Monday, September 03, 2012

Rev. Moon is dead -- squabbles expected among his heirs

Rev. Moon, the would be self-proclaimed "Lord of the Second Advent" is dead.  He who corrupted so many in the Evangelical and even "fundamentalist unregistered church" worlds with his financial largesse has gone on to his "reward", whatever it may be. From Jerry Falwell to Tim LaHaye, Richard Viguerie, Pastor Sileven and so many sorry others, biblical and theology integrity was  compromised for the sake of dollars -- many dollars.  I will be posting a detailed article on this later today.

Stay tuned!

I haven't shared this story with many people but I thought I would to you all since this came up on the death of Rev. Moon.
Back in August of 1983 I went with a group named Saints Alive to witness to Mormons at their temple gates for a month in Salt Lake City. I'm not sure that was a very smart thing for me to do but I was young and full of ambition to go out and convert the world to Jesus Christ.
Anyway there was anounced that there would be a meeting among Unification Church leaders in downtown Salt Lake City and I was very curious and decided to go. I sat in the front row and couldn't believe my ears. There were a lot of Mormons in attendance at this meeting to.
The entire meeting was the leaders of Rev. Moon's church reaching out to the Mormons to join hands and work together in changing the world and bringing in the kingdom of God. Some of the Mormons I talked to after the meeting said they were very moved by the meeting. This was the first time after listening to Constance Cumbey that I realized that there was an effort to bring these different religious organizations together attempting to get the followers to realize that they believed very much alike and were working toward the same goal of changing the world.
sounds like an example of C. S. Lewis' Screwtape's "Christianity and...." and it doesn't matter what is on the other side of the "and" the point is that it grow to exclipse Christianity in the person's mind and heart.

In this case, a vague general sense of the existence of a God, humongous possible future for mankind, and changing the world (whatever that might add up to in practice of course not being specified so well that hearers might consider they had conflicting agendas, assuming they did) would be on the other side of the "and" as shared assumptions of what constitutes "the good" that all men must strive for.

Like freemasonry, less concerned with truth than with brotherhood and truth is whatever eliminates conflict and promotes brotherhood.

While Mormon theology is not exactly Christian, you can see how the foregoing would figure in the compromises that birthed the modern Christian right, with Unification church as its midwife.

More than money, it was appeal to shared hates and fears, fear of a government as antichrist who would suppress ALL religion, so the Christian should hang out with anti Christians against atheism, yet as St. Paul said, "what part has light with darkness? and what part has the temple of God with the temple of belial?"

That is of course forgotten.

And of course fear of communism. And the worries about moral decline and so forth. Something better dealt with separately from those other people.
Christine, you are moving into information dealing with a larger picture here. It makes you more reliable in your information. In the past you focused on strange little areas that could be dismissed easily. I hope you continue to work information about the very large areas of change.
"sounds like an example of C. S. Lewis' Screwtape's "Christianity and...." and it doesn't matter what is on the other side of the "and" the point is that it grow to exclipse Christianity in the person's mind and heart."

The problem with this is that CS Lewis avoids defining "Christianity" here. Some denominations think that certain other denominations already ARE "Christianity and...", whereas those denominations think that the former ones are "Christianity minus..."
Anon@4:58 a.m.

C.S. Lewis does define Christianity. He says that there are many rooms, once someone becomes a Christian, one should not choose the room they like the best, but one that is closest to the truth.

He also holds the view that when one has two opposing views, both cannot be true.

C. S. Lewis as far as I can tell defines Christianity as focus on Jesus Christ, His Person and Work on the Cross and Resurrection.

The "and" gets people to eclipse that with things that may be good or only neutral, usually they figure these by a string of if this then that and if that then the next and so on often peppered with biblically dubious excerpts (out of context, bad translation, misapplication, whatever) and end up in bad places still thinking they are being Christian when they have lost sight of Christ Himself and as one person put it, "what would Jesus do?"

This is regardless of denomination.
Following (after a lengthy bit of introduction) are some questions for the Roman Catholic readers – not for the sake of rekindling any sort of RCC-Protestant debates, please. I’ve been reading works by Gerald O’Collins, SJ (Society of Jesus, or Jesuits) and I’ve found his works to be staunchly orthodox with regard to Christology. His works are referenced by a broad spectrum of non-Catholics in literature I’m reading including, e.g. he’s co-edited a volume titled The Incarnation with Stephen T. Davis and Daniel Kendall, SJ. I have 3 individual books by O’Collins (I’ve only read one [Incarnation Continuum, 2002] all the way through just yet).

