Brave New World Revisited Huxley said:

"'...The older dictators failed because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. Under a scientific dictator education will really work--with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.'"

Brave New World Revisited Huxley said:

"'...The older dictators failed because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. Under a scientific dictator education will really work--with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.'"

Contrast [the USA 9/11 reaction, when 19 Arabs with boxcutters, directed by an Afghan caveman, penetrate the multi-billion-dollar U.S. national air defense system and strike deadly blows at the heart of the defense establishment in Washington and the financial center in New York] with the Soviet reaction when a German teenager, Mathias Rust (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena_Rust), landed on a bridge close to Red Square in 1987. Gorbachev fired the defense minister, anti-air defense commander, and more than 2,000 other officers.

This Iraq war idea has been a winner all around. We remove one of Iran's most bitter enemies and replace him with a nascent Muslim theocracy wedded to Tehran. We give radical Islamist groups a once-in-a-lifetime recruitment tool and a training area for their terrorists. We give already violent American street gangs the training they need to turn city streets into free-fire zones. And we spend ourselves into the poorhouse doing it.

Steven Hart

We are almost totally illeterate, milked like cows and sheared like sheep

It is a commonplace that "you can't keep secrets in Washington" or "in a democracy," that "no matter how sensitive the secret, you're likely to read it the next day in the New York Times." These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn't in a fully totalitarian society. ... But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

Daniel Ellsberg, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers

Did the military people that ran Able Danger really say that their pre 911 investigation of 911 was thwarted by their bosses? There are news reports that say it was. Why isn’t this a big story. Shouldn’t any reasonable person be suspicious about this? This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a reasonable question.

Are there really some of the 19 terrorists still alive. There are news reports that say yes. Even if it’s not true, why has the main stream media completely ignored these foreign news stories? Shouldn’t any reasonable person be suspicious about this? This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a reasonable question.

Is there a ISA CIA connection on funding of Atta? News reports say there is. That’s suspicious. Even if there is not any connection, why doesn’t anybody look into it? Shouldn’t any reasonable person be suspicious? Some kids in Florida have discovered more by talking to taxicab drivers than the investigators did. Why? The investigators didn’t ask the questions. “I would have told them, but they didn’t ask me about it.” Where have you heard that before? That is suspicious. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is a reasonable question.

Did the 911 commission really say that the people that funding 911 were irrelevant? That’s suspicious. It can’t possibly be true. But it is. Why won’t they track the money? Shouldn’t any reasonable person be suspicious about this? Do they want to find out who did it or not? This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a reasonable question.

Why don’t they release the tapes of the pentagon? That’s suspicious. Even if the tapes show everything exactly as they say, why don’t they release the tapes? Shouldn’t any reasonable person be suspicious? This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s a reasonable question.

Did the people that ran the 911 commission really say that they considered referring NORAD and the FCC to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution for lying to the commission? News reports say they did. That’s suspicious. Keen said that they did an internal investigation instead. Isn’t it reasonable to want to know what they lied about? Shouldn’t that make any reasonable person suspicious? This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s a reasonable question.

Are they really saying that they couldn’t track airplanes if the US was attacked by Russia, China and Cuba, because they airplanes could turn their transponders off? Shouldn’t that make any reasonable person suspicious? This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s a reasonable question.

Could an inexperienced pilot do the maneuver to hit the Pentagon like he did? Some pilots say that he couldn’t. That’s suspicious. Did the G-forces really exceed the limits of the airplane’s software? Some people say it did. This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s a reasonable question.

The Law of Allowing
Stuart Wilde
September 11th, 2006

In a world where everyone likes to insist they are right and people judge and interfere all the time, the law of allowing stands apart as a spiritual idea.

In essence, it says that we ought to live and let live and allow others whatever perspective they wish, even if one thinks that perspective is very wrong. The way to practice the law of allowing is to agree with people you don’t agree with

Watching the news in the US one can see how they pump their views relentlessly. Fox News for example is a crass propaganda show, it has very little to do with the impartial disseminating of the days’ events. The power of a TV show to influence people to accept evil war-like ideas is a great shame. It is a global fault of the western ego to think others have to be like us, and it is a part of your maturity to allow others to be different.

When you watch the ludicrous nature of Blair and Bush with his Redneck Reich insisting on democracy, it looks so much like the southern preachers on TV that offer hell and damnation to all that don’t agree. Democracy never did anything for workers in the west, it has been a terrible disappointment for the most part; all it ever gave us was crippling laws and various political shades of the Fat Controllers. Why does anyone think it might help the Iraqis? Daft…such silliness.

