If this stuff weren't so sad, it might actually be funny. I'm talking about everything. Not just on this website. I just think a lot of crazy things are coming out of the closet, and out into the open. I suspect its going to get much worse before it gets better. The end might be near, or we might desire some sort of finality. The Madness Might NEVER End. The Horror. I'm attempting Religious and Political Science-Fiction for Completely-Ignorant Fools (Such as Myself) as a Conceptual-Laboratory (Or Something to That Effect). This is mostly 'In House' and NOT for the 'General Public'. I Am NOT Taking the 'Show on the Road'. Someone needs to do a detailed 'Research Paper' on at least USSS Book Ten, to provide some perspective and objectivity. I'd appreciate an 'Eyes-Only' reading in an undisclosed location. Is 'Order Out of Chaos' the Goal?? Is 'Chaos Out of Order' the Goal?? Does the Kingdom of God = Tyranny?? Does Freedom = Anarchy?? Be Careful Regarding Definitions and Applications. The Slope Might be More Slippery Than You Can Imagine. Civilization Might be Breaking-Down BIG-TIME. I'll Continue My Research-Baseline (For Now) But the End Might be Near (For Me). The Horror. Notice that I'm posting some mostly unedited Old-Posts, so do NOT be Alarmed.
This thread will literally be a "Journal". The Wall Street "Journal". Get it?? If only Ron Klug could see me now!! Harper and Row should've worked with me, to publish my Interpretive Paraphrase of the Life and Teachings of Jesus!! This was a very long time ago!! Ron wrote at least one book about "Journaling". I talked to Mr. Klug at a writer's conference, and submitted part of my manuscript to him. Frank Peretti was the keynote speaker at that conference!! He was funny and profound!! I think I'll start by commenting on What's News on the front page of The Wall Street Journal. This is the narrow column on the left side of the page, which runs from top to bottom. It is divided into two sections. 1. Business and Finance. 2. World Wide. I might do a detailed analysis, or I might simply do some sort of an extemporaneous expression, reminiscent of the Eureka Phenomenon!! Well here we go!!orthodoxymoron wrote:I suspect that to really understand history, one must be an insider. But that opens up a whole new can of worms. I've attempted to deal with this stuff for several years now, and I feel as if this was a mistake. I've started The Wall Street Journal thread, to try to forget about the important things (like saving the world). Let me just say that if all the world has been a stage for thousands of years, with One Script-Writer and Director, the implications and ramifications of this are MOST Upsetting. The Visible PTB might all simply be Actors and/or Pawns in a Theater of the Universe. But what if the Reprehensible has been Absolutely-Necessary?? What if Watergate was necessary?? What if 9/11 was necessary?? What if the only way to run a hypothetical Prison-Planet in Rebellion, is by controlling Everyone and Everything in secretive and nefarious ways?? What if my pipe-dream of open and honest governance, with everyone loving each-other, is pure unmitigated-poppycock?? I've gotten to the point where I have to stop. As a youth, I intuitively knew a lot about the way things really worked, but I didn't get involved, and now I know why.
Yahoo said state sponsored hackers penetrated its network in late 2014 and stole personal data on over 500 million users. This is what they tell us, but how much personal data gets passed around throughout the world, each and every day?? This sort of thing becomes front page news when it is not possible to sweep it under the rug. It is my impression that all of our lives are open-books to those in the know -- and those with the dough. I think we all live in a Fish-Bowl (or is it a Yellow Submarine??)!! It's just going to get worse and worse. I keep suspecting that all of our Past-Life Data will eventually be posted on the internet for all to see. Every Secret Thing will probably be revealed.
Wall Street bank's fees from equity deals have fallen to their lowest level in more than 20 years, as firms opt for cheap private funding. This is one example of why Free-Enterprise is probably a good-thing. Competition Improves the Breed. It's painful and angering for some, but it forces everyone to dig-deeper and try-harder. I've been advocating Micro-Competition and Macro-Cooperation. This is sort of how a corporation works. Everyone competes with Everyone, yet there is an Umbrella of Cooperation to ultimately do that which is in the best-interest of the Company. One might argue with a coworker without serious-consequences, but insubordination to the CEO might result in traveling and meeting new people.
