Red, blue & Yellow:
What are the six emotions?
They are frontline like, dislike and the secondary sadness, hurt, confusion (uncertainty, turmoil) and fear.
Whatever the fanciful different names people give to their emotions or emotive actions, they can be examined and reduced to only these five emotions.
WHEN A BEING’S MENTAL FORCE IS STIRRING ATTRACTIVELY HE EXPERIENCES LIKE.
WHEN A BEING’S MENTAL FORCE IS STIRRING REPULSIVELY HE EXPERIENCES DISLIKE.
WHEN A BEING’S MENTAL FORCE IS STIRRING IN SPEED AND STRENGTH IN A DISORGANISED FASHION HE EXPERIENCES UNCERTAINTY OR HESITANCY OR CONFUSION OR DISTRESS OR TURMOIL.
WHEN A BEING’S MENTAL FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF THAT IS THE DRIVE OF ALL HIS ACTIVITIES IS ACCELERATING IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OUT OF CONTROL OR SHIELDING OF HIS FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION HE EXPERIENCES HURT.
WHEN A BEING’S MENTAL FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF THAT IS THE DRIVE OF ALL HIS ACTIVITIES IS PROLONGING OUT OF CONTROL OR SHIELDING OF HIS FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION HE EXPERIENCES SADNESS.
WHEN A PERSON’S MENTAL FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF SUDDENLY COLLAPSES IN SPEED AND STRENGTH TO ALLOW THE OPPOSING MENTAL FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION TO RISE IN SPEED AND STRENGTH, THE PERSON EXPERIENCES FEAR THAT ALWAYS PULLS HIM AWAY FROM WHAT HE IS DOING TO RUN AWAY.
Malaysia’s Khairy Jamaluddin elected UMNO Youth chief:
Quote: Singapore’s newsAsia headline: Malaysia’s Khairy Jamaluddin elected UMNO Youth chief.
If it is not Malaysia’s Khairy, what other nation’s Khairy could be the new UMNO chief?
IT REFLECTS THAT THE PERSON’S SPEECH IS REHASHED STANDARDIZED THAT THE PERSON SOMNOLENTLY APPLIES NOT REALIZING THE ABSURDITY OF WHAT IS STATED.
IF YOU ARE REHASHING YOU WILL BE FOUND WANTING IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS WHEN WHAT IS REHASHED DOES NOT FIT THE SITUATION AND SOMETIMES YOU MAY EVEN PAY WITH YOUR LIFE WHAT YOU DISHONESTLY REHASHED TO FIT THE SITUATION.
IN MANY SITUATIONS, SAYING MALAYSIA’S XXX WAS ELECTED TO BE YYY WILL BE APPROPRIATE AND OTHERS THINK IT IS NOT REHASHED BUT THE STANDARDIZED ‘MALAYSIA’S XXX’ IN THIS CASE IS REDUNDANT BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE A MALAYSIAN WHO IS APPOINTED UMNO CHIEF. THIS COMES ABOUT BECAUSE WHAT IS SAID IS BY ROTE OR REHASHED ACCORDING TO A STANDARD FORMAT THAT DOES NOT APPLY OR IS INAPPROPRIATE HERE.
Rehashing is cheating:
Even if you are unaware you are rehashing, if you are rehashing, you are dishonestly cheating, regurgitating what is standardized intended for many different situations that have something in common for the occasion at hand.
Thus as a journalist in international affairs you are trained to prefix the person with his nationality so that people know from which country he comes from. This is a rigid rule that robots apply but they can be caught out.
It is appropriate to say Malaysia’s Khairy has been appointed UN youth chief but is odd or makes no sense to say Malaysia’s Khairy is elected head of Malaysia’s UMNO youth.
THUS THERE MAY BE AN UNCONSCIOUS RULE IN THE PERSON’S HEAD THAT ORDERS HIM TO ALWAYS STATE THE PERSON’S NATIONALITY TO IDENTIFY HIM BUT LIKE ALL RULES THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS AND IN THIS CASE, HE SHOULD SAY MINDFULLY FOR THE OCCASION THAT ‘KHAIRY ELECTED MALAYSIA’S UMNO YOUTH CHIEF’ NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.
All twisted up:
They and you may not realize that their postures are unnatural, fabricated with much stress to look stylish or attract attention or desire but if the postures they put their bodies are unnecessary, unnatural, stressful, they are all headed for insanity no matter how they or you insist it is meaningful.
Whenever a person puts his or her muscles to work, as in fabricating the postures above, it can be meaningful as when you use your muscles to cut and cook vegetables that result on a meal or it can be meaningless, no useful work is done and it just for show to stir emotion or like or attraction or lust in others.
And work is being done here because in order to bend the body or neck or head to one side you must work to contract muscles on one side whilst the muscles on the opposite side is subject to strain by being stretched.
A BENT OR CURVED BODY PART IS NEVER FREE BUT REQUIRES MUSCULAR WORK TO PULL THE BODY PART (EG FINGER) TO ONE SIDE WHILST THE MUSCLES ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE IS PAINFULLY STRETCHED TO PERMIT BENDING.
THUS THE MOST NEUTRAL POSITION FOR A JOINT IS ALWAYS STRAIGHT AND WORK IS REQUIRED, ENERGY CONSUMED TO BEND A JOINT.
Thus if you bend many joints of your body perhaps in imitation of others to adopt a posture you think is charming or sexy, you are doing work and if the work achieves no meaningful result you are doing what is meaningless (for show to impress or please is not a genuine but false meaning) and no matter how you cannot see it is meaningless or you insist it is meaningful even deep and profound, you are courting and will get future insanity.
AS THE BUDDHA SAID, SINGING IS CRYING AND DANCING IS INSANITY. YOU MAY DISAGREE BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE RIGHT AND THE BUDDHA WRONG. HE MAY BE RIGHT AND YOU, DEAD WRONG.
The correct or proper way to say it is US exports have been affected or declined.
US exports is not a physical object that can take a hit and nothing has hit it except in your fabrication in order to bring force into the picture where none exists in reality.
IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT BUT EMOTIONAL, FORCEFUL PEOPLE HAVE A PREDILECTION FOR WORDS THAT CONVEY FORCE AND BECAUSE FORCE IS NOT INVOLVED, THEY ARE TRAINING THEMSELVES IN FALSE PERCEPTION THAT EXPORTS HAVE TAKEN A HIT THAT WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION THEY AND YOU CANNOT BELIEVE.
The purpose, conscious or unconscious in speaking of taking a hit is to stir emotion in others and that belies the meaning of what is said.
Look, look, look!
Many golfers maintain their pose with their raised clubs in a completed stroke because they have the false perception it is impressive and they want others to see and admire or drool over their accomplished strokes which is nothing more than consistent rehash of an effective golf stroke.
The posture he is maintaining is a plan and he is using force to prolong or maintain his pose longer than necessary in the name of impressing himself and others. Because it is meaningless, for show, he is wasting his time and energy and practicing controlled insanity that will end in uncontrolled insanity.
NOT ONLY DO PEOPLE BOAST OR SHOW OFF, THEY DENY THEY SHOW OFF AND INSIST THAT WHAT THEY DO IS FULL OF MEANING AND NECESSARY AS A RESULT OF WHICH THEY NOW CANNOT SEE THEIR OWN DECEIT.
IN TRUTH HIS SWING HAS STYLE, IS NOT WITHOUT STYLE, HE DOES NOT NEED TO SWING IN SUCH AN EXTENDED ARC THAT HIS HANDS ARE BEHIND HIS BACK BUT HE EXAGGERATES HIS SWING TO BE MORE IMPRESSIVE.
THERE IS STYLE IN GOLFERS’ SWING AND IT CONSUMES MORE ENERGY WASTEFULLY THAN THE SUBSTANCE OF THEIR SWINGS. YOU WANT TO HIT THE BALL STRAIGHT AND LONG, IF YOU CAN CUT OUT THE WASTEFUL STYLE AND CHANNEL ALL THE FORCE INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SWING, YOU WILL BE A BETTER GOLFER. THE TROUBLE IS ALL GOLFERS ARE HOPELESSLY HOOKED ON STYLE, THEY IDENTIFY WITH THEIR STYLES THAT DIFFER FROM OTHERS THAT THEY BELIEVE IN DELUSION IS SUPERIOR WHEN IT IS WASTEFUL AND DETRACTS FROM THE MATTER OF HITTING THE BALL STRAIGHT AND LONG.
