Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM_hHFFCxng
["Then There Were Three (1961)"]
Later. And for a wartime, War Dept. WW2 documentary like few others for keeping your attention, and which we frankly can't pass up the opportunity to at least make mention of also:
"Operations On The Aircraft Carrier USS Yorktown (CV-10) 1944"
Among the very worst victims are children, young people, and animals who've been born within the last 30-20 years; in what has proved to be such a truly wretched, goatee and tattoo-ridden, soul-less, and miserable era as any ever lived through or witnessed (the gospels use the phrase "evil generation;" which seems appropriate here.) It is so touching: the poor child, the well-meaning young person, they want to do what's right; they want to do their fair share, be part of the family and help, to love and be loved -- but there's one problem. The world is predominantly owned by childish, irrational, irresponsible, and traitorous adults who feel it necessary to bow down to or otherwise answer to evil (as a means to money and seeming security); and so there is little or no proper caring, protection, and guidance for these innocents and young sorts. As a result, the latter might find themselves in overly dysfunctional homes, are malnourished (i.e., spiritually, morally, intellectually), corrupted, and grow up sick, warped and stunted. But at heart they are, or at least were, good; and we see their lives in many instances ruined and destroyed before our eyes.
Later. And for a wartime, War dept. WW2 documentary like few others for keeping your attention, and which we can't pass up the opportunity to at least mention: "Operations On The Aircraft Carrier USS Yorktown (CV-10) 1944"
The devil quotes scripture to you, perhaps at some point accompanies his doing so with a heavenly vision of some kind. His meaning and message proves and seems all too relevant and applicable to you; perhaps is prophetic in character; indeed, taken by itself his message may, in some measure, be the truth (it is by no means strictly necessary that the devil lie always.) Therefore you think he is not the devil, and come to trust him. What then now can save you from being fooled in future?
When do hoodlums help people? When they say they are helping people. And if you don't think they are, then obviously you must be against or do not want people being helped (and for which naturally you deserve to be punished.)
Wonder not who (at one time or other and over the course of all recorded history) has been taken over and successfully impersonated by them, but rather "who hasn't?"
The same people who, not long since, put on the ballot (in Washington state) a bill permitting the selling of liquor by grocery and convenience stores and the closing of state liquor shops were the same ones who ran the most outspoken tv and internet ad campaign against the measure.*
Now we hear of from the monopolists who control the internet (Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Face Book, Board Game Geek, Matrix Games, etc.) a protest against U.S. House Resolution 3261: "Stop Online Piracy Act;" which it is said is a threat to free speech on the net. And whom do they state or imply is to blame? The United States government.
Yeah right. Why do they do it? Because they are idle, want attention, desire that others think they represent everyone, but also to conceal their own culpability by seeming to be in the front ranks of those opposed to the very criminality and bullying they, more than anyone else, are guilty of.
* Later. They are not currently showing on YouTube, but for the pertinent SCTV episodes:
Fudd, Sweat, and Tears
Let's face it, and although the phenomena is no means one that is new or unprecedented, there are extremely powerful business and criminal interests which the U.S. government simply can and or will not ever investigate or prosecute. Take for example the monopoly of Hollywood and the mass media, including home computers. Now it is my contention, as you know, that such malefactors are so endowed with clout and exorbitant, indeed absurd, wealth due to their ties with criminal spirit people. It might seem than that given how things are criminal spirit people don't necessarily need to overthrow the United States government, given the latter's complaisance and de facto surrender. And yet this would be a mistaken inference; because the existence of the United States poses the problem of classifying criminal spirit people as illegal aliens, and who have therefore no rights to either be present or hold property as domestics in the United States. However, if the United States government did not exist, there would be no one left to dispute or leave a cloud over these rights and privileges they illegally already assume. Ultimately then the United States must go; for the inherent conflict of interests must sooner or later reach a point where it is either it or them.
Dare we now and at last finally say it? Thanks a lot evil magician and dumbbell billionaire for ruining life for every one.
I love animals, but I never much especially cared for real-life animal tv shows, like "Lassie," "Gentle Ben," and "Flipper;" where the animal is supposed to be the main star; because I always felt sorry for them having to be in whatever it was. "Flipper," however, with its seaside, sand and surf ambience, did have a nice feel to it (an "Ivan Tors Production") -- and what a theme song! (Though here jazzed up from the usual version aired.)
["FLIPPER INTRO"]
Assassination -- new and improved. At least that is what this sounds like, doesn't it? Note how Edwards himself has no need to get a word in in all this. (This comes from http://news.yahoo.com/john-edwards-broken-heart-200738068.html)
"John Edwards Has a Broken Heart
By Adam Clark Estes | The Atlantic Wire – Fri, Jan 13, 2012
"Following the news that John Edwards' lawyers requested yet another delay to his trial due to a mysterious illness, a federal judge revealed the former vice presidential candidate's diagnosis: a 'life threatening' heart condition that requires surgery. Edwards faces six felony and misdemeanor charges related to shady campaign donations, and while the original reports of Edwards' condition drew skepticism over the former presidential candidate delaying his day in court -- the National Enquirer even published an exclusive on 'John Edwards' Heart Attack Drama' in December -- the details check out. Two cardiologists submitted letters in tandem with a request from Edwards' lawyers for 60 more days before the trial. The judge approved the request of Friday and as long as there are no complications during the surgery, Edwards will appear in court on March 26."