Big ad buyers and marketers are upset with Facebook after learning the firm vastly overestimated average viewing time for video ads. Why is this an estimate?? Why can't the actual viewing times be accessed?? Some low-budget research by the ad-buyers and marketers should've revealed the real-deal. No one should've been blindsided by this one!! Don't salespersons tend to exaggerate and sugar-coat?? Haven't these people ever bought used-cars?? Would YOU buy a used-car from Richard Nixon??
Bonds rallied for a second day as renewed central bank commitments to easy policies curtailed investors' fear of a "taper tantrum". The experts provide reasons why things go up and down, but are the provided-reasons the real-reasons?? Greed and Fear are two basic factors relative to why things go up and down. The underlying undercurrents might be incredibly-complex. The Cliff Notes version might be simplistic and deceptive. There are undoubtedly black-box computer-programs which analyze all relevant-factors 24/7. I keep suspecting that humanity will become obsolete in SO many ways. But until then, just remember that the Trend is Your Friend.
U.S. Stocks extended gains, with the Dow rising 98.76 points to 18392.46. The dollar fell further. The doom and gloom forecasters have been predicting a market-crash for several-years now. The National-Debt is unimaginably and astronomically high. SO many people receive some sort of public-assistance!! Low-wage foreign-workers keep taking U.S. jobs!! This would seem to militate against current stock prices. What is REALLY going on here?? The published reasons for why things go up and down might be very-different than the real-reasons. Some say the markets are rigged. Imagine a Central War-Room, where the markets can be made to go in whichever direction the Big-Shots wish!! I once heard someone say that the markets move in a manner which screws the most people!! Consider deception and surprise when analyzing why the markets do what they do. How extensive is Insider-Trading?? How leveraged are stock-bets worldwide?? What happens if the music slows?? What happens if the music stops?? Will the USD crash?? Will the Dinar skyrocket?? What if the USD gets backed-up by silver, gold, or something of significant-value (with no crash)?? What Would John F. Kennedy Say?? What Would Ron Paul Say??
This first analytic-post is pretty lame, but I will attempt to cover the entire left-column of the first-page each-day (with an increasing level of sophistication). I haven't decided which type of writer to model, but I might simply be "myself' (whatever that means). Anyway, now I'm going to post an article from the Opinion page, by Kenneth L. Woodward. I once had the privilege of asking Mr. Woodard a question about money in a public-meeting at Pacific Union College, in Angwin, California. It was the last question, and Kenneth Woodward commented that no one seemed to want to talk after my question regarding Money and Religion!! It had something to do with "Rich Christians"!! Oxymoron or Wave of the Future??!! BTW -- Chelsea is my favorite Clinton!! I've always wanted to talk to her!! Here's that article (about Hillary). http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-methodist-moment-1474586097
Young Hillary Rodham saw the church’s social concerns
shift from alcohol and gambling to sexism and racism.
By Kenneth L. Woodward
Sept. 22, 2016 7:14 p.m. ET
After Bill Clinton, a Bible-toting Southern Baptist, was elected, I repeatedly tried as religion editor of Newsweek to interview him about his religious beliefs and practices. Ten days before the 1994 midterm elections, the White House offered me Hillary, the sturdy Methodist, instead.
The first lady spoke candidly about her Methodist upbringing, her core Christian beliefs and prayer habits, and how she frequently consulted the latest Methodist Book of Resolutions, the church’s official handbook on social and political issues, which she kept upstairs in the family quarters. Piety plus politics was her message.
I asked her if she ever thought of becoming an ordained Methodist minister once her White House years were over. “I think about it all the time,” she instantly replied. But after exchanging glances with her press secretary, Lisa Caputo, she asked me not to print what she had said because she felt it made her sound much too pious. I didn’t.
I feel free to mention this now because Hillary Rodham Clinton obviously has opted for a career in public service. But for a serious Methodist, public service is a form of ministry. All the more so because, as Mrs. Clinton’s former youth minister told Newsweek with sly self-awareness: “we Methodists know what’s good for you.”
Although religion is not an issue in this year’s presidential election, Hillary Clinton is by far the more religious candidate. What’s more, hers is the more religious political party—even though atheists, agnostics and other religiously nonaffiliated Americans (the “Nones”) now represent the largest bloc, replacing African-Americans, within the Democratic Party. To understand this seeming paradox, we first have to recognize that since its transformation in 1972 under another Methodist politician, George McGovern, the Democratic Party has advanced a righteous politics that mirrors the political righteousness of the United Methodist Church.
