Why people misunderstand:

 

Why people misunderstand:

The reason people misunderstand is because they see hastily in snapshots and retrieve pre-recorded understandings to explain a situation. Thus should they take inaccurate snapshots or retrieve the wrong understanding then it may be obvious even to casual observers he completely misunderstood or ‘got it all wrong’.

Emotional stylish people have many understandings and they are stored in their memories and rehashed sometimes more appropriately sometimes less aptly to fit and explain fresh happenings.

The person of true understanding has no recorded understandings that he depends on, that must be retrieved to explain what is happening, he merely pays full effortless force free attention to whatever is happening, sees truly whatever is happening and thereby truly understands what is happening.

If you never depend on stored understandings how is it possible that you can retrieve the wrong understanding and therefore understand wrongly? It is only because their understandings are retrieved and they perceive in snapshots that emotional people are prone to retrieve wrong explanations and therefore misunderstand even quite bizarrely. Even when the understanding that is retrieved fits in well with the situation, it is still inappropriate but because of mutually shared delusion the person and his audience sees nothing amiss when there is plenty.

Misunderstanding is proof understanding not true:

It is impossible that a person who listens in its entirety what is said can incorrectly understand or misunderstand what is said but his understanding of what has been said must always be correct and a person who can understand truly, directly will not resort to rehashed understanding anymore than a man who can walk on his two legs will use a walking stick nor need to use a walking stick. It is only a person who cannot walk by himself who will need a walking stick, it is only a person who cannot understand directly specifically to the occasion who will depend on indirect false imitation rehashed understandings.

Hence true and rehashed false understanding cannot coexist in a person and a person who has demonstrated misunderstanding or wrong understanding in an instance always has false rehashed understanding elsewhere.

If the misunderstanding a person has shown is examined, it will invariably be found that there are precedents, that misunderstanding was not the first time it was entertained by the person but the person has experienced that understanding stereotypically many times in the past and that de facto is rehashed.

THUS IF A PERSON IS FOUND TO HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD SOMETHING SAID, HE MUST BE REHASHING HIS UNDERSTANDING, HE DID NOT DIRECTLY TRULY UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS SAID TO HIM AND THAT REHASHED UNDERSTANDING IS NEVER OCCASIONAL BUT ALWAYS THAT IS HIS DEFAULT METHOD OF UNDERSTANDING JUST AS A MAN WHO CANNOT WALK ON HIS OWN MUST ALWAYS RELY ON A WALKING STICK.

The chicken and egg situation:

Which came first? Did the chicken give rise to the egg or the egg give rise to the chicken?

In the same way, a person who truly understands will never rehash what he said or did because that means slavery, the copy in one’s mental jukebox is the dictator of what is said or done and one merely selects and supplies and varies force. It is your mental jukebox that is the boss of what you say or do.

Just as it is impossible for one who truly understand to allow rehashing by himself, it is impossible for one who rehashes to truly understand, to truly directly specifically understand each occasion as it arises, for if he truly understood he would not permit rehashing or surrendering his independence and therefore his understanding too must be false, faked, imitation, rehashed, memorized to be retrieved to explain everything happening just as his speech and action is rehashed.

Why people with style cannot understand:

For one who sees correctly, stylish people have a stereotyped consistent style that has similarities and differences from others and this style is constant, present in the substance and style of their perceiving (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling), thinking, speaking and actions.

IN OTHER WORDS, A PERSON WITH STYLE IS NEVER WITHOUT STYLE. STYLE IS PRESENT IN HIS PERCEPTIONS, THINKING, SPEAKING AND MOTION.

THE ONLY WAY STYLE CAN BE CONSISTENT EVEN ‘TO A FAULT’ IS IF IT IS MEMORIZED AND REHASHED FROM MEMORY. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT REPRODUCING FROM MEMORY THE SAME STYLE CONSISTENTLY.

BECAUSE THERE IS A CONSISTENT TYPICAL STYLE IN THEM IN EVERYTHING THEY PERCEIVE, THINK, SPEAK AND DO, EVERYTHING THEY DO IS REHASHED, REPRODUCED FROM MEMORY, NOT A LIVE OR FRESHLY COMPOSED FOR THE OCCASION RESPONSE.

Because whatever is rehashed is fixed, pre-determined, no understanding is needed or involved, you only select (using programmable rules logic) the memorized sequence you think is appropriate for the occasion and then supply power that can be varied for the occasion to carry it out.

NO UNDERSTANDING IS NEEDED OR INVOLVED IF A PERSON IS REHASHING FROM A MENTAL PLAN BECAUSE WHAT IS DONE OR SAID IS PRE-DETERMINED, YOU JUST CARRY OUT WHAT THE PLAN SAYS YOU MUST SAY OR DO.

Understanding may be needed to formulate or modify these memorized plans, if the plans are copied from others no understanding is required, you just perceive how Elvis combs his hair, stands and walk, memorize it as well as you can, keep practicing or rehashing until you can comb, stand and walk like Elvis. Whatever understanding that is needed to formulate or modify pre-existing plan is never true but also false logic because true understanding will never formulate or modify what is false, deluded and tormenting, plans that dictate what you should say or do.

PLANS FOR REHASHING CAN BE COPIED FROM OTHERS WITHOUT ANY UNDERSTANDING INVOLVED (ONLY PERCEIVING WHAT TO COPY, MEMORIZING IT AND PRACTICING TO REHASH AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE) OR IT CAN BE FORMULATED AND MODIFIED REPEATEDLY USING FALSE, NEVER TRUE UNDERSTANDING. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT TRUE UNDERSTANDING WILL BE THE FATHER OF REHASHED ACTIONS THAT CONVERT THE PERSON INTO A ROBOT OF THE PLAN.

Unless a person’s style is inconsistent, keeps changing each time he speaks, if it is consistent, it must be reproduced from memory and therefore rehashed. If it is rehashed, no understanding is required because what is said or done has already been predetermined by fixed plans that no matter how they are modified, once modified again become the modified fixed plan that is the master of the action, not you.

Since what you say or do with style is fixed, what is there to understand? Just say it or do it as instructed by the plan. The presence of true understanding would be an impediment, it is better to shut out all understanding and questioning in order to function efficiently as a robot.

NOT ONLY IS TRUE UNDERSTANDING NOT REQUIRED FOR REHASHING, ITS PRESENCE IS INIMICAL, NOT CONDUCIVE, AN OBSTRUCTION TO REHASHING BECAUSE TRUE UNDERSTANDING WILL RAISE QUESTIONS OR OBJECTIONS. THUS NOT ONLY IS TRUE UNDERSTANDING NOT REQUIRED OR INVOLVED IN REHASHING, STYLISH PEOPLE HAVE LONG LEARNT TO FORCIBLY SHUT OFF THEIR TRUE UNDERSTANDING IN ORDER THERE IS NO UNEASINESS OR QUESTIONING BY THEIR CONSCIENCE OF THE TRUTH OF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING OR DOING.

Style is never patchy but style is present all the time in everything the person perceives, thinks, says or does.

For style to be consistent, it must be rehashed, memorized and reproduced from memory.

When a person rehashes, it is not him but the plan of what is rehashed that is the master and he is merely a robot.

No understanding is ever needed to rehash because it is predetermined, you just carry out what the plan says you must say or do.

Not only is no understanding needed to rehash, the presence of understanding is a hindrance, conflict arousing for slick rehashing. Hence for the purpose of smooth rehashing the person must shut out whatever true understanding he has.

Substance and style speech and actions can be copied from others without need or involvement of understanding.

No understanding or false understanding is required to formulate or modify plans that are the basis for rehashed stylish behaviour. It is impossible that true understanding will be the progenitor of what is false and harmful. Therefore whatever reason that is required to formulate substance and style behaviour is false.

No understanding is required to carry out substance and style actions because it is already fixed, you just carry it out and in fact the presence of true understanding makes it more difficult to act like a robot.

NOT ONLY IS TRUE UNDERSTANDING NOT REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT ROTE ACTIONS AND SPEECH, ITS PRESENCE IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO SLICK PERFORMANCE OF REHASHED ACTIONS AND SO STYLISH PEOPLE HAVE LONG LEARNT TO SUPPRESS EVEN KILL OFF THEIR QUESTIONING TRUE REASON, SO HOW CAN THEY HAVE TRUE UNDERSTANDING?

How can a truly understanding person harm himself?

If you are constantly harming yourself with stress, restlessness and distraction by using force to prolong, change speed and loudness in what you say or do and you do not know it, or you think the way you behave is good for yourself and others, how can you truly understand? Instead you must understand falsely.

If stretching syllables, changing speed and loudness are totally unnecessary, wastes prodigious energy cumulatively to create insoluble stress, restlessness and distraction that reach tormenting levels and you cannot see yourself doing it, you even perceive it as necessary and desirable, how can you have true understanding? Instead your understanding must be false, deluded, perverted.

A TRULY UNDERSTANDING PERSON CANNOT HARM HIMSELF.

ONLY A PERSON WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND OR UNDERSTANDS FALSELY THAT WHAT IS BAD IS GOOD, WHAT IS HARMFUL IS HARMLESS CAN HARM HIMSELF.