What he wants you to do is ‘look, look, look, admire me’ but he never tells his audience that and so he is a man who does say what he means (that he wants to be admired). A person who hits the ball without style does not want to be admired and so he means what he does when he hits the ball and that is to get the ball to where he wants it and nothing more.
Not just fabricating but prolonging:
The look on his face can be classified as a frown or dislike with naked aggression or forcefulness and it is intended to intimidate to get what he wants.
Not only is he fabricating an expression to radiate force but he is using force to maintain that expression longer than necessary because it is intended to intimidate and the longer you prolong the more likely are you to achieve your nefarious objective.
The expression on his face is a plan and no reason or understanding is needed, it can be copied from others and all you do is supply force to your facial muscles in a sustained or prolonged fashion to maintain that expression.
His expression on his face is a fabrication that can be copied from others like his parents. On top of fabricating, he is using force to extend or prolong his expression that is meant to be seen to intimidate, to tell others he is angry or nasty, back off.
WHAT IS THE EXPENSIVE PRICE OF USING FORCE TO PROLONG, AS HE IS DOING?
THE EXPENSIVE PRICE IS SADNESS THAT DESCENDS TO DARK DEPRESSION.
IF YOU MUST USE FORCE TO PROLONG POSES, EXPRESSIONS, ACTIONS (EG SUSPENDING YOUR ARMS AND TORSO AS YOU WATCH AND WANT OTHERS TO WATCH YOUR ‘BEAUTIFULLY’ EXECUTED SHOT), YOU MUST SUFFER FROM SADNESS THAT INTENSIFIES AND DESCENDS INTO DEPRESSION THAT IS NEVER FUN BUT EVEN ‘UNBEARABLE’ TORMENT.
I SAY THE USE OF FORCE TO PROLONG THAT IS OCCURRING CONSTANTLY IN STYLISH PEOPLE IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF SADNESS THAT IS CONTROLLED TORMENT THAT WILL END IN LOSS OF CONTROL. THE MINDFUL ATTENTION AVOIDANCE OF USING FORCE TO PROLONG EG BY NOT STRETCHING SYLLABLES IS THE ONLY FREE CURE FROM ALL SADNESS.
IF YOU REFUTE WHAT I SAY THEN TELL ME WHAT IS THE NATURE OF SADNESS THAT YOU EXPERIENCE?
Aaaiiieeeee!!!
No matter if you are a child, if you scream you must use force to prolong what you scream.
The substance or plan of the scream, “Aaaaiiiieeee!!!!” is just ‘Aie!’ but the fool uses force to stretch out the syllables to irritate others and harm his own mind and it is this use of force that is the root of sadness that will conditioning becomes intense to descend into depression.
People don’t scold another, “bitch!” they say with venom and stretching, “BBeeeeiiiitttccchhhh!!!!” and that is using force to prolong that is the path to sadness.
She too is prolonging:
She is not just fabricating a smile that admirers tells her or implies to her is gorgeous but she is unknowingly using force to prolong her smile more than is necessary so that others have more time to admire her ‘gorgeous’ smile which is nothing more than a confident or consistent orchestrated exercising of muscles of her face with accelerating speed and strength of force according to a plan in her mental jukebox and therefore she is a robot headed for robot failure.
WHOEVER YOU ARE, WHETHER YOU KNOW YOU ARE DOING IT OR NOT, SO LONG AS YOU USE FORCE TO PROLONG WHATEVER POSTURES, EXPRESSION, SYLLABLE OR UNIT OF MOTION, YOU ARE DOING WHAT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY AND CONDITIONING YOURSELF TO BE SAD THAT WILL END IN TORMENT.
People mourned the assassination of a president who was perceived as good but if these stories are true then he is far from innocent and his assassination was not that of an innocent man but a man with a lot of karma.
JFK'S INSATIABLE LUST
Saturday March 28,2009
Paul Callan
IT WAS late on the evening of October 15, 1962, and the world was tottering like a drunken acrobat on the very edge of nuclear war.
In the cabinet room at the White House, President Kennedy and his aides were crowding around maps that proved, without any doubt, that Russia had sent missiles to Cuba.
Kennedy’s face was dark with worry. Then suddenly he noticed that a very pretty brunette secretary had walked into the room. Ignoring for the moment the fact that the planet might soon be plunged into Armageddon, he turned to whisper to an aide.
“Get me her name and number,” he said. “We may avert war tonight and I shall badly need some R&R.”
For those close to the President, this was a far-from-unusual request. He would frequently seek sexual relief from attractive women working in the White House, particularly when he was feeling stressed. His compulsive womanising was one of America’s best-kept secrets and he knew the compliant White House press corps would never infringe on his privacy. Only in recent years has the extent of his lustful adventuring become public.
Had the mainstream press revealed this at the time, there can be little doubt that his presidency would have fallen. The puritanical, Bible-quoting American Midwest would have risen up in moral fury.
As a young man, Kennedy pursued many women to satiate his desires. This week Lisa Lanett, now 87, has claimed that he had fathered a child with her during the Second World War. Kennedy was then a young naval officer and even offered to marry Ms Lanett when she became pregnant. But she turned him down.
At the time, Kennedy was recovering from back surgery, having been injured injured when his torpedo boat was rammed by a Japanese cruiser. The injury, painful as it was, does not appear to have affected his sex life.
Also, Ms Lanett claims that Kennedy paid for their son’s education at a private school near New York. He is now a 63-year-old retired art dealer living in California.
In later years Kennedy would even become disarmingly open about his lust. On one occasion, while walking on a gentle English summer’s evening with Prime Minister Harold Macmillan around the perfectly trimmed lawns of Chequers, the President suddenly said: “Do you know, Harold, if I don’t have sex every three days I get a goddamn headache.”
Macmillan apparently nodded gravely, smiled and then (with smooth aplomb) returned to talking about the problems facing the Third World.
All close to Kennedy had always known about his womanising and, in retrospect, it seems amazing that it was never made public. He continued to enjoy brief encounters, took mind-boggling risks and was not bothered that some of the fringe press had started gossiping about his sex life.
Cleverly, he surrounded himself with favoured journalists, men and women he could trust, and the question of his extracurricular activities was not even raised.
The only time he became concerned the “trusted” press might be forced to start questioning his escapades came when some gossip sheets carried hints about his affair with Marilyn Monroe. He summoned a former journalist William Haddad and demanded: “See the editors. Tell them you are speaking from me and that it’s just not true.”
He also enlisted the help of his brother-in-law, the actor Peter Lawford, who was told to dismiss the allegations as “garbage”. For once Kennedy realised that no good could come to his presidency if it became public that he was having an affair with someone as famous, promiscuous and mentally unbalanced as Monroe.
He was worried that he would experience some fallout from the 1963 John Profumo scandal in Britain, when the war minister shared mistress Christine Keeler with a Russian defence attaché.
One newspaper, the respected but now defunct New York Journal American, published a story about a “high elected American official” and a New York prostitute called Suzy Chang. She lived in Britain and was said to be part of the Keeler ring of girls. Worryingly for JFK, she also claimed to have slept with him when he was a senator. Kennedy’s brother Bobby, then attorney general, was called in and the story was promptly killed.
But the most troubling liaison and one closely investigated by the Kennedy clan-hating FBI chief J Edgar Hoover was when the President had been sleeping with a call girl Ellen Rometsch. This dark-haired beauty – an Elizabeth Taylor look-alike – had fled communist East Germany where, according to the FBI, she had not only belonged to communist youth groups but had also been a secretary to Walter Ulbricht, the country’s fanatical leader.
In the spring of 1963 Rometsch was said to have made “repeated visits” for sex with Kennedy at the White House and also had attended his notorious naked pool parties.
