This painting used to be one of my absolute favorites.
It is a 19th Century work from George Esten Cooke.
It depicted far off lands, the thirst for adventure, and of course, the ships and the penguins.
However, perhaps I had too much excitement coming in, and I developed a superficial approach.
After closer inspection and of course reading on a few other sources, it clearly depicts the slaughter of the penguins. Therefore, I can no longer say it is an absolute favorite.
I still love the natural scenery depicted in art form.
Is there magic on a Summer's day afternoon? Is there a mystic nature to it all? There is that bittersweet moment when one gazes upon the Sunset, the mountains, the leaves blowing in the wind, and the grass under the coming twilight, and you can feel your lips almost utter the words.
"It is magical."
Then, as the years go by, and one withers onward into old age, a feeling of depth will live on the inside of the heart when that word is used. Was it really magical? Is there are any magic at all? Or is that beautiful sunset only the result of light waves and the neurology of the human brain? Did the magic ever exist?
Let us not forget that magic is a tool for the stories of long ago, but the spirit, now that is different. The connections of ideas from one to another. One human being with a mind on a plane of consciousness that is shared by all other minds. Each act of kindness can generate a form of positivism in another person's life.
Every time someone helps another human being out of selflessness, it is a drop in the ocean of goodness, and it is all part of a larger connection. Each idea is connected to all other ideas, for the abstract has no concrete limitations. Each possibility is an opportunity to share love with the word to put all of humanity in closer touch with the whole of the universe, in the physical and in the ideal.
This is not magic. This is not a miracle. This is the nature of humanity trying to align itself with the nature of the cosmos. To put the mind of the human in complete connection with the flow of water, the growing of the leaf, and the sharing of elements after a supernova. This is what human beings live for in our greatest depth. We have faith, but we also have fact. We have dreams, but we also have understanding. We have love, but we also have reasons for our love.
We want to know its origin. We want to know its value. We want to know it all. We want the far side of the universe to come to us and we want not to be down on our knees waiting, or with our hands in the air screaming.
We want to let our mind become one with all there is, material and formless. Every fiber of our being and every neurotransmitter that allows for us to have our imagination and fantasy can come together. For when all humans are together, as we always are, each idea leads us to a new one. All the collective ideas of humanity must not forget, that there were ideas before humans every walked on the Earth....existence, consciousness, omnipresence, limitlessness.
To call it magical is not enough. To call it mystical is not sufficient. Some call it the supreme. Some call it the divine. Some only call it love. When one gazes upon the sunset and the cool colors of the twilight, every idea of goodness that has ever existed has brought you to that moment of joy...It is not magic. It is something stronger and more beautiful.
The love of one human rarely reaches another. It almost feels as if love is projected from one person, but it does not land anywhere. It is lost in the wind. It is lost in the far corner of space. It is lost in a way that not even poetry can save. Maybe when love is projected, it was never projected outward. Perhaps too many of us on Earth, myself included, have only been projecting love inward. The love of one's self, has triumphed the love of any other.
When caressing the fur of a kitten or gazing upon the expansion of a growing leaf, there is a growing sign of love. Albert Einstein often spoke and wrote of a relentless sense of awe and amazement when looking upon the cosmos. Even to the point, that he proclaimed it as spiritual. Well, where is that that awe and amazement for the betterment of humanity and the betterment of the Earth? When we project love, let us also think of the purr of a kitten, the growing of a leaf, and the far side of the Universe.
It is up to us as humanity to project our own love outward. One can love oneself with ease, and perhaps also with comfort, yet to find a love for both the internal and the external requires a much larger plan in mind. The small acts of kindness can allow for a larger effect to take place. The small acts of tenderness might allow for the tiny plant to grow. If they are going to remind us that the mighty oak tree came from a small acorn. Then, we should always remind ourselves that within each one of us there is the power and capability to protect life.
As human beings we do not want to destroy, we want to extend care, compassion, and kindness. As human beings, we do not need to reserve love for only ourselves, we want love to be shared with as many as possible. As human beings we do not want to live in fear of betrayal, but we to live in our journey to success. Where is the destruction in success? It is a characteristic that can be avoided.