Form is like a blob of foam:

You may say the Buddha made a lucky guess, but he says he knows everything and science has proven the Buddha is correct, form is almost totally empty, high speed subatomic particles can pass through the whole earth without hitting any particle.

The Buddha said you should live as if your head is on fire and you should urgently put it out. If you perceive your head is not on fire and there is nothing to put out, you may have false perception that will end in torment for you.

Phena Sutta: Foam

On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?

"Now suppose that in the autumn -- when it's raining in fat, heavy drops -- a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water bubble? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any feeling that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in feeling?

"Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?

"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them -- they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?

"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed noble disciple grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:

Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick --
this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them, appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately.

Beginning with the body as taught by the One
with profound discernment:
when abandoned by three things -- life, warmth, & consciousness --
form is rejected, cast aside.
When bereft of these it lies thrown away,
senseless, a meal for others.
That's the way it goes:
it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling.
It's said to be a murderer.
No substance here is found.

Thus a monk, persistence aroused,
should view the aggregates by day & by night,
mindful, alert; should discard all fetters;
should make himself his own refuge;
should live as if his head were on fire --
in hopes of the state with no falling away.

In a bad mood? According to research, it's good for you

This is a false statement that reflects the delusion of humans even those who are well educated researchers.

If the mood is not suffering it would not be called bad. Mood is about an emotional or force dominated state of the mind. Such moods are not only suffering they are conditioning so that they arise easier, faster to greater heights that get more difficult to shake off and that cannot be good for anyone.

Only a force dominated mind can have a mood, a mind freed of force has no moods. A bad mood may be an angry, sad or hurt or agitated. Good mood is when your mind is stirred to be excited or desirous or attracted.

The difference between emotion and mood:

Emotion is something more brief or passing triggered by an event.

A mood is when that emotion (anger, sadness, agitation) persists for a considerable time after the event triggering it has passed and seizes the mind and would not let it go.

Thus a mood is essentially a prolonged emotional state of the mind that is captive to the emotion and is a sign of danger, future suffering. Nowadays I have no moods, I am not moody.

A bitchy mood may be described as one in which the person is unhappy or angry and looking to attack or hurt others.

UMNO violates Petroleum Development Act:

According to the Petroleum development act, the Federal government must pay states royalty for petroleum it extracts and just because Kelantan is ruled by the opposition does not mean you can selectively rescind the Act. When Trengannu fell to the opposition the royalty was withdrawn and even now it is imbursed in way to be spend at the discretion of the MB.

The Perak sultan rails at disrespect for the law. What is this that UMNO does?

THUS UMNO DOES NOT PLAY FAIR, IT SHIFTS GOAL POSTS WHEN IT SUITS THEM.

 

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

LAWS OF MALAYSIA

ACT 144

PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT ACT 1974

Incorporating latest amendment - Act A842/1993

Date of Royal Assent: 30th July 1974

Date of publication in the Gazette: 22nd August 1974

Date of coming into operation: 1st October 1974, [P.U. (B) 501/74]

Long Title & Preamble

An Act to provide for exploration and exploitation of petroleum whether onshore or offshore by a Corporation in which will be vested the entire ownership in and the exclusive rights, powers, liberties and privileges in respect of the said petroleum, and to control the carrying on of downstream activities and development relating to petroleum and its products; to provide for the establishment of a Corporation under the Companies Act 1965 or under the law relating to the incorporation of companies and for the powers of that Corporation; and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Section 4. Cash payment by the Corporation

In return for the ownership and the rights, powers, liberties and privileges vested in it by virtue of this Act, the Corporation shall make to the Government of the Federation and the Government of any relevant State such cash payment as may be agreed between the parties concerned.

*************************************************

In the beginning, Malaya was ruled by the Sultans. Then, Melaka fell to the Portuguese, and then the Dutch, and finally to the British. The British entered into an agreement with the Sultans of Johor and Kedah to rent Singapore and Penang islands respectively. Melaka, Singapore and Penang became the British Straits Settlements.

The other Malay states remained under the various Sultans but were grouped into the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States with British advisers to advise the Sultans. Whether the advice of the British advisers was mandatory or the Sultans could choose to ignore this advice is still a topic being discussed until today. Some say the ‘advice’ was mandatory and others say it was not.

In 1957, all the states were invited to join the Federation of Malaya. A Federation Agreement was entered into where it states that defence, foreign policy, the internal security of the nation, and so on, would become federal matters. Other matters like religion and natural resources would remain state matters and would come under the authority of the various states.

This means matters concerning land, water, minerals, timber and anything at all extracted or found within the state boundaries or the economic zone of the states would come under the states. In the 1970s, a world conference was held and it was agreed that the economic zone of each country would be within 200 kilometres from the country’s shore.

In 1972, Malaysia discovered oil -- offshore but within the Terengganu economic zone. Some say it was earlier than 1972 but that the government kept it a secret because Terengganu was under opposition control. And since petroleum is a state resource then Terengganu would benefit as laid out in the Federation Agreement.

In 1974, the federal government passed an Act of Parliament turning petroleum into a national resource and no longer a state resource -- in breach of the Federation Agreement. The Prime Minister then was Tun Abdul Razak. This Act of Parliament is called The Petroleum Development Act 1974.

Under the Petroleum Development Act 1974, it says:

An Act to provide for exploration and exploitation of petroleum whether onshore or offshore by a Corporation in which will be vested the entire ownership in and the exclusive rights, powers, liberties and privileges in respect of the said petroleum, and to control the carrying on of downstream activities and development relating to petroleum and its products; to provide for the establishment of a Corporation under the Companies Act 1965 or under the law relating to the incorporation of companies and for the powers of that Corporation; and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

For this purpose, a national petroleum company was set up called Petroleum Nasional Berhad or Petronas for short. And, in return, the states would be paid a percentage of the petroleum revenue as laid out in Section 4 of the Petroleum Development Act, which says:

In return for the ownership and the rights, powers, liberties and privileges vested in it by virtue of this Act, the Corporation shall make to the Government of the Federation and the Government of any relevant State such cash payment as may be agreed between the parties concerned.

In 1976, an agreement was signed between Petronas and ALL the states in Malaysia. The man who drew up this Agreement was Tun Salleh Abas, the then Solicitor-General. In this agreement it states that any and all states where petroleum is found they would be paid 5% of the revenue and that this revenue is to be called ROYALTY.

And, since then, Terengganu, Sabah and Sarawak have enjoyed a 5% ROYALTY from Petronas.

In November 1999, Terengganu fell back into the hands of the opposition. A few months later, in early 2000, the federal government cancelled the ROYALTY payment to Terengganu. It was replaced with GOODWILL MONEY or WANG EHSAN and it was not paid to the state but instead paid to Umno under the charge of Idris Jusoh.

This is clearly in violation of BOTH the Petroleum Development Act 1974 as well as the 1976 Agreement signed between Petronas and ALL the states in Malaysia.

In 2004, Terengganu fell back into the hands of Umno and Idris Jusoh was made the Menteri Besar. However, the ROYALTY was not reinstated. The federal government continued to pay GOODWILL MONEY or WANG EHSAN which the Prime Minister’s Department would manage and would decide what to do with the money. How the money was spent was decided by the Prime Minister and not the Terengganu government although the money was supposed to belong to the state.

And that, in a nutshell, and in simple layman’s language, is what the whole issue is about. Now, Kelantan is also being offered GOODWILL MONEY or WANG EHSAN instead of ROYALTY. But Kelantan is not talking this lying down like Terengganu did since 2000.

Kelantan is threatening to terminate the 1976 Agreement with Petronas as the action of offering them GOODWILL MONEY instead of ROYALTY violates the Agreement. If this Agreement is rescinded, then the rights over any and all petroleum in the Kelantan economic zone would belong to the state and not to Petronas. And Kelantan would get 100%, not just 5% of the revenue.

Note that this GOODWILL MONEY only applies to Terengganu and Kelantan. Sabah and Sarawak are still paid ROYALTY because those states are Barisan Nasional states. And even though Terengganu is now also a Barisan Nasional state the federal government does not want to revert to the ROYALTY in case the state falls back into the hands of the opposition. So Terengganu too still receives GOODWILL MONEY or WANG EHSAN.

Now, another thing to note is that when the Federated Malay States, the Unfederated Malay States and the Straits Settlements agreed to join the Federation of Malaya, it was agreed that the federal government would give the states loans for development plus grants calculated on the size of the states’ population and based on so much per head.

The federal government has just announced it will not give any financial support to states under opposition control. So now, not only are they breaching the Petroleum Development Act 1974 and the 1976 Agreement that Petronas signed with all the states, but they are also breaching the Federation Agreement as well.

Clearly, the Malaysian government does not honour any of its agreements. And is it any wonder that foreign investors refuse to sign agreements in Malaysia or be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Malaysian courts? Most foreign investors want their agreements signed in Singapore so that they can be subjected to the Singapore courts or opt for international arbitration.

Umno may think it is just politics and that they violate all these agreements in an effort to bring down the opposition state governments. But the foreigners are watching and this does not build the confidence of the foreign investors.