Brother Bobby was again called in to make sure that nothing leaked out. Had it been made public JFK’s chances of winning the 1964 presidential election (had he lived) could have been severely threatened. Bobby arranged for Rometsch to be deported and, once again, Kennedy money was used to buy silence.
Kennedy would boast about his burning ambition – to bed every woman in Hollywood. To a certain extent, he achieved this goal. Those he seduced included actresses Janet Leigh, Kim Novak, Jayne Mansfield and, a particular favourite, Angie Dickinson.
But he was just as happy to have sex with secretaries, prostitutes who were smuggled into the White House, and even close friends of his wife, Jackie. He lacked all self-restraint and, just a few hours after uttering the words that had galvanised the nation during his inaugural address – “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” – he was partying in Washington and shouting: “Where are the broads?”
HE also had an affair with a teenage White House intern, who according to historian Robert Dallek, in his biography of Kennedy, An Unfinished Life, had only the barest of qualifications. “She had no skills. She could answer the phone. But apparently her main skill was to provide sexual relief for JFK on trips and maybe in the White House.”
One of his more dangerous liaisons was with a highly attractive brunette Judith Exner, who became his mistress. On February 7, 1960, Kennedy’s close friend, the singer Frank Sinatra, introduced Miss Exner to JFK in a Las Vegas club. Kennedy was still a senator but had become a presidential candidate.
What made Exner dangerous, particularly in the eyes of the FBI, was that she was also mistress to mafia chief, Sam Giancana. The FBI had her followed and recorded her calls from Giancana’s home to Kennedy. Their affair ended in 1962 when FBI agents informed a now frightened Kennedy of their knowledge of the relationship.
In a Vanity Fair interview in 1996, Exner claimed that she ended the affair with Kennedy because she became tired of being the other woman. She claimed to have had Kennedy’s child aborted and even asserted to have carried pay-offs from Californian defence contractors to the Kennedys.
Later, in an interview with People magazine, Exner claimed that she took messages from Sam Giancana during the 1960 presidential election and passed them on to Kennedy.
Kennedy’s most controversial affair was with Marilyn Monroe. Mystery still surrounds her death and there is speculation about whether she was murdered on the orders of the Kennedys because she was becoming a public threat or being deeply troubled as she was, just took her own life.
Whatever the truth these stories of insatiable lust and sexual risk-taking – now public knowledge – have failed to damage Kennedy’s golden image. His assassination wiped the moral slate clean.
Today, it would be impossible for a US president to behave with such abandon. The media, including the all-seeing internet, is everywhere. President Bill Clinton, whose lustful shenanigans were very modest compared with those of the romping Kennedy, discovered that to his cost.This week’s claim that a 63-year-old man is his secret love child is hardly the first evidence of John F Kennedy’s compulsive womanising. But the terrible risks he took to satisfy his lust were covered up during his time in office
JFK was not a good man and thus president:
JFK was not a good man and thus president and by extension his family too.
If you think despite his sexual philandering he was nevertheless a capable and good president then you have wrong view that is not in accord with what Jesus said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit and what the Buddha said that a man of no integrity (in his sexual conduct) is a man of no integrity in everything he does. You will have to proffer excuses to reconcile his official goodness and his private sexual misconduct that is the practice of false logic that leads to mad logic that what is false is true.
When to renege on a promise:
Dr M made an appearance at the UMNO general assembly after reneging on his decision to quit the party not realizing even here he is creating serious karma for himself. He can give reasons that he was emotional or angry when he quit the party and now the source of anger is no longer there or it was others who begged him to return, he did not return on his own but these are excuses.
As a result of breaking his decision to quit, he is conditioning himself to doubt and uncertainty that is the path to future woe according to the Buddha and he has converted himself into a man of no integrity who reverses what he said he will do.
WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS WHERE A PERSON MIGHT GO BACK ON HIS DECISIONS AND NOT INCUR KARMA?
IF HIS PREVIOUS COURSE OF ACTION THAT HE DECIDED IS HARMFUL TO SELF AND OTHERS AND HIS CHANGED COURSE OF ACTION IS BENEFICIAL TO SELF AND OTHERS THEN HE IS RIGHT TO GO AGAINST HIMSELF. IF HIS NEW COURSE OF ACTION IS ALSO HARMFUL TO SELF AND OTHERS THEN HE IS A FOOLISH MAN UNNECESSARILY CHANGING COURSE THAT BONDS HIM TO DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY WHILST SETTING HIMSELF FOR PUNISHMENT FOR BREAKING HIS WORD.
BECAUSE MOST IF NOT ALL THE ACTIONS OF MEN THAT GO AGAINST THEIR PREVIOUS UNDERTAKING ARE ALSO UNWHOLESOME, THEIR BREAKING THEIR PROMISES INCURS THEM ADDITIONAL KARMA.
You or Dr M may say that he quit the party earlier because he was angry, upset and now he is not angry or the source of his anger is no longer there and therefore he is right to rejoin but that is foolish talk.
IF YOU SAY YOUR QUITTING IS DUE TO ANGER, A PROXY OF MENTAL FORCE, BECAUSE YOUR MENTAL FORCE STIRRED REPULSIVELY, YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT YOU BASE YOUR ACTIONS ON BLIND FORCE NOT REASON AND THAT IS THE RECIPE FOR DISASTER FOR YOURSELF AND OTHERS.
People who think that although they sometimes based their actions and speech on emotions (proxies of force), by and large they often make decisions on genuine reason may be kidding themselves because it is force directly or programmed logic, rehashed false command or instructional (tells him what to do) logic that is the source.
The Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect:
Jesus: Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43* * But know this, that if the householder had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have watched and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.
Scientific expectation is that global disaster will occur many decades into the future and because human expectations will be wrong, disaster will occur earlier even much earlier than projection if what Jesus said is true that he is coming at an hour you do not expect that must precede not succeed the hour of doom expected by men.
Earth hour is for show, useless:
Major global landmarks are plunged into darkness as millions switch off lights for an hour to protest against climate change.
Not only is earth hour, switching off lights for one hour is useless, does not achieve anything meaningful, will not arrest the plunge of the earth into future catastrophe that may far sooner than you expect (Jesus said He will come at an hour you do not expect) it may be dangerous, the sudden switching off of lights at night can cause crashes or robberies.
THUS IT REFLECTS MANKIND ARE DELUDED, EVEN THOSE WHO ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONCERNED ARE DELUDED, BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE. THEY MAY ARGUE THAT THE PUBLICITY MAY PROMOTE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSE BUT THAT MEANS IT IS FOR SHOW, TO ATTRACT ATTENTION.
THE ONLY TRUE PURPOSE FOR SWITCHING OFF LIGHTS IS BECAUSE YOU WANT DARKNESS OR YOU DO NOT NEED THE LIGHTS ANYMORE. IF YOUR PURPOSE OF SWITCHING OFF LIGHTS IS NOT THAT BUT TO ATTRACT ATTENTION, TO PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES, THEN IT IS FOR SHOW AND YOU ARE PRACTICING MADNESS, SOMETHING USELESS AND YOU HAVE FALSE PERCEPTION THAT SWITCHING OFF LIGHTS WILL LEAD TO CONSERVATION.
Cajoling others to change minds:
People are cajoling others to change their minds even frivolously without awareness they are doing so and often thinking they are doing good when they are creating deadly karma for themselves.
For instance when someone has declined food offered they insist, “Take, take, take!”, “Eat lah, try it, it is good” when the person has declined.
Again someone has declined to go out and they question him or her, “Why stay at home, so boring, go out lah!”. “Are you sure you want to buy that clothes?”
IF SOMEONE HAS MADE A DECISION, YOU ARE A FOOL TO INTERVENE, TO TRY EVEN FORCIBLY TRY TO CHANGE HIS MIND BECAUSE YOU ARE CREATING PAINFUL KARMA FOR YOURSELF MAKING OTHERS GO BACK ON THEMSELVES CREATING CONFLICT. YOU ARE HEADED FOR WOE BY FOSTERING CONFLICT AND YOU ARE PERSECUTING OTHERS NOT BENEFITING THEM.
Dumbest criminal picks police convention:
A man in the US state of Pennsylvania accused of a robbery at a narcotics police convention has been described as probably the state's dumbest criminal.