In the 21st Century, we no longer live in a world of mankind, but in humankind. We do not live under the law of All Men are Created Equal, but All Humans are Equal.
With each day forward, there is a new opportunity to share love, to show respect for the Earth and for all living things, plant, animal, microbe, and of course for other humans as well. One must love oneself to continue on the journey to success and prosperity, but success and prosperity must be achieved by projecting love outward to the others along the way.
There are not three branches of government. There are five....at least five anyway.
Of course, in America we have the executive, legislative, and judicial...but number four, and perhaps the most important is the electorate, the voters, the people who choose our leaders and representatives and put them into office.
Number five is the CIA, for the the actions of the CIA often go unexamined, and they have built a longstanding tradition of covert affairs...emphasis on the covert.
For more info on the CIA and their actions, one can look to the work of: John Stockwell - "In Search of Enemies" and "The Praetorian Guard" Jeremy Scahill - Article from the Nation on the CIA in Mogadishu Ralph McGehee - "Deadly Deceit" Bill Clinton - Interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace admitting that the CIA refused to certify basing rights in the Near East, so the U.S. military could go after Bin Laden prior to 9/11. John Perkins- "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" - with specific attention to a group that he calls the Jackals. These are people that receive outside orders to cause internal destruction and chaos within a government that does not play ball with the United States or the system of financial oligarchy. Aldo Moro- Italian Prime Minister who was murdered....Who killed Aldo Moro?
As for the the electorate. The citizens of any voting country are the largest branch of the government. They have the largest power to check and balance the system, yet at this time we need to give more power to the people. In nations like America we have term limits on the president, but where are the term limits on the senators and the representatives?
A man named William Cooper, became famous for his book "Behold a Pale Horse," but in an interview he makes a startling proposal.
Limit the terms of Congresspersons and Senators to one single term: 1. Six years for a Senator 2. Two years for a Congressperson. 3. You serve only once...one time in a person's life. The reasons for this are simple and the following: -It would create a constant revolving door of people from a state or district coming in and out of the political sphere. -It would eliminate career political candidates in the legislative branch. -The voters would always have new choices. -A candidate would NOT have to spend a single second of their term fundraising, and they could devote the entirety of their two years or six years to their work.
Two terms is too much. We are talking about 12 years in the Senate. This would take power away from the establishment politicians and restore it to the voters. With limits of one single term in the House and the Senate, we would have enormous amounts of power placed on those who vote and less on those who are choosing the nominations.
Let's open this for discussion:
Please leave a comment below,
Should congresspersons and senators have term limits?
If so, how many terms?
This is an old favorite. I was in the mood for hearing this one this morning. Erik Mongrain's instrumental performance of Fusions from the "Fates" album. always somehow seems to captivate audiences. You can also find him on Twitch.tv
Continuing onward with my discussion on the Lyndon LaRouche movement, and my first meeting with Tim from Leesburg, VA, a member of the LaRouche movement since the 1970's.
Unite the World, This includes the famous LandBridge across the Bering Strait, another LaRouche Plan.
A Reprint from my original post on LaRouche: Does Lyndon LaRouche hate the Jews?
During our discussion, I also had the opportunity to bring up certain popular challenges to the LaRouche movement.
One of the first things I ever asked Tim was about a famous conspiracy promulgated by Dennis King. When Lyndon LaRouche uses the word "British" it is a actually a code word for "Jewish."
I told Tim, I just have to ask because you know first hand....what is going on with that? Tim's response was simple. He stated that it was ridiculous, and it was just the result of throwing mud at teh wall. If you do it enough, some of it will stick. Many people who work with LaRouche are Jewish, and Tim even mentioned that his father is Jewish. He states with certainty that there is no ounce of anti-Jewish presence in the LaRouche movement.
Instead, when LaRouche uses the word "British" it not only refers to Great Britain, but also the financial and banking powers that are behind the British government and the former remnants of the British Empire. This statement was concurred by Daniel Pipes in an independent study.
New Material: Are LaRouche's Economic Plans Real?
I decided to press Tim about another topic of criticism that LaRouche has received.