Malaysians must understand that it is a legal duty of the federal government to pay the states the money due to them as laid down in the Acts of Parliament and the various agreements signed since 1957. What the federal government is doing is unconstitutional and a violation of all these agreements.

Obama will not rest:

Quote: President Barack Obama described the rise in unemployment as "sobering".

"I will not rest until all Americans who want work can find work," he added.

The statement is false, cannot be achieved (it is impossible that he does not take periodic rest eg sleep every night) and is not guided by reason or understanding but driven by force or emotion to impress voters of his dedication not without selfish motive but with selfish motive that they shall continue to support him.

It is not tireless work that is important. What is the use of rest-less work if it is misguided, will increase unemployment than decrease? Therefore what is important is not that you will not rest, you can rest but make sure your efforts are directed meaningfully to reduce unemployment.

THE REALITY MAY BE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE THE TARGET THAT EVERY AMERICAN WHO WANTS TO WORK CAN FIND WORK. WILL THEY AGREE TO SWEEP THE ROADS OR DO MENIAL JOBS? SO EVEN IF THERE ARE JOBS THERE WILL BE AMERICANS WHO WANT WORK BUT NOT THOSE KINDS OF WORK.

THUS HERE AS IN MANY PLACES PEOPLE THINK THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY SAY OR HEAR, THEY SPEAK OR HEAR THE TRUTH BUT IT IS DELUSION, IT IS FALSITY THEY SPEAK AND HEAR AND FALSE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAVE.

Utterly unethical:

If it is true there is an agreement for the federal government to pay royalty to states in whose territory oil is found, and it is true the federal government unilaterally reneged on that commitment just because the state is ruled by the opposition, then it shows that politicians people are utterly unethical and if they will do this behind the public’s back what else might they do behind your back.

There is nothing remarkable about Malaysian politicians, it is likely if not certainly that politicians all over the world (even Mandela may not be as squeakily clean as you perceive) are compromised even feeding at the trough to serious even system threatening extent, they connive with their cronies to plunder the system and so the economy and financial system is doomed, it is impossible that greedy, incompetent politicians who guided the world into this mess can guide it out. If you think it is possible you may be right or have wrong view that is the way to hell or the animal womb.

A rote statement:

It is unlikely this is the first time Obama used “I will not rest” but he has used that statement that is memorized to be rehashed many times before and to come whilst another politician say Clinton never says that.

Confronted by the situation that unemployment is sobering and hurting his electorate, the natural instinct for him is to stir emotion and thus driven by emotion, he searches his mental jukebox, locates the sequence he finds stirring or impressive “I will not rest” and presses the play button.

If “I will not rest” is truly specifically composed for the situation he will understand he must take rest every now and then and it is impossible he does not take rest, does not devote some time to other important issues and therefore being unachievable he should not say it.

It all starts with shamelessness:

The Buddha said it is greed (a form of sensuality or greed for objects of the five senses), hate (ill will) and delusion (self identity views, faith in rituals and rules, doubt and uncertainty are forms of delusion) that leads to death even endlessly recurring death for that being.

According to the Buddha it all starts with a lack of shame in a long chain of causation that ends in greed, hate and delusion.

This shamelessness is a lack of conscience and concern for motives and end results of the person’s actions.

There are many beings in this world including those who tout themselves as good and inhabiting even the highest rungs of religious societies who lack shame or conscience.

EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE MANY SITUATIONS WHERE THEY ARE ALREADY BLIND, THEY PERCEIVE WHAT THEY SAY OR DO IS GOOD FOR THEMSELVES AND OTHERS, SURELY THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE THEY CAN STILL SEE THAT WHAT THEY SAY OR DO ARE NO GOOD FOR THEMSELVES AND OTHERS, EVEN HARMFUL OR THEY DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS HARMFUL OR NOT AND SO THEY SHOULD DESIST OR REFRAIN. IT IS THIS LACK OF SHAME, LACK OF CONSCIENCE FOR THE RESULTS OF THEIR ACTIONS THAT HARMS THEMSELVES AND OTHERS THAT IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THE CHAIN OF CAUSAL FACTORS THAT END IN GREED, HATE AND DELUSION THAT THEN RESULTS IN ENDLESS DEATH FOR THEMSELVES.

One man’s actions will cost loyal US Muslims so much

This is a false connection or logic that will end in madness for him and those he is trying to inoculate.

It is because people in this world are irrational, emotional and prejudiced that one’s man actions will cost loyal US Muslim so much. If people are truly reasoning, calm and not driven by emotions this will not happen. Thus it is a false emotional not logical connection and anyone who entertains the thought entertains false logic that will end in mad logic.

Not one man’s action:

It is not one man’s action that will cost loyal US Muslims so much but it is bigotry (based on hate) that will cost loyal US Muslims much and therefore the statement conveys false perception and logic.

Without bigotry:

Without bigotry, the actions of one man in killing others cannot cost loyal US Muslims and therefore it is not the actions of one man that is the cause, but it is bigotry and you are exhibiting muddled thinking that is not harmless but is a reflection of a muddled mind that leads to more muddled thinking that is the path to final total confusion that is the path to ruin not heaven.

 

Bank of England says financiers are fuelling an economic 'doom loop'

The people running the banking system are rascals, like a malignant cancer, without shame or conscience and left alone they will run the system to ground if they have not already done so.

The banking sector must be overhauled as profoundly as in the wake of the Great Depression or financiers will "game the state" over and over again, the head of the Bank of England's financial stability arm has warned.

 

By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor
Published: 11:50PM GMT 06 Nov 2009

Comments 0 | Comment on this article

Bank of England says financiers are fuelling an economic 'doom loop'

On the eve of the G20 meeting of finance ministers in Scotland, Andy Haldane, the Bank's executive director for financial stability warned that the relationship between the state and banks represents a "doom loop" which will keep inflicting crises on the public unless arrested.

The warning, which follows Governor Mervyn King's call for investment banks to be split from their high street wings, is the most radical yet from the Bank, and comes amid growing concern that the G20 has abandoned any plans for far-reaching reforms.

It also coincided with news that the combined effect of rescuing Britain's biggest banks is likely to increase the national debt by a staggering £1.5 trillion, instantly making the UK one of the world's most indebted countries.

Mr Haldane, who was a key part of a Bank unit which was among the first to warn, well ahead of the crisis, of a dangerous gap between what banks had in their balance sheets and what they were lending customers, made the comments in a paper written with Piergiorgio Alessandri, published on Friday.

The pair diagnosed five ways in which banks capitalised on the implicit state guarantee for the financial system, saying they were "the latest incarnation of efforts by the banking system to boost shareholder returns and, whether by accident or design, game the state."

The fact that governments repeatedly bail out economies and banks following crises also undermines their pledged of "never again", they add.

"This adds to the cost of future crises. And the larger these costs, the lower the credibility of 'never again' announcements. This is a doom loop."

They conclude by calling for "a financial sector reform effort every bit as radical as followed the Great Depression."

However, the G20 meeting in St. Andrews is expected instead to focus on efforts to bring economies back to health. There are growing signs of further recovery in the UK economy.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's leading indicator showed that the UK is now in "expansionary" phase, suggesting it is out of recession. Producer prices also jumped, indicating that pricing pressures are on the rise.

Programmed seeing:

Even their seeing and hearing is not truly free but is programmed by themselves and society.

Stylish emotional people do not realize that there are programs in their minds that tell what to see and hear and how to see and hear and they must see and hear according to these programs that are consistent in them and differ from others.

These programs tell them what to see (pay attention to) and not to see (ignore) around them. These programs also them how to see some things with interest or attraction and other things with revulsion or dislike, to see some things as sad, fearful or painful that varies individually.

Stylish emotional people always see with added force, with force prolonging (as in staring), with force changing speed and strength (as in attraction and repulsion), seeing with darting eyes or sneakily through the corners of their eyes.

IT IS A DELUSION THAT STYLISH EMOTIONAL PEOPLE ARE FREE TO SEE EVERYTHING THERE IS TO SEE BEFORE THEIR EYES. THERE ARE INVISIBLE PROGRAMS THAT TELL THEM WHAT TO LOOK FOR AND AVOID WHAT THEY DISLIKED, THEY SEE WITH ADDED FORCE THAT IS BLIND AND BLINDING, WITH FORCE PROLONGING, CHANGING SPEED AND STRENGTH. THEY SEE THINGS AS ATTRACTIVE, REPULSIVE, SAD, FEAR AROUSING AND AGITATING WHEN IT IS ALL A FIGMENT OF THEIR FALSE PROGRAMMED PERCEPTION. BECAUSE IT IS PROGRAMMED AND THEY MUST OBEY THOSE PROGRAMS THEY CANNOT HELP IT AND PERCEIVE IT IS NATURAL AND TRUE.

NO UNDERSTANDING IS NEEDED TO PERCEIVE ACCORDING TO PROGRAMS WHICH ALREADY TELL YOU WHAT AND HOW TO SEE.

