Inhumanity's Open Road, Proverbs 14:31 Revisted, Death of Death of Truth, and WTF?

        I often am amused by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, or Martin Luther King Jr.'s professed faith that the "long term" arc of history is toward justice, and toward greater freedom and more democracy. Its not that that would not be nice and may in fact be always provable if you step back a bit and ignore the things you wish to ignore and see the things you wish to see. The "near term" which I focus on, as evidenced by the quotes above, is what worries me. If the longer term is going to be all heavenly and roses, the near term still is looking like fallout, blowback, authoritarian mindsets, quashing of "irresponsible" debates, and limiting dissent and political expression to smaller and smaller acceptable "parameters" defined more by corporations and lobbyists than anyone else. Thus our new "bought and paid for" democracies.

        That may sound cynical, just a tad, but that is unfortunately the way the "near term" future is headed, and it still has an open road ahead of it. But I still believe in every word I wrote in Trust as Faith which I am reposting below. Whether it is rational or not, one must have trust, or to trust as an act of faith. It may not be warranted. It may not be wise and often it can get you killed a lot sooner than later.

         But it also is a testament of what kind of world you wish to live in, and your paranoias, or justified fears (and you can always find justifications for suspicions) in sum creates the world you live in, your mental world, and you pass that on to the next generation as well. As I said at the end, whose vision for which future is ALWAYS the question. Assuming the worst, expecting the worst, you bring about it that much quicker and make that reality and mindset a way of life that much easier. But when you take a chance, bet on the humanity of those you demonize, and take a leap of faith, you empower that goodness in some, and often in many others, to do the same gradually, just as easily as you snuff it out when attacking them or berating them unjustly.

Trust as Faith: 9/11 & Boston, Co-Existence, the Near Term, Whose Vision for Which Future
April 30, 2013 - TruthRevival.org

            The period of time of the transition from the Bush presidency to the Obama presidency is much like the fall of Communism was for their dissidents, to those here who worked for change and against the worst abuses of the Bush years grabs of power and subversion of the Constitution. Now what? That is something a lot of people have had to deal with by once defining themselves in opposition to something which is no longer there to define themselves against or in opposition to... a loss of their identity in so many ways. Being aware of this consciously and hopefully as much as possible, continually, I try to see beyond it.

            The timing and effects of the invasion of Iraq coincided with a change of direction of my own life, getting back to basics more than a new direction, and constant attempting at outgrowing how I saw things before. So much time did I spend writing and thinking in opposition to what I thought was going wrong, it was impossible not to let it redefine me, for better or worse, in opposition to what I saw as negatives, and pushed me more than I thought wise or prudent, or ever would have wanted without such goings on in the world damaging what I saw as the best potentials the future could have. And an Iranian War of 2006, 2007, or 2008 was just beyond belief in arrogance and stupidity. When I got wind or believed it was not going to happen, I decided to wind down my writing as that potential conflict was a huge part of the reason for my writing, not that I think my writing would, could, or did have much impact, but it was a reflection of events going on in the world on why I felt the need or desire to write. Everyone is created and defined by external events to react to, with, or against.

            That potential bad course was such a defining aspect of my desire to write that the 3rd retrospection mentioned here (in "The Lion, the Serpent and the Phoenix" post (the 1st "clip show" retrospective), and "Alcyone over Cristo Redentor" (2nd "clip show")) was to have been called "Searching for Langston's America with the "Ghosts" of the LOC (Library of Congress); Lines on Maps, Lines in the Sand, and Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bombing Iran". That third "clip show" was to have had a collection of quotes from many of my previous posts comments made about a possible war with Iran, things spinning out of control that that would cause, and the background into what made me think to, want, or need to write of such things. Lack of need or desire to seeing (or thinking) that the world was not going to go that way, a little over a year ago (and it seemingly did not go that way thankfully), I began to rethink wanting to write at all. If not feeling it necessary in me to have to write by feeling I ought to, nor thinking events were going in that particular bad direction where such things might occur, there seemed no point to it anymore. ...