A book by Hamilton with an appendix by LaRouche
LaRouche writes extensively about economics, but one critic online, whose name I have not been able to relocate stated that LaRouche's economic plan was a scam, and he followed a method.
1. Restructure 2. Repackage 3. Reshape. It is the equivalent of taking an apple. Cutting it into slices. Moving the pieces around, and them placing them back in their original order.
Tim was not impressed, and he stated clearly that he does not entertain such silly ideas. I confess, I use that line in defense when people make similar challenges to me in the past, so I respectfully withdrew.
As far as LaRouche's economic plans being real, I would say his second law of economic recovery has deep roots in the traditions of Alexander Hamilton, and the nationalization of the Federal Reserve or a central bank in the tradition of the 1st National Bank of the United States deserves a serious conversation.
I have started reading"The Vision of Alexander Hamilton," a book provided to me by Tim. All I can say is I am working on it, but the writing of Alexander Hamilton is dense. Believe it or not, I enjoyed the appendix section written by Lyndon LaRouche much more.
The Popularity of LaRouche Ideas:
Now at this time I asked an original question of my own, not from the internet. If the Lyndon LaRouche ideas have so much value in them, why are they not more popular?
Tim's response was that the media and culture have been slanted away from this type of thinking. He stated that during the 1960's the famous counterculture movement pushed people toward a way of thinking that was centered on the individual in a me,me,me fashion.
I replied, "but what about academia?" Tim assured me it was the same concept.
I would still propose that academics should have a responsibility to always try their best to be accurate. On a reddit page, someone wrote of Webster Tarpley's lecture for the LaRouche Movement and the Schiller Institute, "The Venetian Conspiracy" or "Betrand Russell: The Golem of Venice," stating that he knew Tarpley personally in Ph.D school, and that Tarpley had written his dissertation on a lot of the material mentioned in that lecture, but that a lot of additional material had been added for the LaRouche presentation. The commentator continued by saying "you can't make stuff up when you're dealing with people who know what they are talking about." Tarpley and LaRouche have different minds though, and those are some very specific historical details that they are disputing. It is difficult for the audience to tell.
Tim furthered by saying that there are intentional sabotage attempts made against LaRouche. After a meeting between LaRouche and the president of Mexico, Henry Kissinger was sent to Mexico delivering a message that if LaRouche ever had anymore contact with the Mexican government there would be consequences. Even in LaRouche's authobiography "The Power of Reason," it is mentioned that Henry Kissinger is a strong nemesis of LaRouche because Kissinger worked for the global elites, and LaRouche worked to bring new ideas to serve mankind.
This is compounded by something Tim told me, and it has also been printed in the LaRouchePAC materials that Kissinger stated in a speech in London that while he was working for the Nixon and Ford administrations, he kept the British more informed than he did the Americans. Henry Kissinger has been the result of many different conspiracy theories, but many of them relate to his involvement with the Rockefeller family, and his attempts to do the work for the powerful oligarchs and showing an indifference for human life. Kissinger disputes these allegations.
This video is part of a documentary where Henry Kissinger discusses Machiavelli and "The Prince." He does not discuss LaRouche in it. I just wanted to share something where Kissinger can give his side on why he is the way he is.
Sadly, I did not have time to ask Tim about some of the other conspiracies regarding the LaRouche movement,
Other Lyndon LaRouche Conspiracies:
1. such as the accusations that Lyndon LaRouche called the Queen of England a drug dealer.
2. that the Lyndon LaRouche movement operates as a cult.
3. that Lyndon LaRouche does not want to help mankind, but instead involved himself in a plot to take over the entire world.
I am sure that the response to all of these would be the same. There is intentional sabotage against LaRouche for wanting to bring about change in the world, the kind of change that would not benefit the financial elites but the ordinary and average citizens....the kind of change that would not benefit oligarchy and the banking cartels with their enormous reserves of power, but the individuals and the communities trying to live their day to day life.
Yesterday I sat down with Tim from the Lyndon LaRouche movement. Tim is based in Leesburg, and we met in Charles Town / Ranson, West Virginia. This was my first meeting with someone from the the Lyndon LaRouche movement. Prior to this, I'd say I have followed their material online for roughly 8 months.