THUS NO TRUE SPECIFIC TO EACH OCCASION UNDERSTANDING IS REQUIRED FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE ROBOTS OF STYLE IN WHATEVER THEY UNDERTAKE, THEY DO NOT NEED TRUE UNDERSTANDING TO SEE, THINK, SPEAK AND ACT BECAUSE IT IS ALL DETERMINED FOR THEM BY PROGRAMS IN THEIR HEADS. WHAT THEY NEED IS REHASHED RULES OR COMMAND LOGIC THAT TELL WHICH PROGRAM TO ACTIVATE OR NOT AND OFTEN DECISIONS ARE AUTOMATICALLY MADE FOR THEM BY THEIR JUKEBOXES.

They hear style but not force changes:

The person who does not hear force changing speed and strength and prolonging but hears style in his own speech and others and find it charming and meaningful has false perception.

The person who hears constant force changing speed and strength, prolonging but does not hear not style has true perception.

Because emotional people hear style in how they speak and are attracted by it, find it meaningful and good but they do not hear the force prolonging, changing speed and loudness in their speech they all have false perception.

THEY HEAR BUT THEY HEAR FALSELY HOW THEY SPEAK AS STYLISH AND LOVELY WHEN THE TRUTH IS WHAT THEY ARE HEARING ARE MERELY FORCE PROLONGING, CHANGING SPEED AND STRENGTH.

IF YOU HEAR TRULY YOU MUST HEAR FORCE PROLONGING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND NOT STYLE BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING, PEOPLE ARE USING FORCE THAT IS UNNECESSARY ALL THE TIME TO STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT IS THE SORUCE OF THEIR STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND INABILITY TO CONCENTRATE.

Everything is programmed:

If you can program a car to drive from one place to another using its perceptions (cameras) to detect and avoid obstacles, detect and follow the road, then it is also possible for the perceptions of humans to be programmed.

Programmed means there are instructions that tell and determine what the person shall see, how he shall see and because the program is the boss, the person is restricted to what and how the program in his mind instructs him.

It is logical if the thinking (which is the mental equivalent of speaking), actions and speech of a person is programmed, rehashed from copies existing in the person’s mental jukebox, the perceptions (seeing, hearing) too should be programmed or rehashed to cater to his rehashing needs in speech and action, you do not need fresh specific to the occasion perceiving.

IN ORDER FOR A PERSON TO EFFICIENTLY REHASH IN SPEECH AND ACTIONS IT IS PREFERABLE THE SEEING AND HEARING IS PROGRAMMED OR SELECTIVE TO EXCLUDE EXTRANEOUS DATA NOT REQUIRED OR FACILITATIVE TO THE REHASHING AND INSTEAD TO HOME IN ON VISUAL AND SOUND CUES OR INFORMATION THAT FACILITATE REHASHING.

THUS IF EVERYTHING YOU DO IS PROGRAMMED AND NO UNDERSTANDING IS NEEDED TO REHASH FROM WHAT IS PROGRAMMED OR FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS, THEN THE PERSON WHO REHASHES IS TOTALLY WITHOUT TRUE UNDERSTANDING, WHAT UNDERSTANDING HE HAS IS FALSE RULES UNDERSTANDING AND ALSO REHASHED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITUATION.

Seeing style but not force change is a form of programming:

Seeing falsely that a person’s speech is stylish whilst not truly perceiving the force changes that constitute that style is a form of programming to see certain things (namely style) but not see certain things (force prolonging, changing speed and loudness).

If I were to tell a stylish person to repeat what he just said without stretching syllables, changing speed and loudness it is impossible he can do that because he cannot see force changes in his speech, he only sees how stylish or marvellous his speech is. Only a person who can see totally all the force changes in his speech and thus seeing put a stop to it by not stretching syllables, changing speed and loudness.

PEOPLE CANNOT SEE THE FORCE PROLONGING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT IS CONSTANTLY GOING ON IN A CONSISTENT WAY IN THEIR SPEECH, THEY ONLY SEE HOW STYLISH OR MELODIOUS THEIR WAY OF SPEAKING AND THIS IS A FORM OF PROGRAMMED SELECTIVE (FALSELY) SEEING STYLE BUT NOT THE (TRUE) FORCE CHANGES HAPPENING.

Perceiving things as attractive or repulsive is a form of programmed seeing:

People don’t realize it is actually their mental forces being stirred attractively or repulsively by something they see or hear, they perceive falsely that the thing (eg shit, a carcass) is repulsive or attractive (pretty flower or sports car).

Whilst one man’s meat can be another’s poison, a shirt that looks attractive to you can be disgusting to another, an effeminate man can be attractive to some women but not others, it is consistent in that person that if he finds certain kinds of clothes, food and cars attractive, he will consistently do so and so it is a conditioned false perception in him.

If an article (eg money) is intrinsically attractive then it should attract everyone not someone.

THUS THE FACT THAT A PERSON CAN BE CONSISTENTLY ATTRACTED TO SOMETHING, EG FIND MONEY ATTRACTIVE WHILST ANOTHER MIGHT FIND MONEY REPULSIVE OR NEITHER ATTRACTED OR REPULSED REFLECTS THAT TO FIND SOMETHING ATTRACTIVE IS A FALSITY AND THE ONLY REASON THAT PERSON CONSISTENTLY PERCEIVES MONEY AS ATTRACTIVE IS BECAUSE HIS PERCEPTION OF MONEY IS PROGRAMMED AND REHASHED AND HE HAS PROGRAMMED PERCEPTIONS IN WHICH HE IS A SLAVE NOT MASTER.

IF YOU CAN PROGRAM A CAR TO PERCEIVE OBJECTS TO ENABLE IT TO DRIVE TO A DESTINATION, THE PERCEPTIONS OF HUMANS TOO CAN BE PROGRAMMED.

IF A PERSON’S SPEECH, THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS ARE ALL REHASHED FROM PROGRAMS, THERE IS NO NEED FOR HIS PERCEPTIONS TO BE FREE, UNPROGRAMMED BUT INSTEAD IT WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT THAT HIS PERCEPTIONS TOO ARE PROGRAMMED TO FACILITATE HIS REHASHED SPEECH AND ACTIONS, HE SHOULD LOOK OUT FOR CUES TO INITIATE HIS VARIOUS ACTIONS RATHER THAN LOOK AT EVERYTHING THERE IS TO SEE.

TO HEAR YOUR STYLISH SPEECH AS MELODIOUS, CHARMING BUT NOT HEAR THE CONSTANT FORCE CHANGES THAT CONSITUTE THE MELODIOUS VOICE IS A PROGRAMMED FALSE PERCEPTION TO SEE STYLE BUT NOT FORCE CHANGES.

TO PERCEIVE SOMETHING AS ATTRACTIVE OR REPULSIVE IN A CONSISTENT WAY (ALWAYS FIND THAT GIRL IRRESISTIBLE) TOO IS A FORM OF CONDITIONED FALSE PERCEPTION (HOW COME YOU ALWAYS FIND HER IRRESISTIBLE WHEN OTHERS DON’T?). IN TRUTH THERE IS NOTHING IRRESISTIBLE OR UNRESISTABLE ABOUT THE GIRL), IT IS YOUR CONDITIONED STIRRING OF YOUR MENTAL FORCE AT SIGHT OF HER THAT IS RESPONSIBLE. BUT THE PERSON WITH PROGRAMMED FALSE PERCEPTION DOES NOT PERCEIVE IT IS HIS STIRRED MENTAL FORCE THAT IS RESPONSIBLE, HE PERCEIVES THE GIRL IS TRULY ATTRACTIVE. PEOPLE ACTUALLY PERCEIVE THAT A GIRL IS ATTRACTIVE NOT THEIR STIRRED MENTAL FORCE THAT FALSELY MAKES HER ATTRACTIVE.

What meaning is there in life for robots?

There is never true meaning in life for people who are robots, doomed to rehash everything they perceive, say, think or do and so it is that sometimes they sigh and say ‘life is meaningless’.

Because life is never truly meaningful for robots (but always truly meaningful for those who are not robots) to defiantly insist your life is meaningful is to compound your agony and court insanity.

So what meaning or purpose is there in life for robots?

As a robot you are merely a disc jockey (sometimes) selecting which program to activate and a supplier of force. You can vary the amount of force you apply to the rehashed programs on different occasions. Often these functions of selection and supply of force are taken away from them, the jukebox automatically selects for them and the stirred emotion eg anger may dictate the force they apply in what they say or do.

What meaning robots find is in seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, exercising their likes and dislikes.

Only force can give pleasure and it is mild force on contact that gives pleasure and so seeking pleasure and a life devoted to pleasure is seeking force and a life devoted to force that is blind, not everlasting and harmful. In order to experience pleasure you must exist in a world where there is force and whereas pleasures are limited in their intensities, there is virtually limitless potential for pain and so the price for pleasure in pain is horrendous.

Apart from seeking and devotion to pleasure, it is liking or greed for gains, sensate objects and dislike, hatred for things that they find meaningful and drive them to insatiably acquire eg wealth at all costs and means and to destroy or deprive others (eg Hitler and Alexander the Great conquering).

ANYONE WHO REHASHES IS A FULL TIME SLAVE OF FORCE WITHOUT TRUE UNDERSTANDING.