Methodists have been zealous monitors of American morals since the middle of the 19th century when, as historian Nathan O. Hatch has written, Methodists operated “the most extensive national institution other than the federal government.”
Their longtime concern with politics is symbolized by the Methodist Building, still the only nongovernmental edifice on Capitol Hill. It was built during Prohibition to house the denomination’s powerful Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals. The building also provided office space for Washington lobbyists representing the other mainline Protestant denominations. Together, they formed a moral Maginot line against the growing political influence of American Catholics as a threat to their vision of a Protestant America.
By the time Hillary Rodham joined a Methodist youth group in the early 1960s, the church’s social concerns had shifted from alcohol, gambling and shopping on the Sabbath to racism, sexism and the war in Vietnam. Thanks in large part to South Dakota’s George McGovern, so would the concerns of the Democratic Party.
The events of 1972 inaugurate what I call the Methodist Moment in Democratic Party politics. That was the year McGovern won the party’s presidential nomination—and, coincidentally, the year former Republican Hillary Rodham became a Democratic Party activist. McGovern was the son of a Methodist minister, grew up in a Methodist manse, graduated from a Methodist college, studied for the Methodist ministry before taking a doctorate in history, and taught at his Methodist alma mater before accepting the challenge of rebuilding South Dakota’s moribund party. His stump style was prairie preacher; his reformer’s rhetoric Methodist to the core.
In 1972 the United Methodist Church, as it was by then called, held its quadrennial General Convention—the church’s highest legislative body—as it does every presidential election year a few months prior to the national political conventions. A review of the positions taken by the church reveals remarkable congruence with the Democrats’ subsequent party platform. Both opposed the war in Vietnam and called for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Both framed the nation’s economic ills as “systemic” and proposed wholesale transformation of political, economic and social institutions.
What is truly astonishing is the way that the Democrats’ planks on emerging culture-war issues echoed the (often more radical) stands adopted by the Methodists. Among the rights of children, for example, the Methodists included the right “to a full sex education, appropriate to their stage of development.” Affirming the rights of women, the Methodists supported full equality with men and demanded and end to “sex-role stereotypes.”
To counter overpopulation, the convention recommended the distribution of “reliable contraceptive information and devices.” Less than a year before Roe v. Wade, the convention urged “removal of abortion from the criminal code” but stopped short of approving abortion on demand. Finally, the Methodists embraced affirmative inclusion by reserving 30% of seats on all church boards and agencies for nonwhites, even though barely 6% of church members were African-American.
The events of 1972 also hastened the steady decline in membership and influence among the liberal mainline churches. Before the 1970s were out, the politically and socially conservative Southern Baptists superseded the United Methodists as the nation’s largest Protestant denomination. As one generation gave way to the next, more and more young Methodists, Presbyterians and the like grew up to become religiously something else or—especially among millennials—nothing at all.
In sum, many of today’s Nones have retained the Methodists’ ethos of righteous politics while jettisoning the beliefs, behavior and belonging that made righteous Methodists Methodists in the first place. Many Jews and Roman Catholics can and do find in progressive Democratic politics aspects of their own social-justice traditions.
But the emergence of the Nones shows us that anyone can think and act like righteous Methodists just by being a liberal Democrat.
Mr. Woodward is the author of “Getting Religion: Faith, Culture and Politics from the Age of Eisenhower to the Era of Obama,” just published by Convergent Books.
I will become more factual and sophisticated, with time, regarding The Wall Street Journal. I'm just trying to make an editorial-transition from Religious and Political Science-Fiction -- to Boring and Stuffy News-Commentary. I've compared myself with the news-reporter Chad Decker (from the 2009-10 "V" series)!! Perhaps The Wall Street Journal thread will strengthen that assertion!! BTW -- consider reading The Camera Never Blinks by Dan Rather. It's a great book!! Anyway, today's commentary is quite a harangue!! I'll try to tone it down as I proceed!! I'm trying to remake myself into a Kinder and Gentler "Completely Ignorant Fool"!! Perhaps, in my next-life, I'll be the host of "The Regressive Perspective"!! Sorry. I couldn't resist.
