila Azam Zanganeh, New York Times Book Review, 12 June 2005
The position plunged him into a supremely complicated religious and political game. Throughout Europe the old order of divinely sanctioned kingdoms was battling models of popular sovereignty and citizenship inspired by the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and the adolescent U.S. —David Van Biema, Time, 4 Sept. 2000
[+]more[-]hide
Origin of SOVEREIGNTY
Middle English soverainte, from Anglo-French sovereinté, from soverein (see 2sovereign)
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to SOVEREIGNTY
Synonyms: autonomy, independence, independency, liberty, self-determination, self-governance, self-government, freedom (also sovranty)
Antonyms: dependence (also dependance), heteronomy, subjection, unfreedom
Related Words: emancipation, enfranchisement, liberation, manumission, release
Near Antonyms: captivity, enchainment, enslavement, immurement, imprisonment, incarceration, internment, subjugation
see all synonyms and antonyms

An initial thought regarding Coordinate Representation - is that we might be dealing with three primary parties:

1. Reptilian Humanoids with Reptilian Souls - in This Solar System. (Part of the Orion Group?)

2. Mammalian Humanoids with Reptilian Souls - in This Solar System. (Part of the Orion Group?)

3. Reptilian Beings - Possibly from Orion. (Who the Orion Group rebelled against at the commencement of the War in Heaven?)

The goal of Coordinate Representation might be to end all mischief and hostilities between both factions of the Orion Group - and for both factions of the Orion Group to reconcile with the Orion Powers That Be. If this is the case, I favor peace rather than war - but I do not favor Peace At Any Price. I still do not know what's REALLY been going on - and seeing the true state of affairs very clearly would be an essential prerequisite to any definitive and binding agreements. Philadelphia Dream Team Lawyers would need to examine any documents with a scanning electron microscope! In all of this - I think I might be attempting to be a combination of Teal'c, Daniel Jackson, Captain Carter, and Vala Mal Doran - from Stargate SG-1.

Here is a composite of some of your relevant posts, Mercuriel, from Avalon 1 and the Mists of Avalon:

OK - I have read the Bourdon Material as well as the Julien Material and It correclates with what I have been trying to get out...

-//-

Simply put - I've been trying to tell many that the whole Rebellion / Power Struggle Issue has been Their Issue...

The Bible is Their Story - Not Ours. Did We fall with Them - Yep - But then You'll follow someone Whos never lied to you before won't You...

We've learned the Discernment on that one - Late Yes - But learned It We have...

Yeah its definately a three way power struggle but lets simplify It first - Then complicate it later...

> One Being wishes for a Larger Agenda to be implemented - Universe Wide (Perhaps Prime Creator ?).

> Another Being is in Charge by proxy of that Agenda (Perhaps the local System Sovereign - Nannar / Christ Michael ?).

> The Third Being wishes for there to be a different Agenda and be in Control of It (Perhaps Marduk / Lucifer ?)...

That said - Their Battle of Armegeddon will be between the Kasim (The Remnant Annunaki) and the Useanesda (The Incomers from the Homeworld).

Now guess Who's inbetween 'em as this gets going ?

Yep - Us...

K - Well let Me set a premise...

Their Plan is that the U.N. will be the One World Government under One Titular Head following which One Worldwide Religion ?

Seriously - Find out which new Religion They are about to foist on Us and It will expose alot of what We and You have been talking about alot lately...

Please post what You find and Yes - I have gone down this Path but find it will be useful to go about it this way to begin a more concise discussion of the Issue...

Awesome and Their One World Religion will be based on the...

Urantia Book.

Their U.N. Theosophist was a student of Blavatsky's and Alice Bailey's Works. I'll have to find You His name...

Hes like the U.N.'s Archbishop by Position even though there isn't a Position for It yet or so They tell Us.

Ashtar Command - Gizeh Intelligence ring a bell ? Yep - All related...

No Ashtar Command and the Gizeh Intelligence are not the same thing but as You have said - They are two factions of essentially the same Group.

As I understand It - They are both Renegade Corps and are made up of Lyrans, Pleiadians, Sirians and such that do not fit into the Reptilian or Draconian Ranks...

The Kasim (Remnant Annunaki / S.a.A.M.i.) have Their own Command for the Earth Mission of which Marduk is the Titular Head and shares power with a Council of Twelve. The Useaneshda (Incoming Annunaki / S.a.A.M.i.) are under S.a.A.M.e. Governance with Nannar as the Titular Head now taking over from Anu (Finally)...

Yep - Theres alot of 'em and I'm only touching the surface here.

The above said - The Ashtar Command was not always compromised as It is now but was taken over in a Mutiny led by the Renegades. When that Mutiny occurred I am not sure but it was a long time ago to be sure. Aeons likely...

It will go back to Its rightful owner have no doubt of that. Just another Job in a long list of Jobs to do here before the Shift - LOL...

You're not the only One that would like to tell Them where to go...

You have It Oxy. We must be Sovereigns and Govern Ourselves...

But how can One Govern Themselves if They are not Soveriegn ?

Do You now see where I was going with this Idea of Sovereignty previously ?

The Namaste Constitutionally Responsible and Free Solar System is an absolute impossibility WITHOUT Us being Sovereigns thereby ensuring It...

Once We are Sovereign - The Model You've espoused will work very well.

So with that said - We must learn to be Sovereign and through that as We Govern Ourselves in Unity and Harmony - We will make the Namaste Constitutionally Responsible and Free Solar System - A fact...

What We must do is deserve a place at that Table by becoming Sovereign and this is in the ET's Words...

Once We are of enough understanding - That place at the Table is waiting for Us...

That said - Perhaps We now see why It is so important. If We don't become Sovereign as a Race on Our own by demanding and supporting the right kind of change not only in Our World - But in Ourselves - That place will not be forthcoming - And others will speak for Us by Proxy as has already been happening for Aeons...

If We want that place at the Table - We must change Our ways and become Sovereign or Its a no-go - Period...

So then one should say to Themselves at this Point - "Time to become Sovereign"...

You are right in that it requires responsibility for Ones actions but moreso It is that the Individual Who is Sovereign seeks the Highest and Best Good of All Concerned in All Things before deciding on a course of action.

In this respect it could be said that Christ Consciousness = Sovereignty - But that would be an oversimplification. What would better be said of this is that Sovereigns are Christ Conscious or hold the same understanding and responsibility as that.

These Individuals by Governing Themselves responsibly - Are viewed as Sovereigns because They will not make a decision in which there is a loser and a winner. All will Win in effect by decisions that are made by Sovereigns. Now when I say All will win - This means that All will get what They focus on as it relates to a decision made by a Sovereign.

Sovereigns will not violate the Free-will of another and are Integrated in that understanding. Sovereigns rule Themselves without the need of Rules or Governing by others as They know how to not Violate the Free-will of others not only by Their actions - But also by Their Mentalisms...

Technically - We give up Our Sovereignty when We take on the Birth Certificate but that is Sophistry by Fallen Entities and truly - Act as a Sovereign and thou wilt be One...

I will have to think on putting this into more of a Layman's understanding but I hope that the general thrust of My explanation here is adequate to begin the Discussion on It...

Don't get caught up on Win-Win semantics or front-load It too much. Launguage is so limited but what is meant by a Win-Win SITU with a Sovereign is that Negatives may be expressed if that is what those specific Individuals have focus'ed on.

For instance - If Dark Ones Focus on Power over Others - Sovereigns should then act to ensure that any Free-will that the Darks have violated - Receives release if that is what They seek whereas in relation to the Dark pushing the Program - They would then be left alone to Contol each other - Also getting what They have focus'ed on - IE - Where Their Minds are at...

You have it essentially - Become Fully responsible in order to Govern Oneself and One will then be Sovereign...

The Roman Catholic Church was taken over by Forces Loyal to the Fallen Ones on June 29th, 1963. It was then signified by the carrying from that point forward by the Pontiff Pope Peter the VI and all others since, of the Crooked or Bent Cross (Which is an Esoteric Symbol of the Antichrist).

Pope John Paul the II and others have sat in a Chair with an Inverted Cross - Again the AntiChrist Symbol, and If You think that They've just missed that one while setting up the Area for His audiences - Then You haven't studied their Protocols in the right way. They miss nothing when setting up for a Papal audience and it's ALL on Purpose. Bank on that...

EG.

Fish Hat = Dagon or Poseidon Worship...

INRI = Ishtar / Nimrod / Rah Marduk / Isis (Inner Doctrine for the Initiate)

INRI = Acronym of the Latin inscription 'IESVS·NAZARENVS·REX·IVDÆORVM' (Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum), which translates to English as "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". (Outer Doctrine for the Profane)

I could go on Ad Infinitum...

Here is a composite of some other material within this thread - which is somewhat relevant to the subject at hand:

Has anyone done a study of 'The King of Heaven / God of This World (Son/Lucifer/Amen Ra?) and Queen of Heaven (Mother/ Hathor/Isis/Mary/Gabriel/Holy Spirit?) - and the Heir to the Throne (Horus/Michael/Jesus?)' concept? I just thought of that! This could be applied in so many situations - terrestrial, extraterrestrial, mythological, theological, astrological, dynastic, etc. - with a high likelihood of overlap. I reread those abraxasinas posts - and I still think of abraxasinas - or the spirit behind abraxasinas - as being more feminine than masculine. I keep thinking of Adria or Katesh in Stargate SG-1. This part caught my attention:

Q: Who is the God or Goddess of This World?

A: The Father and Mother, cosmically not biologically speaking of Jesus.

Q: Has corruption and sanity been a problem for this being?

A: Nope.

Q: Are Satan and Lucifer two separate and distinct beings?

A: Yes, Satan is the true manifestation of a fake image, called the Devil. Satan is the 'court prosecutor' of 'humanity' and Lucifer is the template for this collective humanity being prosecuted by Satan. Satan is the 'Kali' of Shakti as two sides of the one coin called God. Satan is God and you are Lucifer in individuality. You can either 'play' a Christ White Lucifer look LUCIFER=74=JESUS=MESSIAH=CROSS=...or you can play a Dark Lucifer as an absorber of the 'brought' light.

Q: Is there...or has there ever been...a God who was higher than Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer?

A: Yes, this is the 1st Order of Abraxas aka Abrasax as the polarity unexpressed BUT contained within, like the Dark White Lucifers as One or as Satan God as One.

Q: If so...was this God destroyed in the War in Heaven?

A: No, this 1st Order is omniness and above such polarity issues as a war in heaven on earth or otherplace.

Q: Is Satan one of these three?

A: Satan is 1st Order, the archangels are 2nd order.

Q: If so...which one? Did Lucifer instruct Charles Darwin?

A: Ask Charles Darwin.

Q: Would Human sovereignty in this Solar System be a good thing?

A: Not yet, later perhaps.

Q: Is a theocracy a good or a bad thing?

A: Your polarity issue.

Q: Is Responsible Freedom fundamentally rebellious in nature?

A: No

I'm beginning to think that I'm in trouble with BOTH the God of This World AND the Creator God of the Universe. Sort of like when a police officer tries to break up a domestic dispute - and gets pounded by both parties - even though he or she is trying to help both parties. I have a very bad and sick feeling regarding what might be going on in the entire universe. I so hope that I'm wrong. Is the following a harbinger of things to come?

I received the following responses from posts I have made on the internet. They don't sound human.

'Y'all love fantisizing over my ancestral decorations, places, spirituality that you don't get, the greatness you won't achieve, and the melanin you'll never have. This depiction of my ancestors is pathetic. Y'all always make them look just as degenerative and recessive as you. Anyway, play and have fun as much as you still can. Yes you are running out of time, and to be honest, there is absolutly nothing you can do about it. I have no mercy, you lie and mock and blaspheme all the way to hell.'

abraxasinas: Very human egocentricity orthodoxus.

On another website...I received this message:

'You know this isn't funny! The Lord God will judge you for claiming God ship. Just because God showed you a little bit of His secrets you think you know everything. He will NOT have mercy on you!' [orthodoxymoron note: This was in connection with me fictionally using the name KRLLL - causing me to wonder if someone equated Godship with the name 'Omnipotent Highness KRLLL'?]

abraxasinas: Very human ego mimicking the divine ego of God (who does not judge and is always full of 'mercy').

I once heard a mocking, sing-song, high-pitched feminine sounding voice...emanating from a usually deep and masculine voiced televangelist...directed toward me...in public...almost shouting 'That was gooooooood!!!!'...in reaction to a polite, well intentioned, and well reasoned comment by me.

abraxasinas: Even more so human ego-based, accentuating separation and not the natural unity of God.

This was a short unedited internet exchange I had some time ago:

ME: What if the aliens who have been here for thousands of years are the 'bad-guys'? What if we will need the help of good aliens from elsewhere to get rid of the demonic aliens who are already here? Could this be viewed as a hostile alien attack? I really don't know. I am just speculating.

THEM: Try not to think in terms of good or bad. Understand this is not your planet. Then, understand nothing can be done to you that you don't do to yourself. Know that there are quadrillions of planets and they don't have a massive climate change every 26,000 years and violent deranged people like yourselves. Why on Earth would any race want to live here with you knowingly? The most intelligent life on the planet is not human.

abraxasinas: This is basically true, but omits the 'inner human core' whch IS in fact the most intelligent cosmic lifeform (the planet belongs to All) - yet remains hidden in the superconsciousness ONLY accessible by the Individual Logos partnering the Cosmic Logos.

ME: I'll try not to think of the Iraq War in terms of good or bad. I'll try to be morally ambiguous. I might even become CIA or a CEO. Hey, maybe violent and deranged is neither good nor bad...but thinking makes it so. The aliens who are here need us to not get our acts together. If that happens...they'll probably have to live on Nibiru...or worse. Sorry for being a smart-XXX. Wait...I'm not sorry...it's neither good nor bad. I couldn't resist. I mean well. Really.

THEM: And your point was?...............

ME: Who owns earth? Where do humans belong? What is the most intelligent life on earth? If they are so smart, and earth is so bad...why are they here? I may be deranged...but I'm not violent. You sound as though you are not human...are you an alien? If so...what kind...and from where? My point was that ethics are supremely important. I don't hurt, kill, terrorize, or abduct people...but some aliens apparently do(as do some humans). They should stop.

orthodoxymoron wrote:

"I was serious when I said that I hoped that this activity was being duly noted somewhere in the galaxy. I fear that we are headed down the wrong road, and that we will not turn back, regardless of the warnings, and regardless of the rantings and ravings of lunatics such as myself. I really wish that I had a shallow underground civilian base to go down into. At this point - I am ready to go down - and stay down - for a long, long time. I would really like to know if anyone has taken a close look at this thread - or any of the other threads I have posted."

Raven wrote:

"Indeed Oxy, duly noted it is. You will not be alone hiding under those rocks." - Rev.6 KJV

[12] And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
[13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
[14] And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
[15] And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
[16] And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
[17] For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Barely,as its full of nothing but egotestical puritanical rantings from a completely ignorant fool, who would rather spend hours typing endless bathering bullshit out of his incessant mouth, and listening to his own"higher" ego then the True higher ego of the Divine.

No comment, but if one reads your bullshit enough,one gets an idea as to the degree and level of how deep your rabbit hole goes. Mostly the hole leads right up your XXX.

Oh bullshit oxy, you LOVE this XXXX, its all you talk about and point people in the direction of it!! Get over yourself already. You are an incredibly ignornant Xxxxx hiding behind a false puritanical skirt, who needs to grow some balls and accept his own self responsibility. Law of attraction baby, what you dish out will be in kind served back to you. Your so called sincere search is nothing but your own whining out loud,hoping for some small platitude from anyone taking the time to read your vomit.

Watch this very carefully Oxy. Infact watch it several times, maybe it will sink in. I keep offering you the Red Pill and you keep choosing the Blue one. I do not hate you, just the bull$hiT you stand for and allow to blind you to the Truth.

Lionhawk wrote:

I sense a storm brewing in this thread. Not because of anything that Mercuriel or ODM has posted. But once that Thuban ooze seeps into any place, nothing good comes from it. I've seen the exchanges on that one.

