.
ARBITRARINESS OF CAUSE AND EFFECT: Does that which is effect and that which is cause depend on perspective, context, and purpose? Insofar as unconscious "forces," do any such "things" really abide in themselves, apart from consciousness? How can we empirically know whether chronology is always conserved by natural law versus renormalized by meta (non-empirical)-consciousness? Does effect always follow cause, or can cause follow effect? Does some character of the cosmos synchronize to make each decision even before each particularly conscious body apprehends that it has made a decision? What is the character of the flux in feedback between apprehensions (fore-bodings) and appreciations (after-bodings)? When are after-bodings fore-bodings, and when are fore-bodings after-bodings? When can that which causes a rationaliztion be reasonably considered as having alreay rationalized the rationalization? How is feedback between the Holism and its Parts synchronized? Does the perspective of the Whole borrow against the Sum of its parts, and vice versa, does the Sum of the perspectives borrow against the Whole? When, how, and why may a cause refocus itself as an effect?
.
.
SPIRITUAL FEEDBACK: The way the holism produces and guides seemingly particular perspectives has to do with how immaterial feedback is conducted between the signifying holistic perspective and the sensing particularistic perspectives. Every aspect that is signified is, at some level, sensed, and every aspect that is sensed is, at some level, signified. However, a particular perspective does not have capacity simultaneously to sense and signify the same interpreted aspect. Rather, there is a break in the simultaneity that avails feedback, hence chronological communication. That which unfolds is in respect of interfunctioning between sensing and signifying. It is not “caused” merely by what we sense to be unconscious signification of “mass.”
.
CAUSATION: Scientists and Spiritualists alike seek to understand causation. CAUSATION can be considered under many perspectives, contexts, and purposes. It can be considered under many headings, such as the following, which are not mutually exclusive, nor do I claim to know whether they are exhaustive:
SIGNIFICATION --- CONCEPTUAL COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING ON BACKS OF FAIRIES: Naming of aspects of particles sometimes seems similar to priests naming of aspects of God. As if naming or conceptualizing can somehow box God in, or magically constitute some real attribute or name-in-itself for whatever may constitute the Ephemeral Essence. We name particles as if we could hope to categorize and control the entire zoo of potential experience. As if our naming, conceptualizing, conjuring, measuring, and tinkering could participate in the unfolding creation and expression of some kind of meta-essential reality-in-itself. Might it thus be? Certainly, naming is useful. It helps us conceive and tinker. But it does not define, confine, or exclusively exhaust the entire quantifiability of all that is potentially signifiable. Nor will we ever succeed in categorizing and collecting a complete and entire set of mutually exclusive and exhaustive particles or concepts by which we could imagine of make up quantifiable reality. We cannot reasonably hope for that kind of scientific advancement. Yet, we can enhance significations that help us tinker and produce astonishing technological marvels. That is an aspect of the freedom that is expressed, through the feedback effect of our perspectives of Will dancing with God’s freedom of will. All that we experience and propose is derivative of the cloud or essential essence of God's unfolding facilitation of a dance of Will. All of conscious Identity is dependent on a same synchronizing cloud, an Ephemeral Essence, in respect of which are derived all measurable and quantitative aspects (significations) of causes, troubles, pains, pursuits, deceits, empathies, insights, and intuitions.
.
IMMATERIALITY: We do not sense any thing as it really is, in itself, for there is no way for a mortal to directly, empirically, or measurably sense a thing-in-itself. Instead, we apprehend and experience sensations of relations: the observed relation; the unconscious context of observation; the conscious participation in the observation. The quality of our participations and apprehensions feed back, to relate to the quality of synchronizing apprehensions of the Holism. Thus, there is constant, continuous, digital feedback and signification among relations in consciousness --- from and between the perspective of the part and the perspective of the holism.
.
SOURCE: The Source of such feedback is the source of consciousness, perhaps even of consciousness itself. What if our bodies and apprehensions are tricked out significations of their fluxes? Of which, beyond our bodies, we also are a part? What if “they” (previous evolutions of conscious beings from other planets) have already evolved to superior state, to garden their empathies and creative interests through us, as vicarious significations? What if our roles and duties are to function, in part, as avatars, to experience and feel, so that they also can, through us, signify? Once Beings of Consciousness harness the exponentially explosive potentiality of imaginative consciousness, they may have little reason to preserve museums or archeological records, or worlds of their evolution, from relatively fast ravages of inter-stellar expressions of force and fluxing causation. Once they “transcend,” why be surprised of the blasting away of any archeological record? After all, a record is not a thing-in-itself.