No CEO at the nation's largest 100 companies had donated to Trump's campaign through August, while 11 backed Clinton. This is surprising to me. I keep imagining the Big-Shot CEO's donating to BOTH candidates, to cover their bases. Do the CEO's know something about the near-future of America that the rest of us don't?? Does this reveal their perceptions of the perceived-power (or lack thereof) of the President of the United States of America?? I remember when Dr. Robert H. Schuller wanted to build a Family Life Center on the Crystal Cathedral Campus -- and NONE of His Major-Contributors supported this project (at least initially). I remember the day he told the congregation this sad fact. I was there. Are the CEO's sending their money to the Pope, the Queen, and Putin?? Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Cruz, in a reversal, said he plans to vote for Trump, citing a pledge to back whoever won the GOP nomination. Does it really matter who votes for who, if all the politicians work for the Same Guy and/or Gal?? Are modern-politics a necessary-evil?? Should everyone just play-along with this seemingly superficial and corrupt game of money and power?? Sometimes I wish I would've signed on the dotted-line and joined the club. Perhaps I should've stayed at the Crystal Cathedral, joined the Masons, started a business in Garden Grove, gone to all the parties, used a couple of Hollywood connections I had, become morally-ambiguous, and become a Filthy-Rich Mover and Shaker in Southern California!! I'm sort of bitter, and sort of serious!! I might've gotten a free-ride on a UFO to the Dark-Side of the Moon, to meet with the Queen of Heaven and the God of This World!! Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Trump received numerous loans from his father early in his real estate career, documents show. So what?? Why is this news?? It might be newsworthy if Trump received numerous loans from the Mafia throughout the years!! What if he did?? He was supposedly close to some pretty-shady characters throughout the years!! Politics seems to be synonymous with Big-Money and Smoke-Filled Rooms!! Sherry Shriner claims that neither Trump or Hillary are the same people they were years ago, and that they've been replaced and/or taken-over. She's much more descriptive than I'm willing to be, and I have no idea how compromised politicians are, but this stuff scares the hell out of me. Supposedly the Jesuits have a lot to do with all of this, but I don't know for certain. The Ancient Egyptian Deity said he was very close to Obama, and that he really liked Bill Clinton!! He said Ron Paul was bad for America!! Now you know too much!! Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Two of Clinton's attorneys were granted immunity as part of a now-closed FBI email probe, lawmakers said. Is the law an ass??!! We have the best legal and political system money can buy!! Why do we have "lawmakers"?? Should we have the "Perfect Law of the Lord" which never changes (because it's perfect)?? What if there is a Perfect-Law which predates the creation of the human-being?? What if there is a Better-Bible hidden in the Vatican-Archives?? I'm still wondering about those 37 books I supposedly wrote in antiquity, which are supposedly hidden in the Vatican-Archives??!! No black SUV's have pulled into my driveway at 3AM, delivering me a personal-copy of what I supposedly wrote (and I'm NOT holding my breath)!! If that strange message I found in my word-processor is even partially-true, I'm suspecting some sort of an Old-Testament Commentary, written during the Intertestamental-Period (possibly in Egypt or Tibet)!! Sherry Shriner recently suggested that there were several additional-chapters to the Book of Daniel (hidden in the Vatican Archives)!! What Would Desmond Ford and Raymond Cottrell Say?? Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Obama rejected a bill that would let Americans sue foreign governments over terror attacks. Congress is likely to override the veto. This makes my hair stand on-end!! This sounds like a bunch of gangsters protecting each-other from the good-guys!! Are Politics and Religion sort of like the Crips and the Bloods??!! Do the Corrupt Rule the Stupid?? Americans should be able to sue whoever did them wrong, wherever the hell they are!! Americans should receive free legal-assistance from the U.S. Government when they sue foreign governments over terror attacks!! Do Americans work for the Government?? Does the Government work for Americans?? What do YOU think?? Sorry. I couldn't resist.
The U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution calling on countries to refrain from nuclear testing. What if all Nuclear-Programs are controlled by the Secret-Government and/or the Secret Space Program?? Remember the UFO's shutting-down Missile-Silos??!! I continue to speculate concerning an Ancient and Ongoing One Solar-System Government (which controls Everyone and Everything -- including ALL Weapons of Mass-Destruction)!! There might be several-factions of one general-government!! I've suggested the possibility of Anna and the "V's" running the solar-system since the Garden of Eden (at least for the past six-thousand years)!! Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Lulled to believe nuclear catastrophe died with the Cold War,
America is blind to rising dragons.