Fact of the matter is that once you do the work within, you will embrace your sovereignty and won't need a philosophy that originated outside of yourself. So for someone to say to go within and still be preaching from a Thuban pedestal is just simply hypocritical.

One shoe doesn't fit all here. Much of it depends on the individual. To take a paint brush and consider everyone to be the same is an insane perspective. If you have to be guided by a philosophy so you can function, means you have already been compromised.

And if you quote Jesus and never even met him, just goes to show you how really connected you are. Operating from a second hand perspective is second hand no matter how you slice it.

And if I had to choose between ODM's constitution and the Thubans rhetoric, I would go with ODMs' and would work my arce off to make it happen. At least he embraces and invites everyone to the table. Instead of you being served up at a Thuban table.

I throw caution to the wind at this moment. And whoever is listening in the background, just know I am still breathing and my memory is like an elephant. The exchange will not go in your favor this time around. This is not a threat but a promise. Thanks for the convincing exchange you provided last time. You will reap the wrath that you have sown and I will gladly deliver it.

othdodoxymoron wrote:

If an extermination/enslavement is about to be inflicted upon the human race - this thread is a complete waste of time - right? Or - could the implementation of this thread prevent an extermination/enslavement from occurring? If there are ET's here in this solar system who are not here to help - I hereby request that you leave this solar system immediately. I may not be in a position to make such a request - but I'm making it anyway. I wish to help create a paradise in this solar system through non-violent and non-coercive means. If there are those who have a great karmic debt - I request that they be incarcerated, educated, and reformed - in a dignified and respectful manner - and that they be directed to make restitution in a reasonable manner. Obviously - I don't know the whole story of what is really going on in this solar system - so this request might be nullified by an overwhelming original and continuing sin. I might be the biggest historical s.o.b. of them all. I am very concerned that this might be the case. But really - is a violent solution ever really a solution? If an extermination occurs - I believe that it will not stop with the original target - but will continue - with the exterminators eventually exterminating themselves. Those who live by the sword - will die by the sword. I am a big-time pacifist - in this incarnation, anyway. I will continue to talk to myself on this thread. This is the most important subject imaginable, yet very few seem to wish to talk to me. I have even been cussed-out, and called 'Satan' and a 'completely ignorant fool'. I declare War on War. War is a Sin. I am looking for a big-tent solution - and nothing seems to be coming of it.

I have repeatedly expressed disgust and dissatisfaction regarding the history of the world - and regarding the hidden governance which seems to be behind a lot of the trouble - but what would I have done if I had been in the shoes of the hidden governor(s) of the world and solar system? What if it turns out that I had a lot to do with the historical problems? I am really haunted by not knowing the real-deal. Could someone conceivably be reincarnationally BOTH the best AND the worst? Could Jesus also be Hitler? Was Jesus as good as we think? Was Hitler as bad as we think? What if there is some overlap of the roles and deeds of Michael and Lucifer? What if they fought side by side, at some point in time? Sorry for the explosive questions - but I think we need to think through ALL possibilities. We're not very good at doing that sort of thing - are we? Could someone please slip me a 1,000 page classified file with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the history of ALL of the beings within 1,000 light-years of Earth - over the past 1,000,000 Earth Years????? I think a lot of us are good, simply because we lack the opportunity to be bad. We might not be nearly as civilized as we think we are. Is there a legitimate reason why we seem to be living in a Prison Planet which sometimes seems like a Torture Chamber - and often feels like Death Row? I don't wish to be Rebellious Regarding Righteous Justice - but I also do not wish to be Submissive to Regressive and Demonic Tyranny and Enslavement. This might be an optimal time for the lies to stop - and for us to face the ugly truth, whether we like it, or not - and I'm frankly bracing for the worst. I have taken a non-committal, but very suspicious approach to the present Powers That Be - both visible and invisible. I continue to call for a changing of the guard in this solar system - but do I really understand what I'm asking for? They say to be careful what you ask for - because you just might get it. What if this world needs to be ruled by a hidden and ruthless dictator? Would a kind and loving supreme leader be the worst thing for this solar system? I tend to think that whoever the 'next guy, gal, or guy/gal - human or otherwise' might be - that they will have to be a lot like their despised predecessor - but without all of the corruption and violence - which seems to have been sanctioned and implemented at the highest levels. I am more torn-up about all of this than I could possibly describe. You have no idea what I think about - and fear. Might Azrael be somewhat like those who rule humanity? Might they have been authorized by those higher than themselves, to teach humanity (and the rest of the universe) a lesson? Just wondering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9qAqwIW704 The horror. Viewer discretion highly advised for the following video clip from 'Dogma'. (Interesting points made with very poor taste.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-SJxJ6JNDY&feature=related Was Serendipity the Whore of Babylon? Who wrote the Bible? What did Azrael have to say about responsibility? The movie presented 'God' as being a funny and eccentric female - hidden in a male body - and not very talkative. You don't suppose? I think I've met 3 or 4 of the 'people' pictured below - but perhaps they were all one - merely figments of Serendipity's Musings. Serendipity really gave me something to think about...





TENSE TOP-LEVEL SOLAR SYSTEM GOVERNANCE NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE ON PHOBOS AKA THE USSS NAMASTE. NOTICE OSIRIS, ISIS, AND HORUS. RA/LUCIFER IS OUT RAISING HELL.


I got to thinking about the Queen of England, the Pope of Rome, and the God of This World. They're a pretty exclusive trio - with extreme power - aren't they? They don't get elected by the general public, do they? Should they? I really don't know. I'm really conflicted about this sort of thing. How does a civilization make sure that they have the very best individuals in those roles? I've been trying to combine the best aspects of theocracy and democracy - and the best of the royal and servant models of leadership and authority. The whole damn thing is a slippery-slope. I've had a lot to say regarding a hypothetical Queen of Heaven ruling Earth as the Goddess of This World. I've imagined having conversations and debates with such a being - and I have really mixed-feelings about the whole thing. Extreme intelligence, economy of words, elegance, straight-forwardness, and beauty - might all be on the plus side. But harshness, cruelty, causing atrocities, committing mass-murder, corruption, deception, treachery, moral-ambiguity, and demonic-possession - might be on the negative side. But I don't know the true state of affairs. They might be human. They might be reptilian. They might be hybrid. They might be male. They might be female. They might be hermaphroditic. They might have a wardrobe of bodies. They might be able to shapeshift into any form and anyone they choose. Could a being be a God or Goddess of This World for any length of time - without becoming corrupt and insane? Are the Pope of Rome and the Queen of England - really the modern-day equivalents of the King and Queen of Egypt - serving the Hidden God Amen Ra? Are all three ruling in place of Christ? I have speculated quite a bit about this in the past. I am concerned about this, because these three seem to have control over pretty much the whole world. Is this power legitimate or illegitimate? Is this power being used benevolently and wisely? Are they doing that which is in everyone's best interest? Could the throne of this world have been stolen in antiquity? Could this hypothetical theft be ongoing? Did someone steal fire from the gods? I really and truly don't know - but I am becoming increasingly suspicious. What effect would a Michael/Horus/Jesus administered Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System have on these three? What would Michael/Horus/Jesus say? Somebody please talk to me about this. Please think long and hard about these three jobs. They don't give out job-applications - do they? This is VERY tricky territory - to say the least. I deeply appreciate the Divine Feminine as an integral part of the Divinity Within Humanity - but I am deeply suspicious of a hypothetical Reptilian/Human Hybrid, Hermaphrodite Queen of Heaven / God of This World - being at the core of monotheism - ruling a Controlled Patriarchy - and presiding over a Subjugation of Women - to control and enslave the human race - complete with the 'Chastenings of the Lord' in the form of wars, persecutions, tortures, the Crusades, the Inquisition, terrorist events, etc, etc. Who REALLY controls the Monarchy and the Papacy?



One more time: I keep thinking of reincarnating archangels, in the form of Isis and Horus, or Lucifer and Michael. I keep thinking of Gabriel looking on in disgust and condemnation - ready to end the madness with terrible finality - and not without some justification. I hate to spout off speculation - and not know what I'm talking about - but I really do want to know. I keep thinking that the human race is about to receive a great, big "GAME OVER". I'm watching a very interesting episode of 'Dr. Who' titled 'Frontier in Space' from the mid-70's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOwC3T7x7Xw&feature=related I keep thinking of the Doctor as being sort of a Michael-figure - and the Madame President as being sort of a Lucifer-figure. I'm not sure exactly why. Reviewing this thread might give some clues as to why I might think this way. I'm really going to try to wind this thing down - and mostly edit this thread - and maybe add some pictures and illustrations. I just started reading 'The Secret Plot to Make Ted Kennedy President' by Geoff Shepard - and 'Taking on the System' by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga. I am continuing reading 'The Jesuits', 'The Keys of This Blood', and 'Windswept House' by Malachi Martin. That ought to keep me out of trouble - for a while. I have kept thinking of Lucifer as being the Mary-figure - secretly running the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, this has been speculation, but when one keeps getting lied-to, what are they supposed to do? On the other hand, Gabriel might be most closely represented by the Madame President in the above-linked 'Dr. Who' episode - and as being the Mary-figure running the church (and not necessarily the pure Mother of Christ). Consider again, this clip from 'V'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDbXeOvGIgE I get the picture of Lucifer being a behind the scenes adventurer, wheeler-dealer - who is very smart, smooth, and brave - but who can be very temperamental, sinister, and violent. I see Michael as being very good and refined - but not being BadAss like Gabriel and Lucifer. I continue to see three archangels in conflict with each other. I could be very, very wrong. Every time I post something - I feel torn-up inside - and again, I neglect important things on the home-front - and I pay a very high price for this. Could Gabriel and Lucifer really be two sides of the same coin? We? Might Michael be a prisoner/hostage of Gabriel/Lucifer? Original Hostage Michael? Front Man Michael? Gabriel/Lucifer in place of Michael/Christ - or Anti-Christ? The Roman Catholic Church might've had to deal with more problems than we can possibly imagine. Who Really ordered that Christians (including women and children) be eaten by lions in the Colliseum? Who really ordered the Crusades and Inquistion? Who really ordered the wars and terrorist events of at least the last 2,000 years? Who really ordered the Kennedy Assassinations? Who really ordered 9/11? Might they all have been ordered by the same being or beings? Think about THAT!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6eTbhHE0jM

Please take a VERY close look at the last couple of posts - and please tell me what you think. What is the relationship between the Archangels, the Queen of England, the Pope of Rome, and Ancient Egypt? Are the right Archangels and Human Beings in power in London and Rome? As usual - I don't know - but I suspect an Ancient Cou De Ta. Did Humanity Get Hijacked? Do we have a hostage crisis? If so - who is the hostage? To those of you who might know - what might we do to rectify the situation? Again, I don't know very much about all of this - which is why I am asking for help in this matter. I'll bet there are some people who know in Salt Lake City, Utah! I'll bet they even know a thing or two about Obama! What is really behind the name 'Original Hostage KRLLL'? 'Omnipotent Highness KRLLL'? Might this imply that an Omnipotent Highness was taken as an Original Hostage by the God of This World? Are We the Ancients? The tone of the ringing in my ears changed when I typed that! It never changes! Nuff said! Here is another interesting looking episode of 'Dr. Who'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdl2hw2Y8Ow&feature=related They're sort of old and corny - but they communicate some very interesting information. I don't think the problems facing us are anything new - and that 'they' were trying to give us clues - a long time ago. We should listen - shouldn't we? Notice the words at the top, right-middle, and bottom of this royal geneology chart. Interesting...



Might we be dealing with an ancient overthrow of Osiris/God the Father and Horus/Michael/Jesus by Gabriel/Lilith/Isis/Queen of Heaven and Lucifer/Amen Ra/God of This World? Might Lucifer/Amen Ra/God of This World have overthrown Gabriel/Lilith/Isis/Queen of Heaven around the middle of the twentieth-century? Might this have been when the Old World Order (Zionist?) was replaced with the Masonic New World Order (Teutonic Zionist?)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfMwK0kCccI Of course, there might not have been a changing of the guard at all - but rather the next phase of an ancient plan might've been implemented. Who knows? Might things be SERIOUSLY deteriorating at the present time - with virtually everyone at each other's throats? Each faction probably has it's pros and cons. I simply wish to contemplate doing that which is in EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST. I still don't know what's REALLY going on - and I still don't have a Fecal List - but I'm starting a file. I think we need to be VERY careful that we don't kill the patient when we try to save them. I am attempting to focus upon historical continuity and evolutionary change by positively reinforcing the best of the past. I hope we survive this ordeal. This isn't going to be fun, to say the least. Whatever we try, isn't really going to work. No matter how we put things together, it will always be wrong. But we do need to attempt to implement more sane ways of managing the insanity. For starters - we need to stop killing each other. Godspeed.

Just another note to the Powers That Be - Human or Otherwise - Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial:

CONDUCT AN INFOWAR - IF YOU MUST - BUT DO NOT TURN THIS WORLD INTO A BURNT AND BLOODY MASS OF CORPSES - AND DO NOT DELIBERATELY INFLICT DEATH AND DESTRUCTION UPON EARTH OR UPON ANY PART OF THIS SOLAR SYSTEM IN ANY FORM OF TERRORIST OR EXTERMINATION EVENT. BE STILL - AND KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT GOD.

Consider http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2620-your-input-required-please#47043 Consider 'Day the Earth Stood Still' and 'Battlestar Galactica: The Plan'.


The following was posted by Anchor on another thread, and I thought it might be helpful to repost it here. http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2620-your-input-required-please#47043

I offer this as input. It is copied from a thread of mine at PA... http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?4579-Earth-changes-Discussion, whcih in turn was started from material copied from PA version 1, also by me - and our very own orthodoxymoron

{Reposted from PAv1 Late Feb 2009 with edits. It have not changed my opinion since then !}

From PA1, Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
Are the Powers That Be planning to exterminate most of us with 'Earth Changes'?

If by the TPTB you mean the ruling elite, then I think the answer is no. There are easier ways to achieve that. For example: 3rd density humankind need food, shelter and water to live.

From PA1, Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
Could HAARP or sub-polar nuclear detonations precipitate these 'Earth Changes'?

Maybe they could precipitate changes, but not the ones that the Earth actually needs; nor (in my opinion) would they be able to carry out any such large scale changes of that nature - the Earth is well protected right now. You would likely see faults occurring in the equipment in the something like the way that the LHC system was stopped.

Can they use their war toys and tools to cause mischief? Yes very much so. The sum total of our human activity provides plenty (but lessening all the time) of scope for them to act within the bounds of karmic balance and non-infringement of cosmic law to cause plenty of annoying mischief.

From PA1, Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
How is it that the earth can exist for thousands of years without 'Earth Changes'...

From PA1, Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
but now that we have extermination technology and the motivation of expediency...we are now going to have 'Earth Changes' which are supposedly going to be completely natural in origin.

As you know, I don’t agree that they are related. The hurried and increasing Earth changes are happening as a consequence of the planets position and movement into an energetically different part of the Galaxy – certain configuration changes within the Earthly body – and purification are necessary to complete this process in a manner that does not affect the cosmic environment far from the planet – it is all connected. We have caused problems more far reaching in scope than we know. The Earth has to do this or die and many sources that discuss this have said that the Earths decision was not to die, and called for help which it has received in abundance.

Therefore, it is certain that the Earth will ascend energetically over the next 100 years or so with a massive change around 2012. It will catch up with the others in our solar system from a progress point of view.

If you want you can stick around for the ride, but if you plan of living more than say 30-60 years then you will want to be on the path to 4th density positive ascension - otherwise you will find it impossible to exist on the new 4th density positive Earth, and will need to incarnate somewhere else.

From PA1, Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
I feel like a darn duck in a shooting gallery.

Understandable, but it is essential that you get past this. You, more than most, are not powerless to influence the outcome. That applies both to you and every single reader of this forum.

We must take back our power. You have the power to choose.

Thanks

A..

From PA1, Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
[Anchor you made ] Statements:

'No large numbers of disharmonious humans living on it. As you know recently this changed, the numbers shot up, and we have been behaving, on aggregate, in an increasingly nasty manner. This is the cause of the planetary imbalance on a huge scale that require ‘Earth Changes’ to balance out.'