            The needed changes go beyond even a (US) president's ability to institute them, but not necessarily beyond a movement like the one which got him the job. With growing movements (plural) for political change, if allowed by my country to flourish (a very big "if" as they may actually threaten real and genuine change which even if for the better, the system would not think to allow to occur or be discussed without a verbal war and political persecution like blowback to whistle-blowers), then nothing that needs to be done cannot be achieved. Democracy is based upon and requires cooperation of the general public protesting and/or demanding things to succeed or even to function as a democracy at all, and greater political action and participation of a majority of our citizens is increasingly required in the absence of any counter-weight to the dominating politicized and myopic beltway mentality of the US mainstream press. And that is an engagement which is long, long overdue.

            Where things stand today hopefully at best is to begin that necessary broad or broadest possible dialog for change which is more important or as important as any implemented or chosen changes. The dialog will need to be far more inclusive that what is or can be done, or even should be. All things and roads ought to be considered someday and in due time. And for a greater range than ever before, that time is increasingly right now.

            As much as consensus is a good thing and necessary, I prefer to embrace also the right of people saying things I disagree with, even despise, than to simply safely swim in a stream of a world finally coming to it senses, hopefully. Both things are necessary to me. What people deride as political correctness is far more dangerous than either side, left or right, anarchist or neo-con, or those of most any political or philosophical stripes realize. Even good ideas and platforms I agree with get carried to extremes in the absence of any countervailing opposition, even wrongly-founded opposition, which prevents totalitarian-like nanny or police states replacing true freedom. What is beyond question to be thought to be right, without proper checks (and the best, most eloquent arguments possible in opposition to it) from those opinions that are greatly (even universally) thought to be wrong, devolves without being checked into a forced compliance and well-intended insanity, and complete devolution of freedom and an open society. ...

Giant sucking sound of loss of potential in headwinds: An open road or wind gone out of sails
February 1, 2009 - TruthRevival.org

Freedom has a high cost. It is often paid in responsibility and in sacrifice. Believe it or not, I lack neither. What I am responsible to and how is complicated, but not to any one government or ideology. What I sacrifice is easier to explain. I am willing to sacrifice anything I have, my life, my time, my freedom, for a better future for others except for freedom of thought, not mine nor anyone else's. Give an inch or make ANY compromise on that and you give away the keys to the store and nothing you have nor anything else anyone else has will ever be their own again, not even their own lives. Slavery is back in fashion, though it will be illegal to call it that. A rose by any other name, but call it a rose at your own peril.

You literally can't tell a person what their mind does not wish to hear. The question is, does that mean all you say is? Probably not as truth or believed, but as an experience, yes. ...

Most peoples' minds are defined by the culture and that culture's time in which they were raised (cultures change from one generation and year to the next), and also by their interactions with it as positive or negative, whether to aid or oppose it. Also maybe 1 or 2 percent as original ideas having nothing to do with the culture or their experiences with it, intuitive ideas. My culture simply is. I have no wish to adapt to it nor wish to make it better unless asked or forced to if it comes close to self-destructing. I do not wish to define myself by the interaction with it, and deal with much larger frames across longer timespans. All human history is short, is mildly interesting trivia questions, and pretty much irrelevant to me at the moment, except what can be made out of it.

The Universe as only a slightly bigger womb. An environment which surrounds you, feeds you, and you are totally dependent upon it for your existence and can never leave it. You are merely a tumor within its body, a part of it moving around within it like a white blood cell can move through your body.