My Connection:
I mentioned that I had heard of the LaRouche movement for years, as many have during his numerous presidential campaigns, but I rediscovered the Lyndon LaRouche Movement, the LaRouchePAC, and the LYM (LaRouche Youth Movement) because of content from Webster Tarpley.
I will include a video, so anyone can see something from Tarpley (something different from his LaRouche work that is). In 2014, I had been researching Zbigniew Brzezinski, and I first learned of Webster's work because of one of his lectures on Zbig. Thanks to the popularity of Alex Jones and Infowars, I found Webster Tarpley's videos on YouTube again, and I learned Webster had been with the LaRouche movement for decades.
I asked Tim if he knew Webster Tarpley personally, and he said yes. Then, I asked why he left the LaRouche movement, and Tim replied by saying that he wasn't entirely sure, but overtime, Webster drifted from the movement and preferred to have his name on the Marquis rather than keeping it about ideas.
The next person I inquired about was if Tim personally knew Jason Ross, or as I call him the incomparable Jason Ross. I am perhaps his biggest fan. I will include the first video I found of Jason Ross, and I will mention him in a future blog post more devoted to his work.
In this video, Jason is in the thumbnail on the left.
The Issues:
Now, moving onward to a discussion of the issues related to the LaRouche Movement.
Tim made an interesting comment that LaRouche might have written more words from his typewriter than any other writer presently alive, and my first impression of the LaRouche Movement was similar. Their platform is very detailed. On Wikipedia, you can find a quote from saying that LaRouche is the only candidate to make interpretations of Plato part of his presidential campaign.
One of the first things that is notable about this platform is that it is Platonic. The bullet points are not only bullet points, and the Tim explained (to paraphrase) that when political ideas are presented only in point by point commentary, they form into a closed and Aristotelian mold. The political points need to connect to larger expanding and limitless ideas in the Platonic Sense.
The Four Economic Laws of LaRouche, Provided to Me
Glass Steagall: (the Bretton Woods legislation that prevents investment banks from getting too large and powerful. The removal of Glass Steagall offered investment banks the same financial protections that are given to savings banks. Goldman Sachs could be treated the same way the as the bank on Main Street)
As for LaRouche's first law on Glass Steagall. Tim informed me that he had been part of a group that attended a Hillary Clinton Rally, and shouted her down to reinstate Glass Steagall. The audience wanted Hillary to say yes, she would reinstate it, but Hillary could not say so. Hillary Clinton was a pro-financier Wall Street candidate, but she's done for now.
For the second law, let's talk more about Nationalizing the Federal Reserve.
The Conspiracies:
For starters, the LaRouche movement hates Robert Mueller, as Mueller was involved with the Trial of Lyndon LaRouche, which sent him to jail for five years. They view Mueller's attempts to investigate Trump as a similar political establishment hit man.
This is quite different from Webster Tarpley and the Tax Wall Street Party, which endorses the work of the Mueller, calls for more investigation into Russiagate, and also wants to bring down Trump.
Does Lyndon LaRouche hate the Jews?
During our discussion, I also had the opportunity to bring up certain popular challenges to the LaRouche movement.
One of the first things I ever asked Tim was about a famous conspiracy promulgated by Dennis King. When Lyndon LaRouche uses the word "British" it is a actually a code word for "Jewish."
I told Tim, I just have to ask because you know first hand....what is going on with that? Tim's response was simple. He stated that it was ridiculous, and it was just the result of throwing mud at teh wall. If you do it enough, some of it will stick. Many people who work with LaRouche are Jewish, and Tim even mentioned that his father is Jewish. He states with certainty that there is no ounce of anti-Jewish presence in the LaRouche movement.
Instead, when LaRouche uses the word "British" it not only refers to Great Britain, but also the financial and banking powers that are behind the British government and the former remnants of the British Empire. This statement was concurred by Daniel Pipes.
I just realized this post is so enormous, I am going to have to divide it into two or three. I'll post an adjoining link here.