'We have caused problems more far reaching in scope than we know. The Earth has to do this or die and many sources that discuss this have said that the Earths decision was not to die, and called for help which it has received in abundance.'

'If you want you can stick around for the ride, but if you plan of living more than say 30-60 years then you will want to be on the path to 4th density positive ascension - otherwise you will find it impossible to exist on the new 4th density positive Earth, and will need to incarnate somewhere else.'

Response:

So...Earth has decided to exterminate us to save herself? Will the Illuminati help Mother Earth to exterminate us? I sure hope I advance sufficiently to ascend with the spiritual giants. Survival of the fittest? Evolution at work? I feel so loved!

No, the Earth has decided to ascend. The train is pulling out the station. We have a similar choice - that is the main point of what I am trying to say.

Your eternal survival is already assured, just not necessarily in your current third density form.

You still have a choice.

I think that the more you look outside for the answers the harder it will be for you, may I suggest looking within ?

On your final words: Of course you are loved! You are loved and cherished more than any of our human minds can comprehend! Being in a third density body and behind the veil of confusion is one of the biggest and at this time, hardest, spiritual challenges imaginable.

Countless beings of light and love are watching - they have your back and can help - but you must act, you must act and be responsible for the outcomes of those actions. Nothing gets done for you, but you can be helped all the time. Ask.

You are here are this time for a reason...

In the love and the light

A..

PS: Sorry I didn't comment on the illuminati part of your post. They may help - but not because they planned to!

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron

You have no right to be here. And whether you can hear it, or not...the universe is laughing behind your back.' Was this verse created by the reptillians? Is Mother Earth really the inner earth reptillians(both physical and interdimensional)? Is Mother Earth really Gizeh Intelligence...or is Mother Earth really Lucifer? Do they want the 'Earth Changes' which will exterminate most of humanity...and render the remaining sheeple quite manageable? Will our ascension into 4th and 5th dimension occur when we are exterminated? Will the interdimensional reptillians be waiting for us on these levels? Shouldn't the world unite around a globalism based on the U.S. Constitution and Sound Money...wherein the people of the world rule themselves with Constitutional Responsible Freedom? Shouldn't Earth Change Extermination be completely off the table? Shouldn't population reduction be achieved through education and contraception? Shouldn't environmental restoration be accomplished with the help of Free Energy? Shouldn't the sell out elites be brought to justice? Shouldn't this happen soon?

Are these genuine questions requiring answers or are they a rhetorical rant - a "wailing and gnashing of teeth"?

What is the axe you are grinding on "extermination" - it implies intent rather than consequence. The fact many may die is a potential consequence of the Earth ascension, but also in parallel, an intent of the dark elite. Why does it matter which? Death is not the end - or do you think it is?

I can tell you a bit about how things will be if you like, but I am not sure you want to hear it from me.

The challenge before us is to make a difference!

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
Did I hit a nerve? The questions are both inquisitive and rhetorical. I had a teacher with a PhD in rhetoric. How, exactly, will the killing occur? How many of our fellow human beings will die? Will they die instantly...or will they suffer? Will there be 'weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth'? Do you expect to be a survivor...or a statistic? Death is not the end...but is death a friend? What steps are being taken to save the lives of our brothers and sisters? Or do we not give a kangaroo's patootie?

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
Did I hit a nerve?

No you didn't. I should hope you were not trying! I did ask you some questions though but you only answered a few. I sort of needed the answers to take this thread in a useful direction - though at this rate we really need to hop over to the Spirituality forum

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
How, exactly, will the killing occur?

The way I see it, it started already: economic collapse. difficulty with food production and distribution. The inability of large sections of the human race to co-operate in a crisis. Later on, extreme weather, rising sea levels, and geological changes. The wildcard factor is what the dark forces might do in terms of a scorched Earth retreat once they realise they cannot stay.

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
How many of our fellow human beings will die?

Lots. Sorry.

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
Will they die instantly...or will they suffer?

A morbid question. Some will some wont. Some will suffer varying degrees. I don't know numbers. What will happen will mostly be down to the persons level of consciousness, the soul contract they came into incarnation with, and their karmic situation. Many people will be catalysed to see the light as the pace of change and the inconveniences with which we will be beset increase.
Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
Will there be 'weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth'?

Yes, many people will not see the light or awaken to their true nature and will persist in a state of victim consciousness - begging to be rescued by anyone who will have them. This is not the way you will survive. To survive one must act for oneself and ones like-minded community of fellow survivors, that should a person have a mind to, they will be attracted to the necessary groupings.

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
Do you expect to be a survivor...or a statistic?

Yes, and as such I will also be a statistic

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
Death is not the end...but is death a friend?

No death is not a friend. Allow me to paint a picture for the sake of perspective. Some of it may be prophetic, and I apologise if this offends anyone. Imagine yourself walking among a scene of destruction, with every heartstring plucked in angst for the dying and the suffering. Rubble, smoke, water, fire, extreme weather, broken bodies and half closed body-bags.

Recently [as I wrote this ] the end came for 200 people in Victoria in the bush-fires. Some of the burning was similar to SHC but on houses. Some people were incinerated in seconds. It doesn't matter if it was HAARP or Earth changes, they still died. This third density chapter is closed for them. Same for Louisiana flooding, or the big tsunami, etc etc.

Human kind has stood by for years and watched its brothers and sisters in different countries die of starvation, thirst, poverty and readily preventable diseases. Why is it any different for people in the same country?

If you meant death as an easy escape - I don't recommend that. The reason is that you are hear at this time for a reason. In my own mind I am 100% positive that you are here, as are most of the people attracted to this group, for the same reason I am. You can choose to survive, teach and learn. You can learn to listen within and thereby hear the truth and the guidance that will lead you. You can learn the power of the call for aid and the awesome cosmic forces at your disposal to bring that aid to others in such abundance that your intuition assures you is necessary. Once you realise that, then you can see that leaving early would be somewhat dishonorable and a big unhelpful mission fail.

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
What steps are being taken to save the lives of our brothers and sisters?

The awakened will awaken as many as possible. This vanguard will shine for the others. This will not be a rescue as emphasised before, but the way is shown. Each must act and be responsible for the results of those actions at every level. This is in fact how it has always been and always will be, but the somnolent state of many has masked this awareness - mainly because of the influence that we have all allowed the dark elite to have on our lives.

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron
Or do we not give a kangaroo's patootie?

I care heaps. We must give as much kangaroo's patootie as we have the capacity to give it

I appreciate you coaxing this information out of me. It helps me and I hope it helps anyone who reads it. It is important for everyone to discriminate and reject this information if it seems wrong or irrelevant to you.

A..

Sometimes I want more drama (or passion) and sometimes I want less drama (or pettiness). I really wouldn't mind a month-long battle royal on one of my threads, involving hundreds of posts, swearing, dirty-pictures, gross-pictures, accusations, counter-accusations, sex, drugs, rock 'n roll, etc, etc, etc. I often think that our conversation is too sanitized and superficial. I really didn't mind fighting with Raven. We never really seem to get to core issues. We seem to pussyfoot through a lot of trivia. We never really seem to pull out all of the stops. I have to do this on my own, within my own mind. You wouldn't believe the unspoken battles which rage within my indomitable spirit. I sometimes imagine being in an empty and locked cathedral with a very smart, but very sinister being, arguing about everything under the sun, with our voices reverberating down the nave. How's this for a friendly discussion in the park? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeOTagb6120 Here are a couple of reasons why our world is so screwed-up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhzwSlK4uEc&feature=related Can't we just all get along? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwXdxRuk_Dg This guy really got my goat! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzctPPkUPkk Here are a couple of future Avalon and Camelot members. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JmA2ClUvUY This is what happens when a demon gets pissed-off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9qAqwIW704 This guy is so gonna burn! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb8o5wRYeTA&feature=fvsr I should stop.


"EXACTLY WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME??!!"

You know, I'm trying to imagine being a Solar System Administrator, but I am coming to the conclusion that after the novelty wore off, I might not like the view, even if the United States of the Solar System were the New Solar System (replacing the Old and New World Orders). We are shielded from a lot of disturbing information. We think we know a lot, but I doubt it. I think it might take a couple of lifetimes to really adjust to dealing with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Seeing with absolute clarity probably isn't what it's cracked-up to be. It might be especially hard to view all of the pain and suffering in the world, if one really cared. I'm frankly numb and non-responsive regarding the problems in the world. My thinking and reflecting have sort of put me out of commission. I've sort of defeated myself, without any help from the darkside. If I were a Solar System Administrator, I would probably just observe and ask questions during my first lifetime at this hypothetical job. Actually, this is probably what I would do lifetime after lifetime after lifetime as a Solar System Administrator. I'd keep on top of everything, attend meetings, read briefings and files, etc., but I wouldn't interfere or micromanage. But who knows what the reality would be? I'm simply living this delusion, to try to understand the solar system and the plight of humanity. So far, it's not a pretty picture, and I'm sure that I'm just scratching the surface of a very deep and ugly wound. I feel certain that the worst is yet to come. I know we're supposed to be up-beat, and act like everything is fine, even when it's not, but isn't that lying? I know that the truth is so overrated, but I still try to be honest.

THE CURRENT SOLAR SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR

"the size of any man/or woman or even a child,
is the size of the thing, it takes, to get their goat
-- always remember,
do NOT ever surrender your goat "

Thank-you Susan. I agree. I think the goat got the guy in the eye! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzctPPkUPkk This guy got his goat!

As I try to go underground (in more ways than one!), please continue to study the words "Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System" as a group, and as individual words. Think about this from every conceivable angle, and contemplate every possibility, probability, and eventuality. This is more of a monumental task than a casual observer might delude themselves into believing. Consider the psychological, ethical, religious, and political implications and ramifications. This could (and should) be the subject of thousands of doctoral dissertations. Think of these words being at the center of ivy-league university programs in Solar System Studies and Governance. Please review this entire thread, including all of the books mentioned and videos linked. Please do not disregard this thread, or the subject upon which it is based. I don't have a problem with idealistic conceptions of God and Theocracy - but I am profoundly troubled by the history of theology and theocracy - as well as by the idiotic religious expressions in modernity. We should know better by now. We seem to have a lot of minor gods and goddesses flying around the solar system in ufo-asteroids, pretending to be Major Gods and Goddesses. Indeed, using God's Name in Vain. I seek a constructive integration of democracy and theocracy - based upon RESPONSIBILITY. If only I could learn to be responsible.

Here are the links to my threads on AV1 and MOA. I included them here because they are really an ongoing research project. I'm trying to change myself - and I am trying to encourage others to think in unconventional yet productive ways. This is a unique approach - which may make it of some value to someone somewhere or somewhen. This thread is an experiment (aren't they all?)...which includes mostly threads based on videos...or threads which contain many video links...which I have started. I'm not particularly bright or noteworthy...but the videos which I have viewed...especially when viewed as a group...are earth shattering to me. The threads are a healthy mixture of problems and solutions. If you have the time...which is doubtful...please look at all of these threads...and look for commonalities. There is a bit of a theological slant...but certainly not an orthodox or Bible thumping slant. Prepare to be shocked...to cry...to get mad...to be enlightened...and to experience the Eureka Phenomenon!

I would love to read a twenty page critique of all of these threads - written by a Jesuit or a CIA analyst - complete with a psychological evaluation, etc. I'm very serious. I don't need to be right. I just don't feel as though anyone has seriously considered these threads. They were designed to make people think - and then to arrive at their own conclusions - but I don't think that happened at all. I honestly feel as though Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer, and a couple of alphabet agents and Jesuits are the only ones who looked at this material with a penetrating gaze. Even if I was very close to the mark - I wasn't a threat (I didn't try to be) - because no one seemed to pay much attention to any of it. I had hoped for some very detailed and passionate debating. The 'Amen Ra' thread seemed to generate the most interest (18,067 views and counting) - but I have no idea what the reactions were and are now that AV1 is closed to posting. I feel very empty and lost in all of this. I feel as though I wasted my time and energy - accomplishing nothing. I am making a renewed call for help - into the vast regions of space and cyberspace - for intelligent life-forms to seriously look at this material as a group - and tell me what you think - positive or negative. Where are the scholars? Is there any intelligent life out there that isn't so high and mighty that they can't take a few hours to make a proper evaluation of all of this? Come down out of your ivory tower - I dare you! The water's warm. Come-on in! I'm waiting - but I'm not holding my breath. You important people with your degrees and badges have more important things to do - don't you? Like getting us into even more trouble than we're already in? Don't take what I just said too seriously. I am impatient and frustrated - and I'm simply taking my dissatisfaction with life out on those who don't deserve it. Life isn't fair - is it? At this point, I seem to know less than when I started this quest.

Consider Teutonic Zionism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfMwK0kCccI Also, consider reading 'Hitler's Pope'. Supposedly there is an SS/Jesuit connection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COYHwApueFE I don't take sides in any of this. I just want to defuse a very dangerous situation, but I don't know how. I have no idea how deep and dark all of this really is. How is one to know who the good guys and bad guys really are? Does it take a bad guy to overthrow a bad guy? Can a truly good guy really accomplish much of anything in this sick and stupid world??? Are the Old and New World Orders really two sides of the same coin, or are they really in genuine conflict with each other? I keep sensing that we are dealing with Bad Guys vs Bad Guys - with the Good Guys not having a clue about what's REALLY going on. I think that a deep and fair study of the Vatican and the Nazis is essential to really understanding what has and is going on in our world. Is there both a good and a bad side to the Vatican and the Nazi phenomenon? I am proceeding on the theory that just about everyone and everything are mixtures of good and evil. I try to avoid 'all or nothing' thinking. I also think that Gizeh Intelligence has a lot to do with all of this, but very little seems to be known about them, and I'm sure they'd like it to stay that way. If all of the crap got exposed, and all of the bad guys and gals got kicked out of the solar system - would we be capable of handling the uncovered mess? I really wonder. We might get ourselves into an even worse situation. It's almost as if the present diabolical state of affairs needs to somehow be reformed in an evolutionary manner. But once again, I don't have a clue how to do this. I almost seem to be trying to positively reinforce the best of the Vatican and the Nazi phenomenon - while exposing and attacking the worst aspects. But this approach ends up making everyone angry - right? That's why I pretty much stick to myself, and why I'm trying desperately to stop posting on the internet. I'd like to start extricating myself from some of the lists I'm undoubtedly on. What would the Masonic Teutonic Zionist Nazi Martian Catholic Dracs on Phobos say??? "orthodoxymoron REALLY needs to shut-up"?

On the political front, internet, PBS, town-hall, and bumper-sticker campaigning should be sufficient to properly inform the general public. I HATE roadside political signs. Perhaps senatorial and congressional voting should be supplemented with internet voting by the public. The elected representatives and the public might have 50% of the votes each. The public overwhelmingly did not want the damn bankster-bailout - but guess what we got??

I'm still a bit puzzled regarding the definition of 'regressive'. Perhaps a lot of us might be 'regressive' if we were in the 'regressives' situation. I am very frightened that even if my unproven ideas were accepted, that the human race might screw things up even worse than the 'regressives'. I support a representative republic, but are we really ready to pull this off on a global or solar system level - especially if we were dealing with other than human beings who would undoubtedly want a piece of the pie? If Greys and Dracs really exist - they probably want us out - and most of the human race would probably want them out - especially if we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of years of star wars. I keep wondering if the hypothetical Greys and Dracs would prefer to live in subsurface bases and cities throughout the solar system, or if they really want our skyscrapers and waterfront homes? Would a significant percentage of the human population choose to live in subsurface bases and cities throughout the solar system, if given the opportunity to do so? I think it would be really cool, especially if space travel, surface exploration, maglev trains, and coed saunas were part of the deal.

