Tag Archives: Obama

What Has a Front . . .

I want to draw your attention to the timeless Laws of the Universe.

The subject may seem abstract to you, perhaps unrelatable.

But I promise, they have not only a profound affect on your mental health, physical well-being and personal relationships, but also – as I’m focusing on here — they have practical applications to the current election process.

So follow along with me, if you will, to arrive at the destination towards which this metaphysical premise leads.

Let’s start with the Principles of the Order of the Universe. Michio Kushi lists twelve, of which the first six are:

  1. Everything is a differentiation of ONE infinity.
  2. Everything changes.
  3. All antagonisms are complimentary.
  4. There is nothing identical.
  5. What has a front has a back.
  6. The bigger the front, the bigger the back.

Put simply, every coin has two sides.

In I Ching terms, it is a given that extreme yin changes to extreme yang. Extreme yang (strength, virtue) changes to extreme yin (weakness, vice). Thus, for example, a belligerent display of control and dominance often masks the opposite extreme of fragile insecurity. Extreme righteousness has within it the potential for perversion. Conversely, beneath a crusty, harsh exterior may rest an opposite and equally generous heart of gold.

The necessary remedy to misunderstandings, backfires and tragedy is to avoid extremes by respecting, balancing, and harmonizing the energetic valances of yin and yang:

History and literature abound with examples of extreme imbalance. General George S. Patton, for example, comes to mind as a brilliant leader whose personality flaws were the catalyst of his undoing.

Greek tragedies demonstrate the essence of the law in action: hubris. The hero’s greatest strength, ironically, becomes the instrument of his downfall.

Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, whose seductively impeccable exterior masked the deeds of a fiendish villain, captures the clash of extremes.

The origins and practical results of this dynamic are described in How Bad People Become Leaders. Long story short, the dilemma is that:

. . . in the prevailing, exclusively materialistic empirical science paradigm, the center is ruled out. Intuition is denied. Emotions and energy aren’t accounted for. All that matters are concrete tangibles and physical image. A leader’s motives and intentions are known only when it’s too late – after the selection has been made and the (sometimes regrettable) results come in.

Literal, empirical standards, judging at face value, fail to account for the universal principle that whatever has a front has a back. Moreover, the larger the front, the larger the back.

A “scientific” leadership selection process takes into account only that which is measurable and/or observable, for example academic IQ or skin color.

Intangibles like the presence or absence of cultivated emotional intelligence (street smarts) fly under the radar, as do ethical intelligence, creativity and a capacity for visionary insight.

When selectors judge only by appearances, it’s easy to deceive them. As Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all of the people some of some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.” For an ambitious con artist, those are pretty good odds.

An immediate and important practical example is the flawed selection process (in this case, of a U.S. president) which elected a leader who was, in the extreme, not what he seemed to be, to the detriment . . . even potential undoing . . . of a nation.

In Why Thomas Sowell Doesn’t Think Obama Is A Socialist, we’re told how Obama used executive orders to make end-runs around Congress, landing the nation in a world of hurt. According to Sowell, beneath the front of socialist humanism was the shadow side of outright fascism.

In Dismantling America , Sowell describes how, operating behind the front of a uniter, Obama was, in the extreme, divisive. Pres. Obama Didn’t Believe in the Principles and Values of America – Chief Divider. The result: The Devastating Legacy of Obama’s Presidency – A Point of No Return.

Fast forward to 2024. The U.S. finds itself struggling in the throws of a catastrophic presidency under an incapacitated leader functioning, for all practical purposes, as an Obama surrogate, using the same strategy of issuing executive orders to bypass the powers of Congress to further dismantle the nation.

Right now, it is imperative to recognize the dynamics at play in order to, at all costs, prevent yet another Obama surrogate from being snuck in under the wire at the last moment to replace Biden.

Granted, there are no innocents. To one degree or another, none of the presidential candidates is free from the shadows that lurk behind out-of-balance personas. How could it be otherwise? Our high energy leaders haven’t been trained in the universal principles of the I Ching, or in the ancient energy sciences. They’ve not been taught what their energy truly is, much less how to discipline it, avoid its pitfalls – particularly in terms of sexual behavior, or how to harness energies (one’s own as well as of others) to reach intentional goals. (Vivek Ramaswami, given his background, might be an exception.)