This is a false or unwarranted statement designed to make others laugh at the criminal’s foolishness or express indignation on the part of the police for being targeted.
What has the criminal’s dumbness or smartness got to do with targeting the police convention? Police can be quite dumb and incompetent and corrupt too, so what is so special about them? There are many experts in many fields including medicine, security and government who are incompetent so just because police are supposed to be experts at beating crime does not mean they themselves are not criminals and dumb too.
It may have been a mistake, he did not specifically target police but he did not check that the convention was a police convention.
IT MAY BE TRUE HE IS DUMB BUT JUST BECAUSE HE ROBBED THE POLICE DOES NOT MEAN HE IS MOST DUMB AND RATHER THAN BEING DUMB, HE MAY NOT HAVE DONE HIS HOMEWORK PROPERLY, DID NOT REALIZE IT WAS A POLICE CONVENTION GOING ON.
WHAT IS SAID IS NOT HARMLESS BUT BECAUSE HE SAID IT WITHOUT VERIFYING IT IS TRUE (THAT THIS CRIMINAL IS MOST DUMB), IN HIS HASTE TO MAKE OTHERS LAUGH, HE IS COURTING FALSE PERCEPTION AND LOGIC THAT WHAT IS NOT TRUE, MAY NOT BE TRUE, IS TRUE. YOU THINK WHAT YOU SAY IS FUNNY, WHEN YOU FINALLY TURN MAD, YOU FIND IT FUNNY AT ALL. YOU ARE TRYING TO TELL ME THAT YOU MUST BE MOST DUMB TO ROB POLICEMEN? WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT THEM? YOU CAN MAKE A CASE THAT IT IS EVEN DUMBER ROBBING THE MAFIA.
Why earth hour is a gimmick:
Earth hour is a gimmick or it is meaningless or for show. Why is that so?
Supposed you spent $100 to earn $1 don’t you think you are a fool wasting your money, the returns do not justify the sum expended?
In the same way, whatever public awareness or conversion of the public to the cause of the earth is insignificant, will not do much if any difference and so it is a gimmick that can be dangerous, with harmful side effects.
Besides the point:
Matt Frei feels his age as he tours Google HQ
Apparently this reporter is descending into old age and the sight of young people at Google HQ made him feel his age.
His conclusion is frivolous, inappropriate and reflects false perception. Why should visiting a work site populated by youthful people cause you to feel your age or self conscious?
VISITING GOOGLE MAKES YOU FEEL YOUR AGE IS A CONCLUSION YOU MAKE AND IT IS BESIDES THE POINT OR IRRELEVANT APART FROM BEING A FALSE CONCLUSION, WHY SHOULD THE SIGHT OF A PLACE ‘FULL OF’ YOUNG PEOPLE MAKE YOU FEEL YOUR AGE OR SELF CONSCIOUS EXCEPT THAT YOU HAVE SERIOUS FALSE PERCEPTION AND REASONING THAT LEADS YOU TO A FRIVOLOUS AND FALSE CONCLUSION THAT YOU FEEL MOVED TO SHARE WITH OTHERS.
PART OF THE PURPOSE OF SAYING THIS IS TO STIR OTHERS’ EMOTIONS TO LAUGH AT THE REPORTER OR EXAGGERATE HOW WONDERFUL IT IS AT GOOGLE HQ WITH ALL THESE YOUNG KIDS AT THE ‘CUTTING EDGE’ OF TECHNOLOGY.
IT IS RELEVANT TO SAY THAT GOOGLE HQ IS POPULATED BY YOUNG PEOPLE BUT IT IS FALSE ASSOCIATION (LOGIC AND PERCEPTION) AND SELF IDENTITY VIEW TO SAY IT MAKES YOU FEEL OLD.
IF YOU THINK THAT TOURING GOOGLE HQ WITH ITS POPULATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE SHOULD MAKE YOU FEEL YOUR AGE, YOU MAY BE RIGHT OR YOU HAVE FALSE PERCEPTION THAT WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION. WHY SHOULD I FEEL MY AGE, BE SELF CONSCIOUS SEEING YOUNG PEOPLE TAKING CHARGE OF A PLACE?
Feeling old is a robotic program:
Notice the reporter said that visiting Google HQ (with its young whizz kids) made him FEEL (not think) old.
In truth ‘feeling old’ is an emotion or a emotion driven program that can be stirred every now and then by situations arising and because it is about emotion or stirring force powering a program of feeling old, it is about force, meaningless and what he is referring is meaningless, about his stirring of mental force at the sight of young people that is targeted at the mental forces of readers whom he want to stir to experience emotional ‘wow’ at how falsely marvellous it is at Google.
WHEN HE SPEAKS OF FEELING OLD HE IS NOT SPEAKING ABOUT SOMETHING MEANINGFUL BUT HE IS SPEAKING ABOUT THE STIRRING OF AN EMOTION POWERED PROGRAM OF ‘FEELING OLD’ IN WHICH HE IS MERELY ROBOTICALLY REHASHING.
Exactly what is happening when a person feels old may be known. It may be a stirring of sadness, dislike or envy associated with the awareness of your age that is not fresh specific for the occasion but a program that resides in your mental jukebox that although not frequently utilized, every now and then is called upon or triggered by situations occurring.
THUS IF YOU REGULARLY OR OCCASIONALLY FEEL OLD, IT INDICATES YOU ARE A ROBOT WHO HAS AN EMOTIONAL ‘FEEL OLD’ PROGRAM IN YOUR HEAD THAT YOU SOMETIMES RECALL AND SOMETIMES INVOLUNTARILY ACTIVATES ITSELF. BECAUSE IT IS A MINDLESSLY REHASHED PROGRAM IT IS MEANINGLESS, MERELY AN EXERCISE OF MENTAL FORCE ACCCORDING TO A PLAN AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NONSENSE SAYING YOU FEEL OLD.
Feeling old is not specific for an occasion:
People don’t feel old specifically for an occasion and feeling old at the sight of young workers at Google is not the first time that feeling arose nor will it be the last.
Feeling old is a memorised emotional feeling that is stirred whenever certain situations arise to remind the person of his age or lost youth that is frequently felt by some, less by others and not by unemotional style free people, even if they do not exist in this world.
FEELING OLD IS AN EMOTION OF SADNESS, ENVY EVEN JEALOUSY THAT MAY BE ACCOMPANIED BY AGITATION AND HURT THAT IS MEMORIZED IN THE MINDS OF PEOPLE WHO FEEL OLD THAT IS REPLAYED AGAIN AND AGAIN MINDLESSLY MEANINGLESS TO CAUSE SUFFERING WHILST IT CONDITIONS THAT FOOL FURTHER TO FEEL OLD.
‘Good humoured’ feeling old:
When people speak about feeling old, they are actually laughing at themselves and trying to stir others to perceive it as funny.
No one can enjoy feeling old or seeing his life force deserting him and so when they laugh at their feeling old they are falsely saying they liked what they disliked, the awareness that they are getting older and will soon die.
Apart from falsely conveying they liked what they disliked, they also experience sadness, even hurt and agitation and may be secretly envious of others who are younger and further away from death.
WHEN A PERSON SPEAKS OF FEELING OLD, HE IS SPEAKING ABOUT EMOTION AND THAT IS ABOUT FORCE STIRRING THAT IS MEANINGLESS & BLIND AND USUALLY HE IS TRYING TO SAY HE LIKES WHAT HE DISLIKES, THE AWARENESS OF AGE ‘CATCHING UP’ WITH HIM.
ON TOP OF THAT FEELING OLD IS NEVER A FRESHLY COMPOSED EMOTION FOR THE OCCASION BUT IT IS AN EMOTION THAT IS REPLAYED AGAIN AND AGAIN JUST LIKE SENTIMENTALITY IS SOMETHING THAT KEEPS REPLAYING MEANINGLESSLY AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT FORCE ADDICTS FIND MEANINGFUL.
51% oppose Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan:
You may think that it means 49% support involvement.
Out of this 49%, if they themselves or their loved ones had to be involved or be in the line of fire, you can be certain they will oppose involvement.