Say not it is I who am afraid to face Satan; say, rather, it is Satan who is afraid to face me. (Oh would that we could skip all the nonsense of his minions and for once and at last face and confront their master!)
...Now the entire Word of God, who was in the beginning with God, is not much speaking, is not words; for the Word is one, being composed of the many speculations (theoremata), each of which is a part of the Word in its entirety. Whatever words there be outside of this one, which promise to give any description and exposition, even though they be words about truth, none of these, to put it in a somewhat paradoxical way, is Word or Reason, they are all words or reasons. They are not the monad, far from it; they are not that which agrees and is one in itself, by their inner divisions and conflicts unity has departed from them, they have become numbers, perhaps infinite numbers. We are obliged, therefore, to say that whoever speaks that which is foreign to religion is using many words, while he who speaks the words of truth, even should he go over the whole field and omit nothing, is always speaking the one word. Nor are the saints guilty of much speaking, since they always have the aim in view which is connected with the one word. It appears, then, that the much speaking which is condemned is judged to be so rather from the nature of the views propounded, than from the number of the words pronounced. Let us see if we cannot conclude in the same way that all the sacred books are one book, but that those outside are the “many books” of the preacher. The proof of this must be drawn from Holy Scripture, and it will be most satisfactorily established if I am able to show that it is not only one book, taking the word now in its commoner meaning, that we find to be written about Christ. Christ is written about even in the Pentateuch; He is spoken of in each of the Prophets, and in the Psalms, and, in a word, as the Saviour Himself says, in all the Scriptures. He refers us to them all, when He says: [John 5:39] “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think you have eternal life, and these are they which testify of Me.” And if He refers us to the Scriptures as testifying of Him, it is not to one that He sends us, to the exclusion of another, but to all that speak of Him, those which, in the Psalms, He calls the chapter of the book, saying, “In the chapter of the book it is written of Me.” If any one proposes to take these words, “In the chapter of the book it is written of Me,” literally, and to apply them to this or that special passage where Christ is spoken of, let him tell us on what principle he warrants his preference for one book over another. If any one supposes that we are doing something of this kind ourselves, and applying the words in question to the book of Psalms, we deny that we do so, and we would urge that in that case the words should have been, “In this book it is written of Me.” But He speaks of all the books as one chapter, thus summing up in one all that is spoken of Christ for our instruction. In fact the book was seen by John, [Revelation 5:1-5] “written within and without, and sealed; and no one could open it to read it, and to loose the seals thereof, but the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, who has the key of David, [Revelation 3:7] he that opens and none shall shut, and that shuts and none shall open.” For the book here spoken of means the whole of Scripture; and it is written within (lit. in front), on account of the meaning which is obvious, and on the back, on account of its remoter and spiritual sense. Observe, in addition to this, if a proof that the sacred writings are one book, and those of an opposite character many, may not be found in the fact that there is one book of the living from which those who have proved unworthy to be in it are blotted out, as it is written: “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living,” while of those who are to undergo the judgment, there are books in the plural, as Daniel says: [Daniel 7:10] “The judgment was set, and the books were opened.” But Moses also bears witness to the unity of the sacred book, when he says: [Exodus 32:32] “If Thou forgive the people their sins, forgive, but if not, then wipe me out of the book which You have written.” The passage in Isaiah, too, I read in the same way. It is not peculiar to his prophecy that the words of the book should be sealed, and should neither be read by him who does not know letters, because he is ignorant of letters, nor by him who is learned, because the book is sealed. This is true of every writing, for every written work needs the reason (Logos) which closed it to open it.
~ Origen (185-232 A.D.), Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book V
Another one of those 80's flackbacks (that keeps coming back.)
["Taylor Dayne - Tell It To My Heart"]
It is disingenuous and self-contradictory to say philosophy is esoteric when any given person with any kind of opinion engages in or utilizes one philosophy or other on some level; whether that philosophy be rational, semi-rational, or chiefly irrational (no one, you will find, escapes reason entirely.) What rather is usually objected to is discourse or discussing philosophy. And yet will those who reject philosophical discourse and discussion ever desist from speaking themselves and having themselves heard? Of course in practice they do not; as long, at least, as the philosophy in question harmonizes or is identical with their own. So that what those who supposedly dismiss philosophy as irrelevant really mean to say is that others, who profess to be "lovers of wisdom," do not accept or communicate philosophy the way they themselves do.