Insightfully, Ramaswami puts his finger on the pulse of current campaign dynamics:

The president really is a symbol: a puppet for a machine underneath it that’s really driving most of the policy decisions. That’s not conspiratorial or accusational. It’s just a descriptive reality of how Washington DC works today. The people we elect to run the government are not the ones actually running the government. Nowhere is that more true than in the case of Joe Biden, who is only in some in nominal sense the president of the United States. I don’t think in any real actual true sense he really is the president.

Which is part of why I’ve long advised . . . that the way that we need to win this election isn’t just by criticizing Biden. Frankly, Biden isn’t going to be the nominee, as I’ve said for the last year and a half.

The way we’re going to actually win not only this election, but revive this country, is by defining who we are and what we stand for. What values are we’re actually advancing?

Amen to that!

In fact, that’s why independent candidate RFK Jr.’s campaign, which intentionally focuses upon American values, is increasingly gaining traction with Americans across a broad political spectrum.

Bottom line: In choosing which candidate to vote for, don’t be distracted by superficial personalities — whether they’re likeable or not. Choose to overlook their inevitable human flaws with compassion. Instead, focus on their declared values, and whether their words are backed by consistent action. Do they intend to revive this country? Are they committed to furthering the well-being of American citizens with positive action?

To avoid tragically putting more bad leaders in place, let’s make demonstrated, sincerely held traditional American values — along with universal human truths — the standard of our selection process.

Alien Invaders

This is another section lifted from the 2014 Rethinking Survival.

Again, it remains timely today.

In the 1980s, when the Affirmative Action legislation was a subject of hot debate, one commentator made an astute observation. If foreign enemies had wanted to undermine the United States, they would have designed exactly this legislation.

Valid goals — the window dressing — were buried in burdensome regulations and punitive economic sanctions. Rather than bringing people together, it was alienating, causing an opposite and equal backlash.

Alien invaders infiltrating Planet Earth, weakening humans to eventually take over and enslave them, is a familiar theme in science fiction. For example, in his various incarnations, Dr. Who — television’s two-hearted time traveler — continuously detects nefarious alien plots and rescues heedless humans from annihilation.

Current events indicate there’s considerable truth cloaked in that science “fiction.”

Starting with the premise that hidden alien enemies are covertly scheming to undermine humanity, ask, “How would they set about to destroy us?” Logically, they’d create chaos, setting everyone at each others’ throats. They’d trick humans into mutual self-destruction by stirring up dissension and fragmenting their governments.

Now, the Old Testament and yogic scriptures both maintain that we’re made in the image of God. Each individual mind is a complete miniature of the Universal Mind. When open, receptive, and aligned, everyone everywhere mirrors the wisdom and potential power of the Creator.

Therefore, it’s an absolute priority for evil aliens to attack the mind. Their agents will do whatever it takes to pollute your mind. They confuse it with false paradigms. They clutter and distract it with the ongoing media circus. Every doubt planted in your mind, causing you to forget who you are, to disbelieve in your ultimate origins and creative potentials, is a victory for the dark side.

To totally undermine humanity, atheism is a must. The unifying beliefs which hold families and nations together and fortify them in times of adversity must be destroyed at all costs. Again, how would this be accomplished?

For one thing, language which makes communication and community-building possible would have to be polluted beyond repair. This ongoing process is described as the Tower of Babel factor.

In the English language, for example, every value word has devolved to mean both one thing and its opposite. So people often talk at cross purposes, unaware that they’re missing each other coming and going.

Timothy Daugherty nails this tactic from the radical adversarial-political play book. They have nothing of substance to offer and unacceptably destructive intentions to hide. So the political left uses language “not to communicate ideas, but to create a kind of rhetorical fog that obscures real issues.”

Alien agents are masters of double-speak, the child of deception and second-cousin of spin.

A good example is given by Wayne Allyn Root, who writes about the lessons learned together with Obama at Columbia on “How to Destroy America from Within:”

The plan taught us to hide your true intentions (in other words — lie, misrepresent, commit fraud) . . . A key component of the plan involved fooling the voters by calling yourself “moderate” and a “uniter,” even though you are a radical Marxist. We were taught to never admit what you really believe in. It involved demonizing your opponents, calling them “evil, greedy, extreme, radical, and terrorist.” Look in the mirror and call your opponents the very things you are.

He continues:

Why the lies? We were taught at Columbia that “It’s for the greater good” and “We know what’s best for those people” and ”The ends justify the means.”

Next, by every means available, alien agents would strive to pollute the idea pool. Make access to the law impossible and simple truth seem complicated. Because ideas have consequences, introduce false beliefs with predictably disastrous results.