I have come to the sickening conclusion that just about everyone is capable of reprehensible corruption and horrific brutality. Put a pure and noble soul in a certain context, and they might do just about anything. I guess this is why I like the checks and balances of a United States of the Solar System. But this is just a pipe-dream. It would sure help to know what's REALLY going on. I continue to wish for everything to work out well for all concerned. Hope springs eternal. I will continue to wish the best for everyone as I lurk in the shadows. I might reemerge in a couple of months - a couple of years - or never. I sought answers and happiness - but I have mostly uncovered problems and sadness. I hurt before - but now the pain is nearly unbearable. I might sound self-centered, and I probably am, but all of these threads have, in a sense, been diaries of feeling, reflection, and speculation. If I ever do reemerge, I think I will be a lot more polished and sanitized, which might be a good or a bad thing, depending on your point of view. I sense that I have been a great disappointment. Perhaps this is because I am greatly disappointed. Perhaps my silence and absence will make everyone happy. I'm not going away mad. I'm just going away.

Take all of these threads with a sea of salt, and get informed without getting mad. Just consider them carefully, and then move on. I try to listen to a wide variety of sources in a rather non-committal manner. Neutrality might be impossible, but I'm trying to be as neutral as possible. I can see myself partnering with virtually all races and members of nearly all organizations - AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT AS CORRUPT AS HELL. There are good individuals EVERYWHERE. Unfortunately, I really am quite naive. I really am a completely ignorant fool when it comes to how the world and solar system really works. I would love to be involved in solar system governance, but it would take me several lifetimes to really get up to speed, and I'm not joking. I am sort of burned-out, and I probably seem to lack backbone, in my efforts to be neutral. I'm not exactly a 'shouting in a megaphone and running in the streets' type of person. I don't really know much of anything for certain. I tend to think that whoever REALLY runs the solar system is into EVERYTHING. So, it might be futile to blame any particular group for most of the world's problems. Perhaps a lot of the individuals and groups we love to hate - really hate carrying out the orders they are given. I think this thing is incredibly complex and messy. We might be dealing with a lot of very ancient baggage, which might include other solar systems, archangels, gods, goddesses, star wars, and who knows who or what? I think Bill Cooper had the right idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fHmWcRZ72A I listen to Latin Masses as I study the Jesuits. I think I could probably get along quite well with most of them, including the Black Pope aka Jesuit General. I think I could get along very well with top-level Israelis. Please keep an open mind in all of this controversial madness.

I keep flying blind, and I keep feeling as though I am walking through a minefield as I keep speculating. This all seems to be a most dangerous and deceptive game. I think that my posting has angered both the good and evil guys and gals. I guess I'm sort of a rebel against everyone at this point. I feel as though I might be very comfortable in a very holy heaven, surrounded by the most evolved beings in the universe. OR, I think I could hang-out with Bartleby and Loki (from Dogma) and get along with them. I can do the 'holier than thou' routine, and I can do the 'this is all a bunch of bs' routine as well. I would really like to see a highly refined integration of politics and religion, but I don't have a clue how to make it happen. If I travelled between the Vatican, the City of London, the United Nations, and Washington D.C. on a daily basis, I might be able to work something out over a few decades. But presently, I am completely disillusioned with politics and religion. I think humanity is being taken advantage of, but perhaps to some extent, we deserve it. Everything important continues to be a great, big, deceptive mystery. I've sort of had it. I really think I need to just shut-up and research. I'm enjoying reading 'Hitler's Pope'. Who knows? I might've been Eugenio Pacelli, so I probably shouldn't throw stones. I seem to be strangely interested in Pope Pius XII, the Vatican, the Nazi Party, and Gizeh Intelligence. I keep wondering why things had to get so insane and violent. I mostly want the violence and war to go bye-bye. I think I might be able to live with a litte bit of corruption - but not too much. I need to stop. Thank-you for having this website. It's really shown me how little I really know about a lot of things. I need to keep reading the 'Holy Tablets'. Also, Biblical Egyptology is a VERY interesting area of research. Anyway, I am going to try to not post for a while. It's liberating to just research, and not have to attempt to convince anyone of anything. Who says that no man is an island, and that no man stands alone? Here I stand. I can do no other. You won't have orthodoxymoron to ignore anymore...

Namaste and Have a Nice Day

1. God, Jesus, Satan, Lucifer, et al: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15014&highlight=orthodoxymoron

2. Secrets of the Vatican: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13767&highlight=orthodoxymoron

3. Tell Me Who I Am: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14402&highlight=orthodoxymoron

4. Waco Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15185&highlight=orthodoxymoron

5. Al Bielek - Philadelphia Experiment and Montauk Project: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14348&highlight=orthodoxymoron

6. Xcon Potpurri: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14241&highlight=orthodoxymoron

7. Kevin Trudeau with Alex Jones - 5-26-09: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14241&highlight=orthodoxymoron

8. Red Letter Church: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13495&highlight=orthodoxymoron

9. Reptilians and Mind Control: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13373&highlight=orthodoxymoron

10. 'V' Movie(Series) Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13202&highlight=orthodoxymoron

11. Jesus: The Last Pharaoh?: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13776&highlight=orthodoxymoron

12. Important Mass Manipulation Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12702&highlight=orthodoxymoron

13. 1990's Prophets: Vindicated or Debunked?: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11000&highlight=orthodoxymoron

14. Alien Advice: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10158&highlight=orthodoxymoron

15. Cool Music Videos: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15470&highlight=cool+music+videos

16. NASA: Triumph and Tragedy: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15618&highlight=tragedy+triumph

17. United Nations Charter: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15552&highlight=Shadow+moon

18. In the Shadow of the Moon: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15635&highlight=Shadow+moon

19. TWA 800 Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15187

20. Unique War Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14409

21. Bilderberg Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12970

22. Dogon Sirius Mystery - C2C: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15731&highlight=dogon

23. The Point: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=158238#post158238

24. The Washington Mutual Story: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13996&highlight=washington+mutual+story

25. Oklahoma City Bombing Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=158668#post158668

26. The United States of the Solar System: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15878

27. What is Giza Intelligence? http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11123&highlight=giza+intelligence

28. Called to Be Free - a Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13882&highlight=worldwide+church

29. Lucifer: Deity of the Elite: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=163179#post163179

30. Tesla: Master of Lightning: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16193

31. Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=165729#post165729

32. The Dulce Book: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=167075#post167075

33. New World Order: Devil in the Vatican: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=167745#post167745

34. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16609&highlight=lucifer+effect

35. Enron Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=175040#post175040

36. No End In Sight: Iraq War Documentary: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16897

37. Ted Gunderson Interviews Chip Tatum (CIA, Drugs, Etc.): http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=177127#post177127

38. Sirius Issues: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=178234#post178234

39. Superimposed Parallel Universes: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=178255#post178255

40. Lawyerese Goes Galactic: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17276&highlight=wall+street+journal

41. Stargate SG-1: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17834

42. Amen Ra: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18223

43. The Dark Side of the Moon Mission: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18273&highlight=moon+video+orthodoxymoron

44. Open Letter to the Beings of the Universe: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19065&highlight=open+letter+beings+universe

45. Moonraker: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19284

46. Who Are Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer? http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19376&highlight=gabriel%2C+michael%2C+lucifer%3F

47. Krlll: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=238849#post238849

48. Cartoon Aliens: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20141&highlight=cartoon+aliens

49. Thuban Thoughts: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20379

50. Thuban Thoughts II: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20963

51. Very Cool Short Videos: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20400&highlight=cool+short+videos

52. Violent Movies, Books, Games, Cartoons, and Toys: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20849

53. Abortion, Euthanasia, Suicide, and Murder: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20852

54. Prevention is Central to Healthcare: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21143

55. I Have a Dream! Free at Last! http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=261981#post261981

orthodoxymoron threads from the Mists of Avalon: http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t876-orthodoxymoron-threads?highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads

1. Who is Lucifer? What are they doing? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/universal-lounge-f8/who-is-lucifer-what-are-they-doing-t841.htm?highlight=lucifer

2. United Nations + City States + Underground Bases + Secret Space Program = Secret Government? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/universal-lounge-f8/united-nations-city-states-underground-bases-secret-space-program-secret-government-t853.htm?highlight=secret+government

3. Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom Solar System http://www.themistsofavalon.net/universal-lounge-f8/namaste-constitutional-responsible-freedom-solar-system-t918.htm#16374

4. Tibet, Kali, and the Trinity Goddess http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1019-tibet-kali-and-the-trinity-goddess?highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads

5. Three Interesting Ladies http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1347-three-interesting-ladies?highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads

6. Swiss Politicians to March on Bilderberg to Demand Arrest of Kissinger http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2705-swiss-politicians-to-march-on-bilderberg-to-demand-arrest-of-kissinger

7. How Should We Then Live? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2717-how-should-we-then-live

8. The KGB Psychic Files http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2622-the-kgb-psychic-files

9. Reptilian Queens http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2639-reptilian-queens

10. Very Interesting Jordan Maxwell Interview http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2531-very-interesting-jordan-maxwell-interview

11. The Hidden Story of Jesus http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2618-the-hidden-story-of-jesus

12. Death and Taxes http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1158-death-and-taxes

13. 'V' Revisited http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1616-v-revisited

14. Grace Cathedral http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1327-grace-cathedral

15. Red Letter Church http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1040-red-letter-church

16. What is Gizeh Intelligence? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1348-what-is-gizeh-intelligence

17. The United Nations and the City States http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1538-the-united-nations-and-the-city-states

18. Lucifer, Pagan Rome, Alexander the Great, Constantine the Great, and Papal Rome http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1572-lucifer-pagan-rome-alexander-the-great-constantine-the-great-and-papal-rome

19. Amen Ra, et al http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1116-amen-ra-et-al

20. The Jesuits http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1407-the-jesuits

21. Bill Cooper, Commander X, and Branton http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1098-bill-cooper-commander-x-and-branton

22. St. Ouen and St. Sulpice http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1397-saint-ouen-and-saint-sulpice

23. Project Isis http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1303-project-isis

24. Complexity, Technology, Competition, Greed, Power-Hunger, Self-Exaltation, and the Quickening http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1033-complexity-technology-competition-greed-power-hunger-self-exaltation-and-the-quickening?highlight=complexity

25. Eric Jon Phelps http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2779-eric-jon-phelps

26. Moral Responsibility http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2806-moral-responsibility#49793

27. The Holy Tablets http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2867-the-holy-tablets

28. The University of Solar System Studies and Governance http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2881-the-university-of-solar-system-studies-and-governance

29. Healthcare in Critical Condition http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2888-healthcare-in-critical-condition#50754

30. The War On Democracy http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2895-the-war-on-democracy

31. No End in Sight http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2896-no-end-in-sight#50837

32. Ring of Power http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2921-ring-of-power

33. The New Rulers of the World http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2923-the-new-rulers-of-the-world

34. The History of Orthodox Christianity http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2971-the-history-of-orthodox-christianity

Namaste and Have a Nice Day



So - who is the rightful owner of this solar system? Who is the rightful head of the Christian Church? Who is the rightful head of the Monarchy? Who is the rightful and legitimate head of this solar system? Do we need to make some changes? These changes should be made immediately. You know what I'm talking about - and you know that I know what's really going on. There will be consequences and reprecussions - throughout the whole damn solar system. You had all better get right with your maker - and I'm not bluffing or kidding. GAME OVER.

Is the above bold paragraph really too bold? It reflects how I really feel, but does it reflect reality? I made it elsewhere in this thread, quite some time ago, and nothing seems to have happened. Should I have expected anything to happen? It would help if I knew more about what is really going on throughout the world, solar system, galaxy, and universe. I know a lot more than I did a couple of years ago, but I still don't know nearly enough. Or, do I know too much? Should someone simply call in a strike on this god-forsaken solar system? Should probation close in 2011? Should the wheat be separated from the tares? Should the righteous be separated from the filthy? Should the Bottomless Pit be utilized? Would a changing of the guard from competent-corruption to incompetent-goodness really just make things worse? Are we really too stupid and unstable to rule ourselves? Must we continue to be ruled by very powerful and evil individuals, as seems to have been the case for thousands of years? Have we contributed to the delinquency of the Queen of Heaven and the God of This World - by being Completely Ignorant and Irresponsible Fools?

Are the best and brightest Roman Catholics working in the Vatican? Are the best and brightest Americans working in Washington DC? Are the best and the brightest of Great Britan and Europe working in the City of London? Are the best and brightest people of the world working at the United Nations? Are the people in the Vatican, Washington DC, the City of London, and the United Nations really running the world - or are they simply employees or minions of a Secret Government and a Queen of Heaven / God of This World? I would really like to know the innermost thoughts of the 10,000 best and brightest Human Beings - regarding Life, the Universe, and Solar System Governance. Would a Vatican-Based Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System result in the 10,000 best and brightest Human Beings running the Solar System?

My idealistic bottom-line is RESPONSIBILITY IN EVERYTHING. My pragmatic bottom-line is GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT. TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR. COMPETE WITHOUT CEASING WITH POSITIVE RESPONSE ABILITY. Perhaps my idealism needs to mate with my pragmatism. Perhaps I need to infiltrate and subvert the Old and New World Orders with Responsibility to produce the New Solar System aka the United States of the Solar System. Perhaps I need to aspire to become a kinder and gentler version of the Queen of Heaven and the God of This World. Think long and hard about the contents of this post (including all linked threads and materials). That's exactly what I will be doing privately. I'm not going to whine, whimper, and beg anymore. Godspeed.

The speaker/interpreter in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh2NkhunEJ0&feature=player_embedded reminds me of Serendipity in the 1999 movie 'Dogma'! I picture Serendipity doing the talking, complete with the mannerisms exhibited in 'Dogma'! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfyn-_0V4Ec Actually, I'm watching the video, and imagining the speaker having Serendipity's head!! Could Kali be a lot like this??? Sometimes I wonder who really teaches the teachers??!! Please review this thread, which focuses on Kali. http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1019-tibet-kali-and-the-trinity-goddess Also, notice very carefully what Serendipity says in 'Dogma' and ask yourself if Kali could utter these words!!! Gabriel + Lucifer = Lilith = Hathor = Isis = Kali = Mary = Kitesh = Adria = Anna = Serendipity = Queen of Heaven = God of This World??? We are all One? It seems that there is a progressive release of information occurring presently, but that this release is somewhat jumbled, and a mixture of truth and error. It seems as if we have a lot of dot-connecting to do. It is not clear to me, why this release is occurring, and I continue to be both receptive and wary. I continue to think that we are in the middle of an ancient war, of which we know very little, even with all of the 'new' information. I continue to both resist and emulate the 'Queen Concept'. For example, I like the best aspects of Anna in 'V' - but I despise the worst aspects. If someone has been running the show in this solar system for thousands of years, with complete reincarnational recall, and access to all of the hidden technology and information, they obviously are someone who might be a useful teacher, to say the least! But what strings might be attached to such instruction??!! This hypothetical being might be VERY tricky and sinister!!! I intend neither respect or disrespect. I simply do not have enough information to make any sort of an absolute judgment. For all I know, I might be a real reincarnational mother, in my own right! So, I'd best not cast too many stones! I continue to suffer from future-shock, questionable religious programming, and the paralysis of analysis. I also think I might have some significant reincarnational-baggage. So, reeducating me is sort of like reinventing the wheel. I think that to really get this philosophical thing right, we need to be scholars. I'm trying, but the spiritual and emotional pressure I experience is often overwhelming. I really and truly am pretending, at this point, that I am working on a PhD in Solar System Studies and Governance. I know this sounds ridiculous, and in many ways it is, but I think we need to have this sort of a goal clearly in mind. I should really put together some sort of a curriculum, but until I do, consider all of my threads to be your homework. I will be interested to read the first doctoral dissertation based upon the works of orthodoxymoron. This might be somewhat self-aggrandizing, but I really do think that there should be this type of a doctoral study. Once again, I just might create my own doctoral program, and be the first teacher and first student - simultaneously!!


IS SERENDIPITY REALLY KALI???

If you feel especially ambitious, consider combining the following:

1. 'The Desire of Ages' by Ellen G. White.

2. 'The Federalist Papers' (which includes the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights).

3. 'The 1962 Missal' (which includes the Latin Mass).