Warlords defacto own people. Criminal gangs defacto own people. They can escape often only to be controlled by a rival gang. Any organization which is powerful enough to mold and shape your life, or kill you without due process, owns you. Lower educated poor are owned by anyone. Everyone to a small degree or a large degree depending on which country they are from, are owned by that government. I am the property of the U.S. government, historically (at least) kinder and easier to be released from, yet like the Mafia, powerful enough that nowhere exists where they cannot take you back from or re-exert control whenever they wish. Those who left the Soviet Union could do so only with the protection of the U.S. government or other powerful Western countries. I have had more freedom than most, but I know who owns me. Complaining about it only gets you the justified wrath of others not treated as nicely or given less freedom themselves. Favored slaves or favored prisoners are hated by the other slaves or prisoners without seeing how they are manipulated by simply being more and less repressed. The irony is that only those slaves who are treated better, taught to read and write (always the first mistake), allowed to feel like they are free and to educate themselves as they wish, can really learn to know all the invisible chains they wear because they have the power in themselves and the will to find and see their leashes. Fortunately for those who long to control everyone, reading philosophy and debating political theory or civil rights (even the term "civil rights" is a now dirty word and political poison currently in America, as may soon be the term "human rights". [2013 Update: With regards to the treatment of prisoners and suspects, that was and is increasingly true. What I did not foresee was the punking of the word "empathy" by "Christian" moralist politicians a few years back. If I had predicted that I doubt anyone would have believed it, myself included. My how the degradation of humanity is marching mercilessly onward.] Great progress has been made recently at denouncing and disgracing that term too with respect to enemies, soon to be considered [human rights just] a tool of propaganda by the weak, and of foreigners seeking to tie our hands and make us weak, as it is viewed in China and other similar regimes) among the general public was a passing fad which peaked in the 19th century in America and the 20th century in Europe. Fewer and fewer every year will neither know nor care how little of their lives are their own to control or own, becoming less and less politically active or even at all politically conscious, and more and more malleable.

If I were so brazen to say that if you as a parent cannot afford an expensive treatment to save your child's life, your child has no right to live, period. Only those who can afford to pay the most for the medicines or treatments they need to survive have any right to them and any right to life. Unsaid, all of society says that every day by deeds. Saying otherwise with words is hypocritical and blasphemy against thousands of souls dead everyday to prove those words wrong by dying for no other reason than being sick in the wrong place or being born to poor parents. Lack of money will depopulate Africa more than AIDS will, and many will profit more by that than by curing them would profit them. Ethnic cleansing a whole continent, economics style, the fashionable way, with no one to blame and huge profits for all large organizations. It is not our fault. It is no one's fault. It is destiny. One third of the population of South Africa have AIDS already. A few more Rwanda's and our multinationals won't even need to pay a pittance to strip that continent dry of all its resources. Think of how much the stock market will climb, growth prospects not seen for the West since we found the Americas to depopulate and take over, but now we can do it the civilized way, withhold medicines by patent enforcements and high costs, and give them more weapons to wipe themselves out. Great plan, if we don't use our more powerful weapons to wipe ourselves out in the meantime. ... Too shocking? Think that I went too far with this? If you think people will suddenly stop short, hit the brakes before getting that bad, you have no idea how bad humanity is becoming, nor the power in willful ignorance, and how governments are getting people to accept doing these things without having to think they are doing them, and believe that they are still good people. Even the Nazi's saw themselves as good human beings, and in the future, people will be many times worse, yet still think themselves good while ignoring completely what they do to others. We are more than halfway there already, with an open road ahead of us and nothing significant to force us to even have to consider slowing down.