Then evil aliens would systematically destroy trust, the cement of human relationships, at every level of organization. How? Make deceit the political norm. Convince people that no one’s motives can be trusted. Demonstrate that no one’s words can be believed. Make it “common knowledge” that no one’s actions, however apparently innocent and well-intentioned, can be taken at face value.

Diversions would be a must. Rile the public with non-issues to distract them from very real dangers. Using lame-stream media shills, manipulate the masses with the weapons of psychological warfare. Insult them with the lie that they’re not okay. Sell them on the belief that they’re helpless “victims” of oppressors who must depend on tough guys to rescue them (and pay the heavy price of obligation at the voting polls).

Agents of invading aliens would rationalize their lies, sanitizing them as public relations and expedient strategy. It would seem that Edward Bernays, Woodrow Wilson’s advisor and model for Nazi propagandists — the so-called “father of spin” — was a foremost henchman of the invading aliens.

If so, Saul Alinsky was their number one point man. The cockroach (opps, coach) of community organizers, most notably Barack Hussein Obama, but Hillary Clinton too, was a self-proclaimed radical.

[From a 2024 perspective, this admittedly demonic influence, after respite during Trump’s presidency, has driven Biden’s administration from the background– with all the devastation intentionally attached thereto.]

In a twist of our poor abused language, Christ was rightly regarded as “radical” in his day. He would be today as well (in the original meaning) were he to walk among us now. Compatible with the Quantum Paradigm worldview, “radical” meant “going to the foundation or source of something; fundamental.”

That’s a far cry from Alinsky’s extremist meaning of “radical.” He was intentionally the antithesis of Christ. In the front page of his book Rules for Radicals, Alinksy quotes patriot Thomas Paine (modestly) side- by-side with . . . himself. First, Paine:

Let them call me a rebel and then welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul . . .

Then Alinsky:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to . . . the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

Associating himself with Paine, the champion of common sense, was a misleading pose. By his own admission, Alinsky was not a patriot. He was in league with the dark side that masquerades as light. He didn’t just make a whore of his soul. He apparently sold it outright, not for a kingdom, but for paltry influence.

It seems as if Alinsky’s particular Faustian pact involved not only selling his own soul, but also seducing gullible followers over to the dark side. It wasn’t enough for him to “suffer the misery of devils” alone. He was intent on bringing as many as possible down to join him in that suffering.

The seductiveness of Alinsky’s virile double-speak is extraordinary. He was well aware of the risks involved in using emotionally charged language. He defined “power”in a chapter called “A Word about Words.” He denied abusing language. But his awareness of language issues didn’t stop him from doing it.

His logic is so twisted that a critique would have to move line-by-line to unravel his spiderweb of tangled assumptions. The attempt would be like wading in quicksand. A Jesuit-trained logician would be hard-pressed to come out clean. Yet Rules for Radicals is sometimes made required reading for impressionable teenagers.

In contrast to Alinsky’s take on power, here’s part of Essay 57 on Power from The Ultimate Personal Survival Guide:

According to Taoist thinking, laws of nature explain why power over time reverts to the people. While drops of water are insignificant, they add up. The momentum driving a tidal wave is formidable. Divided by fear, ignorance, and narrow materialistic beliefs, individuals remain insignificant.

But unified by common purpose, people become powerful indeed. Leaders, whether a Stalin or a Mandela, ride the waves of time like energy surfers, directing their followers towards either slaughter or freedom.

Great temporal power of itself implies no value. Its effect, whether positive or negative, depends on the context within which it’s used, either consciously or unconsciously, skillfully or incompetently, for good or evil. The results of a warrior’s prowess, military arsenal and self-control depend on how, when, where and why they’re applied.

For example, in the last century Germany produced both a Hitler and an Einstein. Hitler was obsessed with the occult. He wanted to harness unseen forces to further his goal of world domination.

Einstein, on the other hand, searched for the subtle laws of physics. He hoped to discover a Unified Theory which perfectly describes how the Universe works. Had he prevailed, he would have re-invented the I Ching.

In contrast, Alinsky, with no logic or explanation whatsoever, dismissively rejects the idea of natural, organic evolution:

The significant changes in history have been made by revolutions. There are people who say that it is not revolution, but evolution that brings about change — but evolution is simply the term used by nonparticipants to denote a particular sequence of revolutions as they are synthesized into a specific major social change. . .

Here’s how Alinsky uses the “power” word:

The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. . . . In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. . . We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world . .[emphasis added.]