4. The Music of Charles Marie Widor.

5. The French Expression of Roman Catholicism.

This is not necessarily an endorsement. I'm not happy with Roman Catholicism, but I'm not happy with the Heirs of the Protestant Reformation either. Two wrongs don't make a right. The whole religion thing is a mess. I'm trying to get at the core of the theological and political issues of the past few thousand years. This is just a suggested exercise to help to accomplish this seemingly impossible task. No matter how one arranges things, there is always another, and possibly better, way to do it! It often seems as if no matter how one puts things together, it's always wrong! Am I too easy on the Roman Catholic Church? Should I sound like this person? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZQ2UvpK7N4 I am trying to find innovative ways to reform both Protestantism and Catholicism via Positive Reinforcement. The Secret Government, Gizeh Intelligence, the United Nations, the City of London, Washington D.C., and the Vatican MUST be reformed - or we are truly screwed. Actually, we might be anyway, but at least a proper reformation might give us a fighting chance for a few more years.

There probably has to be an arbitrary aspect to how business gets done in the world, solar system, galaxy, and universe. Do we really need an infallible 'Thus Saith the Lord'? Perhaps. But what if the 'Lord' is using God's Name in Vain? I continue to think that we need an idealistic and uncorrupted mixture of theocracy and democracy. But how is this to be accomplished without persecution and atrocity? How do we combine Responsibility and Freedom with Law and Order? People will never really agree on much of anything, will they? Is my dream of a United States of the Solar System really a recipe for galactic disaster? What if a theocracy ensured the proper operation of a U.S.S.S? Is this what would be required to avoid chaos and anarchy? If the solar system has been ruled with an iron-fist, for thousands of years, by a Queen of Heaven and God of This World, what would happen if they were replaced by a much kinder and gentler solar system governance. Would all hell break loose, even though there had been an apparent change for the better? I keep thinking that the change for the better might have to occur gradually, even though I would like for it to occur yesterday. We need to really think this thing through, because the failure to do so could get us into even worse trouble than we're already in. Remember Prince Paul, Tito, and the aftermath?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x88zm3k_vP4

People seem to like dictators, don't they. They talk about freedom, but they always seem to delegate their responsibility to some damn megalomaniac. We seem to worship power, don't we? What if the True and Living God is not a God of Power and Might? We'd probably reject them in favor of some two-bit dictator! We might even select Satan! Hell! Haven't we already done that over and over and over again??? Will we ever learn??? Please listen to 'Behold a Pale Horse' by Bill Cooper, one more time. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2414574348304077734#docid=-7367255331569182231 The general public seems to be as problematic as the elites and regressives. The whole thing stinks, from top to bottom. I really like Bill Cooper. I don't think he got everything right, but I think he got 99% of the key issues right. We need to transcend the secret government, rather than fighting with it. We need to make the secret government obsolete. I don't have a problem with 'crowd control' or with the human race being managed, educated, and disciplined in a kind, fair, and orderly manner. What I object to is irresponsible management and cruel exploitation. The present campaign and election/selection process is a mockery of proper decision-making. The PhD requirement for representatives would help, but perhaps voters should have to get a two-year degree in voting. To do ANYTHING, one should have to prove that they know what they're doing.

Perhaps I have to be satisfied with caring enough to research and reflect, yet not care if no one cares about the products of my research and reflection. If I sang songs, the people would cheer (and I might make lots of money), but there is no cheering here. Believe it or not, I really can compose and sing popular songs. I haven't pursued this, but judging from the results of my internet activities, this might've been a better option. As a teenager and young-adult, I actually was a family friend of a very successful Hollywood musical insider, but I didn't even think about pursuing music at the time. Now it's too late. Maybe in my next life. Solving the solar system's problems is not a marketable job skill. Especially with no degree, no badge, and no articulately-pushy personality. I'm not really personally hurt by this, but I am very worried that common-sense is so uncommon, and responsibility is so unrewarded, that we really might end up in a full-fledged New World Order situation, with both the elites and the general-public to blame, while the 'regressives' laugh all the way to the Bank of Sirius. Again, it hasn't been so much that people have disagreed with me, it's that there has been very little serious discussion over any significant period of time. This has been, and continues to be, a test. This is only a test. But I suspect that even with a larger potential audience, the results would be the same. Perhaps we do have to be manipulated from the shadows with entertainment combined with things which frighten us and make us angry. Problem. Reaction. Solution. Entertainment. We are so predictable and so easily manipulated and exploited. Will we ever learn? I have my doubts. Once again, perhaps I should just relax, and enjoy the global societal meltdown. A lot of this is so sad, that it's actually funny. OK, this is silly and stupid. I need to stop like I said I was going to. I just keep hoping that things will start making sense, and start improving, so I keep posting. But I really do need to stop, and recover from my nervous breakdown. Seriously, there are legitimate reasons why people go to sleep, and stay asleep. I guess this is why I am hesitant to wake people up just enough to push them over the edge and into having a nervous breakdown, followed by running in the streets, doing something stupid, and getting put in a FEMA camp, after losing their job, getting divorced and attempting suicide. I'm very, very serious about what I just said. I consider this forum to not be populated by the general public, which is why I post as freely as I do. And believe me, I could be a helluva lot more provocative and controversial. I am looking for top-down solutions, rather than a lot of 'make the masses mad solutions'. People who try to help by standing for the right, though the heavens fall, have emotional problems and are a threat to national security, don't you know. Some people just can't accept the insanity, like normal human beings. You're tearing me apart! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r8LnJTMqZ8

We need to eliminate debt throughout the whole world, in the public and private sectors. We need to pay as we go. Perhaps interest and debt should be outlawed at some point. What should happen to all of the corrupt millionaires and billionares? How can justice be achieved? What are the wages of the sin of the non-compassionate use of accumulated wealth? At what point does wealth become anti-competitive? I have been arguing against deliberately inflicted earth-changes and extermination events, but on the other hand, there should probably be some VERY SERIOUS consequences for the reprehensible activities of probably hundreds of millions of human beings. What about reincarnational karmic-debt? What are the wages of sin, especially when one adds 15% interest over thousands and thousands of years??? I have HUGE problems with capital-punishment, but I have very little problem with extended periods of incarceration, where prisoners work their butts off to pay for their imprisonment. I have a soft side, but I have a very hard side as well. Again, I am seeking Responsibility and Freedom in the Context of Law and Order. I am both liberal and conservative, depending on the issue. Don't try to pigeonhole me. It won't work. I grind slowly, but I grind exceedingly fine. Ethical People Must Dominate Business, Politics, and Religion. Compete Without Ceasing With Positive Response Ability. Put the Unethical People Out of Business, Politics, and Religion. We Need to Take Off the Gloves and Take Care of Business. We Shall Overcome.

Here is a cool documentary on sacred texts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3bmeIpAqL8 I continue to think that religion and theology are important, even if you don't believe in God, or don't go to church. I keep going on and on about the Roman Catholic Church because all roads lead to Rome, and the RCC is the biggest game in town. It cannot be ignored, regardless of whether one likes it or not. One cannot properly understand this crazy world without considering church and state, politics and religion, and how they interact with each other. We need to be honest about both the positive and negative information we uncover. I tend to be pretty general about all of this, because I mostly wish to point people in productive and constructive directions, rather than leading them around by the hooks in their noses, and trying to make money doing so. Even if 95% of religion is BS (I don't know that it is), what about the 5% that isn't BS??? BTW, the church which John Dominic Crossan is interviewed in sure looks like the First United Methodist Church in Hollywood, California (Franklin and Highland). It's a really cool church I used to attend sporadically. They have a cool four-manual Casavant pipe-organ with trompettes enchamade located on each side of the front of the balcony (which features very steep seating beneath a large and beautiful stained-glass window). It was built around 1930. They also have a huge carillon. This church has been used for a lot of television shows and motion-pictures. You didn't need to know all of that, now did you??!! I like John Dominic Crossan. He has done a significant amount of work with the notorious 'Jesus Seminar'. Here is another Bible documentary for your consideration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNZ-sOzXWEk&feature=related


I have refined the concept of love into the word 'responsibility'. I tend to doubt the substitutionary atonement, and I tend to believe that we simply need to become more and more ethical, rather than depending on a human-sacrifice to get us off the hook with God. I lean heavily upon the Teachings of Jesus, but I recognize that there are many hard-sayings contained in the words attributed to Jesus. The Book of Enoch is very interesting to me, although I am somewhat repulsed by all of the fighting, retribution, and utter-destruction. To me, the Roman Catholic Church should have followed the Teachings of Jesus, instead of using Peter and Apostolic Succession as a way to avoid having to obey what Jesus taught. It was more convenient to keep Jesus nailed to the cross, while Mary (wearing the pants) and the Pope (wearing the crown) ruled the church and the world. Perhaps that last sentence is too harsh, but that's how I feel, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong. It just seems as if they used one text from the Teachings of Jesus (in a rather strained manner) to get out of having to deal with ALL of the Words of Christ. Again, just my impression. One more thing. Where do Paul and the other New Testament Writers quote the Teachings of Jesus, and base their messages upon these teachings by employing expository preaching???????? Which Christian church, in 2,000 years of Christianity, has made the Teachings of Jesus their doctrinal statement, and sole foundation of faith and practice????????



I like listening to Gregorian Chant, Sacred Classical Music, and Latin Masses, even though I have HUGE theological problems with Roman Catholicism and the Mass (Latin or otherwise). However, if the Mass were interpreted solely by the words attributed to Christ, this would be a HUGE improvement. I don't know why I even bother with any of this. NOBODY will go for what I'm proposing. The Catholic-Haters aren't going to change their minds. The Roman Catholic Faithful are not going to change their minds. And God knows, the Curia and the Pope aren't going to do an about-face! This is a monumental waste of time. But really, I do like the formal mysticism and solemn grandeur of the Latin Mass, especially when properly accompanied by Gregorian Chant and French Romantic choral and organ music. I try to base my theology upon the words attributed to Jesus, rather than upon this or that council or pope. I'm leaning heavily toward nearly 2,000 years of Sedevacante. Has there been even one pope in 2,000 years who strictly followed the Red-Letter Teachings of Jesus? Were they rightly representing the absent Christ, and faithfully carrying out the Great Commission? Were they rather following someone other than Jesus? I like the idea of taking a long, hard look at history - and then positively reinforcing the best of the past. Why not positively reinforce the best of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Old World Order, and the New World Order? I'm trying not to just write off the past as a mostly failed experiment. I'm also trying to keep this world from being destroyed. Somehow, we need to responsibly create utopia in our own backyard. Perhaps this would be a good time to read or re-read 'The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire'. Sin is irresponsibility in its root and fruit. There are many definitions and manifestations, but sin is real and hideous, disguise it as one might try. What is the absolute standard of morality? What are the consequences of not knowing what the absolute standard of morality is? What are the implications and ramifications of rebelling against the absolute standard of morality? These are serious questions which demand definitive answers. There's a difference between an answer, and a convincing answer. Just because most clergy don't know the difference between a bottomless-pit and an anatomical black-hole doesn't mean that there isn't a pure and refined form of religion and politics. I consider religious-ritual to be a liturgical-discipline, rather than being redemptive in any way, shape, or form.

Here is a rather scholarly article on Moral Responsibility, taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This is the sort of thing which might be studied in a university program devoted to Solar System Studies and Governance, as a prerequisite to being a Representative of the United States of the Solar System. Enjoy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/ I'm also reading a book titled 'Free to be Responsible' by Ben Thomson Cowles, Ph.D. I'm trying to transition from being a whining speculator to being a erudite scholar. Wish me luck, as I stop posting and start studying. I hope that some of you are joining me in this pursuit. Again, the tempest in a teapot, which I have been in the middle of, is just scratching the surface. Really.

Moral Responsibility

First published Sat Jan 6, 2001; substantive revision Wed Nov 18, 2009

When a person performs or fails to perform a morally significant action, we sometimes think that a particular kind of response is warranted. Praise and blame are perhaps the most obvious forms this reaction might take. For example, one who encounters a car accident may be regarded as worthy of praise for having saved a child from inside the burning car, or alternatively, one may be regarded as worthy of blame for not having used one's mobile phone to call for help. To regard such agents as worthy of one of these reactions is to ascribe moral responsibility to them on the basis of what they have done or left undone. (These are examples of other-directed ascriptions of responsibility. The reaction might also be self-directed, e.g., one can recognize oneself to be blameworthy). Thus, to be morally responsible for something, say an action, is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction—praise, blame, or something akin to these—for having performed it.[1]

Though further elaboration and qualification of the above characterization of moral responsibility is called for and will be provided below, this is enough to distinguish concern about this form of responsibility from some others commonly referred to through use of the terms ‘responsibility’ or ‘responsible.’ To illustrate, we might say that higher than normal rainfall in the spring is responsible for an increase in the amount of vegetation or that it is the judge's responsibility to give instructions to the jury before they begin deliberating. In the first case, we mean to identify a causal connection between the earlier amount of rain and the later increased vegetation. In the second, we mean to say that when one assumes the role of judge, certain duties, or obligations, follow. Although these concepts are connected with the concept of moral responsibility discussed here, they are not the same, for in neither case are we directly concerned about whether it would be appropriate to react to some candidate (here, the rainfall or a particular judge) with something like praise or blame.[2]

Philosophical reflection on moral responsibility has a long history. One reason for this persistent interest is the way the topic seems connected with a widely shared conception of ourselves as members of an importantly distinct class of individuals—call them ‘persons.’[3] Persons are thought to be qualitatively different from other known living individuals, despite their numerous similarities. Many have held that one distinct feature of persons is their status as morally responsible agents, a status resting—some have proposed—on a special kind of control that only they can exercise. Many who view persons in this way have wondered whether their special status is threatened if certain other claims about our universe are true. For example, can a person be morally responsible for her behavior if that behavior can be explained solely by reference to physical states of the universe and the laws governing changes in those physical states, or solely by reference to the existence of a sovereign God who guides the world along a divinely ordained path? It is concerns like these that have often motivated individuals to theorize about moral responsibility.

A comprehensive theory of moral responsibility would elucidate the following: (1) the concept, or idea, of moral responsibility itself; (2) the criteria for being a moral agent, i.e., one who qualifies generally as an agent open to responsibility ascriptions (e.g., only beings possessing the general capacity to evaluate reasons for acting can be moral agents); (3) the conditions under which the concept of moral responsibility is properly applied, i.e., those conditions under which a moral agent is responsible for a particular something (e.g., a moral agent can be responsible for an action she has performed only if she performed it freely, where acting freely entails the ability to have done otherwise at the time of action); and finally 4) possible objects of responsibility ascriptions (e.g., actions, omissions, consequences, character traits, etc.). Although each of these will be touched upon in the discussion below (see, e.g., the brief sketch of Aristotle's account in the next section), the primary focus of this entry is on the first component—i.e., the concept of moral responsibility. The section immediately following this introduction is a discussion of the origin and history of Western reflection on moral responsibility. This is followed by an overview of recent work on the concept of moral responsibility. For further discussion of issues associated with moral responsibility, see the related entries below.

1. Some Historical Background
2. Recent Work on the Concept of Responsibility
2.1 Strawson and the Reactive Attitudes
2.2 Developments After Strawson
Bibliography
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Some Historical Background

What follows in this section is a brief outline of the origins and trajectory of reflection on moral responsibility in the Western philosophical tradition. Against this background, a distinction will be drawn between two conceptions of moral responsibility that have exerted considerable influence on subsequent thinkers.

An understanding of the concept of moral responsibility and its application is present implicitly in some of the earliest surviving Greek texts, i.e., the Homeric epics (circa 8th century BCE but no doubt informed by a much earlier oral tradition).[4] In these texts, both human and superhuman agents are often regarded as fair targets of praise and blame on the basis of how they have behaved, and at other times, an agent's behavior is excused because of the presence of some factor that has undermined his/her control (Irwin 1999: 225). Reflection on these factors gave rise to fatalism—the view that one's future or some aspect of it is predetermined, e.g., by the gods, or the stars, or simply some facts about truth and time—in such a way as to make one's particular deliberations, choices and actions irrelevant to whether that particular future is realized (recall, e.g., the plight of Oedipus). If some particular outcome is fated, then it seems that the agent concerned could not be morally responsible for that outcome. Likewise, if fatalism were true with respect to all human futures, then it would seem that no human agent could be morally responsible for anything. Though this brand of fatalism has sometimes exerted significant historical influence, most philosophers have rejected it on the grounds that there is no good reason to think that our futures are fated in the sense that they will unfold no matter what particular deliberations we engage in, choices we make, or actions we perform.