Happy people are content to die before they would ever do any harm to others who have not done anything bad to them. Unhappy people are quite willing to, almost eagerly. Whether to share their unhappiness, or just because they are searching for something, anything, which might make them less miserable, and are easy to control by anyone convincing them they have something which will take away their unhappiness, if only for awhile. Now you know the source of power here. Controlling happiness to only what you can give or sell to make people happy, then using those people you can now control to search out and find others to make unhappy, dependent upon what you have to make them happy, and add them to your growing army of unhappy people to attack even more others, and stamp out along the way all who are content without what you have to sell or offer, or anything that might make people contented for free. Content = not controllable, not willing to fight and kill others to promote your agenda. Free = no way to get rich off whatever it is which makes them happy. But it won't last that way. One of the most true things I wrote, I reread recently. "Newness will vaunt aiming to daunt the rigidity of old orders which taunt." (From Terradactyl Wings) It is simply biology. The future that people want to control, those people in that future will probably spit on your graves, whatever you do. That is the whole point of biology, replacing the current with something new, something ELSE. It is unstoppable and all who think they can control it even for a little while are just farting in the wind. You can make it stink for a few seconds near you, and God knows that is what humanity is doing in droves now, but further in distance or in time, you can't stink it up much for others. Whatever bad there is, whatever good there is, it all will be outgrown. When people get a good look at what they are, how the world operates, they will improve it. Then they will get full of themselves again, party hearty, think they are great again, and the blinders will come back down, and do even worse horrible unthinkable things they will prefer not to see or think about, and those in power will be all too happy to divert their attention, and all will again be rewarded and enriched by that blindness, those in power for keeping people from seeing what they don't want to see or think about is wrong, and the people themselves by destroying others, but with a smile, and a God-loves-you, we are not harming you, we are saving you, educating you, saving your children's souls so they can work in our factories instead of for themselves in their own fields where their people had previously been able to survive for thousands of generations without any outside help, beyond our ability to control them, before we found them, before we made them "civilized". ("Look at them. Just look at them. Pathetic. These people have nothing, literally absolutely nothing, no way to survive, to even feed themselves, millions of them, they should thank us for working them in our factories 80 hours a week. We give them jobs, self-respect , a way to survive. How else could they survive on their own without our help? They owe us bigtime!") Thanks for all the stuff. No, better yet, thank us for it. No, really, we demand you to. We don't want your children to hold any grudges against our children. That's better.

Imagine the universe trying every combination until it gets it right.

Notes Part 3 - Pg 87
Spring 2005 - Polsci.com

"I'm tired of spinning my wheels
I need to find a place where my heart can go to heal
I need to get there pretty quick
Hey mister, what you got out on that lot you can sell me in a pinch

Maybe one of them souped-up muscle cars,
the kind that makes you think you're stronger than you are
Color don't matter, no, I don't need leather seats,
all that really concerns me is...

SPEED
How fast will it go
Can it get me over her quickly
zero to sixty
Can it outrun her memory
Yeah, what I really need is an open road
and a whole lot of speed"

Excerpt from Lyrics to Speed (Montgomery / Gentry)

    I had a strange email correspondence back and forth right before what should have been one of the proudest moments of my life. I had had programs mentioned before in minor magazines and recommended by major online services and websites, but I had been told that one of my programs was to be featured with a picture in a national computer magazine. (Not PC Magazine but they did mention one of my other programs later. This one was called PC World.)

     It was a trip to be able to think I could walk into the nearest bookstore or supermarket or convenience and buy a magazine with a picture and story of one of my programs in it. (Solely written by myself, no others involved, no advertising, no marketing, etc.) Not to say that was still not a good thing, but the emails made me a bit wary over if that would indeed happen given the nature of the emails. But it did, though the picture was not correct to what they were reviewing, and that was a minor thing.

    Ironically, the emails which went bizarro world were with one of the people most responsible for me having a software company to begin with. I won't mention his name (don't wish to get sued, not that I have any money to be sued for), but it was his articles on how to write software and sell them online which gave me the idea to pursue it professionally.

    He was somehow affiliated with the magazine, said he heard about the program, complimented me on it, saying it was really good and all that, and asked me to better review it, what the password was so he could better judge it before writing about it. So I told him. Then it got weird.

     The password to make the program registered, or to remove the trial limitations was "Proverbs 14:31" as best I can recall. After typing in that password, the program would then start up as a normal program without the date or crippleware limitations. In addition to that, I may have thanked him and told him that I was a reader of his articles.

    The response I got back amounted to no more than a simple Bible quote similar to Proverbs but might have been Corinthians. Literally, that was the whole message I got back in response, a numerical Bible verse. That was it. After looking it up, I found out that basically it was about God smiting people. This was years before George W. Bush became president, but I am guessing he might have been a fan.

    Not knowing if that was threatening, rude, or just plain weird, and not wanting to bother the kind editors who said they were about to give my program free national media exposure, I tried to follow up to try to figure out what that was about. I was pretty sure it was not a good thing any which way possible, either actually by knowing, or by bothering to ask.