By Mark Helprin
Sept. 23, 2016 6:11 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gathering-nuclear-storm-1474668674
Even should nuclear brinkmanship not result in Armageddon, it can lead to abject defeat and a complete reordering of the international system. The extraordinarily complicated and consequential management of American nuclear policy rests upon the shoulders of those we elevate to the highest offices. Unfortunately, President Obama’s transparent hostility to America’s foundational principles and defensive powers is coupled with a dim and faddish understanding of nuclear realities. His successor will be no less ill-equipped.
Hillary Clinton’s robotic compulsion to power renders her immune to either respect for truth or clearheaded consideration of urgent problems. Theodore Roosevelt’s secretary of state once said that he was “pure act” (meaning action). Hillary Clinton is “pure lie” (meaning lie), with whatever intellectual power she possesses hopelessly enslaved to reflexive deviousness.
Donald Trump, surprised that nuclear weapons are inappropriate to counterinsurgency, has a long history of irrepressible urges and tropisms. Rather like the crazy boy-emperors after the fall of the Roman Republic, he may have problems with impulse control—and an uncontrolled, ill-formed, perpetually fragmented mind.
None of these perhaps three worst people in the Western Hemisphere, and few of their deplorable underlings, are alive to the gravest danger. Which is neither Islamic State, terrorism, the imprisoned economy, nor even the erosion of our national character, though all are of crucial importance.
The gravest danger we face is fast-approaching nuclear instability. Many believe it is possible safely to arrive at nuclear zero. It is not. Enough warheads to bring any country to its knees can fit in a space volumetrically equivalent to a Manhattan studio apartment. Try to find that in the vastness of Russia, China, or Iran. Even ICBMs and their transporter-erector-launchers can easily be concealed in warehouses, tunnels and caves. Nuclear weapons age out, but, thanks to supercomputing, reliable replacements can be manufactured with only minor physical testing. Unaccounted fissile material sloshing around the world can, with admitted difficulty, be fashioned into weapons. And when rogue states such as North Korea and Iran build their bombs, our response has been either impotence or a ticket to ride.
Nor do nuclear reductions lead to increased safety. Quite apart from encouraging proliferation by enabling every medium power in the world to aim for nuclear parity with the critically reduced U.S. arsenal, reductions create instability. The fewer targets, the more possible a (counter-force) first strike to eliminate an enemy’s retaliatory capacity. Nuclear stability depends, inter alia, upon deep reserves that make a successful first strike impossible to assure. The fewer warheads and the higher the ratio of warheads to delivery vehicles, the more dangerous and unstable.
Consider two nations, each with 10 warheads on each of 10 missiles. One’s first strike with five warheads tasked per the other’s missiles would leave the aggressor with an arsenal sufficient for a (counter-value) strike against the now disarmed opponent’s cities. Our deterrent is not now as concentrated as in the illustration, but by placing up to two-thirds of our strategic warheads in just 14 submarines; consolidating bomber bases; and entertaining former Defense Secretary William Perry’s recommendation to do away with the 450 missiles in the land-based leg of the Nuclear Triad, we are moving that way.
Supposedly salutary reductions are based upon an incorrect understanding of nuclear sufficiency: i.e., if X number of weapons is sufficient to inflict unacceptable costs upon an enemy, no more than X are needed. But we don’t define sufficiency, the adversary does, and the definition varies according to culture; history; the temperament, sanity, or miscalculation of leadership; domestic politics; forms of government, and other factors, some unknown. For this reason, the much maligned concept of overkill is a major contributor to stability, in that, if we have it, an enemy is less likely to calculate that we lack sufficiency. Further, if our forces are calibrated to sufficiency, then presumably the most minor degradation will render them insufficient.
Nor is it safe to mirror-image willingness to go nuclear. Every nuclear state has its own threshold, and one cannot assume that concessions in strategic forces will obviate nuclear use in response to conventional warfare, which was Soviet doctrine for decades and is a Russian predilection now. Ballistic missile defense is opposed and starved on the assumption that it would shield one’s territory after striking first, and would therefore tempt an enemy to strike before the shield was deployed. As its opponents assert, hermetic shielding is impossible, and if only 10 of 1,500 warheads were to hit American cities, the cost would be unacceptable. But no competent nuclear strategist ever believed that, other than protecting cities from accidental launch or rogue states, ballistic missile defense is anything but a means of protecting our retaliatory capacity, making a counter-force first strike of no use, and thus increasing stability.