AT BEST THEY ARE SELECTORS OF THE PROGRAMS STORED IN THEIR MENTAL JUKEBOX AND A SUPPLIER OF VARIABLE FORCE TO ACTIVATE THESE PROGRAMS BUT OFTEN THESE FUNCTIONS ARE USURPED BY THEIR MENTAL JUKEBOXES.

WHAT SUSTAINS ROBOTS IS ENJOYMENT AND SEEKING PLEASURE WHICH IS DERIVED FROM FORCE, STIRRING AND EXERCISING THEIR LIKES AND DISLIKES WHICH ARE AGAIN BASED ON FORCE.

Here is false perception for you:

Quote: The unpredictable nature of the Premier League was displayed in all its glory yesterday when the richest club in the world were held 3-3 by Burnley, the smallest team to play in the top flight since the league was founded in 1992.

If you think that the unpredictable nature of something can be displayed in all its glory then you have false perception. “A reminder of the unpredictable nature of the Premier League” may be appropriate and it reflects that many even those approved by ‘reputable’ newspapers to write responsibly about events are guilty of false perception to hype or exaggerate events.
IT IS TRUE PEOPLE PERCEIVE BUT THEY PERCEIVE FALSELY AND WHATEVER IS PERCEIVED FALSELY NEED NOT BE SPECIFIC TO THE OCCASION BUT IT SUFFICES TO REHASH, IT IS MORE EFFICIENT TO REHASH TO FALSIFY, TO PERCEIVE FALSELY.

When rules logic comes into play:

If you have a variety of programs of speech or actions that can be applied to a situation, you need to have rules logic to tell you which of the many programs to choose to activate and sometimes there is no clear cut appropriate choice and the robotic person agonizes, cannot decide what to say or do.

A person who is not a robot has no such indecisions, does not agonize as to a course of action. He sees clearly what is the situation before him and the response is clear neither does he has a repertoire of pre-recorded reactions that he must consult and agonize over selection.

IF YOU HAVE ONLY ONE RECORDED RESPONSE TO A SITUATION THERE IS NO NEED FOR RULES LOGIC. IT IS ONLY IF YOU HAVE RIVAL RECORDED RESPONSES TO A SITUATION THAT YOU NEED RULES LOGIC TO DETERMINE WHICH OF THE FALSE COUNTERFEIT RESPONSES TO ACTIVATE.

Tkl

She’s attractive is a false statement:

“She’s attractive” is a false statement driven by false programmed perception.

There is nothing intrinsically attractive or repulsive about anything, it is the attractive or repulsive stirring of the observer’s mental force that makes it so and therefore to say something is attractive is to perceive falsely.

AND PEOPLE ESPECIALLY THE SMITTEN DO PERCEIVE A WOMAN IS ATTRACTIVE, THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM BUT SHE IS INTRINSICALLY ATTRACTIVE, WHICH IS A FORM OF FALSE CONDITIONED OR PROGRAMMED PERCEPTION.

Each time you stir your mental force attractively at the sight of a girl you are conditioning yourself to perceive falsely that she is indeed intrinsically attractive until the false (programmed) perception is so compelling you cannot help it and see it as truly so, ‘she is attractive’. The same man when spurned may change to perceive her hatefully or repulsively and another man may find her ‘so so’ or even unattractive.

One speaking correctly or truly says my mental force is stirred attractively by her because that is what actually happens, it is your mental force that is stirred attractively by her not she is attractive.

Further attraction has nothing that can be understood, it is a meaningless blind stirring of mental force and so in speaking about attractiveness that the person obviously perceives as meaningful and fellow deluded people concur, he is speaking about the stirring of blind, meaningless harmful force at sight of a woman.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT A MAN CONSISTENTLY FIND THE SAME WOMAN ATTRACTIVE WITHOUT IT BEING A CONDITIONED OR PROGRAMMED FALSE PERCEPTION, THERE IS A PROGRAM IN THIS MIND THAT IS REHASHED TO DRIVE HIM TO PERCEIVE HER AS ATTRACTIVE. THUS HERE AS ELSEWHERE PEOPLE THINK THEY PERCEIVE TRULY BUT THEY PERCEIVE BY REHASHED PROGRAMMING.

Emotion is not a bystander but basis of actions:

Always, to greater or lesser extent there is emotional accompaniment (like, dislike, sadness, hurt, agitation or fear) to what people say or do and rather than an innocent or harmless bystander, this accompanied emotion is the basis or drive of what is said or done, never genuine reason.

Thus, when a person’s anger is stirred he may lash out in words and even deed (eg block another’s car with his own) and in this case, his action is driven by blind force (anger) not true reason.

Again, his attraction stirred by the sight of a woman, he approaches her and addresses her. Here again, his approach and addressing is driven by force not reason.

For one who perceives truly, there is always automatic emotion accompaniment to whatever people say or do although at milder levels of emotion, they think there is no emotion and this appreciable emotion is not just a coincidental bystander but it is actually the motive or drive of what is said or done that is never without precedent but rehashed from the considerable repertoire in his mental jukebox.

AND NO ONE IS DRIVEN BY FORCE OR EMOTION SPECIFICALLY TO EACH OCCASION BUT THEY ARE ALL DRIVEN BY FORCE OR EMOTION IN A PROGRAMMED OR REHASHED WAY, PERCEPTION OF CERTAIN PERCEPTUAL CUES STIRS CERTAIN PERCEPTUAL PROGRAMS IN THEM THAT TELL THEM WHAT AND HOW TO PERCEIVE AND THUS PERCEIVING IN A PROGRAMMED ALWAYS SAME WAY, THEY ARE DRIVEN TO SPEAK OR ACT IN A PROGRAMMED WAY.

IT IS A PERSON’S STYLE OR USE OF FORCE TO STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT IS THE GENERATOR OF FORCE THAT SUSTAIN EMOTIONS, JUST AS A POWER GENERATOR GENERATES ELECTRICITY TO POWER APPLIANCES AND ONCE GENERATED, IT IS EMOTIONS THAT DRIVE PEOPLE TO KEEP MINDLESSLY REHASHING IN A SUBSTANCE AND STYLE MANNER IN WHICH FORCE IS THE DICTATOR AND THE PERSON IS A SLAVE.

Snapshots mandates programmed seeing:

There are two ways of seeing something, you either pay full undivided attention without stirring distracting emotion to the event to fully see and understand the event or harassed and emotion stirred, you view the event episodically in snapshots that does not allow you to understand directly, specific to occasion the event occurring.

HOW CAN ANYONE MAKE SENSE WHAT THEY SAW IN BITS AND PIECES OR SAMPLES, THEIR MENTAL FORCES OR EMOTIONS STIRRED DISRUPTIVELY, EXCEPT TO REFER TO THEIR LIBRARIES OF RECORDED EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT THE SNAPSHOTS MIGHT MEAN AND THEREFORE THEY ARE FOREVER SEEING AGAIN AND AGAIN THE SAME OLD MEANINGS OF EVENTS THAT THEY HAVE REGISTERED IN THEIR MINDS. NO MATTER HOW ACCURATE THESE RECORDED OR INTEPRETATIONS OF EVENTS ARE, THEY ARE NEVER THE REAL THING AND OFTEN THESE INTEPRETATIONS ARE SERIOUSLY FLAWED, SO THE PERSON WHO VIEWS IN SNAPSHOTS ARE DOOMED TO FOREVER SEE THE SAME OLD THINGS THAT THEIR PROGRAMMED REHASH PERCEPTIONS TELL THEM FALSELY IS WHAT THEY SEE THAT THEY ONLY SAW IN SNAPSHOTS.

UNLESS YOU BELIEVE YOU FULLY PERCEIVE ANY EVENT OCCURING, IF YOU PERCEIVE THEM IN SNAPSHOTS, THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING EXCEPT WITH THE HELP OF PROGRAMMED PERCEPTION, YOU HAVE A LIBRARY OF INTEPRETATIONS OF WHAT MIGHT BE HAPPENING THAT YOU MATCH THOSE SNAPSHOTS WITH AND YOU REHASH THE EXPLANATION FOR THE EVENT RATHER THAN TRULY UNDERSTAND THAT EVENT AS IT IS.

Snapshots means you must presume:

Seeing and hearing in snapshots means you must presume, you must fall back on interpretations of what is happening before you might mean and therefore you are forever reliving past scenarios for everything that is happening, pigeonholing and consigning events to those categories you mind say they are.

PRESUMPTION THE BUDDHA SAID IS A DEFILEMENT OF THE MIND THAT PREVENTS TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF AN EVENT. ANYONE WHO SEES IN SNAPSHOTS MUST PRESUME, MUST REHATCH OLD EXPLANATIONS FOR AN EVENT HE SAW FITFULLY EMOTIONALLY.

YOU MAY SEE BUT YOU ARE REHATCHING THE PERCEPTIONS FROM THE PAST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING THAT IS FOREVER A REPLAY OF THOSE RECORDED PERCEPTIONS.

No reason and incapable:

Why should or for what reason would people who rehash everything and how they think, speak and do specific to the occasion see or hear what they see and hear? Suffices for people devoted to rehashing to also rehash what they see or hear, to fall back on recorded understandings of what they perceive.