    The original request he made of me, my response, and the response to my response, these were forwarded to the editors. My next response was not much longer than his response but it was relatively short and to the point. It was only a few short sentences two of which I relative sure of were literally, "WTF? That IS the password."

    I probably ought to now state, for any who might be reading this, and not having all their Bible passages memorized, roughly what Proverbs 14:31 was, and how the hell it ended up being the password to activate my program. Literally, I can blame Bill Clinton, though it was filtered through the mouth of mega-televangelist Pat Robertson which ended up causing the Biblical password and not-so-Biblical but strange subsequent events.

    This was in the period of Bill Clinton's infamous welfare "reform" measures debate. For those who do not know what that was or how significant it was, and despite I am sure Pat Robertson's general dislike of ole' Bill, how Pat came to be singing Clinton's praises. The welfare "reform" actually was meant to end the governments responsibility to help poor people, which was only a few decades old anyway but managed to survive the Republican presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

    Now that Bill had succeeded in making sure that the Federal government was no longer "required" to help the poor, the homeless, and the helpless, it started the ball rolling to where we are today, were you can be denied even the benefits you paid into for unemployment if you fail a drug test, or bills stating that a families income subsides and school lunches can be cut if their children do not do well in school. Woe be it for us to fund slackers or stupid people, even if they are children. Once making helping the poor no longer mandatory, all kinds of fun things were opened up on who could be denied benefits, even ones they have paid for via unemployment insurance, pretty much for whatever reasons lawmakers wished to make up.

    Not that I am a regular viewer of the 700 Club. I was up working late at night writing programs and turned on the TV to let my brain rest (or be washed a bit) before going to sleep. Pretty much working long hours was the only way to get to where I was since I did not have any money to advertise, my programs simply had to be better than all others which meant working a lot and getting fast at it. There was not much to pick from to watch at that hour, and I happened to catch that Pat Robertson was praising Bill Clinton's proposed "reforms," aka to end the "entitlement" to get anything anymore ever. If it isn't required, that means it is optional, like power windows or tinted glass. From my notes pages "#1 sacrosanct rule of all government policies, initiatives, and directives, "If it isn't mandatory, it doesn't mean sh*t."
   
    These "reforms" and all the subsequent suffering, hunger, and homelessness, they helped to inspire later had Pat Robertson singing the praises of Bill C. on my TV late one night. "Yes, Jesus loved the poor," Pat said, "but not THESE kind of poor." Though it had not yet even been a mere two thousand years, I thought it appropriate to note and pay respect to the fact that Christianity had now come full circle. The person who was supposed quoted, by several people, as saying it was as hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven as for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, now had His most famous multi-millionairre spokesperson on Earth, (yeah, I have heard of the Pope but the Pope did not own his own TV network, at least back then) telling us what KIND of poor people who Jesus did not like. I thought that ought to be commemorated somehow.

    And now as the sequester cuts start to bite, I have to wonder who has taken Pat Robertson's place. Who can make, or makes, the most millions by going on TV and telling us how Christian it is to be cutting funds for not only the poor and the homeless, but school programs, aid to the handicapped, the elderly, nutrition and drugs for the sick, drug programs to help addicts. Who now can unabashedly drive his luxury car to his very own TV station or network, sporting diamond watches and rings, and tell us, "Yes, Jesus loved the cripples, but not THESE kind of cripples." Or elderly, or those homeless without food, without school lunches, etc. etc. etc.

     The editors at the magazine apologized and even the person who I would not have ever had a software company if not for him and his articles, even he might have said sorry about that. I don't think that password cost me anything. In giving it out to those fewer who actually paid for my program compared to how many used it without paying, most who noted it at all said nice things about it. I heard from one or two ministers who mentioned that they thought it was a timely reference and were planning on bringing it up in church, since they actually knew what it meant. I found it kind of by accident.