THERE ARE MANY IN THIS WORLD WHO HAVE NO CONCERN FOR OTHERS, EVEN IF THEY ARE AUSTRALIANS, SO LONG AS IT IS OTHER UNRELATED AUSTRALIANS WHO ARE IN THE LINE OF FIRE, THEY APPROVE. BUT IF IT WAS THEIR LOVED ONES THAT ARE INVOLVED, THEY WILL CERTAINLY OPPOSE INVOLVEMENT AND SO SUCH POLLS DO NOT MEAN MUCH, DOES NOT MEAN 49% ARE TRULY COMMITTED TO INVOLVEMENT.
Playing computer games can improve your eyesight:
Quote: Playing computer games can improve your eyesight, experts say.
If a person’s eyesight can be improved by playing computer games it means he is seeing robotically or by rehash because any improvement that can come about by playing computer games is a conditioned or programmed seeing.
DE FACTO, BY SAYING THIS, THE PERSON IS UNWITTINGLY SAYING HIS EYESIGHT IS NOT FRESH SPECIFIC FOR THE OCCASION BUT REHASHED AND YOU CAN UPGRADE THAT PROGRAMMED REHASHED SEEING BY PLAYING COMPUTER GAMES AND SO IT IS THAT PEOPLE NEVER SEE FRESH SPECIFIC FOR THE OCCASION BUT THE WAY THEY SEE AND WHAT THEY SEE IS PROGRAMMED AND THEY ALWAYS SEE ACCORDING TO THAT PROGRAM EVEN THOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE TO SEE BY SOME OTHER WAY OR WITHOUT ANY PROGRAMMING TELLING THEM WHAT TO SEE AND HOW TO SEE IT.
Assessing the truth of what Najib speaks:
"I wish to take this opportunity to remind all Malays (Malaysians) not to do things which we may regret later. To those who speak with a forked tongue, do not pledge allegiance in the morning only to betray by mid-afternoon," he (Najib) said in his speech when simultaneously opening the Wanita Umno, Youth and Puteri Delegates' Conference 2008 at the Putra World Trade Centre, here, tonight.
You cannot deceive others, whoever you truly are is fully displayed in your appearance, your facial and bodily expressions, what and how you say or do it and it is only people who are gullible or foolish (meaning they accept false as true) and the deluded who can be conned. A person of genuine reason who can effortlessly see true as true and false as false, can immediately separate the liar from the truth speaker.
Before Najib speaks out thus, he should know himself how allegiant he is to the sultans. He is accusing his adversaries with little basis that reflects his detachment from reality.
Just because the opposition speak of the sultan of Perak doing wrong and being liable for legal action (according to a law that UMNO enacted) does not mean they are betraying, if Najib truly perceives that he has advanced false perception that is the path to mad perception.
Again I do not perceive the opposition as ever pledging unqualified or unbridled loyalty such that they can see no wrong with the sultans’ actions and so what he says may sound impressive and self righteous whilst accusing adversaries of being treasonous but he is distorting reality in the name of making political capital and because what he accuses is farfetched, he is flirting with mad perception.
If you want to attack your enemies, at least you attack them on things that have some basis but what he is saying has little or no basis. Instead he himself may be the one speaking evidently with a forked tongue.
IF THE SULTAN HAD RULED IN FAVOR OF THE OPPOSITION TO CALL FOR FRESH ELECTIONS WOULD NAJIB STILL BE SO ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT ROYALTY? SINCE UMNO IS THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE, WHY IS UMNO SO RELUCTANT AS NOT TO CALL FOR FRESH ELECTIONS?
Loyalty is never based on reason but on force:
You may be right that your loyalty to the sultans is based on reason (genuine or true) or you may be wrong because loyalty is never based on reason but enforced, you are loyal for fear of punishment (banishment, death, and persecution) if you are disloyal and people put on a facade of loyalty just get along and avoid trouble. There may be some who espouse loyalty to get what they want, wealth the sultan may confer them, because they are connected to the royal courts and the status they can get by practicing loyalty (eg datukships). This is not true but motivated loyalty again based on force or greed.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT ANYONE CAN BE LOYAL GUIDED BY GENUINE REASON BUT THEY ARE LOYAL BY SELF AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT DRIVEN BY GREED FOR GAINS AND FEAR OF PUNISHMENT OR LOSS IF THEY ARE NOT SEEN TO BE LOYAL.
THUS IF ANYONE WERE TO ACCUSE ANOTHER OF BEING DISLOYAL, HE SHOULD LOOK AT HIMSELF FIRST TO SEE HOW GENUINELY LOYAL HE IS AND BECAUSE LOYALTY IS NEVER BASED ON REASON BUT MOTIVATED OR SELFISH, BASED ON FORCE FOR FEAR OF LOSS AND DESIRE FOR GAINS THAT LOYALTY CAN BRING, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE LOYALTY OF THE ACCUSER IS GENUINE WHEREAS THAT OF HIS ADVERSARY IS FORKED TONGUE AND SO HE IS THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK AND SPEAKING FALSELY LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT.
The bases of loyalty:
There are various bases of people’s loyalty.
One is self identity, they identify with the race, the country or state they come from and they are proud of what they identify with namely their state and their sultans to extent that they will even fight to defend it. Because self identity views and pride are false and based on force according to a program, it is a false basis of loyalty.
Another reason or basis people practice loyalty to be seen by others is obtain gains that the sultan’s powers can provide them eg wealth by positions, contracts and the status (datuk) that can be lavished on them.
A further reason is fear of punishment if they were not to be seen to be loyal, they force themselves to be seen to be loyal, to act loyal in the name of self preservation.
THUS THE BASIS OF LOYALTY IS NEVER TRUE BUT FALSE, BASED ON SELF IDENTITY VIEWS WITH ONE’S RACE (AND ALL THE CUSTOMS OR ADAT) AND STATE, FEAR OF PUNISHMENT IF ONE IS NOT SEEN TO BE LOYAL AND GREED FOR GAINS THAT A SULTAN CAN OFFER (DATUKSHIP). IF YOU SWEAR THAT YOUR LOYALTY IS NOT BASED ON THIS, YOU JUST LOVE YOUR SULTANS, YOU SPONTANEOUSLY LOVE AND ARE LOYAL, YOU MAY BE RIGHT OR A FOOL WHO DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE DOES.
THUS ANYONE WHO ACCUSES OTHERS OF BEING HYPOCRITES IN THEIR LOYALTY CANNOT HIMSELF BE GENUINELY LOYAL BUT HE HIMSELF TOO IS LOYAL FOR EMOTIONAL OR FALSE REASONS.
Loyalty is always enforced, by self and society:
Loyalty is always enforced, by self and society, nobody will spontaneously with genuine reason be loyal to anyone or anything. Loyalty is something you learn or is conditioned in you and once you become conditioned you become a robot of loyalty.
THUS YOU ARE A FOOL TO QUESTION OTHERS’ LOYALTY WHILST PERCEIVING YOURS AS GENUINE AND WHOLESOME. THERE IS NO REASON IN LOYALTY, IT IS BASED ON FORCE ACCORDING TO A PLAN AND THEREFORE IT IS BLIND AND MEANINGLESS AND YOU ARE A ROBOT OF LOYALTY.
God is not right because He is God:
God is not right because He is God but God is right because what He says and does is true and right. God sees and knows everything that can happen and so He is always right.
In the same way the sultan is not right because he is the sultan as loyalty ‘buffs’ tell you but the sultan is right only if what he says or does is right. If what a sultan says or does is wrong or false you can only force yourself to accept it is true and right and that is never genuine true right but deceitful make belief right by you the supposedly genuine loyal subject and the supposedly infallible but fallible sultan.
WHAT ADVOCATES OF LOYALTY WANT TO TELL YOU IS THAT THE SULTAN IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND CANNOT BE QUESTIONED. THAT IS BLIND WORSHIP THAT CAN NEVER BE GENUINE BUT IT IS ALWAYS MAKE BELIEVE BY THE LOYAL SUBJECT AND MAKE BELIEF BY THE SULTAN THAT HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT.