If a person is capable of live specific to the occasion seeing what is going on, he will be capable of live specific to the occasion thinking, speaking and actions, if they are incapable of live specific to each occasion thinking, speaking and doing, it is impossible they should be capable of live specific to each occasion seeing and hearing.

AND EMOTIONAL STYLISH PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE WHAT THEY ARE MISSING. THEY CRAVE EXISTING, BUT BY REHASHING WHATEVER AND HOWEVER THEY PERCEIVE, THINK, SPEAK AND DO, THEY ARE ISOLATING THEMSELVES FROM THE REALITY THEY CRAVE TO EXIST IN, THEY ARE IMPRISONING THEMSELVES IN A FALSE WORLD OF MAKE BELIEVE WHOSE FINAL DESTINY IS LOSS OF CONTROL AND TOTAL INSANITY. ANYONE WHO IS STYLISH & EMOTIONAL MUST EXPERIENCE EPISODES OF LOSS OF CONTROL THAT ARE HARBINGERS OF FUTURE UNCONTROLLABLE MADNESS.

The serious hazards of anti cholesterol medicines:

More than six million adults who are prescribed statins by their GPs will be told about five new ' undesirable effects' in leaflets issued with packets of the drugs.

These are sleep disturbances, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, depression and a rare lung disease that can kill if left untreated.

Stress medicine says leads to high cholesterol, hypertension & diabetes and the only pleasurable side effect free permanent cure to stress and thence high cholesterol is to stop using force to stretch, syllables, change speed and loudness.

Chemical warfare:

You think it is marvellous that certain medicines can bring to normal your high cholesterol but what is happening is chemical warfare. The drug you take is conducting chemical warfare (and nothing else) to bring down high cholesterol and in any war there are casualties, even the victor sustains casualty that may be a heavy price to pay.

NO MATTER HOW SOPHISTICATED A MEDICINE IS, WHAT IT IS DOING IS NOTHING MORE THAN CHEMICAL WARFARE TO DEFEAT AN UNDESIRED AILMENT EG HIGH CHOLESTEROL AND WARFARE IS ABOUT FORCE FIGHTING FORCE THAT DESTROYS THE OTHER WITH THE BATTLEFIELD (YOUR BODY) SUSTAINING ‘COLLATERAL’ DAMAGE.

HENCE IF YOU DEPEND ON MEDICINES YOU DEPEND ON FORCE AND YOU ARE WAGING A WAR INVOLVING CLASHING FORCES.

This time it is different:

It may be one of the rare occasions when it is true: This time it is different.

The jobless rate may be 10% as in 1982 but the workforce is bigger today and so 10% today means more out of job and there are differences as pointed out below, people have more debts to service, etc.

Jobless: 10 percent is tougher than it used to be

More benefits and greater ease in seeking work doesn’t offset hardships

The Associated Press

updated 1:43 p.m. ET Nov. 8, 2009

WASHINGTON - It hurts more to be unemployed now than the last time the jobless rate hit 10 percent.

Americans have more than triple the debt they had in 1982, and less than half the savings. They spend 10 weeks longer off the job. And a bigger share of them have no health insurance, leaving them one medical emergency away from financial ruin.

For these reasons, the unemployed are more vulnerable today to foreclosure and bankruptcy than they were a generation ago.

Donald Schenk knows. He's been without work both times. It's worse now, he says.

Back in the early 1980s, when Schenk lost his job at a phone company, he was able to find several temporary jobs — including one testing pinball machines — to make ends meet until he landed full-time work nearly two years later.

But now Schenk, 55, of the Chicago suburb of Schaumburg, Ill., has been seeking work for a year and a half after losing his information technology job. Potential employers aren't interested "if you are not a perfect fit," he says.

The unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent in October. All told, 15.7 million Americans are out of work. Add in workers forced to settle for part-time work or those who have simply given up looking, and the rate is 17.5 percent.

Better in some ways
Only twice since World War II has unemployment topped 10 percent — now and from September 1982 to June 1983. In a few respects, life is better today for the unemployed than it was then.

Unemployment benefits are more generous, adjusted for inflation, and the Internet allows jobseekers to network, scan for openings and apply without leaving home.

And thanks in part to higher home values, Americans are worth more now. Measured in 2009 dollars, net worth comes to about $173,000 per person, compared with $94,000 in 1982, according to Lynn Reaser, president of the National Association for Business Economics.

Even if the average American has a larger cushion to fall back on, times are tough.

A much larger share of jobs these days — more than four out of five — are in the service sector, such as tax preparers, hair stylists and retail clerks. Those jobs generally pay less and offer fewer benefits than blue-collar manufacturing work.

Manufacturing, which typically offers more generous benefits, accounts for less than 9 percent of payrolls today — down from 19 percent in 1982.

Back then, the United Auto Workers persuaded the Big Three auto companies to pay up to 95 percent of the gap between a laid-off worker's unemployment benefits and what he or she made on the job.

But since the decline of the size and influence of unions, "that would be inconceivable today," says University of Illinois professor Michael LeRoy, who studies unions.

Unemployment also squeezes families tighter these days because they are less conservative about how they spend and save.

Far greater debt loads
People carry an average of about $46,000 in debt — mortgages, credit cards, auto loans and other consumer debt. That's a far bigger load than in 1982, when per capita debt totaled about $14,000 in today's dollars.

And savings, as a percentage of after-tax income, was only 2.7 percent last year, down from 10.9 percent in 1982. Americans stashed an average of just $940 last year, compared with $2,537 in 1982. That helps explain why the foreclosure rate runs about seven times higher today.

Not surprisingly, that means more Americans — about three times as many — are going bankrupt.

Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, says the ripple effects of the rising unemployment rate will be felt for years. He predicts the poverty rate for children will rise to 27 percent in 2011, from 18 percent in 2007.

"It will scar a generation of kids," he says.

If you're unemployed today, the odds are better that you'll stay unemployed longer than a generation ago.

And government surveys suggest that if you get laid off, it's more likely to be for good. Today's unemployed have been out of work about half a year on average. In the early 1980s, they spent about four months without jobs.

One reason is that industries such as construction and finance may never bulk back up to pre-recession levels. Even before the economy went south, demand for their products was inflated by the housing bubble.

Layoffs more permanent
Another reason layoffs are more permanent: Manufacturers these days are more aggressive about using technology to boost productivity — or they hire cheaper workers overseas as the economy improves.

Schenk, who is drawing unemployment aid, has managed to stay up-to-date on his mortgage and credit card payments, but at a significant cost to his financial future. "I'm burning through my savings," he says. "And the next thing I'll dip into is my retirement account."

Because he does not have health insurance, Schenk's financial pressures would grow dramatically if he became injured or sick. The Census Bureau says about one in four unemployed people have no insurance, compared with about one in five in 1987.

Schenk also lacked insurance when he lost the phone company job in the '80s. But he was younger then, and less concerned about his health. This time around, he paid for health coverage through the government's COBRA program. But that has run out.

The government program lets today's workers keep their insurance for 18 months after a layoff. But the premiums can be steep — up to $1,137 a month for families and $410 for individuals.

The federal stimulus program provides subsidized coverage for up to nine months for those who meet certain income thresholds. After that, they must pay the full cost.

Flimsier safety nets
For those who lose jobs today, the safety net is much flimsier.

Layoffs have forced some older workers into retirement, yet fewer of them can fall back on traditional pensions that pay a steady monthly sum. Only 11 percent of active workers have a traditional pension, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. That's down from 50 percent in 1982.

Instead, more workers today have 401(k)-type retirement plans. But those have suffered huge hits in this downturn. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell as much as 57 percent earlier this year from its October 2007 peak and is still down about 32 percent.

Schenk, who has had dozens of jobs interviews, says it's a struggle to remain upbeat and to keep searching. He knows for sure that one bad economic indicator is higher nowadays than a generation ago: He worries more.

"Back then it seemed like certain jobs were hit and you could still find those short little gigs," Schenk says. "This time it hit everything."

Couldn’t be more different?

Quote: For the past several months, investors have been acting like it's 1999, the first year when the Dow crossed 10,000, and stocks took off in complete disregard for reality. Yet the atmosphere then and now couldn't be more different.

That is a mindless falsity to exaggerate. It can be more different and so what is said is false, one speaking truthfully says ‘things are very different’ not ‘couldn’t be more different’.

Deja vu:

It is likely if not certainly that people who are rehashing all the time will experience deja vu, the emotional state of familiarity as if it has happened before.

There may be nothing mystical or mysterious about it, if you are rehashing you are reproducing what you have said or done before and so even if you cannot see yourself rehashing, deep inside that repressed inability to see, there may be a lurking suspicion you have said or done it before and that is deja vu.

Inventory rebuilding & stimulus:

Recently resumed GDP growth was celebrated in many countries as the end to the recession when it may be a deceptive flash in the pan.

As demand collapses, it is likely that many companies just stopped production and let demand not just draw down their stocks but to levels that are very low before being forced by necessity to resume or increase production and this increased production can explain some of the GDP growth but it is not likely to be sustained nor reach great heights.

Another contributor is fiscal stimuli by governments as in tax rebates for houses and old cars. If these are stopped the economy may decline again.

What is conscience?