In a nuclear world, unsentimental and often counterintuitive analysis is necessary. As the genie will not be forced back into the lamp, the heart of the matter is balance and deterrence. But this successful dynamic of 70 years is about to be destroyed. Those whom the French call our “responsibles” have addressed the nuclear calculus—in terms of sufficiency, control regimes, and foreign policy—only toward Russia, as if China, a nuclear power for decades, did not exist. While it is true that to begin with its nuclear arsenal was de minimis, in the past 15 years China has increased its land-based ICBMs by more than 300%, its sea-based by more than 400%. Depending upon the configuration of its missiles, China can rain up to several hundred warheads upon the U.S.
As we shrink our nuclear forces and fail to introduce new types, China is doing the opposite, increasing them numerically and forging ahead of us in various technologies (quantum communications, super computers, maneuverable hypersonic re-entry vehicles), some of which we have forsworn, such as road-mobile missiles, which in survivability and range put to shame our Minuteman IIIs.
Because China’s nuclear weapons infrastructure is in part housed in 3,000 miles of tunnels opaque to American intelligence, we cannot know the exact velocity and extent of its buildup. Why does the Obama administration, worshipful of nuclear agreements, completely ignore the nuclear dimension of the world’s fastest rising major power, with which the United States and allies engage in military jockeying almost every day on multiple fronts? Lulled to believe that nuclear catastrophe died with the Cold War, America is blind to rising dragons.
And then we have Russia, which ignores limitations the Obama administration strives to exceed. According to its own careless or defiant admissions, Russia cheats in virtually every area of nuclear weapons: deploying missiles that by treaty supposedly no longer exist; illegally converting anti-aircraft and ballistic missile defense systems to dual-capable nuclear strike; developing new types of nuclear cruise missiles for ships and aircraft; keeping more missiles on alert than allowed; and retaining battlefield tactical nukes.
Further, in the almost complete absence of its own “soft power,” Russia frequently hints at nuclear first use. All this comports with historical Soviet/Russian doctrine and conduct; is an important element of Putinesque tactics for reclaiming the Near Abroad; and dovetails perfectly with Mr. Obama’s advocacy of no first use, unreciprocated U.S. reductions and abandonment of nuclear modernization. Which in turn pair nicely with Donald Trump’s declaration that he would defend NATO countries only if they made good on decades of burden-sharing delinquency.
Russia deploys about 150 more nuclear warheads than the U.S. Intensively modernizing, it finds ways to augment its totals via undisguised cheating. Bound by no numerical or qualitative limits, China speeds its strategic development. To cripple U.S. retaliatory capability, an enemy would have to destroy only four or five submarines at sea, two sub bases, half a dozen bomber bases, and 450 missile silos.
Russia has 49 attack submarines, China 65, with which to track and kill American nuclear missile subs under way. Were either to build or cheat to 5,000 warheads (the U.S. once had more than 30,000) and two-thirds reached their targets, four warheads could strike each aim point, with 2,000 left to hold hostage American cities and industry. China and Russia are far less dense and developed than the U.S., and it would take more strikes for us to hold them at risk than vice versa, a further indictment of reliance upon sufficiency calculations and symmetrical reductions.
Russia dreams publicly of its former hold on Eastern Europe and cannot but see opportunity in a disintegrating European Union and faltering NATO. China annexes the South China Sea and looks to South Korea, Japan and Australasia as future subordinates. Given the degradation of U.S. and allied conventional forces previously able to hold such ambitions in check, critical confrontations are bound to occur. When they do occur, and if without American reaction, China or Russia have continued to augment their strategic forces to the point of vast superiority where one or both consider a first strike feasible, we may see nuclear brinkmanship (or worse) in which the United States—startled from sleep and suddenly disabused of the myth of sufficiency—might have to capitulate, allowing totalitarian dictatorships to dominate the world.
Current trajectories point in exactly this direction, but in regard to such things Donald Trump hasn’t the foggiest, and, frankly, Hillary Clinton, like the president, doesn’t give a damn.
The way to avoid such a tragedy is to bring China into a nuclear control regime or answer its refusal with our own proportional increases and modernization. And to make sure that both our nuclear and conventional forces are strong, up-to-date, and survivable enough to deter the militant ambitions of the two great powers rising with daring vengeance from what they regard as the shame of their oppression.
Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute, is the author of “Winter’s Tale,” “A Soldier of the Great War” and the forthcoming novel “Paris in the Present Tense.”