THUS WHOEVER ADVOCATES LOYALTY IS ADVOCATING BLINDNESS AND MAKE BELIEVE. THERE CAN NEVER BE GENUINE LOYALTY BUT ALL LOYALTY IS CONTRIVED AND WHOEVER PERCEIVES HIS LOYALTY AS GENUINE AND WHOLESOME WHILST OTHERS’ LOYALTY IS HYPOCRITICAL AND FALSE HAS ADVANCED FALSE PERCEPTION THAT WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION AND THAT IS ALWAYS TORMENTING I TELL YOU.
It is impossible to see and know what is false as true:
EVEN IF THE PERSON IS THE MOST STUPID PERSON ON EARTH, (UNLESS HE ALREADY HAS MAD PERCEPTION) IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO SEE WHAT IS FALSE AND WRONG AS TRUE AND RIGHT BUT HE MUST USE FORCE TO ACCEPT (BELIEVE) WHAT HE DID NOT SEE OR KNOW AS TRUE TO BE TRUE.
THUS IF YOU SEE AND KNOW SOMETHING IS FALSE, YOU MUST USE FORCE OR FORCE YOURSELF TO ACCEPT WHAT YOU SEE AND KNOW AS FALSE TO BE TRUE. YOU MUST USE FORCE TO OVERRIDE WHAT YOU SEE AND KNOW IS FALSE IN ORDER TO ACCEPT IT OR BELIEVE IT IS TRUE.
IF YOU DID NOT SEE OR KNOW SOMETHING IS TRUE (EG WHETHER THE SULTAN DID RIGHT TO DISMISS THE MB) THEN YOU MUST AGAIN USE FORCE TO ACCEPT WHAT THE SULTAN DID IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
ONLY IF YOU SEE AND KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS THE SULTAN SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO WILL YOU SEE AND KNOW WHAT THE SULTAN DID WAS RIGHT OR WRONG, AS THE CASE MAY BE.
ONCE YOU START FORCING YOURSELF TO ACCEPT AS TRUE WHAT YOU DID NOT SEE OR KNOW AS TRUE OR YOU FORCE YOURSELF TO ACCEPT WHAT YOU SAW AND KNEW AS FALSE TO BE TRUE, YOU HAVE SET YOURSELF ON THE PATH OF FALSITY AND FINAL INSANITY SO THAT INCREASINGLY YOU JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, YOU EAGERLY ACCEPT AND BELIEVE WHAT IS FALSE IS TRUE, YOU EVEN ACCEPT AS TRUE WHAT YOU KNOW IS FALSE.
THUS ALL THOSE WHO DEFEND THE ACTIONS OF THE SULTAN ARE ACTING FALSELY, THEY EITHER DO NOT KNOW THE LAW OR THEY KNOW THE LAW BUT NEVERTHELESS FALSELY AND WILFULLY UPHOLD THE SULTAN AND THAT CAN NEVER BE GENUINE BUT IS ITSELF HYPOCRITICAL AND DECEITFUL AND THEY HAVE NO CAUSE TO UPRAID THEIR ENEMIES. EVEN IF THEIR ENEMIES HAVE ACTED WRONGLY THEY TOO HAVE ACTED WRONGLY.
How loyal is Najib to his wife?
They say charity begins at home.
If you preach loyalty, you too must be loyal.
How loyal is Najib to his wife? If he is loyal to his wife there would not have been all these adulterous affairs and maybe even murder.
THUS IF NAJIB IS NOT LOYAL TO HIS WIFE BY CHEATING OUTSIDE HIS MARRIAGE HOW TRUE CAN HIS LOYALTY TO ROYALTY BE.
ANYONE WHO ARGUES THAT LOYALTY TO WIFE AND LOYALTY TO ROYALTY TO COUNTRY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS IS EXHIBITING FALSE LOGIC. AS JESUS SAID, HE WHO IS DISHONEST IN THE LITTLE WILL ALSO BE DISHONEST IN THE MANY AND SO HE WHO IS DISLOYAL TO HIS WIFE WILL ALSO BE DISLOYAL TO HIS KING.
What true loyalty to your wife means:
Loyalty to your wife does not mean blind worship of her that she is always right even if she is wrong and you must do everything she tells you but true loyalty to your wife means you do not do anything behind her back, philandering outside marriage and sowing wild oats all over the place. True loyalty means you come to her aid when she is in trouble, you are a source of comfort or solace when she is in trouble.
Thus it is unreasonable for a subject to be blindly loyal so that the sultan is always right and you must do everything he says.
True loyalty means you do not do anything behind his back that is treasonous and you come to his aid when he is in trouble.
Loyalty to wife versus sultan:
Why is there true loyalty to your wife and false loyalty to the sultan?
A wife is somebody you share your life with, who is meaningful to you and therefore loyalty to her is fidelity and is based on love and concern for her. Thus there is true loyalty to her and it is concern and love for her and that means not hurting her by flirting outside.
A sultan is not someone whom you know personally o have an intimate relationship and you are told and coerced to be loyal to or for material gains and that is always hypocritical.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE WHO IS MERELY A SUBJECT TO HAVE TRUE LOYALTY TO HIS SULTAN BUT IT IS SOMETHING HE IS CONDITIONED BY SOCIETY TO BE BUT THERE IS TRUE LOYALTY TO YOUR SPOUSE OUT OF LOVE, CONCERN AND CARE FOR HER.
Right for the wrong reasons:
You can be right for the wrong reasons and right for the right reasons.
Toss a coin and make a call and theoretically you will be right 50% of the time even when you did not see or know how the coin will land.
Because you can be right for the wrong reasons you may fool yourself you understand and those occasions when you are wrong are ‘to be expected’ you are not perfect. But you may be right at random and have no understanding at all.
If you are right for the wrong reasons, you are at risk of getting it wrong on another occasion and you do not truly understand what something is about.
For instance there will others who may dislike Najib’s high handed accusations of UMNO’s enemies as disloyal or they perceive Najib himself as without credibility to preach to others and therefore vaguely conclude that what Najib say is ‘playing politics’ or trying to score points, etc. They feel they are right in dismissing Najib’s diatribe but they are not sure, they may entertain doubt that perhaps they are accusing Najib unfairly.
However, by genuine reason, I have proven that Najib is a hypocrite to accuse his adversaries because he himself is a disloyal person as demonstrated by his unfaithfulness or disloyalty to his wife in sexual matters. Furthermore loyalty to royalty is seldom if ever genuine but coerced for fear of punishment or in pursuit of personal gains and so his loyalty to the sultan is likely to be based on force or a forced loyalty or false loyalty never genuine reason guided loyalty.
BECAUSE I HAVE REASONED GENUINELY WHY NAJIB IS WRONG TO ACCUSE HIS ADVERSARIES AS DISLOYAL, I AM IN NO UNCERTAINTY AS TO MY CONCLUSION. I AM RIGHT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS WHY WHAT NAJIB SAID IS UNRIGHTEOUS.
NAJIB HAS DEMONSTRATED A CAPACITY FOR DISLOYALITY OR UNFAITHFULNESS BY BEING DISLOYAL TO HIS WIFE IN SEXUAL MATTERS AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO BE GENUINELY LOYAL TO ROYALTY BUT IT IS A LOYALTY OF CONVENIENCE TO GET WHAT HE WANTS. YOU CAN ONLY BE GENUINELY LOYAL TO SOMEONE YOU KNOW WELL AND CARE FOR AND IT IS FARFETCHED IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT NAJIB CAN PERSONALLY KNOW AND CARE FOR THE SULTANS HE SAYS HE IS TRULY LOYAL TO THAT HE ACCUSES THE OPPOSITION AS DISLOYAL TO.
THUS I AM NOT BLINDLY ACCUSING BY DISLIKE THAT NAJIB IS SPEAKING FALSELY BUT I CAN WORK OUT OR PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT HE HAS NO RIGHT TO SAY WHAT HE SAID.
Loyalty is not something you demand but what you earn:
True loyalty is never something you demand of others but true loyalty is something you earn from others such that through love and devotion to you they are truly loyal to you.
Thus Najib is absurd, barking up the wrong tree, does not know what true loyalty is about in castigating his enemies about being disloyal.