A person who does not sin and therefore does not suffer does not require conscience and it is only if a person sins and inevitably suffers from his sinning who requires conscience, who either has or has not conscience which is an emotional concern as to the truthfulness or meaningfulness of a person’s own conduct, whether it harms or benefits others and to take committed measures to rectify.

A person without conscience, and there plenty in this world, even amongst those who think they are very understanding and good, does not care that he is suffering, does not care whether he understands the truthfulness or meaningfulness of what he says or does, how it is the source of his own and others’ suffering, he is only concerned with seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, of acquiring material and sensate gains with little regard for the attendant suffering these pursuits bring to himself and others.

A person who truly does not sin does not require conscience because he truly understands the nature of what he says and does and thus truly understanding he avoids all falsity which requires overruling his true understanding to use force according to plans to carry out the falsity that leads to insoluble recurring stress, restlessness and inability to concentrate and mandates he exists as a slave to that false plan which is the master of his actions.

IN ORDER TO COMMIT FALSITY AND HARM, YOU MUST HAVE PLANS AND YOU MUST ACT SUBSERVIENTLY TO THAT PLAN IN WHICH YOU ARE ONLY A SUPPLIER OF FORCE TO UNDERTAKE THE PLAN. NO ONE WHO TRULY UNDERSTANDS WILL DO THAT AS IT MEANS ENSLAVEMENT AND SUFFERING. THUS A TRULY UNDERSTANDING PERSON DOES NOT REQUIRE CONSCIENCE, HE TRULY UNDERSTANDS AND WHATEVER ACTIONS EMANATING FROM TRUE UNDERSTANDING CANNOT RESULT IN SUFFERING BUT HAPPINESS FOR SELF AND OTHERS.

IT IS ONLY A PERSON WHO SINS AND THEREFORE SUFFERS WHO IS IN NEED OF CONSCIENCE OR AN EMOTIONAL CONCERN AS TO THE VERACITY, MEANINGFULNESS AND HARMFULNESS OF HIS ACTIONS AND THENCE TO TAKE MEASURES TO CORRECT HIMSELF.

BECAUSE ALL BEINGS TRAPPED HERE SIN AND SUFFER, THEY REQUIRE CONSCIENCE WHICH IS A RARE COMMODITY IN THIS WORLD AND THERE ARE MANY WHO HAVE NO CONSCIENCE, NO CONCERN FOR THE TRUTHFULNESS, MEANINGFULNESS AND HARMFULNESS TO THEMSELVES AND OTHERS OF WHAT THEY DO OR SAY.

IT IS THIS LACK OF CONSCIENCE OR SHAMELESSNESS THAT THE BUDDHA SAID IS THE ORIGINAL FACTOR THAT LEADS THROUGH A LONG CHAIN ENDING IN GREED, HATE AND DELUSION THAT MANDATES DEATH EVEN FOR AN ETERNITY.

Perceiving something as funny is false rote perception:

To perceive something seen or heard is funny is in truth a form of false perception that is rehashed or programmed.

In truth there is nothing funny about anything happening or a joke and it is the false programmed perception of the person that makes it funny.

IF YOU PERCEIVE SOMETHING HAPPENING, A JOKE AS FUNNY, YOU HAVE PROGRAMMED FALSE PERCEPTION WITHOUT REALIZATION.

Each country has its brand of humour and a Malaysian in Australia may not at first appreciate the Australian brand of humour which is distinct from the Malaysian, British and US brands. In time he learns to appreciate Australian ‘humour’, he increasingly perceives what he did not at first perceive as funny to be funny and he has been brainwashed, programmed to perceive falsely what initially was not funny to him as funny.

JUST LIKE APPRECIATING BEER IS AN ACQUIRED TASTE, PERCEIVING SOMETHING AS FUNNY IS NOT NATURAL BUT CONDITIONED OR PROGRAMMED AND SO WHENEVER A PERSON PERCEIVES SOMETHING AS FUNNY HE IS UNWITTINGLY MANIFESTING FALSE PROGRAMMED OR REHASHED PERCEPTION.

NOT ONLY ARE WHAT THEY THINK, SPEAK AND DO REHASHED, THEIR PERCEPTIONS TOO ARE REHASHED. YOU DO NOT NEED UNDERSTANDING TO REHASH, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED OR IS FIXED, SO WHAT IS THERE TO UNDERSTAND?

Everything also rehashed:

The substance and style of everything people who are stylish and emotional undertake, namely their perceiving, thinking, speaking and actions are in truth memorized, retrieved from that memory to be inserted to a current situation.

If a person is capable of seeing and hearing truly live specific to each occasion, he would not rehash what he thinks, speaks and does and if he rehashes whatever he thinks, speaks and does, it is impossible that he can truly see live specific to each occasion.

NOT TO REHASH BUT TO PERFORM LIVE FOR EACH OCCASION IS AN INCOMPARABLY SANER, WOE FREE CALM CLEARLY SEEING WAY TO EXIST COMPARED TO REHASHING AND SO ANYONE WHO HAS TASTED NOT REHASHING, WHO IS CAPABLE OF NOT REHASHING WILL NOT RESORT TO OR PERMIT HIMSELF TO REHASH AND SO IT IS THAT A ROBOT IS A ROBOT IN EVERYTHING IT DOES, PERCEIVING, THINKING, SPEAKING AND DOING. FOR ONE WHO DISCERNS, WHO SEES THINGS TRULY AS THEY ARE, THIS IS THE CASE IN PRACTICE.

A PERSON, WHETHER HE KNOWS HE IS A ROBOT OR NOT HAS NO LIFE IN HIM, HE IS A MECHANICAL ROBOT AND WILL PERISH. TO BE CONVERTED FROM A NON UNDERSTANDING ROBOT TO AN UNDERSTANDING NON ROBOT WOULD BE TO BE TRULY BORN AGAIN IN SPIRIT.

The meaning of the shooting at Fort Hood:

This is the headline of a NYT article exploring the subject that implies there must be meanings that can be gleaned when it is deluded, fabricating and false that is the path to future mad perception.

There are many things that stylish emotional people do that are in truth meaningless. Their styles or how the stretch syllables, change speed and loudness is not only meaningless but leads to tormenting stress, restlessness and inability to concentrate. So is their smiling and laughing and joking which are not only meaningless but harmful.

Suppose the gun man is deluded, is seriously deranged, would he need any reason to shoot people? If he was deranged then his reason for shooting too will be deluded or meaningless and therefore to attribute reason or meaning to the shooting is delusion.

HE IS SPECULATING, WANTING OTHERS TO SIMILARLY SPECULATE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE PERSON SHOULD KNOW THE TRUE MEANING OF THE SHOOTING IF THERE WAS.

IF THE GUN MAN IS MAD HE DOES NOT NEED REASON OR HE NEEDS DELUDED REASON TO KILL AND THEREFORE TO LOOK FOR MEANING IS LIKE LOOKING FOR THE POT OF GOLD AT THE END OF A RAINBOW.

IF YOU SPECULATE YOU ARE ASKING FOR INSANITY AND BY ADVOCATING TO DO SO, YOU HAVE DEBTS.

MANY THINGS PEOPLE DO ARE WITHOUT TRUE REASON. IT IS MEANINGLESS TO USE FORCE TO STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND SO WHY DO PEOPLE DO IT EXCEPT FOR THE DELUSION IT IS IMPRESSIVE OR PLEASING.

IF THE MEANING FOR THE SHOOTING IS FALSE EG INSANITY, WHAT IS THE POINT OF TALKING ABOUT IT?

What is the point?

Can you be sure that the meanings you gleaned of the shooting are true, actually what happened? If you cannot be sure, you may have got it all wrong, aren’t you indulging in something frivolous that will lead to doubt and uncertainty that what you think happened may not have happened?

If the motives and reasons for the man shooting are deluded, mad what is the point about talking about them? It is only because you think there are true meanings behind his shooting that you pursue the matter. If his reasons are false, you are barking up the wrong tree, perceiving what is meaningless or senseless as meaningful or with meaning.

For brave investors, Zimbabwee could be the ultimate turnaround:

He and you think the truth is spoken but it is delusion.

It is not just for brave investors but for investors (aka speculators), Zimbabwee could be an extreme (not ultimate) turnaround.

Bravery has nothing to do with investing in Zimbabwee but a liking for risk or gambling.

IT IS AN EXTREME GAMBLE AND YOU NEED A MEASURE OF FOOLHARDINESS NOT BRAVERY TO INVEST IN ZIMBABWEE AND SO THE PERSON IS EXHIBITING FALSE PERCEPTION, IS SPEAKING TONGUE IN CHEEK TO MOCK OR BE SARCASTIC OR HE DOES NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAYS WHICH IS THE PATH TO SUFFERING.

The difference between bravery and foolishness:

If you duck a fusillade of bullets advancing from shelter to shelter to get to and help a wounded comrade then you are brave.

If you do the same for no purpose or unnecessarily or you stand up to be shot, then you are not brave but a fool.

HENCE IF YOU TAKE RISKS EVEN PUT YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE FOR A GOOD CAUSE, TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING WORTHWILE, YOU ARE BRAVE.