.
THE NON-REDUCTIVENESS OF THINGS: Somehow, depending on one’s perspective, context, and purpose, an Ephemeral Essence presents to apprehensions — as having properties, faces, and masks for appearing to be: Expanding or collapsing, rolling out or in, stretching or compressing, blinking ir or out, projecting or drawing, pushing or pulling, attracting or repulsing, changing or catalyzing, transforming or conserving, escaping or synchronizing, creating or annihilating, iterating or absorbing, spinning or orbiting, breaking or fluxing, dividing or reconciling, counting or scaling, vibrating or vanishing, mapping or modeling, apprehending or appreciating, valuing or pricing, explaining or unifying.
.
Only in respect of such presentations of properties is one is availed significations that can be scaled and measured, until such scalings result in transformations or phase shifts, which then can only be reasonably related along different, not necessarily coordinate, scales. The more precisely detailed one pursues to make one’s measure, the more the limits of one’s standard recede into fuzzy uncertainty, the more craftily the Ephemeral Essence facilitates alternative standards for measuring presentations. And so on. Thus, our sensations for experiencing and measuring manipulations of presentations is discretely finite, continuously unbounded, and not unitarily reductionist.
.
Under all such faces and masks, that which itself is fluxing and presenting significations to our apprehensions remains of the same essence, but is identifiable in its fluxing sameness only in qualitative respect, not quantitative. The operations by which we measure to stretch, compress, divide, glue, change, charge, polarize, spin, vibrate, transform, represent, etc., are performed in respect of how significations present to our conscious apprehension. That is, we differentially measure significations and signs of an Ephemeral Essence, which in itself we cannot measure, but only experience, armed only with our consciousness of identity, sensation, intuition, and empathy. We apprehend the Essence’s significations, we know our consciousness, we intuit ongoing participation, and, in respect thereof, we derive our moral purposefulness as we pursue our meaningful fulfillment.
.
CORRELATION --- Crossing the Fog:
Of the foggy apprehension of possibilities and the conscious appreciation of manifestations: All other factors remaining proportionately equal, consider single-dimensional analysis of such “all other factors.” Ask: In what respect may such a mental project ever reasonably, precisely, or practically be undertaken? Suppose a person were — in any single way or along any single dimension — to alter his relationship with his contextual frame of reference (or space-time orientation), as by: altering his (or his avatar's, or his proxy's, or his thing-being-tested's) relative proximity, direction, speed, acceleration, angular momentum, orbital radius, vibration, focus of attention, screening of noise, or language or logarithm of deciphering. With each alteration of his point of view, would not his entire frame of reference also be affected? Still, he may find it practical, for many tinkering pursuits, to assume that all factors apart from his own orientation remain proportionately constant or continuous. However, such would not be the case. His change in point of view would affect his entire frame of reference, however subtly. The greater the individual change, the greater the multi-dimensional flux in his frame of reference. Eventually, the noise and fuzz of the multi-dimensional flux will overpower his capacity to maintain a sequentially proportional or logarithmic correlation between his perspective and his context. He will find himself in a paradoxical or foggy land of infinite possibilities of quantum fuzz or cognitive dissonance.
He may relieve such fog and fuzz either by reducing or increasing the direction or rate of his alteration from the original state with which the sustenance of his identity has bonded. However, he will not be able to disperse or clear the fog that separates the multi-dimensional transition. Nor will he be able to ensure the eternal life or body of his physical avatar. Death (identity transcendence) is his ultimate fog of transition. No single-dimensional-based technology will enable him to preserve a clearly proportional or logarithmic correlation across all alterations in his path between all perspectives and contexts. He will not be able to explicate, predict, or control the physical expression of the world in respect of any grand, reconciling, precisely-measuring model, map, or theory. Not in any single dimension of space, space-time, gravity, mass, direction, angular momentum, evolution from chaos, recordation of memory, entanglement of information, presetting of dominoes, competition among free beings, nor bonding to avatar. Rather, the transitioning and unfolding of that which presents from the communication and functioning that is signified across multiple dimensions is byproduct of a meta dance of feedback (of unfolding apprehension and appreciation) ... between an holistic source of conscious will and its variously particular perspectives. Moreover, every perspective of consciousness participates in the feedback dance of apprehension and appreciation, in respect of which is signified all that is made manifest.