Aristotle (384–323 BCE) seems to have been the first to construct explicitly a theory of moral responsibility.[5] In the course of discussing human virtues and their corresponding vices, Aristotle pauses in Nicomachean Ethics III.1–5 to explore their underpinnings. He begins with a brief statement of the concept of moral responsibility—that it is sometimes appropriate to respond to an agent with praise or blame on the basis of her actions and/or dispositional traits of character (1109b30–35). A bit later, he clarifies that only a certain kind of agent qualifies as a moral agent and is thus properly subject to ascriptions of responsibility, namely, one who possess a capacity for decision. For Aristotle, a decision is a particular kind of desire resulting from deliberation, one that expresses the agent's conception of what is good (1111b5-1113b3). The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for some particular action or trait. His general proposal is that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary. According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action or possess the trait—it cannot be compelled externally. Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about (1110a-1111b4).[6]

There is an instructive ambiguity in Aristotle's account of responsibility, an ambiguity that has led to competing interpretations of his view. Aristotle aims to identify the conditions under which it is appropriate to praise or blame an agent, but it is not entirely clear how to understand the pivotal notion of appropriateness in his conception of responsibility. There are at least two possibilities: a) praise or blame is appropriate in the sense that the agent deserves such a response, given his behavior and/or traits of character; or b) praise or blame is appropriate in the sense that such a reaction is likely to bring about a desired consequence, namely an improvement in the agent's behavior and/or character. These two possibilities may be characterized in terms of two competing interpretations of the concept of moral responsibility: 1) the merit-based view, according to which praise or blame would be an appropriate reaction toward the candidate if and only if she merits—in the sense of ‘deserves’—such a reaction; vs. 2) the consequentialist view, according to which praise or blame would be appropriate if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behavior.[7]

Scholars disagree about which of the above views Aristotle endorsed, but the importance of distinguishing between them grew as philosophers began to focus on a newly conceived threat to moral responsibility. While Aristotle argued against a version of fatalism (On Interpretation, ch. 9), he may not have recognized the difference between it and the related possible threat of causal determinism (contra Sorabji). Causal determinism is the view that everything that happens or exists is caused by sufficient antecedent conditions, making it impossible for anything to happen or be other than it does or is. One variety of causal determinism, scientific determinism, identifies the relevant antecedent conditions as a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature. Another, theological determinism, identifies those conditions as being the nature and will of God. It seems likely that theological determinism evolved out of the shift, both in Greek religion and in Ancient Mesopotamian religions, from polytheism to belief in one sovereign God, or at least one god who reigned over all others. The doctrine of scientific determinism can be traced back as far as the Presocratic Atomists (5th cent. BCE), but the difference between it and the earlier fatalistic view seems not to be clearly recognized until the development of Stoic philosophy (3rd. cent. BCE). Though fatalism, like causal determinism, might seem to threaten moral responsibility by threatening an agent's control, the two differ on the significance of human deliberation, choice, and action. If fatalism is true, then human deliberation, choice, and action are completely otiose, for what is fated will transpire no matter what one chooses to do. According to causal determinism, however, one's deliberations, choices, and actions will often be necessary links in the causal chain that brings something about. In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way (Irwin 1999: 243–249; Meyer 1998: 225-227; and Pereboom 1997: ch. 2).

Since the Stoics, the thesis of causal determinism and its ramifications, if true, have taken center stage in theorizing about moral responsibility. During the Medieval period, especially in the work of Augustine (354–430) and Aquinas (1225-1274), reflection on freedom and responsibility was often generated by questions concerning versions of theological determinism, including most prominently: a) Does God's sovereignty entail that God is responsible for evil?; and b) Does God's foreknowledge entail that we are not free and morally responsible since it would seem that we cannot do anything other than what God foreknows we will do? During the Modern period, there was renewed interest in scientific determinism—a change attributable to the development of increasingly sophisticated mechanistic models of the universe culminating in the success of Newtonian physics. The possibility of giving a comprehensive explanation of every aspect of the universe—including human action—in terms of physical causes now seemed much more plausible. Many thought that persons could not be free and morally responsible if such an explanation of human action were possible. Others argued that freedom and responsibility would not be threatened should scientific determinism be true. In keeping with this focus on the ramifications of causal determinism for moral responsibility, thinkers may be classified as being one of two types: 1) an incompatibilist about causal determinism and moral responsibility—one who maintains that if causal determinism is true, then there is nothing for which one can be morally responsible; or 2) a compatibilist—one who holds that a person can be morally responsible for some things, even if both who she is and what she does is causally determined.[8] In Ancient Greece, these positions were exemplified in the thought of Epicurus (341–270 BCE) and the Stoics, respectively.

Above, an ambiguity in Aristotle's conception of moral responsibility was highlighted—that it was not clear whether he endorsed a merit-based vs. a consequentialist conception of moral responsibility. The history of reflection on moral responsibility demonstrates that how one interprets the concept of moral responsibility strongly influences one's overall account of moral responsibility. For example, those who accept the merit-based conception of moral responsibility have tended to be incompatibilists. That is, most have thought that if an agent were to genuinely merit praise or blame for something, then he would need to exercise a special form of control over that thing (e.g., the ability at the time of action to both perform or not perform the action) that is incompatible with one's being causally determined. In addition to Epicurus, we can cite early Augustine, Thomas Reid (1710–1796), and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) as historical examples here. Those accepting the consequentialist conception of moral responsibility, on the other hand, have traditionally contended that determinism poses no threat to moral responsibility since praising and blaming could still be an effective means of influencing another's behavior, even in a deterministic world. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), David Hume (1711–1776), and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) are, along with the Stoics, representatives of this view. This general trend of linking the consequentialist conception of moral responsibility with compatibilism about causal determinism and moral responsibility and the merit-based conception with incompatibilism continued to persist through the first half of the twentieth century.

2. Recent Work on the Concept of Responsibility

The issue of how best to understand the concept of moral responsibility is important, for it can strongly influence one's view of what, if any, philosophical problems might be associated with the notion, and further, if there are problems, what might count as a solution. As discussed above, philosophical reflection on moral responsibility has historically relied upon one of two broad interpretations of the concept: 1) the merit-based view, according to which praise or blame would be an appropriate reaction toward the candidate if and only if she merits—in the sense of ‘deserves’—such a reaction; or 2) the consequentialist view, according to which praise or blame would be appropriate if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behavior. Though versions of the consequentialist view have continued to garner support (Smart; Frankena 1963: ch. 4; Schlick 1966; Brandt 1992; Dennett 1984: ch. 7; and Kupperman 1991: ch. 3), work in the last 50 years on the concept of moral responsibility has increasingly focused on: a) offering alternative versions of the merit-based view; and b) questioning the assumption that there is a single unified concept of moral responsibility.

Increased attention focusing on the stance of regarding and holding persons morally responsible has generated much of the recent work on the concept of moral responsibility. All theorists have recognized features of this practice—inner attitudes and emotions, their outward expression in censure or praise, and the imposition of corresponding sanctions or rewards. However, most understood the inner attitudes and emotions involved to rest on a more fundamental theoretical judgment about the agent's being responsible. In other words, it was typically assumed that blame and praise depended upon a judgment, or belief (pre-reflective in most cases), that the agent in question had satisfied the objective conditions on being responsible. These judgments were presumed to be independent of the inner attitudinal/emotive states involved in holding responsible in the sense that reaching such judgments and evaluating them required no essential reference to the attitudes and emotions of the one making the judgment. For the holder of the consequentialist view, this is a judgment that the agent exercised a form of control that could be influenced through outward expressions of praise and blame in order to curb or promote certain behaviors. For those holding the merit view, it is a judgment that the agent has exercised the requisite form of metaphysical control, e.g., that she could have done otherwise at the time of action (Watson 1987: 258).

If holding responsible is best understood as resting on an independent judgment about being responsible, then it is legitimate to inquire whether such underlying judgments and their associated outward expressions can be justified, as a whole, in the face of our best current understanding of the world, e.g., in the face of evidence that our world is possibly deterministic. According to incompatibilists, a judgment that someone is morally responsible could never be true if the world were deterministic; thus praising and blaming in the merit-based sense would be beside the point. Compatibilists, on the other hand, contend that the truth of determinism would not undermine the relevant underlying judgments concerning the efficacy of praising and blaming practices, thereby leaving the rationale of such practices intact.

2.1 Strawson and the Reactive Attitudes

In his landmark essay, ‘Freedom and Resentment,’ P. F. Strawson (1962) sets out to adjudicate the dispute between those compatibilists who hold a consequentialist view of responsibility and those incompatibilists who hold the merit-based view.[9] Both are wrong, Strawson believes, because they distort the concept of moral responsibility by sharing the prevailing assumption sketched above — the assumption that holding persons responsible rests upon a theoretical judgment of their being responsible. According to Strawson, the attitudes expressed in holding persons morally responsible are varieties of a wide range of attitudes deriving from our participation in personal relationships, e.g., resentment, indignation, hurt feelings, anger, gratitude, reciprocal love, and forgiveness. The function of these attitudes is to express “…how much we actually mind, how much it matters to us, whether the actions of other people—and particularly some other people—reflect attitudes towards us of good will, affection, or esteem on the one hand or contempt, indifference, or malevolence on the other.” (p. 5, author's emphasis) These attitudes are thus participant reactive attitudes, because they are: a) natural attitudinal reactions to the perception of another's good will, ill will, or indifference (pp. 4–6), and b) expressed from the stance of one who is immersed in interpersonal relationships and who regards the candidate held responsible as a participant in such relationships as well (p. 10).[10]

The reactive attitudes can be suspended or modified in at least two kinds of circumstances, corresponding to the two features just mentioned. In the first, one might conclude that, contrary to first appearances, the candidate did not violate the demand for a reasonable degree of good will. For example, a person's behavior may be excused when one determines that it was an accident, or one may determine that the behavior was justified, say, in the case of an emergency when some greater good is being pursued. In the second kind of circumstance, one may abandon the participant perspective in relation to the candidate. In these cases, one adopts the objective standpoint, one from which one ceases to regard the individual as capable of participating in genuine personal relations (either for some limited time or permanently). Instead, one regards the individual as psychologically/morally abnormal or undeveloped and thereby a candidate, not for the full range of reactive attitudes, but primarily for those objective attitudes associated with treatment or simply instrumental control. Such individuals lie, in some sense or to some varying extent, outside the boundaries of the moral community. For example, we may regard a very young child as initially exempt from the reactive attitudes (but increasingly less so in cases of normal development) or adopt the objective standpoint in relation to an individual we determine to be suffering from severe mental illness (P. F. Strawson 1962: 6–10; Bennett: 40; Watson 1987: 259–260; R. Jay Wallace: chs. 5-6).

The central criticism Strawson directs at both consequentialist and traditional merit views is that both have over-intellectualized the issue of moral responsibility—a criticism with which many subsequent thinkers have wrestled.[11] The charge of over intellectualization stems from the traditional tendency to presume that the rationality of holding a person responsible depends upon a judgment that the person in question has satisfied some set of objective requirements on being responsible (conditions on efficacy or metaphysical freedom) and that these requirements themselves are justifiable. Strawson, by contrast, maintains that the reactive attitudes are a natural expression of an essential feature of our form of life, in particular, the interpersonal nature of our way of life. The practice, then, of holding responsible—embedded as it is in our way of life—“neither calls for nor permits, an external ‘rational’ justification” (p. 23). Though judgments about the appropriateness of particular responses may arise (i.e., answers to questions like: Was the candidate's behavior really an expression of ill will?; or Is the candidate involved a genuine participant in the moral sphere of human relations?), these judgments are based on principles internal to the practice. That is, their justification refers back to an account of the reactive attitudes and their role in personal relationships, not to some independent theoretical account of the conditions on being responsible.

Given the above, Strawson contends that it is pointless to ask whether the practice of holding responsible can be rationally justified if determinism is true. This is either because it is not psychologically possible to divest ourselves of these reactions and so continually inhabit the objective standpoint, or even if that were possible, because it is not clear that rationality could ever demand that we give up the reactive attitudes, given the loss in quality of life should we do so. In sum, Strawson attempts to turn the traditional debate on its head, for now judgments about being responsible are understood in relation to the role reactive attitudes play in the practice of holding responsible, rather than the other way around. Whereas judgments are true or false and thereby can generate the need for justification, the desire for good will and those attitudes generated by it possess no truth value themselves, thereby eliminating any need for an external justification (Magill 1887: 21; Double 1996b: 848).

Strawson's concept of moral responsibility yields a compatibilist account of being responsible but one that departs significantly from earlier such accounts in two respects. First, Strawson's is a compatibilist view by default only. That is, on Strawson's view, the problem of determinism and freedom/responsibility is not so much resolved by showing that the objective conditions on being responsible are consistent with one's being determined but rather dissolved by showing that the practice of holding people responsible relies on no such conditions and therefore needs no external justification in the face of determinism. Second, Strawson's is a merit-based form of compatibilism. That is, unlike most former consequentialist forms of compatibilism, it helps to explain why we feel that some agents deserve our censure or merit our praise. They do so because they have violated, met, or exceeded our demand for a reasonable degree of good will.

2.2 Developments After Strawson

Most agree that Strawson's discussion of the reactive attitudes is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the practice of holding responsible, but many have taken issue with his contentions about the insular nature of that practice, namely that a) since propriety judgments about the reactive attitudes are strictly internal to the practice (i.e., being responsible is defined in relation to the practice of holding responsible), their justification cannot be considered from a standpoint outside that practice; and b) since the reactive attitudes are natural responses deriving from our psychological constitution, they cannot be dislodged by theoretical considerations. Responding to the first of these, some have argued that it does seem possible to critique existing practices of holding responsible from standpoints outside them. For example, one might judge that either one's own existing community practice or some other community's practice of holding responsible ought to be modified (Fischer and Ravizza 1993: 18; Ekstrom: 148–149). If such evaluations are legitimate, then, contrary to what Strawson suggested, it seems that an existing practice can be questioned from a standpoint external to it. In other words, being responsible cannot be explicated strictly in terms of an existing practice of holding responsible. This then, would suggest a possible role to be played by independent theoretical conditions on being responsible, conditions which could prove to be compatibilist or incompatibilist in nature.

Objecting to the second of Strawson's anti-theory contentions, some have argued that incompatibilist intuitions are embedded in the reactive attitudes themselves so that these attitudes cannot persist unless some justification can be given of them, or more weakly, that they cannot but be disturbed if something like determinism is true. Here, cases are often cited where negative reactive attitudes seem to be dispelled or mitigated upon learning that an agent's past includes severe deprivation and/or abuse. There is a strong pull to think that our reactive attitudes are altered in such cases because we perceive such a background to be deterministic. If this is the proper interpretation of the phenomenon, then it is evidence that theoretical considerations, like the truth of determinism, could in fact dislodge the reactive attitudes (Nagel: 125; Kane: 84–89; Galen Strawson 1986: 88; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; and replies by Watson 1987: 279–286 and 1996: 240; and McKenna 1998).

Versions of Strawson's view continue to be very ably defended, and shortly, more will be said about the significant way in which his work continues to shape contemporary discussion of the concept of responsibility. However, many have taken objections of the above sort to be decisive in undermining the most radical of Strawson's anti-theory claims. Incompatibilists, in particular, seem largely unpersuaded and so have continued to assume a more or less traditional merit-based conception of moral responsibility as the basis for their theorizing. A number of compatibilists also remain unconvinced that Strawson has successfully shown independent theoretical considerations to be irrelevant to ascriptions of responsibility. It is noteworthy that some of these have accorded the reactive attitudes a central role in their discussions of the concept of responsibility. The result has been new merit-based versions of compatibilism (see e.g., Fischer & Ravizza 1998).

It is likely that Strawson and others writing on moral responsibility have traditionally seen themselves as attempting to articulate an account of responsible agency that would map onto what was presumed to be a unitary and shared concept of moral responsibility. However, more recently a number of authors have suggested that at least some disagreements about the most plausible overall theory of responsibility might be based on a failure to distinguish between different aspects of the concept of responsibility, or perhaps several distinguishable but related concepts of responsibility.