Note the use of the “royal we.” This is a megalomaniac talking. He wants to change the entire world. His attitude is towards power holders is openly aggressive. He doesn’t just want to take what they hold. He wants to seize it. To violently “change the world” by means of a “mass power organization” makes no positive sense. Further, history tells us that repeatedly, when power is seized from one set of Haves, it merely passes to another set of worse ones. Never, ever has it been “given” to “the people.”

The pretext of creating a mass power organization for the purpose of seizing power in order to give it to “the people” is highly suspect. Unholy radicals mobilize “the people” as pawns to their own ends, hypocritically masking self-serving motives with phony idealism. Has the current jet-setting, golf-playing community-organizer-in-chief, for example, empowered anyone other than himself and his cronies? People be wary!

In the first chapter, Alinsky stated his exact purpose, namely to coach those who “want to change the world” from what it is “to what they believe it should be.” In I Ching context, this assumption-packed premise is an extraordinary feat of tragedy-fraught hubris.

First off, what blind, ant-like mortal would dare to think that he can comprehend what, in its entirety, the world — the elephant — really is? What human could possibly be so foolish as to think she is qualified — on the basis of one puny view — to judge what it should be? Alinksy’s rules extended an invitation for blind mortals to jump in feet first where good angels know far better than to tread.

Second, who really understands change? Many bandy the word about. But it’s a profound science of which few have in-depth knowledge. Confucius dedicated a lifetime to understanding the dynamics of natural law encoded in the perennial Book of Change.

Never in his wildest nightmares could he have anticipated anyone daring to force the world to conform to personal preferences.

So, for starters, the “belief” that anyone can change the world from what he assumes it is to what he assumes it should be is unspeakably misguided. Building on this false premise, Alinsky then fueled the undermining alien arsenal with a full battery of destructive tactics. In essence, political radicals should feel “free” to violate the ten commandments. The ends (getting what you want) justify any means.

His version of social change is engineered by stirring up conflict. Use fabricated information to bear false witness against inconvenient neighbors. (Herman Cain’s character assassination is one of countless examples.) Alinsky advocates scapegoating, not unlike the dynamic which propelled Nazis to power. Create the illusion of an outside enemy as the way to unify your base. (How is that for the ultimate double-speak? Conflict is the opposite of unity.)

Divide and conquer. Pit each group against the others. I can almost see alien puppeteers behind the scenes clapping their hands in glee over Alinsky’s contribution to escalating worldwide conflict. It matters not to them which side wins. Let Sharia law advocates, members of Putin’s Eurasian Union and American exceptionalists squander their precious resources duking it out. If they destroy each other and no one’s left, so much the better.

What seems comical in the context of ant and elephant fables isn’t so funny when played out in human history. It’s bad enough when local gurus play God or men like Frank Lloyd Wright turn to lenient pagan gods.

It becomes horrific for humanity (members of every class alike) is when leaders like Mao, Lenin and Stalin slaughter untold numbers of civilians. They destroyed prevailing religions only to turning the state into a god. They ransacked houses of worship to fill their own coffers.

Alien invaders delight in cheating.

They stack the deck, gumming up the works with false information

driven by dysfunctional paradigms.

IF you accept the game and its rules as alien agents define them and proceed to rebel against uncivil authorities, mindlessly hating and resisting, YOU LOSE. (Alien invaders win.)

IF you give all your attention to what other guys are doing wrong, playing the role of contrarian, YOU LOSE. (Alien invaders win.)

IF you quit on humanity and live only for yourself, leading a life of self-centered indulgence, YOU LOSE. (Alien invaders win.)

IF you persist in thinking narrowly in terms of personal game, political interests and institutions, not human survival, YOU LOSE. (Alien invaders win big time.)

The only chance of winning — ultimately, surviving — is to demand a new, clean, unmarked deck, one with all the cards.

In other words, make a fresh start based on an accurate, complete Quantum Paradigm.

Let Me Be Clear

What does “Positive Paradigm” mean to YOU? I have to wonder, because the word “positive” has 17 (!) discrete definitions which span the Life Wheel’s continuum from center to surface.

The word “paradigm” is becoming equally diluted and compromised. For example, Francisca Moors recently tweeted me from the Netherlands: “What’s todays paradigm about your self?” Her question implies that paradigms are personal filters (not culture-wide agreements) that can be changed like clothes from day-to-day to suit immediate whims.

In response, to clarify, I drew a picture showing the shifting levels to which the same badly abused word “paradigm” is applied.