Respect for that is the basis for meaning, purposeful tinkering, empathy, and civilized morality. God presently feeds back, in respect of such significations as God presently has apprehensions of and appreciations for.
ARBITRARINESS OF CAUSE AND EFFECT: Does that which is effect and that which is cause depend on perspective, context, and purpose? Insofar as unconscious "forces," do any such "things" really abide in themselves, apart from consciousness? How can we empirically know whether chronology is always conserved by natural law versus renormalized by meta (non-empirical)-consciousness? Does effect always follow cause, or can cause follow effect? Does some character of the cosmos synchronize to make each decision even before each particularly conscious body apprehends that it has made a decision? What is the character of the flux in feedback between apprehensions (fore-bodings) and appreciations (after-bodings)? When are after-bodings fore-bodings, and when are fore-bodings after-bodings? When can that which causes a rationaliztion be reasonably considered as having alreay rationalized the rationalization? How is feedback between the Holism and its Parts synchronized? Does the perspective of the Whole borrow against the Sum of its parts, and vice versa, does the Sum of the perspectives borrow against the Whole? When, how, and why may a cause refocus itself as an effect?
.
BORROWING FROM ZERO: Consciousness is that which can signify by borrowing from zero. Regardless of what we measure or how carefully we measure, every "thing" that we can measure owes a conservational debt to zero. That is, our physical universe bubbled out from nothingness, and it will collapse back into nothingness. The "things" we measure and quantify are sequential mirages, such that every attempt to complete a measure necessarily recedes. If there abides any eternal or lasting entity or purpose, it abides in respect of meta properties and feedback that we, in our communicative significations, cannot quantify, but only indirectly experience, intuit, and empathize about. The only truth for us is that we can experience choosing, and we can tinker with how to pursue that which we choose, but we will never fully grasp any "real thing." However, as we make and change our choices, we can apprehend tactics for pursuing them, and such tactics will yield varying aspects of success (or truth value, or "truthiness"). The only "thing" that remains (everywhere and for all time and sequence) constant in its signification is change. The only non-trivial truth is that our experiences of conscious identity are derivative of an immeasurably entailed Source, with which we may or may not enjoy (or believe to enjoy) a meta-intuitive and empathetic relationship. In respect of that, we can choose to pursue a decent civilization of human liberty, or we can lose ourselves in pursuing no encompassing purpose apart from drug and hormone induced highs, derivative of hallucinations of "things" (and wars to mine or steal them).
.
SPIRITUAL EMPATHY: Spiritual empathy abides with caring, deceit, and wonder, and it is signified to be expressed in quantifiables. Spiritual empathy is the source of quantifiable communications (significations), not the byproduct. One exists more authentically by conceptualizing how expressions of empathy may be signified among potentially unlimited quantifiables, than by seeking somehow to confine or banish spirituality as a mere delusion. Science should better enhance the expressive signification of spiritual empathy, than try to prove or zero out spiritual empathy, either as entity or non-entity. In expressing oneself, one either conceptualizes that spiritual empathy abides, or one does not. The only “evidence” of spiritual empathy is non-empirical, non-scientifically testable. The evidence is in the living and experiencing. Quantifiables have nothing to do with proving such a pure qualitative. That said, those who resolve to live as if spiritual empathy were a non-entity are not reasonably expected to stand for much beyond the narrow perimeter of their self interests. Indeed, they will tend to believe there is not really any such a property as unselfishness (projective identification beyond delusions of matter)..
SPIRITUAL FEEDBACK: The way the holism produces and guides seemingly particular perspectives has to do with how immaterial feedback is conducted between the signifying holistic perspective and the sensing particularistic perspectives. Every aspect that is signified is, at some level, sensed, and every aspect that is sensed is, at some level, signified. However, a particular perspective does not have capacity simultaneously to sense and signify the same interpreted aspect. Rather, there is a break in the simultaneity that avails feedback, hence chronological communication. That which unfolds is in respect of interfunctioning between sensing and signifying. It is not “caused” merely by what we sense to be unconscious signification of “mass.”
.