Broadly speaking, a distinction has been drawn between responsibility understood as attributability and responsibility as accountability.[12] The central idea in judging whether an agent is responsible in the sense of attributability, say for an action, is whether the action discloses something about the nature of the agent's self (Watson 1996: 228). Some hold additionally that a judgment of responsibility in this sense includes an assessment of the agent's self as measured against some standard (though not necessarily a moral standard)-i.e., that our interest is in what the action discloses about the agent's evaluative commitments (Watson 1996: 235; Bok: 123, nt. 1).[13] Perhaps the clearest example of a conception of responsibility emphasizing attributability is the so-called “ledger view” of moral responsibility. According to such views, the practice of ascribing responsibility involves assigning a credit or debit to a metaphorical ledger associated with each agent (Feinberg: 30–1; Glover: 64; Zimmerman: 38–9; and discussion of such views in Watson 1986: 261–2; and Fischer and Ravizza 1998: 8–10, nt. 12). To regard an agent as praiseworthy or blameworthy in the attributability sense of responsibility is simply to believe that the credit or fault identified properly belongs to the agent.

To be responsible for an action in the sense of being accountable (or “appraisable” according to the terminology of some) presupposes responsibility in the sense of attributability. However, to judge that an agent is responsible in the further sense of being accountable entails that the behavior properly attributed to the agent is governed by an interpersonal normative standard of conduct that creates expectations between members of a shared community (whereas the standard invoked above may or may not be thought to generate interpersonal expectations). In this way, the concept of moral responsibility as accountability is an inherently social notion, and to hold someone responsible is to address a fellow member of the moral community (Stern; Watson 1987; McKenna). By emphasizing the way the reactive attitudes were tied to expectations of good will grounded in our interpersonal relationships, Strawson drew attention to this social aspect of responsibility. Recent attempts to further articulate how best to understand the relevant notion of holding responsible and its relation to being accountable reflect his on-going influence.

An agent is praiseworthy or blameworthy, in the sense of accountable, if one is warranted, or justified, in holding her responsible. On one popular view, holding someone responsible is interpreted as regarding him or her as an apt candidate for the reactive attitudes and possibly other forms of reward or censure based on what the agent has done (Zimmerman; R. J. Wallace: 75-77; Watson 1996: 235; Fischer & Ravizza 1998: 6–7). On another view, holding someone responsible is fundamentally a matter of making a moral judgment accompanied by an expectation that the agent who performed the act acknowledge the force of the judgment or provide an exonerating explanation of why she performed the action. To hold someone responsible is thus to be one to whom an explanation is owed. On this view, the reactive attitudes and associated practices are grounded in this more fundamental expectation (Oshana: 76–7; Scanlon 1998: 268–271). Since the reactive attitudes and associated practices may have consequences for the well-being of an agent (especially in the case of those blaming attitudes and practices involved in holding someone accountable for wrong-doing), they are justified only if it is fair that the agent be subject to those consequences (R.J. Wallace: 103–117; Watson 1996: 238–9). The fairness of being subject to those consequences has often,in turn, be interpreted as the source of the idea that praise and blame are justified only if they are merited in the sense of deserved (Zimmerman: ch. 5; Wallace: 106–7; Watson 1996: 238–9; Magill 1997: 42–53). [14]

The recognition and articulation of diversity within the concept (or amongst concepts) of moral responsibility has generated new reflection on the nature of and prospects for theories attempting to spell-out the conditions on being morally responsible. While some continue to believe that a plausible unified theory can be offered that captures the conceptual diversity sketched above, a number of others have concluded that at least some of the conditions for the applicability of our folk concept are in tension with one another (Nagel; G. Strawson 1986, 105-117, 307–317; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; Double 1996a: chs. 6–7; Bok: ch. 1; Smilansky: ch. 6); For example, some have argued that while a compatibilist sense of freedom is necessary for attributability, genuine accountability would require that agents be capable of exercising libertarian freedom. A rapidly expanding body of empirical data on folk intuitions about freedom and responsibility has added fuel to this debate (Nahmias et. al. 2005 and 2007; Vargas 2006; Nichols and Knobe; Nelkin; Roskies and Nichols; and Knobe and Doris).

If there are irreconcilable tensions within the concept of responsibility, then the conditions of its application cannot be jointly satisfied. Of course, there have always been those—e.g., hard determinists — who have concluded that the conditions on being morally responsible cannot be met and thus that no one is ever morally responsible. However, a noteworthy new trend amongst both contemporary hard determinists and others who conclude that the conditions for the applicability of our folk concept cannot be jointly satisfied has been the move to offer a revisionist conception of moral responsibility and its associated practices rather than to reject talk about being responsible outright (For this general trend, see Vargas 2004 and 2005). Revisionism about moral responsibility is a matter of degree. Some revisionists seek to salvage much if not most of what they take to be linked to the folk concept (Dennett 1984: 19; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; Scanlon 1998: 274–277; and Vargas 2004 and in Fischer et. al. 2007), while others offer more radical reconstructions of the concept and associated practices (Smart; Pereboom: 199–212; Smilansky: chps. 7–8; Kelly).[15]

The future direction of reflection on moral responsibility is uncertain. On the one hand, there has been a resurgence of interest in metaphysical treatments of freedom and moral responsibility in recent years, a sign that many philosophers in this area have not been persuaded by Strawson's central critique of such treatments. On the other hand, discussion of the place and role of the reactive attitudes in human life continues to be a central theme in accounts of the concept of responsibility. What is clear is that the long-standing interest in understanding the concept of moral responsibility and its application shows no sign of abating.

Bibliography

Adams, Robert Merrihew, 1985. “Involuntary Sins.” Philosophical Review 94: 3–31.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1997. Basic Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, ed. A. C. Pegis (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
Aristotle, 1985. The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. by Terence Irwin. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
–––, 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 2 Vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Arpaly, Nomy, 2003. Unprincipled Virtue: An Inquiry into Moral Agency (New York: Oxford University Press).
–––, 2006. Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage: An Essay on Free Will (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Augustine, 1993. On Free Choice of the Will (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
Austin, J.L., 1979. “A Plea for Excuses” in Philosophical Papers, J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Ayer, A.J., 1980. “Free Will and Rationality” in van Straatan.
Bair, Annette, 1991. A Progress of Sentiments: A Reflection on Hume's Treatise. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Baier, Kurt, 1991. “Types of Responsibility.” in The Spectrum of Responsibility, Peter French, ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press).
Benson, Paul, 1990. “The Moral Importance of Free Action.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 28: 1–18.
Berofsky, Bernard, ed., 1966. Free Will and Determinism. (New York: Harper & Row).
Bennett, Jonathan, 1980. “Accountability” in Philosophical Subjects, Zak Van Straaten, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Bobsien, Susanne, 2001. Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Bok, Hilary, 1998. Freedom and Responsibility. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Brandt, Richard, 1969. “A Utilitarian Theory of Excuses” The Philosophical Review 78:337–361. Reprinted in Morality, Utility, and Rights. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
–––, 1959. Ethical Theory. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.).
–––, 1958. “Blameworthiness and Obligation” in Meldon.
Broadie, Sarah, 1991. Ethics with Aristotle. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Burrington, Dale, 1999. “Blameworthiness.” Journal of Philosophical Research 24: 505-527.
Curren, Randall, 2000. Aristotle on the Necessity of Public Education (New York: Roman & Littlefield).
–––, 1989. “The Contribution of Nicomachean Ethics iii.5 to Aristotle's Theory of Responsibility.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 6: 261–277.
Dennett, Daniel, 2003. Freedom Evolves (New York: Viking Press).
–––, 1984. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Darwall, Stephen, 2006. The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Doris, John M., 2002. Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Double, Richard, 2000. “Metaethics, Metaphilosophy, and Free Will Subjectivism.” in Kane 2002.
–––, 1996a. Metaphilosophy and Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
–––, 1996b. “Honderich on the Consequences of Determinism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (December): 847–854.
–––, 1991. The Non-reality of Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Ekstrom, Laura Waddell 2000. Free Will: A Philosophical Study. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
Everson, Stephen, ed., 1998. Companions to Ancient Thought 4: Ethics. (New York: Cambridge University Press).
–––, 1990. “Aristotle's Compatibilism in the Nicomachean Ethics.” Ancient Philosophy 10:81–103.
Feinberg, Joel, 1970. Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Feldman, Fred, 1995. “Desert: Reconsideration of Some Received Wisdom” Mind 104 (January): 63–77.
Fingarette, Herbert, 1967. On Responsibility. (New York: Basic Books, Inc.).
Fischer, John Martin, 1999. “Recent Work on Moral Responsibility” Ethics 110 (October): 93–139.
–––, 1994. The Metaphysics of Free Will: An Essay on Control. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell).
–––, ed., 1986. Moral Responsibility (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
Fischer, John Martin and Ravizza, Mark, 1998. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility (New York: Cambridge University Press).
–––, eds., 1993. Perspectives on Moral Responsibility (Cornell University Press).
Fischer, J.M., Kane, R., Pereboom, D., and Vargas, M. 2007. Four Views on Free Will (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).
Frankfurt, Harry, 1969. “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.” The Journal of Philosophy 66: 828–839.
Gibbard, Allan, 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Glover, Jonathan, 1970. Responsibility (New York: Humanities Press).
Haji, Ishtiyaque, 2002. “Compatibilist Views of Freedom and Responsibility” in Kane 2002.
–––, 1998. Moral Appraisability: Puzzles, Proposals, and Perplexities. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Hart, H. L.,, 1968. Punishment and Responsibility. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Hieronymi, Pamela, 2004. “The Force and Fairness of Blame.” Philosophical Perspectives 18: 115-148.
Honderich, Ted, 2002. “Determinism as True, Both Compatibilism and Incompatibilism as False, and the Real Problem.” in Kane 2002.
–––, 1996. “Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, and the Smart Aleck.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (December): 855-862.
–––, 1988. A Theory of Determinism: The Mind, Neuroscience, and Life Hopes. 2 Vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
Hume, David, 1978. A Treatise of Human Nature, 2nd ed., ed. by L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Irwin, Terrance, ed., 1999. Classical Philosophy. (New York: Oxford University Press).
–––, 1980. “Reason and Responsibility in Aristotle.” in Rorty 1980.
Kane, Robert, ed., 2002. The Oxford Handbook of Free Will (New York: Oxford University Press).
–––, 1996. The Significance of Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Kant, Immanuel, 1993. The Critique of Practical Reason, trans. by Lewis White Beck, 3rd. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Macmillan Publishing Co.).
Kelly, Erin, 2002. “Doing Without Desert.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83: 180–205.
Knobe, J. and Doris, J. Forthcoming. “Strawsonian Variations: Folk Morality and the Search for a Unified Theory.” In The Handbook of Moral Psychology, ed. John Doris (New York: Oxford University Press).
Kupperman, Joel, 1991. Character. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Levy, Neil, 2005. “The Good, the Bad, and the Blameworthy.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2/1: 2–16.
Mackie, John L., 1985. “Morality and the Retributive Emotions.” In Persons and Values: Vol. 2. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Magill, Kevin, 2000. “Blaming, Understanding, and Justification.” In T. van den Beld 2000.
–––, 1997/ Freedom and Experience: Self-Determination without Illusions. (New York: St. Martins Press).
McKenna, Michael, 1998. “The Limits of Evil and the Role of Moral Address: A Defense of Strawsonian Compatibilism.” Journal of Ethics. 2: 123–142.
McKenna, Michael and Russell, Paul, eds., 2008. Free Will and Reactive Attitudes: Perspectives on P.F. Strawson's “Freedom and Resentment”. (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing).
Meldon, A.I., ed., 1958. Essays in Moral Philosophy. (Seattle: University of Washington Press).
Meyer, Susan Suave, 1988. “Moral Responsibility: Aristotle and After.” in Everson 1998.
–––, 1993. Aristotle on Moral Responsibility. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Pub.).
Mill, John Stuart, 1884. A System of Logic, 8th ed. (New York: Harper and Brothers).
Milo, Ronald D., 1984. Immorality (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Nagel, Thomas, 1986. The View From Nowhere. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Nahmias, E., Morris, S., Nadelhoffer, T., and Turner, J. 2005. “Surveying Freedom: Folk Intuitions about Free Will and Moral Responsibility.” Philosophical Psychology 18:561–584.
Nahmias, E., Coates, D. Justin, Kvaran, Trevor, 2007. “Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Mechanism: Experiments on Folk Intuitions.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 214–242.
Nelkin, Dana, 2007. “Do We Have a Coherent Set of Intuitions About Moral Responsibility?” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 243–259.
Nichols, Shaun and Knobe, Joshua, 2007. “Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions.” Nous 41/4: 663–685.
Nozick, Robert, 1981. Philosophical Explanations. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Oshana, Marina, 1997. “Ascriptions of Responsibility.” American Philosophical Quarterly 34: 71–83.
Pereboom, Derk, 2001, Living Without Free Will (New York: Cambridge University Press).
–––, 2000. “Living Without Free Will: The Case for Hard Compatibilism” in Kane 2000.
–––, ed., 1997. Free Will. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
Roberts, Jean, 1984. “Aristotle on Responsibility for Action and Character.” Ancient Philosophy 9: 23–36.
Rorty, Amelie Oksenberg, ed., 1980. Essays on Aristotle's Ethics. (Los Angeles: University of California Press).
Roskies, A.L., and Nichols, S. 2008. “Bringing Responsibility Down to Earth” Journal of Philosophy 105/7: 371–388.
Russell, Paul, 2000.“Pessimists, Pollyannas, and the New Compatibilism.” in Kane 2000.
–––, 1995. Freedom and Moral Sentiment: Hume's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility. (New York: Oxford University Press).
–––, 1992. “Strawson's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility.” Ethics 102: 287–302.
Scanlon, T. M., 1998. What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
–––, 1988. “The Significance of Choice.” In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. 8 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press).
Schlick, Moritz, 1966. “When is a Man Responsible,” in Berofsky, 1966.
Schoeman, Ferdinand, ed., 1987. Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions. (New York: Cambridge University Press)
Sher, George, 2006. In Praise of Blame. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Slote, Michael, 1990. “Ethics Without Free Will.” Social Theory and Practice 16:369–383.
Smart, J.J.C., 1961. “Free Will, Praise, and Blame.” Mind 70: 291–306.
Smilansky, Saul, 2000. Free Will and Illusion. (New York: Oxford University Press).
–––, 1996. “Responsibility and Desert: Defending the Connection.” Mind 105:157–163.
Smiley, Marion, 1992. Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Smith, Angela M., 2007. “On Being Responsible and Holding Responsible.” The Journal of Ethics 11:465-484.
–––, 2008. “Control, Responsibility, and Moral Assessment.” Philosophical Studies 138:367–392.
Sorabji, Richard, 1980. Necessity, Cause, and Blame (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
Stern, Lawrence, 1974. “Freedom, Blame, and the Moral Community.” The Journal of Philosophy 71: 72–84.
Strawson, Galen, 1994. “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility.” Philosophical Studies 75: 5-24.
–––, 1986. Freedom and Belief. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Strawson, P. F., 1980. “Reply to Ayer and Bennett.” In van Straaten 1980.
–––, 1993. “Freedom and Resentment.” Proceedings of the British Academy 48 (1962):1–25. Reprinted in Fischer and Ravizza, 1993.
Taylor, Gabrielle, 1985. Pride, Shame, and Guilt (New York: Oxford University Press).
van den Beld, T., 2000. Moral Responsibility and Ontology. (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
van Inwagen, Peter, 1978. An Essay on Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
van Stratten, Z., ed., 1980. Philosophical Subjects: Essays Presented to P.F. Strawson (New York: Oxford University Press).
Vargas, Manuel, 2004. “Responsibility and the Aims of Theory: Strawson and Revisionism.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85: 218–241.
–––, 2005. “The Revisionist's Guide to Responsibility.” Philosophical Studies 125:399–429.
–––, 2006. “Philosophy and the Folk: On Some Implications of Experimental Work for Philosophical Debates on Free Will.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 6/1–2: 239–254.
Wallace, James, 1974. “Excellences and Merit.” Philosophical Review 83: 182–199.
Wallace, R. J., 1994. Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Watson, Gary, 1996. “Two Faces of Responsibility.” Philosophical Topics 24: 227–248.
–––, 1987. “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil.” in Schoeman, 1987.
Williams, Bernard, 1993. Shame and Necessity. (Los Angeles: University of California Press).
Wolf, Susan, 1990. Freedom Within Reason. (New York: Oxford University Press).
–––, 1981. “The Importance of Free Will.” Mind 90: 386–405.
Zimmerman, Michael, 1988. An Essay on Moral Responsibility. (Totowa, NJ: Roman and Littlefield).
Other Internet Resources
The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website edited by Ted Honderich, University College London.
The Garden of Forking Paths: A Free Will/Moral Responsibility Blog (multiple contributors, coordinated by Neal Tognazzini and Gustavo Llarull)


Come on! This isn't that hard to read! I think that to really get this philosophical thing right, we need to be scholars. I'm trying, but the spiritual and emotional pressure I experience is often overwhelming. I really and truly am pretending, at this point, that I am working on a PhD in Solar System Studies and Governance. I know this sounds ridiculous, and in many ways it is, but I think we need to have this sort of a goal clearly in mind. I should really put together some sort of a curriculum, but until I do, consider all of my threads to be your homework. I will be interested to read the first doctoral dissertation based upon the works of orthodoxymoron. This might be somewhat self-aggrandizing, but I really do think that there should be this type of a doctoral study. Once again, I just might create my own doctoral program, and be the first teacher and first student - simultaneously!!