WHATEVER LOYALTY THAT YOU DEMAND OF OTHERS IS FALSE, FORCED OR CONTRIVED FOR SHOW AND THE FACT THAT NAJIB CAN MAKE THE MISTAKE TO DEMAND LOYALTY FROM OTHERS PROVES HE HIMSELF DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IS TRUE LOYALTY SO HOW CAN HIS LOYALTY BE TRUE?
HERE AGAIN I HAVE REASONED OUT WHY NAJIB IS SPEAKING FALSELY.
PEOPLE MAY COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION AS ME THAT NAJIB IS WRONG OR NO RIGHT TO SAY WHAT HE SAID BUT THEY CANNOT EXPLAIN IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE MANNER HOW AND WHY THEY CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION.
(NAJIB IS DE FACTO DEMANDING HIS ENEMIES SHOW LOYALTY TO ROYALTY AND BECAUSE TRUE LOYALTY CANNOT BE DEMANDED BUT MUST HE EARNED, HE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE HIMSELF DOES NOT UNDERSTAND OR KNOW TRUE LOYALTY AND SO HIS LOYALTY TOO IS FABRICATED FOR SHOW)
Why it is mad to talk about loyalty:
Because true loyalty is not something anyone can demand of another, whatever loyalty that can be demanded is false, for show, there is no point talking about loyalty and you should go about earning the loyalty of your subjects by exemplary conduct.
THUS THE FACT THAT NAJIB IS MAKING MUCH OF LOYALTY REFLECTS HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT, THE LOYALTY HE HAS IN MIND IS FOR SHOW TO PLEASE AND IMPRESS. BECAUSE IT IS MEANINGLESS TO TALK ABOUT TRUE LOYALTY AND YOU DO SO YOU ARE PRACTICING CONTROLLED MADNESS, YOU ARE DELUDED AND THAT IS THE PATH TO TORMENT.
WHAT DO YOU WANT, GENUINE OR HYPOCRITICAL LOYALTY? IF YOU WANT GENUINE LOYALTY THEN STOP TALKING ABOUT, GO ABOUT BEHAVING YOURSELF IN A WAY THAT WILL INSPIRE LOVE AND LOYALTY FROM YOUR SUPPORTERS. TRUE LOYALTY IS SOMETHING GIVEN TO YOU WITHOUT BEING ASKED.
The tawdry truth about those adult sites:
This is a headline in a supposedly reputable English site the Daily Mail.
It is not truth that is tawdry but it is the adult sites or more specifically the people responsible for these sites who are tawdry (crude).
It reflects muddled thinking and a lack of discernment to call truth tawdry and the end result of such indifference is that the person becomes more and more disorganized that will end in insanity.
TRUTH IS THE TRUTH, IT IS NEVER TAWDRY OR CRUDE AND SO IT REFLECTS YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAY TO CALL TRUTH TAWDRY WHEN IT IS THE SITES OR PEOPLE RUNNING THOSE SITES THAT ARE TAWDRY.
Kicking in:
Quote: Revised electricity tariff formula kicks in from July.
You need force never reason to kick something.
Do see electricity rates kicking in?
It reflects the forceful or aggressive nature of the person to resort to words that convey force in situations that are inappropriate.
The correct word is ‘start’ or ‘begin’ or commences, not ‘kicks in’ which sounds even rude and implies use of force.
If you think you can speak of kicking in and still go to heaven you may be a fool, if you are not going to heaven that is eternal punishment for you.
Not even a bit of truth:
Najib: "I wish to take this opportunity to remind all Malays (Malaysians) not to do things which we may regret later. To those who speak with a forked tongue, do not pledge allegiance in the morning only to betray by mid-afternoon."
To those who are undiscerning, who hears but do not hear, there may be some truth in what Najib said but in truth it is all hollow and he is using words to attack unfairly those who is not aligned with him.
He himself is doing things that he and others WILL, not may regret later. It is OK for him to do things that are regrettable but not OK for others.
He does not say what he means because what he truly meant was, “Listen to me, do what I tell you to do or else”. What he wants others to do is not true or good and so he is false and has no right to admonish others.
IF NAJIB SAID WHAT HE MEANT, HE WOULD SAY “DO ACCORDING TO WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT AND EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE” BUT WHAT HE THINKS IS RIGHT THAT HE WANTS OTHERS TO CARRY OUT IS ACTUALLY WRONG AND HARMFUL AND SO HE HAS NO RIGHT TO SAY, WHAT HE SAY IS FALSE. EXACTLY WHAT HE HAS IN MIND THAT HE WANTS OTHERS HE IS ADDRESSING TO DO (EG ACCEPT THE BN GOVERNMENT IN PERAK) CAN BE KNOWN EVEN IF HE HIMSELF IS MUDDLED, AND IT CAN BE DETERMINED IF IT IS TRULY FOR THE GOOD OF EVERYONE OR ONLY FOR THE ‘GOOD’ OF THOSE ALIGNED WITH HIM. WHAT HE WANTS IS NOT EVEN GOOD FOR HIMSELF BECAUSE IT WILL BE TO HIS FUTURE GREAT WOE IN KARMA AND SO HE IS TALKING NONSENSE.
He himself is someone who speaks with a forked tongue not occasionally but on a regular basis and so he has no right to castigate others without first castigating himself. He is telling others not to pledge allegiance only to betray in the afternoon. Since when have others pledged allegiance only to betray? It is a figment of his false perception that will end in mad perception. Karpal Singh did not pledge allegiance. He merely said it is within his rights according to the law to sue the sultan and that is not an act of betrayal. Thus Najib is jumping to conclusion, has bizarre logic and perception.
THERE IS NOT EVEN A BIT OF TRUTH IN WHAT HE SAID, IT IS JUST A DIATRIBE ATTACKING OTHERS UNFAIRLY PAINTING OTHERS IN BAD LIGHT THAT IS BARELY BASED ON REALITY OR WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. HE DID NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAID BECAUSE IF HE SAID WHAT HE MEANT HE WOULD SAY, “OBEY WHAT I WANT AND EVERYONE WILL BE FINE, OTHERWISE THERE WILL BE TROUBLE (WHO ARE THOSE WHO WILL CAUSE TROUBLE?)” IF WHAT HE WANTS OTHERS TO DO IS ACTUALLY NOT EVEN GOOD FOR HIMSELF (BECAUSE IT INCURS HIM KARMA WHATEVER THE UNRIGHTEOUS GAINS), MUCH LESS FOR THE NATION THEN HE IS WRONG TO ADMONISH OTHERS. ONLY WHEN HE HIMSELF IS NOT DOING THINGS THAT MALAYSIANS WILL REGRET LATER OR WHAT HE HAS IN MIND THAT IS TO BE DONE IS FAIR AND BENEFICIAL HAS HE THE RIGHT OR BE TRUE TO SAY IT.
WHAT HE SAYS SOUNDS NICE, IS SELF RIGHTEOUS BUT IT IS HOLLOW AND FALSE BECAUSE IT BELIES HIS OWN ACTIONS.
Najib is making a veiled threat:
“Things we may regret later” is a nice way to say civil unrest or rioting or disruption. What else can happen that can cause regret?
It may be that it is not a threat, he has great foresight and is just stating the truth or it may be a threat, a faction aligned to him will cause trouble if provoked and it can be reasoned out that it is the latter that is the case.
It cannot be the opposition that he is admonishing who will cause the trouble because he is saying the opposition is doing things that will provoke others and so it CANNOT be the opposition who will cause trouble.
So what remain is either the Malays themselves unaligned to anybody who are irate enough about the attacks on the sultans to resort to violence or a faction aligned to the ruling coalition who will resort to violence. If you think that the ordinary Malays themselves are unlikely if not impossible to be stirred to the extent of violence, it must be a section of the populace aligned to and directed by the ruling party who will be provoked.
Did Najib state he is making a threat? If not he did not mean what he said, he only hinted.
It cannot be the opposition that he is admonishing who will rise in violence because the opposition cannot attack itself or be provoked by what it says but someone else other than the opposition who will be provoked and cause trouble.