Somewhat unrelated to The Wall Street Journal, I've previously referred to Michael-Horus-Jesus, but I'm presently not so sure these three names should be joined at the hip. I'm presently thinking of Michael in terms of the 'Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World', and possibly connected with the name 'Osiris', but I'm very uncertain about this. The name-change game, and the name shell-game, continue to trouble and confuse me. I haven't made a scholarly study of this stuff. I continue to deal with such matters in a pseudointellectual manner. I'm not in a hurry to get to the truth and the whole-story. I mostly lead some of us to the edge of truth, without making a big-deal about it. You must do your own homework. I cannot and will-not do it for you. My tradition sometimes makes the connection between Michael and Jesus, but I have a big question-mark concerning the Historical-Jesus of the Gospels. I'm not against the Teachings Attributed to Jesus. I'm simply concerned about Historical Reliability and Verifiability.
I continue to exercise science-fictional possibility-thinking relative to Sacred-Scripture. How do we REALLY know?? I still don't have an Absolute-Access Pass to the Vatican Library and Archives (and I'm NOT holding my breath)!! I think Vatican-Insiders REALLY Know (but they usually don't let the rest of us know)!! I continue to wonder about King David, King Solomon, and the Queen of Sheba (figuratively and literally) relative to the Father, Son, and Holy-Spirit (figuratively and literally). Some scholars say that most of the Biblical-Characters never existed (at least as described in the Bible). But again, how are we supposed to REALLY Know?? What is the relationship (figuratively and literally) between the "Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World" and the "Historical-Jesus"?? Should I think in terms of Gabriel-Horus-Jesus?? Acts through Revelation seems to reveal very little about the Historical-Jesus. It seems to reveal the Mystical-Christ. I stumbled-upon dividing the Bible into Seven-Sections aka Seven-Churches (mirroring the Seven-Volumes of the SDA Bible Commentary):
1. Genesis to Deuteronomy.
2. Joshua to 2 Kings.
3. 1 Chronicles to Song of Solomon.
4. Isaiah to Malachi.
5. Matthew to John.
6. Acts to Ephesians.
7. Philippians to Revelation.
Each of these volumes are Whole-Bible in their approach (but from the perspective of a certain section of the Bible). I think Biblical-Research is a HUGE Can of Worms. It's NOT for Everyone!! There is some logic to the Catholic concept of "Just attend Mass, and do what Holy Mother Church tells you to do" regardless of what the Bible says (or supposedly says). I've suggested the concept of relying-upon Sacred Classical Music for Ecumenical and Inspirational Purposes (with the People struggling with the madness in their owns ways and timetables). The Info-War is making Simple-Faith exponentially more difficult for the Rank and File. Spiritual-Quicksand is Everywhere. The Genie is seemingly escaping from the bottle (and the Genie seems to be a Meanie)!!
Anyway, back to The Wall Street Journal. My plan is to briefly comment on the Front-Page, and then include an editorial from the Opinion section. I'll try to NOT Include much else. This post is an exception to that rule.
S&P 500 companies are set to report a sixth-straight quarter of falling profits, raising questions about how far stocks can rise without earnings growth. Is the music slowing?? What if the music stops?? Are we at the Pinnacle of Irrational-Exuberance?? Are the markets exhibiting the Epitome of Stupidity?? What Would Alan Greenspan Say?? He said that Brexit was just the "Tip of the Iceberg". What if Brexit was a Prelude to Disclosure?? The Truth might set us Free -- but what if the Truth crashes the markets?? I continue to suspect that most significant Events are somehow planned and staged, to achieve nefarious-ends via devious-means. What Would the Beast Supercomputer Say??
OPEC is increasingly counting on refineries in China, known as "teapots", to boost exports. What if China and Russia will reshape the world, as the Sorcerer's New Apprentices?? What if their atheistic-leanings will spread throughout the world, as they hypothetically dominate the planet economically and militarily?? What about that nearly Twenty Trillion Dollar U.S. National Debt?? When will the economic-chickens REALLY come home to roost??
Banks are struggling to upgrade their back-office technology to meet new reporting regulations. What will happen to people's money if the excrement REALLY contacts the refrigeration-system?? How safe are financial-records at financial-institutions?? How interconnected is Local-Banking with International-Banking?? What about Intergalactic-Banking?? Ever heard of the Chase Aldebaran Bank??
The Fed proposed rules that could drive banks out of commodities trading by making it too expensive. Does the private Federal Reserve Bank really run the United States of America?? Is the Fed the faithful-servant of America or England?? What about Russia and Rome?? What if Russia and Rome excommunicated the God of This World?? What Would the Queen of Heaven Say?? These are Sirius-Questions.