ORTHODOXYMORON GETS HIS DISSERTATION BACK FROM THE NSA!!

It might be cool to be an Indiana Jones kind of professor! I sort of like to just research and reflect. I think that a room filled with bright college students would be too much for me! They'd probably eat me alive! It might be easier to face a room filled with Illuminati, Jesuits, Nazis, Masons, Magicians, Greys, and Dracs! Anyway, I do like the idea of a PhD program in Solar System Studies and Governance as a prerequisite to being a United States of the Solar System Representative. On the other hand, have all of the universities of the world saved us from the absurd situation we find ourselves in presently? There is such a phenomenon as 'Educated Idiots'. So how in the hell do we achieve an Enlightened Democracy? Are human beings too stupid and unstable to rule themselves? I used to think that was a stupid question, but I really wonder if we are capable of such a feat. Do we simply need a less corrupt secret government? Do we really need to be ruled from the shadows? I know what I idealistically want, but what is the reality? A celebration of a newly formed United States of the Solar System might be very short indeed. Again, I wonder if society is past the point of no return on the road to hell? Will there be a core meltdown, no matter what we do? I don't have a problem with 'crowd control' or with the human race being managed, educated, and disciplined in a kind, fair, and orderly manner. What I object to is irresponsible management and cruel exploitation. You are right about the present campaign and election/selection process. The PhD thing would help, but perhaps voters should have to get a two-year degree in voting. To do ANYTHING, one should have to prove that they know what they're doing.

God does not play dice with the solar system. Or does she? "Hillary or Obama? Snake-Eyes!!"


In gambling, snake eyes is the outcome of rolling the dice in a game and getting only one pip on each die. The pair of pips resembles a pair of eyes, which is appended to the term 'snake' because of the long-standing association of this word with treachery and betrayal. The dictionary of etymology traces that use of the term back to 1929,[1] although it may be traced all the way back to the ancient Roman dice games, where 'Dogs' represented two ones. They referred to this as "the dog throw". In modern parlance, it refers to such a roll in any game involving dice. Snake eyes also refers to looking one way and passing the ball the other in the game of Taps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_eyes

WHY DID IT HAVE TO BE SNAKES? I HATE SNAKES!

IS MICHAEL DR. WHO AND INDIANA JONES? HOW MANY DOCTORS HAVE THERE BEEN?

Consider Pure Ethics and Pure Science vs Corrupt Ethics and Applied Science. If our science and technology is not in the long-term best interest of the entire human race, then perhaps we had best not introduce it. Has the science, technology, and industrialization of the past 150 years made this world a better place, and made the human race safer and happier? Are we not on the brink of extinction presently? Have we not turned our beautiful world into a damn toilet??? I keep encountering arrogant and nasty people who really make me wonder why I'm trying to save these people. Will my idealism become progressively (or digressively?) more and more cynical and bitter? Did the Queen of Heaven and God of This World start out with idealism and high-hopes? I don't really understand the solar system politics of the past few thousands or even millions of years, but I really wonder if the nature of the beast causes even the best and the brightest to end up in a very bad way? Would a theocratically implemented United States of the Solar System be a cure-all, or would it simply introduce a new subset of horrors? I am extremely disillusioned with the past and present, and I am very apprehensive and pessimistic regarding a productive search for a useable future. My pipe-dream might merely be a more sane way to manage the insanity, but still the insanity will probably remain. How do we convert a sick and insane humanity into a healthy and responsible human race? Hope springs eternal, but we need to be realistic. If a United States of the Solar System ever becomes a reality, I won't be gloating or jumping up and down. I will be feverishly racking my brain, trying to figure out how to make it work properly for at least a few thousand years. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and unthinkable tests to an idealistic system might prove fatal, in more ways than one. Who knows what challenges we might REALLY face in a Brave New Solar System???

Are hatred, rebellion, and deception integral aspects of competition and freedom? Please think long and hard about this question. Was whoever rebelled against God in Heaven really on the right track? Is ruling humanity by secrecy and deception really a legitimate modality of governance? Should democracy rule? Should theocracy rule? Should a theocracy rule a democracy? Should a theocracy and democracy be intertwined? What would be the proper role of God in a United States of the Solar System? Once again, what was the Original Sin? Was the Original Sin also the Unforgivable Sin? Would an idealistic United States of the Solar System need to be theocratically implemented and maintained? Would Responsibility need to be enforced with an Iron Fist? Would Responsible Freedom need to be imposed upon the inhabitants of the Solar System - whether they like it, or not? I advocate maximizing Responsible Freedom in a Context of Legitimate Law and Order. How does a civilization keep all of this in a properly buffered balance??? I continue to think that we are running out of time to get this right. I continue to think that some very powerful eyes and minds are focused upon this solar system and the fate of humanity. All is not well in this neck of the woods...

IT'S NOT HOW YOU LOOK. IT'S HOW YOU SEE. "I SEE", SAID THE BLIND MAN, AS HE PICKED UP THE HAMMER AND SAW.

Has anyone read 'The Great Controversy', 'Hitler's Pope', and 'The Keys of This Blood'? I think that the issues and insights which come to light when reading these three books are quite interesting. The intent is to learn from the past. I really need some help in evaluating all of this. I continue to be intrigued with the hypothetical Nazi<>Gizeh-Intelligence<>Vatican relationship. If there is something to this, is there a way in which this sort of thing could've been done, which might've been in everyone's best interest? How should we properly conduct business in this solar system? I have been trying to think about this in some rather innovative and strange ways, but I don't know the inside story. I truly see through a glass darkly. But I think the three aforementioned books might be very helpful. Once again, I don't read them to try to find dirt. I read them to try to understand. If we do not learn from the phenomenon of the Third Reich, we might reap the whirlwind with a Fourth Reich, or even a Fifth. The principles and concepts might repeat over and over. There is a subtle attraction toward a church and state of power and might, with an all-powerful 'God' on it's side. After all, why would one be attracted to 'weak' leadership? We really do worship POWER, don't we? We all want POWER, don't we? Many of us will sell our souls to you know who to get it, won't we? There are some excellent documentaries on the Vatican, the Nazis, and Hidden Technology. I think we probably know very little about the hidden power struggles connected with this solar system, going back thousands or millions of years, but I think the Nazi phenomenon might open some windows to enlighten our understanding in this regard. I continue to think that there is a good and a bad side to just about everything, and that deception is a mixture of truth and lies, with enough truth to lure one in, and just enough lies and poison to do one in. I can only deal with this subject a little bit at a time. It's too overwhelming for me. What should the proper character of a United States of the Solar System be? There are literally thousands of ways of implementing this concept, and probably a dozen right ways to do it. Might there be a Nazi-Temptation connected with this effort? You know, super patriotic totalitarianism, or something like that? No stone should be left unturned in this regard. I'm genuinely looking for weaknesses and problems with this hypothetical solar system. This is something which should probably be debated to death for a couple of decades, before implementing it. This is just my uninformed suggestion. On the other hand, we might never get everyone to agree to ANY sort of new solar system, so there might have to be somewhat of an arbitrary component. What is the proper sphere of power? What are the appropriate limits to power? Power is really a necessary evil, isn't it? Ideally, the international and interplanetary level of cooperation should be such that we don't need to rely on POWER. Is POWER a sin? I wonder. My computer just got attacked, so I'm probably getting warm. Actually, I know so much, because I'm a 666th Degree Mason...

What would Joe the Plummer say if he were told that Lizard Women rule the world??!! If this is the way things work, it would make sense for them to create a human patriarchy ruled by reptilian queen(s) because the males are easier to control (sort of like drones). I keep thinking about ancient genetics labs and hybridization experiments gone bad, complete with spaceships and nukes. Our history could be very, very ugly. I also keep thinking about reptile-based hermaphrodite humanoids with interdimensional reptilian souls vs mammal-based male and female humanoids with interdimensional reptilian souls. I don't necessarily have a knee-jerk hatred of scales and tails, but I think the history of the world is reprehensible to the nth degree, regardless of who is responsible for the bs. Sometimes I think I'm too mean and nasty regarding the hypothetical reptilian phenomenon, and sometimes I think I'm way too easy and gullible. Sometimes I even feel like a sellout. I sometimes even think I might've been an ancient reptilian queen!! Who knows??!! I think I've asked this before, but have you read 'The Holy Tablets'? They are quite interesting, but I can only read so much at a time. I have to engage in Guerilla Research. I'd sort of like to remain pathologically-neurotic, rather than becoming violently-insane!!!!

Another thing. A unifying ritual could consist of nothing more than chanting "2+2=4" over and over again, week after week, complete with robes and incense. Most of us might have reincarnational and genetic memories of mass-type rituals, going back thousands of years, such as in the ancient Hebrew Sanctuary Service. I don't participate in any religious services, and I am opposed to worship (with the traditional definitions and practices) and ritual human-sacrifice (bloody or unbloody), but I continue to like the idea of group ceremonial activities which make people face themselves and think about the important things in life, including dealing with sin and mistakes. I'm really not partial to any particular race or religion. I just think we all need to evolve just a little bit more, and a just a little bit faster...

I just want to add that I am making no preparations for the very possible and even probable horrors we have been warned of. I plan on going down with the ship. I'm not going to try to escape the Wrath of God (or whoever) while my fellow human beings go through hell and damnation, complete with fire and brimstone. I continue to desire that the bad guys and gals undergo disempowerment, incarceration, make restitution to society, and be reeducated, instead of mass murder occurring for purposes of physical, mental, and spiritual eugenics. Obviously, this solar system needs a top to bottom reformation. I am VERY unhappy with business as usual. I am VERY unhappy with my entire life. But I intend to pretty much just keep doing what I'm doing, but on a more scholarly and refined level. I think I might've been born disillusioned, in this life. I really worry about who I was last time around. I am on-edge 24/7. I have to really just keep engaging in this multidisciplinary pseudointellectual quest, even though it really seems to not do me, or anyone else, much good.

The chickens are sort of coming home to roost, in all of this. I have said that I would probably be sorry that I asked all the questions, when I really started getting some of the answers. This has been, and continues to be, a very upsetting process. I also don't like being spied upon 24/7. I feel that I have absolutely no privacy. This all seems to be much worse than 1984. But really, I think that things are going to be difficult, no matter what we do. I really don't think that waking-up the public will save us. I do support the freedom to research forbidden knowledge, and to speak publicly about this research, but I have absolutely no desire to be a visible crusader against the government, corporations, and the New World Order. I am basically seeking to join the elites, as an uninvited observer, and gradually try to come up with better ideas and better ways of doing things. This thread is a preliminary effort toward this end. I think I've been close to a couple of insider types (a very long time ago, and they didn't tell me anything), and I wouldn't necessarily wish to have been in their shoes, but I would like to know a lot of what they knew, and more, even if this quest pushes me over the edge, and despite my joking, this is a very real possibility. This all keeps hurting more and more. It's not getting any easier.

All of this is so strange and difficult to verify, that I really have to just keeping treating it as science-fiction, which could be true, or partially true. I'm not an off the wall sci-fi fan. I'm really trying to get at what the historical and contemporary reality is, but I have to do this is in a somewhat round about way. I wish the whole story were contained in my biblical upbringing, but no such luck. I'm expecting lifetime after lifetime of problems and struggle, with things hopefully getting better and better for all concerned. I'm reading about Biblical Egyptology, the Nazis, the Vatican, Reptilian Queens, etc, and et al. I have to almost treat this as a flippant joke, at times, in order to not go nuts! I don't mean to be cynical, rude, and rebellious, but this seems to be part of my survival mechanism. I continue to shun all violence, although I realize that sometimes violence might be necessary. I'd rather reform the bad guys and gals of all races, rather than trying to exterminate them. But how does anyone trust anyone in this seemingly crazy universe? I used to think that Earth was the only problem spot in the universe, but I now think the whole thing might be a mess. I'll keep reading, and try to be more specific in future posts. Again, I think forums such as this one are appropriate places to deal with this sort of thing, rather than springing all of this madness on the masses. I don't think most people can properly deal with this. I'm not sure that I can, which is why I mostly just mumble in the dark. Outside of this forum, I don't talk to anyone about any of this. This is just sort of a Disneyland ride to me. It's our little secret...

So, where do I go from here? How do I take this thing to the next level, without getting placed on more lists, without having shapeshifting supersoldiers pounding on my door at 3:33 AM, and without getting turned into a crispy-critter by a military-satellite? What would Sherry Shriner say??

I continue to think that theology and religion are important parts of the puzzle, and I really think that it is important to study the Vatican, and all of the roads leading to Rome. This might be tough-going, but I think it has to be dealt-with. I continue to look for an idealistic and pragmatic integration of politics and religion. If you can remain calm in this situation, perhaps you don't understand the situation. Just kidding! I've been seriously considering going in a completely different direction for a while, and studying organic-chemistry, biochemistry, and genetics - with a special emphasis on the interaction of evolution and intelligent-design, which might include reptilian-humanoid genetics, anatomy, and physiology! I'm trying to obtain a copy of 'Grey's Anatomy'! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIsJV1VCzQU

What would be the Top Twenty University Classes which would be most relevant to Solar System Studies and Governance? Perhaps I need to at least obtain the textbooks from these classes (at very great expense), and study the hell out of them (with weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth). Online arguing just doesn't cut it. Interdisciplinary University Studies Rock - but how do you get a job by being a Jack or Jill of All Trades - and Master of Solar System Studies and Governance - especially when the Jesuits and the Alphabet Agents are out to get you???

Maybe I'm crazy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw4zmWeyDCI

Mehrzad Marashi - Crazy Gnarls Barkley
Lyrics:
I remember when, I remember, I remember when I lost my mind
There was something so pleasant about that place.
Even your emotions had an echo
In so much space

And when you're out there
Without care,
Yeah, I was out of touch
But it wasn't because I didn't know enough
I just knew too much

Does that make me crazy?
Does that make me crazy?
Does that make me crazy?
Possibly [radio version]
probably [album version]

And I hope that you are having the time of your life
But think twice, that's my only advice

Come on now, who do you, who do you, who do you, who do you think you are,
Ha ha ha bless your soul
You really think you're in control

Well, I think you're crazy
I think you're crazy
I think you're crazy
Just like me

My heroes had the heart to lose their lives out on a limb
And all I remember is thinking, I want to be like them
Ever since I was little, ever since I was little it looked like fun
And it's no coincidence I've come
And I can die when I'm done

Maybe I'm crazy
Maybe you're crazy
Maybe we're crazy
Probably

Uh, uh