If it is unlikely if not impossible that ordinary Malays or supporters of royalty will cause trouble it then must be factions with vested interest, aligned against the opposition who will do so.
WHETHER WHAT IS SAID IS A THREAT OR NOT CANNOT BE DENIED, IT CAN BE ASCERTAINED OBJECTIVELY IF NOT BY YOU THEN BY GOD AND WHOEVER THREATENS ANOTHER HAS ILL WILL THAT IS NOT THE PATH TO HEAVEN AND IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HEAVEN IT MEANS ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
Blaming others for provoking you:
It is self serving and convenient to heap the blame on others, on the opposition for provoking you and you are justified to lash out because you were provoked.
Even if you are provoked, you will be punished for retaliation.
If the opposition is not provoking you or anybody, they are merely trying to redress injustice or claim their legitimate rights that you are trying to deny and you are threatening them with violence so that they may be cowered then you are compounding your karmic debt.
How is it that others must desist from what they are doing and you need not?
First blame yourself for being provoked:
Whenever you are provoked by anyone or anything happening, first blame yourself before you blame anyone else.
The practice of having your mental force stirred by others to experience wrath is completely meaningless (because it is a blind exercise of your mental force), is suffering to yourself and others and also conditioning such that provocation is easier to arise rapidly to more intense levels that get harder and harder to control and one day you may get yourself killed or kill someone as a result of provocation that you are FIRST to blame.
Without lifelong exercising and conditioning your mental force to rise precipitously in speed and strength to stimuli by the constant use of force to fashion style or stretch syllables, change speed and loudness, you cannot possess a monstrous mental force that can be provoked easily by others.
Just as you are responsible if own a Rotweiller and it attacks others, in the same way you are responsible if have conditioned yourself to be fierce and easily provoked.
THE MAN WHO CAN BE PROVOKED IS A MARKED MAN DOOMED TO FUTURE WOE THAT MAY EVEN EXTEND TO AN ETERNITY. ONLY THE PERSON WHO CANNOT BE PROVOKED IS SAFE, A MASTER OF HIMSELF, RESTRAINED AND HEADED FOR BLISS AFTER DEATH.
The Buddha not science discovered the Big Bang:
Modern cosmology postulates from various evidences like an expanding universe that in the beginning there was no matter, time and space but from an inconstruable or indefinable moment, there was an explosion that created the universe that we see today. In the infinitesimal fractions of the first second, the universe expanded prodigiously separating energy from matter and time was born. By calculation the universe we know is about 15 billion years old. It is postulated that there may be many parallel universes. Again there is conjecture that the universe may reverse the Big Bang and have a Big Crunch where everything will contract back together.
All this fits with what the Buddha spoke of much earlier that is lost on mankind.
He said: Whenever the aeon was contracting, I went to the realm of Streaming Radiance. Whenever the aeon was expanding, I reappeared in an empty Brahma-abode. There I was the Great Brahman, the Unconquered Conqueror, All-seeing, & Wielder of Power.
What the Buddha is saying is that this world is not permanent, it is made up of separate world cycles or eons or Ages as Jesus described and there are periods of expansion and contraction that may correspond to what science postulates as the Big Bang and Big Crunch. Jesus said at the close of the Age to sun will refuse to shine, the stars will fall from the sky and time will be speeded up for the sake of the chosen ones.
Assu Sutta:Tears
The Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.
What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time -- weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, separated from what is pleasing -- or the water in the four great oceans?"
"As we understand the Dhamma, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating this long, long time -- not the water in the four great oceans."
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... a brother... a sister... a son... a daughter...a relatives... wealth... disease. The tears you have shed while transmigrating this long, long time -- weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing -- are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
" Long have you thus experienced stress, pain, loss, swelling the cemeteries -- enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
This inconstruable moment that the Buddha described above again may correspond to scientific postulation of the Big Bang, suddenly ‘out of nowhere’ there was a big bang and prodigious expansion of time and space.
The Buddha said that an eon is a very long time, enough for you to build a pile of skeletons as high as a mountain transmigrating and science has ascertained that the universe is at least 12 billion years old.
NO OTHER HUMAN SEER HAS DESCRIBED COSMOLOGY AS CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY AS VERIFIED BY SCIENCE AS THE BUDDHA HAS. THE BUDDHA MAY BE LUCKY OR IT MAY BE AS HE SAID THAT HE IS ALL SEEING AND ALL KNOWING AND HAS GONE BEYOND ALL EXISTENCE TO FINAL INCOMPARABLE REST, NIRVANA.
The four great oceans:
The Buddha: "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... a brother... a sister... a son... a daughter...a relatives... wealth... disease. The tears you have shed while transmigrating this long, long time -- weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing -- are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
The Buddha lived in landlocked Northern India/Nepal so how did he know there were oceans let alone four great oceans as there are?
There are only four great oceans, the Antarctic is not a true ocean because it is made of the tail ends of the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the fourth ocean is the Arctic ocean. All the oceans are defined by the land masses or continents that enclose them.
All madness can be traced to rehashing:
Whatever the madness that afflict humans may be are the results of rehashing, are impossible without the person being a rehasher or robot reproducing the substance and style of whatever he perceives, thinks, speaks and does from a copy in his mental jukebox.
My definition of madness: Madness is the uncontrollable inappropriate or bizarre rehash of whatever behaviour the person has repeated performed and for which a record exists in his mind or mental jukebox driven by urge which is a proxy of mental force to do it.
WITHOUT AN INDEPENDENT PLAN OF THE MAD ACT OR SPEECH OR PERCEPTION AND MENTAL FORCE TO ACTIVATE THAT PLAN, THERE CANNOT BE MADNESS. THUS ANYONE WHO REHASHES RATHER THAN COMPOSE SPEECH AND ACTIONS FRESH SPECIFIC FOR EACH OCCASION HAS AN APPOINTMENT WITH INSANITY IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON WHO DOES NOT REHASH OR POSSESS STRONG MENTAL FORCE TO BECOME MAD. GENUINE REASON WHICH IS DEFICIENT EVEN ABSENT IN HUMANS HERE CAN NEVER MAKE YOU MAD, A PERSON WITH GENUINE REASON WHO SEES TRUTH AS TRUTH AND FALSITY AS FALSITY CANNOT GO MAD. IT IS PEOPLE WHO FORCE THEMSELVES TO ACCEPT FALSE AS TRUE AND TRUE AS FALSE IN THE NAME OF UNRIGHTEOUS GAINS THAT CAN AND WILL GO MAD.
Thus when a gunman goes amok and runs around shooting everyone he sees, it is not the first time he has done it, he has entertained the thought of going around shooting everyone on sight many times even with great emotion and force and he may even have enacted his fantasy many times by wearing his attire (eg black leather clothes), pointing and firing his gun privately either at dummies or without loading. Because he has frequently entertained the plan of going around to shoot everyone because of paranoia or being victimized by others, he is seized by this plan that becomes so compelling because of the intense mental force he has invested in it that in time he is seized to carry out beyond his ability to control.
WHATEVER THAT IS CARRIED OUT IN A MAD ACT IS NEVER FRESH BUT A REHASH OF WHAT THE PERSON HAS DONE MANY TIMES BEFORE EITHER IN HIS MIND OR PHYSICALLY SO THAT HE BECOMES A ROBOT OF THE PLAN THAT IS DICTATING TO HIM WHAT TO DO AND THIS PLAN HAS AUTOMISM TO ACTIVATE ITSELF THAT BECOMES INCREASINGLY HARD TO RESIST AND WHEN RESISTANCE IS FINALLY BROKEN, THE PERSON IS SEIZED TO CARRY OUT WHAT HIS MENTAL PLAN COMMANDS EVEN WHEN IT IS INAPPROPRIATE.
THUS IF YOU ARE A REHASHER, NO MATTER HOW YOU MAY DENY OR BE UNABLE TO SEE (THOSE WHO DISCERN CAN SEE A REHASHER WITHOUT FAIL), YOU HAVE AN APPOINTMENT WITH INSANITY BECAUSE YOU ARE A ROBOT AND IT IS THE MANY PLANS IN YOUR MENTAL JUKEBOX THAT IS THE BOSS.
No comments:
Post a Comment