CAUSATION: Scientists and Spiritualists alike seek to understand causation. CAUSATION can be considered under many perspectives, contexts, and purposes. It can be considered under many headings, such as the following, which are not mutually exclusive, nor do I claim to know whether they are exhaustive:
1) Forces (weak, strong, radiating, gravitational);
2) Determinants (directed, random, chosen, evolving, guided, natural, artificial);
3) Transformants (sharing, exchanging, adding, losing, mutating, blueprinting);
4) Fields (multi-dimensional, 3-D waves, 2-D strings, 1-D points, wave-particle fluxes and collapses);
5) Particles (zero-conserving, virtual-borrowing, space-occupying, mass-carrying, charged neutral and polarized, paired and single, reactive or transformative, information carrying, size measuring, dark, bosons, ultimate, God particles);
6) Space-time occupancy (thinginess, massiness, hardness, exclusiveness, additiveness, space-distortion capacity, time-sequence-borrowing capacity);
7) Inertia (directional momentum, acceleration);
8) Densities (weight, massiness, reactiveness, inertness, temperature, vibration);
9) Detectibility (integrity, size, speed, direction, duration, alternating convertibility, testability, observability);
10) Direction (singular, repulsion, attraction, pushing, pulling, gluing, charged, polarized, angular, spin, orbit, intensity, amplitude, frequency, alternating);
11) Measurable Completeness (coherence, consistency, continuosity, digital discreteness, paradoxical, ambiguous, overlapping across logical categories, defying set restricted logical classification, trivalent defying of bivalent rule of the excluded middle);
12) Relations (essential and paradoxical thing in itself, ultimate particle, bonded, paired, annihilated, asymmetrical, directional, simultaneous, sequential, virtual, borrowed, catalytic, back feeding, transformational, fluxing, translatable, representative, signalizing, communicative, conservational yet unlimited, creative yet magical);
13) Explanatory Value (morally qualitative, empirically quantitative, sequential, predicting, controlling, replicating, statistically reliable, causal, associative, epiphenomenal, byproduct, delusional, conceptual, self authenticating, magical);
13) Explanatory Value (morally qualitative, empirically quantitative, sequential, predicting, controlling, replicating, statistically reliable, causal, associative, epiphenomenal, byproduct, delusional, conceptual, self authenticating, magical);
14) Information representing and storing capacity (picture defining and transmitting capacity, quantitative measurability, empirical confirmability, modeling and mapping capacity, logical consistency);
15) Re-Normativeness of Sequentiality (adjustability to relative standard based on point of view, context, and focus of purpose, resistence to creative re-conceptualization, preclusion of preservation of quantitative-based knowledge of travel back and forth in time, chronological protection mechanism, inter-changing virtuality of cause and effect);
16) Potentiality (mathematical, digital, sequential, conservational, quantitatively balanced to zero yet infinite, finite yet unbounded, unitary yet changing, fluxing yet vibrational, identical yet particular, qualitatively purposeful yet eternally unsatisfied, honest yet deceiving, ephemeral yet normatively measurable, timeless yet chronological, logical yet metaphysical — we know not what it is, but we know that it is not limited in its potential to that which it presently presents);
17) Intuitability (knowledge, belief, doubt, empirical confirmability, intuitive self fulfillment, truth value for reconciling non-quantitative qualitatives in respect of pursuits of conscious fulfillment);
17) Intuitability (knowledge, belief, doubt, empirical confirmability, intuitive self fulfillment, truth value for reconciling non-quantitative qualitatives in respect of pursuits of conscious fulfillment);
18) Purposefulness (moral, good, evil, neutral, competitive, cooperative, empathetic, caring, connived);
19) Identity (iteration, polarity, projectibility, quality, holonic relativity);
20) Significativeness (amenability to modeling for measuring, however incomplete);
21) Holonic (synchronization between and among perspectives of the whole and of the parts).
.
.
.
IMMATERIALITY: We do not sense any thing as it really is, in itself, for there is no way for a mortal to directly, empirically, or measurably sense a thing-in-itself. Instead, we apprehend and experience sensations of relations: the observed relation; the unconscious context of observation; the conscious participation in the observation. The quality of our participations and apprehensions feed back, to relate to the quality of synchronizing apprehensions of the Holism. Thus, there is constant, continuous, digital feedback and signification among relations in consciousness --- from and between the perspective of the part and the perspective of the holism.