    After the wonderful gift of seeing Pat Robertson advising literally millions of Christians on what kind of poor people Jesus did not like, those who were not even worthy of being loved by Jesus, I thought, doesn't the Bible say to HELP the poor? (Really, he was advocating actually preventing THOSE kind of poor from getting help from other people.)  I only went to parochial school until the 3rd grade but I was pretty sure the Bible was chockful of love for the poor, and least before our current generations "reinterpretations" of it. After doing an internet search for the words "poor" and "Bible" I came across the infamous Proverbs 14:31.

    Basically it states, depending upon the translations, roughly that God loves those who love the poor, and God does not love those who do not love the poor. With nary a word about God smiting people, I still cannot figure who could get upset with that. Except maybe, those who do not love the poor but are pretty sure God loves them, and maybe too, even loves them more than the poor. Unfortuately for me, and more unfortunately for the poor, I am guessing that is a whole lot of people, so actually pointing out that inconsistency to them might not have been a smart thing to do.

    With the next version of the program, I decided to tone down the sermonizing a bit, not that in ANY universe can I really comprehend how that could have been sermonizing. I decided to go with "Box #10" by Jim Croce for the password. It kept up the same theme, but I figured it might not offend the easily offended. That was the first password to my final version of that program line, ZR FileWorks Omega.

    While working on my then innovative media program, I had to play the same CD over and over for hours to test it. 'Jim Croce's Greatest Hits' was the only CD I could never get tired of hearing. When the software thing started to take off, I bought the boxed set and that introduced me to many new Jim Croce songs. That song was in part about homelessness.

"Hello Mom and Dad, I had to call collect,
 cause I ain't got a cent to my name
 and I'm sleeping in the hotel doorway
 and they say tonight it's gonna rain."

Excerpt from "Box #10", by Jim Croce

    A couple of weeks ago I finished what will probably be the last program of that program line and gave it the same password. I like full circles. Not that I thought anyone would pay for it, and no one has, but that is not why I do things. Luckily I have not had to make money off of programs so that has freed me to do only what I wish to do programming-wise. Not that I ever hardly did otherwise.

    ZRFW Omega was killed off because some of the older program's components older than Windows XP could no longer be called up, so I changed the names a bit because the newer programs were not as good as the older ones. Only this year did I rewrite the old features to work with newer versions of Windows and thus figured to use the old name one last time. ZR FileWorks was not my most successful program, but it was my first big hit program so it was nice to update it even though I figured no one might pay for it. Like I said, that is not exactly why I write programs, though it is nice when it does not end up costing me money and instead at least paid some bills for awhile.
   
    As I told someone once, the same thing writers are told, I said don't write programs because you think you will make a lot of money at it, because the odds are good you won't, but do it because you are doing something you want to do. When you do it from that perspective, often the end product is held to a higher standard than if it is something you or some corporation just wanted to make a quick buck off of it.

    So if I didn't to it for the money nor for the "glory," not that there is any to be had, why did I write my programs, one might think, if they manage to read this far? The first really good program I made for a Microsoft operating system was a compressed text reader. It was called ReadDX and was simply made because I was trying to turn my poetry books into programs that could be posted online. The World Wide Web was in its infancy and Yahoo was simply a mailing list which I subscribed to.

    The idea of my reader was no different than how Kindle or Kobo or other text readers now work. It allowed you to compress your text files. Back in the days of 20 MEGABYTE drives (that is not a typo, the entire hard drive was smaller than many programs today) that was a good thing. And then it would automatically decompress them when you wanted to read them. As a text reader it was way ahead of others in that you could change the font size, the colors to thousands of colors I think, and decompressing them on the fly was something novel or completely unheard of at the time.

     That lead to doing the same with programs which were even larger than text files, as a way to save even more disk space without having to compress the entire drive. That was ZIP Runner, and when that merged with my other programs, the result was ZR FileWorks, the one with the sermonizing passwords mentioned above.

    All throughout, the programs, in addition to making me money, was a good way for me to get exposure for my writing, not that I particularly cared about people reading them, though many could have, and later was a way to back up my work in a way that I knew it was pretty much secure from being tampered with. The thing with a web site is that it can be hacked, words changed around to say things you did not say, etc. Text files buried within programs posted on servers of major online sites could not easily be changed around into something else. Call it editorial control for the overly paranoid, or overly cautious.