IF YOU RISK YOUR MONEY BETTING THAT ZIMBABWEE WILL RECOVER WHEN YOUR MONEY IS MORE THAN LIKELY TO BE GOBBLED BY MUGABE, THEN YOU ARE FOOLISH.

HENCE TO CALL SOMEONE WHO INVESTS IN ZIMBABWEE BRAVE WHEN HE IS A FOOL IS COURTING INSANITY FOR THE SAKE OF POKING FUN.

Why he is contradicting himself:

If it is impossible for the Zimbabwee economy to collapse further then Zimbabwee is truly as he said, the ultimate turnaround. If it is possible for Zimbabwee to collapse further then it is not the ultimate turnaround as he touted.

If there is no risk to investing in Zimbabwee then a lot of people would have jumped in. The risk in investing in Zimbabwee is that you may lose your money, Mugabe may nationalize your shares or assets, your money may be confiscated by Mugabe. Because the risk of losing your money is high it would take a foolish not brave man to invest.

Would you be brave or a fool to deposit your money with the local gangster?

Japan in deep financial trouble:

Rather than a picture of robust financial health, Japan is sick financially as a result of abuses during the 1980 bubble years and the subsequent reckless spending (aka stimulus, which is what G20 promised that pushed up stock markets) of the Japanese government to shore up the economy. Cumulative Japanese government debt is now 200% GDP as a result of chronic borrowing to plug the deficit between government spending and income and if income does not increase, even collapses and lenders flee, the Japanese can default on its debts.

YEARS OF RECKLESS JAPANESE GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY WITH BORROWED MONEY HAS RESULTED IN PUBLIC DEBT THAT IS 200% GDP AND CLIMBING AND HERE YOU HAVE THE WORLD VOWING TO FOLLOW THE SAME RECKLESS TRACK OF STIMULATING AND THE DOW JONES RISES IN CELEBRATION.

Quote: In 2009, Japan’s budget deficit - the gap between spending and taxes - amounts to 10 per cent or more of gross domestic product (GDP). The total government debt - the borrowing to cover all its deficits - is approaching 200 per cent of GDP. That's twice the size of its economy.

The mountainous debt reflects years of slow economic growth, many 'stimulus' plans, an ageing society and the impact of the global recession. By 2019, the debt-to-GDP ratio could hit 300 per cent, says a report from JPMorgan Chase.

Why Selangor Govt still UMNO:

If you agree state government officials in Perak & Selangor are corrupted, even seriously so, then these corrupt officials are likely to sympathize with UMNO if not members of UMNO themselves and so even if PR controls the government, the underlings are still corrupt and you need to pay them bribes or nothing gets done and they may sabotage the opposition government in its attempts to clean up. With the MACC or ACA in BN hands these people have no fear they will be charged for corruption.

Why did Mao launch various purges like the Cultural Revolution? It is to entirely revamp the government, change officials as completely as possible so that a new mindset can be established.

Hence without an extensive purge of officials of the state government, corrupt officials are likely to remain who are loyal to UMNO, share UMNO’s creed and bribes must still be paid and they will listen to UMNO than PR instructions and they have no fear of prosecution because MACC is behind them.

How did Japan get into such a mess?

It is because of feckless LDP politicians that Japan is in such a mess. They had a hand in the property and stock bubble of the 1980s and when it burst, rather than face reality and take bitter medicine they kept borrowing money to live beyond its means and undertake useless constructions that benefit cronies, kept them alive at the expense of the nation. If they had not stimulated the economy they could have faced voter backlash and lost and so this continued stimulation apart from keeping their cronies alive also saved them from voter backlash.

Conscience is remorse:

A major component if not entirety of conscience is regret, the stirring of emotional hurt and sadness directed at self after committing a sin. Thus if you did not commit any sin, from where should remorse or pricking of conscience arise and so remorse applies to those who have done wrong?

Conscience, remorse & regret:

If something is true or happens, it can be clearly defined as such and such. Thus if there is such a thing as conscience, remorse and regret and they are different from each other then they can be clearly defined.

There is nothing mysterious or marvellous or complicated about conscience. It does exists in some people but not others and it is simply the ability to see that what one says or does is wrong, false, meaningless, makes no sense and harmful to self and others.

WHETHER SOMETHING SAID OR DONE IS TRUE OR FALSE, MAKES SENSE OR DOES NOT, IS BAD FOR SELF AND OTHERS, IS OBJECTIVE, CANNOT BE REFUTED OR ARGUED. IF YOU CAN EXAMINE OR REFLECT ON WHAT YOU SAY OR DO AND CAN SEE THAT IT IS BAD, FALSE, SENSELESS AND HARMFUL THEN YOU HAVE CONSCIENCE, IF YOU CANNOT BE BOTHERED TO EXAMINE WHAT YOU SAY OR DO, YOU EXAMINE AND SEE NOTHING WRONG WHEN IT IS WRONG, YOU HAVE NO CONSCIENCE. THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL OR MYSTERIOUS OR INDEFINABLE ABOUT CONSCIENCE.

Remorse is simply an emotionally disturbed state of the mind with hurt, sadness and agitation on the awareness that what one did or said was wrong or bad.

Regret is the thought or wish that one had not committed it.

Conscience is about badness only:

Emotional stylish people have difficulty or inability to distinguish true from false, sense from senseless and thus conscience is just the ability to see that what one does or said is bad or wrong or unfair.

THUS IF YOU HAVE DONE WRONG AND YOU CAN SEE YOU HAVE DONE WRONG, YOU HAVE CONSCIENCE. IF YOU NEVER BOTHER TO EXAMINE WHAT YOU SAY OR DO OR YOU EXAMINE AND SEE NO WRONG WHEN THERE IS, YOU HAVE NO CONSCIENCE.

Debt, the difference between Japan & US:

Japanese are savers, so the people save a lot and this is borrowed by the government who imposed low interest rates to help businesses and also reduce the interest burden of its borrowing.

Thus the Japanese government (or politicians) have recklessly spent the people’s money it borrowed on useless stimulus packages to shore up the economy again and again until its debt has grown to monstrous levels that may prove fatal.

By contrast, although the US debt to GDP figure is much less (there are those who say the true debt level is higher), its citizens are also spendthrifts, do not save and so the US government borrows from the world, China, oil producers, etc and therefore it exposes itself to collapse should these countries stop lending it money.

JAPAN IS IN A MUCH MORE DIRE DEBT TO GDP STATE THAN THE US BUT IT HAS BORROWED DOMESTICALLY. THE TRUE US POSITION MAY BE WORSE, EVEN MUCH WORSE THAN OFFICIALLY STATED AND IS ESCALATING WITH THE BAILOUTS AND STIMULUS PROGRAMS AND THE PROBLEM WITH THE US IS THAT ITS PEOPLE TOO ARE IN DEBT TO THEIR NECKS AND IN DANGER OF DROWNING.

See it is wrong and still do it:

There are many who can see that what they do is wrong, bad, unfair and yet they do it again and again. Such a person has no conscience.

There are those who do not examine what they say or do as to whether it is good or bad.

There are those who examine and see nothing wrong, they see bad (eg smiling and liking) as good, such people are deluded and through their delusion have no conscience or misguided conscience.

A person with and without conscience:

A person who has conscience is a person who knows correctly something is bad and does not do it or say it.

A person without conscience is someone who knows something is bad and yet does it or say it.

What makes people conscienceless?

What makes people do what they know is bad or wrong?

There is usually inducement like desire for unrighteous gains. Thus a person may know it is wrong to cheat or tell lies or steal but the desire for unrighteous gains make them do it.

Another cause is lack of concern for the suffering inflicted on others, lack of concern for his own suffering as a result of sin.

Kalashnikov creator turns 90:

Anyone who invents a weapon of destruction, including nuclear bombs, has grave karma.

He and you may say if he did not invent the machine gun someone else will do so, so why not me?

That is an excuse, a false reason or logic. You are still responsible for fashioning the weapon with karma attached for putting a weapon of mass destruction into the hands of murderous people.

“If I did not invent, others will do so” is a false reason for doing so and thus it is that people think they can reason but they reason falsely, they proffer excuses or false reasons for doing something.

If you did not go to a party because you don’t like the people, you are shy and you say you are sick or busy, that too is an excuse or false reason that will end in mad logic.

EXCUSES ARE THE FOREBEARS OF FALSE LOGIC, ACCEPTING FALSE REASONS FOR SOMETHING (EG GARLIC CAN PREVENT OR CURES CANCER). IT IS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN SO MANY EXCUSES IN THEIR LIVES AND WANT THEMSELVES AND OTHERS TO ACCEPT AS TRUE THAT THEY ARE NOW VULNERABLE TO FALSE REASONS TO BE CONNED BY OTHERS.

BECAUSE EXCUSES ARE NOT THE TRUE REASONS FOR SOMETHING HAPPENING, ANYONE WHO GIVES EXCUSES HOWEVER TRIVIAL IS TRAINING HIMSELF TO BELIEVE AND ACCEPT FALSE REASONS FOR THINGS HAPPENING THAT GETS INCREASINGLY COMPELLING THAT WILL END IN MAD LOGIC.