.
SOURCE: The Source of such feedback is the source of consciousness, perhaps even of consciousness itself. What if our bodies and apprehensions are tricked out significations of their fluxes? Of which, beyond our bodies, we also are a part? What if “they” (previous evolutions of conscious beings from other planets) have already evolved to superior state, to garden their empathies and creative interests through us, as vicarious significations? What if our roles and duties are to function, in part, as avatars, to experience and feel, so that they also can, through us, signify? Once Beings of Consciousness harness the exponentially explosive potentiality of imaginative consciousness, they may have little reason to preserve museums or archeological records, or worlds of their evolution, from relatively fast ravages of inter-stellar expressions of force and fluxing causation. Once they “transcend,” why be surprised of the blasting away of any archeological record? After all, a record is not a thing-in-itself.
.
THE NON-REDUCTIVENESS OF THINGS: Somehow, depending on one’s perspective, context, and purpose, an Ephemeral Essence presents to apprehensions — as having properties, faces, and masks for appearing to be: Expanding or collapsing, rolling out or in, stretching or compressing, blinking ir or out, projecting or drawing, pushing or pulling, attracting or repulsing, changing or catalyzing, transforming or conserving, escaping or synchronizing, creating or annihilating, iterating or absorbing, spinning or orbiting, breaking or fluxing, dividing or reconciling, counting or scaling, vibrating or vanishing, mapping or modeling, apprehending or appreciating, valuing or pricing, explaining or unifying.
.
Only in respect of such presentations of properties is one is availed significations that can be scaled and measured, until such scalings result in transformations or phase shifts, which then can only be reasonably related along different, not necessarily coordinate, scales. The more precisely detailed one pursues to make one’s measure, the more the limits of one’s standard recede into fuzzy uncertainty, the more craftily the Ephemeral Essence facilitates alternative standards for measuring presentations. And so on. Thus, our sensations for experiencing and measuring manipulations of presentations is discretely finite, continuously unbounded, and not unitarily reductionist.
.
Under all such faces and masks, that which itself is fluxing and presenting significations to our apprehensions remains of the same essence, but is identifiable in its fluxing sameness only in qualitative respect, not quantitative. The operations by which we measure to stretch, compress, divide, glue, change, charge, polarize, spin, vibrate, transform, represent, etc., are performed in respect of how significations present to our conscious apprehension. That is, we differentially measure significations and signs of an Ephemeral Essence, which in itself we cannot measure, but only experience, armed only with our consciousness of identity, sensation, intuition, and empathy. We apprehend the Essence’s significations, we know our consciousness, we intuit ongoing participation, and, in respect thereof, we derive our moral purposefulness as we pursue our meaningful fulfillment.
.
CORRELATION --- Crossing the Fog:
Of the foggy apprehension of possibilities and the conscious appreciation of manifestations: All other factors remaining proportionately equal, consider single-dimensional analysis of such “all other factors.” Ask: In what respect may such a mental project ever reasonably, precisely, or practically be undertaken? Suppose a person were — in any single way or along any single dimension — to alter his relationship with his contextual frame of reference (or space-time orientation), as by: altering his (or his avatar's, or his proxy's, or his thing-being-tested's) relative proximity, direction, speed, acceleration, angular momentum, orbital radius, vibration, focus of attention, screening of noise, or language or logarithm of deciphering. With each alteration of his point of view, would not his entire frame of reference also be affected? Still, he may find it practical, for many tinkering pursuits, to assume that all factors apart from his own orientation remain proportionately constant or continuous. However, such would not be the case. His change in point of view would affect his entire frame of reference, however subtly. The greater the individual change, the greater the multi-dimensional flux in his frame of reference. Eventually, the noise and fuzz of the multi-dimensional flux will overpower his capacity to maintain a sequentially proportional or logarithmic correlation between his perspective and his context. He will find himself in a paradoxical or foggy land of infinite possibilities of quantum fuzz or cognitive dissonance.