    At first my programs only contained sample versions of my poetry books, but as my writing evolved, it was a good way to archive my entire web site. The original poetry books were a part of. JaredDubois.com I think was included with the programs, and then of course Polsci.com.

    Polsci.com was started when going to school in Estonia because I lost my name as web site. It was a way for me to publish online my school papers, other political writings, books from previous programs (Toward Tomorrow and Deconstructing the Universe), as well as papers relating to my political asylum attempt(s). The latter ones were kind of touch and go on whether I thought they could actually be included. They were put up on the web site immediately after writing them. God only knows if anyone besides those involved actually read them or noticed, and were eventually codified into my programs via a sample HTX file. PolSci.com was put into my programs as early as 2004 or 2005, but was not as big back then, nor did it have all the things that would piss a lot of people off then, compared to the more recent versions after 2007.

     As I said in something a long time ago, perhaps in the Heretic Papers, "Life can be about educating you, or it can be about always pleasing you, but it can rarely be both at the same time." The biggest parts of PolSci.com, as always deal with my Notes pages, one of which has some excerpts above, and that is just from a single page. The Notes, or 5D Notes as I called them, were I think good because just about anyone who read them could find things both challenging (i.e. offensive) and things they would really agree with and enjoy. No one, I thought, could possibly have their (blank) up their (blank) enough to not find at least something they had not perhaps yet considered and thought that they might like if they did read them. What I call the "back-to-backness" of it means that the original composition of the paragraphs and placements of them shows things or unwritten themes which jump from one seemingly disconnected paragraph to the next which cannot be understood when excerpted, but can be clearly understood when read back-to-back.

    In addition to archiving my Notes, and other longer writings, the most recent programs also include backups of this site, TruthRevival.org. Unlike Chris Hedges, still writing things that piss me off, I do not think that the truth is dead, because if I did, why would I have called it Truth REVIVAL? I don't think you can revive something that's dead. Well maybe Jesus could but that's a whole other story. After seeing Chris Hedges writing "Democracy is Dead," and now that "Truth is Dead," I can't wait to hear what major philosophical idea he will say is dead next.

    While I don't doubt that Chris Hedges is an excellent writer, in his own way, I would not rank on it (though the bit about Computer Programmers being "Men and women who know no history, know no ideas. They live and think in an intellectual vacuum, a world of stultifying minutia. They are T.S. Eliot’s “the hollow men,” “the stuffed men.” “Shape without form, shade without colour,” the poet wrote. “Paralysed force, gesture without motion.” that deserved being ranked on) if I thought it without worth, but here and there really missing the whole barn, not just the target, sometimes.

    I have been privileged and lucky, and am a bit snooty as a result, because of not having to compromise and write things that are pleasing to any particular audience. Writers and intellectuals are noble professions, but they usually have to tailor their arguments to their "base" whether the corporations that employ them or the masses that expect their "worker's proletariat" points of view to be echoing in their brains, or at least across their computer screens. True gadflies do not have the luxury of being paid, not that there is anything wrong with that, but because of that do not have to appeal exclusively to one particular group or one side of an issue or risk losing their audience, their platform, or their paycheck. That is why there are so few of them of any note while we hold up corporate hacks as "rebels," "mavericks," and "men of the peoples" and so on because the are advertised as such.

    The path I traversed was particularly winding and meant to sometimes piss off as well as to educate anyone might read what I wrote, but always kept it in a hide it plain sight approach. I am going to write X now, put it on the web, and years later that will be archived in HTX file Y and bundled with program Z(R :) and then again put on the web. Even if no one downloads it, or no one cares, that is the pattern meant to be predictable only because certain people in the government do not like people to be too surprising or unpredictable, or a least too quickly. And they are backups which hopefully will show what I might get attributed with, or blamed for, is actually something which I wrote and not someone else.