Goldman plans to lay off over a quarter of its investment bankers in Asia as deal activity slows. Does Satan have an office at Goldman Sachs?? What does the Devil know that we don't know?? Is this another example of the music slowing?? What is the relationship between the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs?? What Would the Rothschild's Say?? How is the Organizational-Structure of Planet-Earth changing presently?? Do those with the Gold RULE??!! Does God have the most money and guns in the universe?? Are we dealing with a Local-God and/or a Universal-God??
My ears are ringing louder and louder. My nerves are becoming more and more shot. I am feeling more and more miserable. Is this retribution for my revelations and speculations?? Is my Wall Street Journal approach extricating me from the Rabbit-Hole, or am I being pulled into a much more dangerous Black Rabbit Hole?? Is it too-late to avoid hell by just shutting-up?? "You'll never work in this world again!!"?? What if the Way Things Are and the Powers That Be are now Locked-In for All-Eternity?? What if the God of This World is now a Beast-Supercomputer in an Underground-Base?? What if the Real-Deal has left the building for all-eternity?? Daniel and Revelation: Red-Herring or History of the Future??
Let my school—Notre Dame—speak for itself
on restrooms and other contentious social issues.
By John I. Jenkins
Sept. 25, 2016 6:10 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ncaa-isnt-a-moral-arbiternor-should-it-be-1474841413
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has gotten ahead of its member universities and its own constitutional principles. On Sept. 12, the association pulled all 2016-17 national-championship events out of North Carolina to protest a state law there overriding local antidiscrimination ordinances that, among other things, allowed transgender people to use the public restroom of their choice.
House Bill 2 (H.B. 2) requires that “multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facilities” in public schools or maintained by public agencies be used according to a person’s biological sex, not gender identity. The Atlantic Coast Conference—to which my school, the University of Notre Dame, belongs—followed the NCAA’s lead and pulled all its 2016-17 championship events at “neutral” off-campus sites out of North Carolina. That includes, for example, the Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte.
Heightened respect for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens is a signal moral achievement of our time, and harboring reservations about any retrenchment is natural. Yet some citizens may wonder about the implications of substituting gender identity for biological sex in public restrooms. While attending to the rights and sensibilities of transgender persons, it’s important to also take into account the feelings of those who might be uncomfortable undressing in front of a member of the opposite biological sex.
Our society has become inured to public disputes over neuralgic moral and social questions. These debates will continue as the legal and political process takes its course. In May, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division filed suit against the state of North Carolina, arguing that H.B. 2 is “in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.” The federal government argues that discrimination based on “sex,” which is illegal, includes “gender identity.”
North Carolina filed a counter suit, accusing the federal government of “baseless and blatant overreach.” The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., deferred to the Justice Department’s position in an April decision subsequently stayed by the Supreme Court.
In the interim, it is not the role of the NCAA to employ the economic power it derives from member universities to attempt to influence the outcome of the legal process or change legislation. When it comes to complex, contentious social issues, universities have a critical role to play in fostering reflection, discussion and informed debate. No matter how popular or profitable certain college sports become, athletic associations should not usurp that role. I was particularly disheartened that the NCAA took action without consulting its member universities.
The role of such associations is to foster athletic competition that is fair and serves the well-being of student-athletes. There is plenty of work for them to do in that sphere without assuming the role of spokesperson for their members on contentious political and social issues.
In “The Idea of a University,” the 19th-century Catholic cardinal and theologian John Henry Newman wrote eloquently of colleges’ responsibility to raise the intellectual tone of public conversation. Universities, he believed, were for purifying the national debate by being places of reflection and deliberative, informed discussion. He wrote of “supplying the true principles to popular enthusiasm and fixed aims to popular aspiration,” and “giving enlargement and sobriety to the ideas of the age.”
At a time when tweets, slogans and sound bites seem to define the substance of our political discourse; when respect for truth seems a casualty of the campaign; and when ideological polarization often hamstrings responsible governing, the nation needs universities to raise the intellectual tone of Americans’ discussions more than ever. We must strive to do a better job of providing this service. We will certainly fail if we delegate the work to athletic associations.
Father Jenkins is the president of the University of Notre Dame.
Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Sun Oct 04, 2020 1:59 pm; edited 1 time in total