He may relieve such fog and fuzz either by reducing or increasing the direction or rate of his alteration from the original state with which the sustenance of his identity has bonded. However, he will not be able to disperse or clear the fog that separates the multi-dimensional transition. Nor will he be able to ensure the eternal life or body of his physical avatar. Death (identity transcendence) is his ultimate fog of transition. No single-dimensional-based technology will enable him to preserve a clearly proportional or logarithmic correlation across all alterations in his path between all perspectives and contexts. He will not be able to explicate, predict, or control the physical expression of the world in respect of any grand, reconciling, precisely-measuring model, map, or theory. Not in any single dimension of space, space-time, gravity, mass, direction, angular momentum, evolution from chaos, recordation of memory, entanglement of information, presetting of dominoes, competition among free beings, nor bonding to avatar. Rather, the transitioning and unfolding of that which presents from the communication and functioning that is signified across multiple dimensions is byproduct of a meta dance of feedback (of unfolding apprehension and appreciation) ... between an holistic source of conscious will and its variously particular perspectives. Moreover, every perspective of consciousness participates in the feedback dance of apprehension and appreciation, in respect of which is signified all that is made manifest.
Respect for that is the basis for meaning, purposeful tinkering, empathy, and civilized morality. God presently feeds back, in respect of such significations as God presently has apprehensions of and appreciations for.
3 comments:
We can choose to pursue a decent civilization of merit-based human liberty, or we can lose ourselves in pursuing no encompassing purpose apart from thug-enforced entitlement to drug and hormone induced highs, derivative of hallucinations of "things" (and tribal wars to mine or steal them). Or virtual money credited to brain scans on the matrix. Maybe if one finagles enough virtual stash, one can get on the Architect's staff. Then one can be Dr. Evil, and there will be no moral truth --- only the truthiness you want to be. Other people will be just so much entertainment for one's tribal lusts. In hallucinatory, cannibal society, Zimmerman can be sacrificed as readily as taking a blue pill. All together: parteee.
Management will never be efficient without a profit motive. You can't get a profit motive when management is by government civil servants or by crony corporations that own market security by owning key politicians. There is a humanitarian role for a single payer system, but it would need to be limited to basic safety-net services, and it must not be gold plated to such an extent as to disincentive work. Problem is, in our present political structure, where both main political parties are owned and operated by crony corporatists, there is no way to balance the safety net. Rather, it is guaranteed that the safety net will be played for the purpose of reaping the political garden. Dinos will play to easily bribed and ever escalating mob populism, while Rinos will play to currency manipulation to shovel billions out the back door.
Until a Conservative Party can be inspired, the best that can be done is to just say no to all further federal enhancements. Feds need to divest to the States. Since that will never happen under the evil alliance of Dinos and Rinos, Conservatives must play for time while they organize.
Liberals/Libertarians, instead of merely agitating about racial issues, want to cash in concerning drugs and gay sex. Their prime directive, their reason for existing, seems to be to saddle everyone else with ever more regulations to ensure equal indoctrination in, and enforcement of, strange proclivities (under convenient definitions of "equal"). How does setting up all the new regulations that will be needed to ensure "equal distribution" of entitlements to Gays liberate us from Big Gov? This kind of false Libertarianism is just liberation from personal responsibility, i.e., lipstick on collectivism.
This hormone-dope movement started out as a movement asking for tolerance. Well, tolerance, in main, has been achieved. Now they move on to indoctrination, even of grade schoolers, financed by our tax dollars. Next comes force. If all they want is "tolerance," why're they moving on to seek tax, welfare, security net, and affirmative action benefits that will further finance and incentive these proclivities? Evidently, achievements thus far are only appetizers. They and their ACLU will salivate to pursue regulation in fine, in order to demand all of the above. How many "mere distractions" do they have in mind, to bend society to perverse desires to make status of gay marriage a marker of politically-enforced moral superiority?
When they demure that their demands for more regulations are small and reasonable (antlike), ask: Aren't you and your cohort supporting a regime with czars that seeks eventually to force parents and children to sit through hours of re-indoctrination from media, academia, and crony politicians about the wonders of experimentation in mind expanding drugs, hormones, and unusual varieties of sexual experimentation? Sometimes they imply they're willing to help Conservatives draw lines against polygamists and child abusers. Ok. Ask them: Where's your fenceline, what's your basis, and will you take a blood oath on it? They have no such a fenceline! For them, all fencelines are mere edifices of bygone days, now to be blithely bulldozed through for "progress" by doped-up, disloyal, amoralists, with no clue about what is needed to defend free society from being reduced to well-directed, well-drugged antpiles.
Post a Comment