    It takes a lot of work to achieve these posts and especially to write the programs. In the archiving stages I remove typos like this post most likely has many of which I will continue to keep finding new ones years later. But beyond just archiving my political writings, these programs are "wrappers" of a different sort. The games included have NEVER been money makers, but the latest ones have take more hours, literally, to write than all of the programs I have ever made before combined. And they were not written to make money, might though probably won't, but that project is a different story too long to be added here. I will save that for possibly a different post as this has already gotten pretty long already.

    So basically to sum up, I write (hopefully) smart things, things which I think are important, put them up on the web at TruthRevival.org or Polsci.com or both, maybe people will read them, maybe not, but I usually don't have to care about that. And if they do, hopefully they will like some of what they read, dislike other things, but hopefully be challenged or have their interest, but not their ire, piqued by both. Then these get bundled into programs, which are openly downloadable, but less likely to be easily hacked and easily changed around as a web site can be, by putting them inside of programs that are (usually) equally smart and useful. And I have been lucky enough not to have to give a (damn) if anyone reads or downloads them either.

    Why do it this way and go to this much trouble if I don't really care about the effects, if any, or if any read them? Well someone probably has to read them. As I mentioned my original intended "audience" for Polsci.com, the watchers need to watch, and they need to have something to read too. So if you are going to write things and not care about if anyone reads them, may as well make it something worth reading. And if they are going to be pissed off by it, make it especially good to make up for that. The most important audiences in the Soviet Union were the censors and they are often the ones who should be concentrated on as far as educating them. If they become better informed, it will help the person or persons who write after you to get an audience saying something more important but more controversial too, even if you never do get read. The "firemen" (Ray Bradbury), the censors, the book-burners, these are the people who not primarily need to be "gotten around," they need to be the most educated because you cannot help enlighten other people without enlightening this group first.

    I may or may not agree with Julian Assange on this or that but in the "DEATH OF TRUTH" (duh duh duh duuuuuunn) interview he had with Chris Hedges, he said the best thing to do about the possibility of your web site getting hacked is to make lots of backups. "Jagger wanted to know how to protect her website from hackers. Assange told her to “make a lot of backup copies." Not that many people, or any have downloaded them most recent version of my program version of my latest "backup" to this website, but the previous backup of this site and Polsci.com inside a program had theoretically thousands of downloads across hundreds of servers. All totaled, I think ZR FileWorks across all versions had just under million recorded downloads, and those were just the ones I knew about. That's a lot of backups. Again, not that anyone cared or cares. I just write because maybe one day someone, or ones, (or twos or threes) might.

    Not that anyone may care to limit or censor what I write, mainly because no one reads it, but I always try to make it as close to the line of what I think is most important to write as I care to get and think I can get away with, without pissing people off too much to not think about it first, and maybe afterwards too. I will leave off with "Ammunition" from my Notes and from the Seabirds collection written about something at that time which was...

If you know what you write will inevitably be erased or purged from others view, that to me is ammunition to make it so good and so important, that it shows absolutely clearly and without any doubt that those who would do such things without thinking about it and without shame to be what they really are, the spiritual heirs of the book-burning Nazis, and the fathers of future firemen everywhere. Their profession is old and future prospects growing every day, because of what they do. It is a circular loop and getting wider. 

 
See, the circle thing comes up yet again. I didn't plan that because I forgot about that last sentence. Just keeps on coming up. "All my life's a circle..." I wanted to include this poem below in the last post, but I did not wish to detract from Harry Chapin's words. Its from my Notes pages too, so technically this is the last poem I ever wrote. Kind of sh*tty to have for a last poem considering I did have many many good ones. Again Harry, then me, "And all my roads have bends..."

I see all paths spread before me
and I see where each end will be
but between every now and then
every route we can bend
and any road or place runs between we can see

A goddamn limerick. I ended writing 400 plus good poems with a goddamn lame limerick. At least it doesn't mention Nantucket.


Once more, Mr. Jim Croce, this time live, to make up for the bad jokes and worse poetry. This was always one of my favorite road trip songs. My first long distance ones solo were at 16. At nighttime, my favorite was "Highway song" by Blackfoot. By day, this was my favorite...