 

0 Def of Paradigm

Please. Let me be very clear. When I use the word “positive,” I’m referring primarily to the core: “that which is absolute, unqualified, and independent of circumstances; that which has real existence in itself.” [See wp.me/p46Y5Z-9R.] Whether the effect of religious beliefs, social theories and economic policies is beneficial depends on the extent to which leaders and their followers are functionally connected with the eternal center. To the extent that they’ve lost their mooring, they’ve forfeited inherent power and validity.

Positive thinking becomes delusional when taken to mean “I can have whatever I want.” Positive Paradigm thinking humbly accepts that “With God, all things are possible.” The emphasis is on with. And all includes everything, hard and happy lessons in balance — not just whatever it is one wants.

Let me also be clear about how I use the word “paradigm.” It’s comprehensive and stable, foundational and basic beliefs — not something personal one can change on convenience, shifting with current fashions. What I call the “positive paradigm” is an inclusive, complete and correct worldview. It answers Joseph Campbell’s call for a universal “myth” (creation story), capable of recognizing the humanity of those living on the opposite side of the planet.

The Positive Paradigm of Change embodies what Aldus Huxley called the “perennial philosophy” — the core reality which the world’s great teachings share in common. For just as the sun is the center of our solar system and as there’s a nucleus at the center of each atom, there’s a central timeless experience of life which everyone everywhere shares in common.

Put the other way around, any belief system that’s not founded on eternal wisdom will inevitably, like the sands of time, be blown away. It cannot endure through the variable seasons of change. An incomplete, false paradigm, like the biblical “feet of clay,” will crumble when struck with the iron mallet of destiny.

The poet Yeats wrote “the center does not hold.” But that is the subjective experience of those who deny or forget their center. Nevertheless, acknowledged or not, the center remains, unchanged and eternal. It’s the true “common core” that (misleading label aside) is dangerously overlooked by the current, politically-driven educational fad.

Restoring the Positive Paradigm with its potential to outlast Titanic Times is an urgent matter of human survival. How urgent? Let’s see. The past week’s news alone offers several terrifying examples. Putin is saber-rattling again, doing a repeat of the Khrushchev-Kennedy death dance. “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers,” he threatens.

On other fronts, terrorists are planning to build missiles capable of spreading bubonic plague. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia issued a dire warning: “Jihadists could reach Europe and America in a matter of months.” The chaotic Texas/Mexico border is increasingly feared to be a likely entry point for terrorists. Not to mention the “chatter” of a significant event to “celebrate” the approaching 13th anniversary of 9/11 in honor of the 13th Imam, possibly involving “home grown” American terrorists.

Adding insult to pending injuries, America’s fund-raiser-in-chief announced that America is safer than it was twenty years ago. In response to this statement, two references from earlier blogs come to mind. One is the pictured definition of sheer evil in Positive Paradigm context. [See “How Bad People Become Leaders,” wp.me/p46Y5Z-9B.]

The other is the game show described in “To Tell the Truth.” [See wp.me/p46Y5Z-dA.] In that scenario, the rules of the game are that impostors have no rules. They can lie, deceive and misrepresent their intentions. Alinsky-like, their ends justify any means. An Obama observer on Glenn Beck’s website TheBlaze gave me a new word that describes Obama’s otherwise mystifying behavior exactly: TAQIYYA. It means religiously sanctioned deception. Its purpose is to infiltrate enemy organizations, undermining them from within.

In the face of all this “bad news,” I refer back to Mike Lehr. He’s the one who asked for my explanation as to how bad people become leaders (along with its implicit solution). In addition, he wanted to know whether dangerous circumstances result in the selection of better leaders. My answer: different faces won’t make much difference.

Leader-selectors (both formal and informal) have long since identified, trained and placed look-alikes to follow in their footsteps. Anyone who threatens that status quo has long since been driven off or otherwise destroyed. So insiders from the available candidate pool will continue to operate on the same variety of false paradigms.

There may be a few experienced but disenfranchised survivors left, ones who tenaciously hold to the timeless truth embodied in the Positive Paradigm. But as Old Avatar observed, it’s because they’ve had the good sense to hide out (like Yoda), perhaps to reemerge should another Luke Skywalker come forward. My best hope still remains with the as-yet untested Millennial Generation. From their ranks may emerge a handful of visionary leaders with the combined wisdom, courage and endurance to rise from the ashes of the approaching NELC.

It will be their blessing/responsibility to make the urgently needed Fresh Start clearly foreseen by the biblical dream-reader and prophet Daniel — the one who told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.

 

globe