Wouldn’t it be great if the law of allowing was installed and people didn’t have to be ruled by democracy’s endless stream of psychopaths, and people could be allowed to rule themselves. That is a novel idea. Imagine being able to think of your own accord without some redneck bovver boy from Fox News telling you what’s what and what is permissible and what is not.

I have always seen spirituality and individuality as the same thing, the act of developing a new consciousness, one that is original, and then the law of allowing follows naturally, whereby you allow the same individuality and freedom to others. Allowing is benevolent and warm, while insisting is ugly and nasty. And when people have to conform to some silly politician, or to a religious idea then that is usually someone’s ego in the act of empire building, corralling sheep.

And while it may pleasure the ego of those involved in these power trips it’s not a spiritual idea, as the truly spiritual man or woman is not keen on entrapment and empire building, they want to see people as creative and free.

To become that way yourself you have to offer it to others, that is why the law of allowing is a sophisticated idea. Of course, the first beneficiary of your law of allowing must be yourself because, if you are controlling and vindictive towards yourself, you become your own Fat Controller with supreme power over your life.

In letting others free you allow yourself to become more free. Nice

©Stuart Wilde 2006

"Wild chimps reveal the natural contexts of territoriality, war, male
cooperation, solidarity and sharing, nepotism, sexism, xenophobia,
infanticide, murder, cannibalism, polygyny, and mating competition
between kin groups of males -- behaviors that have evolved through
sexual selection. Also significant is the fact that none of these apes
learned these violent behaviors by watching TV or by being victims of
socioeconomic handicaps -- poor schools, broken homes, bad fathers,
illegal drugs, easy weapons, or any other sociological condition. Nor
were these apes spurred to war by any political, religious, or
economic ideology or by the rhetoric of an insane demagogue. They also
were not seeking an 'identity' or buckling under peer pressure.
Instead, they were obeying instincts, coded in the male psyche,
dictating that they must win against other males."


THE DARK SIDE OF MAN: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence,
by Michael P. Ghiglieri; Perseus, 1999; p. 176

"Once I even told Mr. Asahara how I felt. 'Don't you think a lot of the people here are weird?' I asked. 'That's not true," he replied."

- Harumi Iwakura (on her experiences as a young woman renunciate in the Aum Shinrikyou cult)

"Willing too is merely an experience. It comes when it comes, and I cannot bring it about."

- Wittgenstein

The Torah specified that landowners could not harvest the corners of their fields, nor pick up the dropped grain, so that it could be used by the poor and the travelers.

'Let Every Breath ... Secrets of the Russian Breath Masters'
by Vladimir Vasiliev

Product Details

• Paperback: 125 pages
• Publisher: Russian Martial Art (April 17, 2006)
• ISBN: 0978104900
• Shipping Information: View shipping rates and policies
• average customer review: based on 5 reviews. (Write a review.)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #14,838 in Books (See Top Sellers in Books)

HEALTH - Want to keep your natural teeth into your golden years?

---

I've known this for years, but my family dentist backs it up with his hearty support. Use a homemade tooth powder made from a 50/50 mix of baking soda and table salt. I use sea salt but any granulated salt will do. Never used tooth powder before? It's easy. Just put a pinch on your palm and wet your toothbrush and push it down into the powder in your palm. Hold it there till the powder gets wet and then turn the toothbrush sideways so you can scrape all the wet powder onto the toothbrush bristles from your palm. It kind of makes a pile of wet powder on top of the bristles. Rinse your mouth and brush as usual.

My dentist tells me that you can brush much harder when using this 50/50 mix of baking soda and salt. In fact, he goes so far as to say that if you're not getting a bit of blood from your gums at each brushing, you're doing something wrong. Some of you might like to disagree with me and my dentist. But I'll be 47 years old this month and I still have all of my original teeth. I've been brushing with baking soda and salt powder for over 20 years now. The baking soda neutralizes the acids that eat away the protective layers of enamel from your teeth. And the salt acts as a soother and anti-bacterial rinse. Try it, you'll like it. And it's WAAAAY cheaper than commercial toothpaste and doesn't have that killer flouride in it. Just food for thought.

Edited to add:

Why use homemade tooth powder instead of colgate or some other commercial toothpaste? Well, commercial toothpastes do their cleaning with abrasives that actually wear away the enamel of your teeth over time. To be fair, some do and some don't. But why take the chance? Make your own tooth powder and don't give it another thought. Keep your natural smile for the rest of your natural life. Ever read the ingredient label on a commercial toothpaste?

__________________
Take only what you need from this world. Not everything you can get your hands on.