Another Jesuit, Roger Haight, was officially denounced and silenced by the Vatican with O’Collins siding definitively with the Vatican:

This article above also lists a few other Jesuits who’ve been scrutinized for doctrinal issues in recent years including Jacques Dupuis – an individual O’Collins references in a chapter titled “Universal Redeemer” in his book Christology [Oxford, 2009 2nd ed.]. This chapter is promoting universal redemption, including those outside what would reasonably be called the Christian faith, while referencing in part Dei Verbum. Alarmingly, O’Collins begins the chapter with a quote by Teilhard de Chardin: “In a real sense, only one human being will be saved: Christ, the head and living summary of humanity” [from Le Milieu divin]. I’ve only skimmed this chapter; however, this is what I’ve gleaned so far.

So, to my questions: Is universal reconciliation/redemption/salvation an official RCC doctrine? Does the Dei Verbum affirm universal reconciliation or is O’Collins reading into the document? Or, is UR a doctrine particular to the Jesuits?

I ask all these questions because I plan to reference O’Collins in an upcoming article, and, if necessary, I will put a caveat in the footnotes. (I also have O’Collins’ The Tripersonal God which is supposed to be an excellent read on the Trinity.)

Any help will be appreciated.
Fox News was banned from airing this:

Our president a Muslim? Watch it and decide for yourself. Watch it before it disappears.

Javier Solana just came out with a new post on his blogspot about Bill Clinton. I can't read Spanish. Can anyone hear read Spanish? I would really like to know what he is saying about Bill Clinton.
Clinton was a professional of politics?
Published: 4 September 2012 by javiersolana
The term "professional politician" is now used in a pejorative sense. "What can you expect from someone with these characteristics?", Is heard saying.

Here is the biography of someone who only made his life in politics and became one of the most popular U.S. presidents

At 28, he got his first public office as attorney general of Arkansas.

He was then elected governor of his state and reelected to stay 12 years on the job.

Then came the elections for president of the United States and won twice.

No one disputes that has been one of the most popular presidents in recent years.

It was a "professional politician" or a great president?
I just used google translate
Clinton and Solana go way back. You should research them.

Go to Google and type in "google translate" and hit enter. Once there, copy and paste text, click "English" button on right and the translation will appear. Here it is:

Clinton was a professional politics [Politician]? Published: 4 September 2012 by javiersolana

The term "professional politician" is now used in a pejorative sense. "What can you expect from someone with these characteristics?", Is heard saying.

Here is the biography of someone who only made his life in politics and became one of the most popular U.S. presidents

At 28, he got his first public office as attorney general of Arkansas.

He was then elected governor of his state and reelected to stay 12 years on the job.

Then came the elections for president of the United States and won twice.

No one disputes that has been one of the most popular presidents in recent years.

It was a "professional politician" or a great president?
And a trail of dead bodies dating from the Mena AK days when the CIA was running drugs into the airport and some young guys I think teens got wise and ended up dead on the railroad tracks, to Foster's death in DC under conditions that make no sense as the suicide it was written up as.

The conservatives who worked up a program about this, blamed Bill Clinton, but personally I think he is too stupid and short range in focus to do this. More likely Hillary (with his agreement) decided this was necessary. I think she had been riding his coattails to political power and was not about to let any potential scandals derail him, and therefore herself.

magnetic pole shift could cause a crustal displacement, by dragging the magnetized crust with it, though I doubt as far as this writer thought.

Don't believe everything you read! Ken White might be a committed Christian but he evidently knows no science relevant to reversal of the polarity of the earth's magnetic field. The book you cite is called "Echoes of the Spirit" and it gets wrong by a factor of 100 the frequency at which the earth's magnetic field reverses polarity - it happens about every million years, not every ten thousand years. See:

Dynamo theory is an interesting field of research - part of what is called magnetohydrodynamics - in which it is fairly easy to write down the coupled equations for the flow of molten iron inside the earth and the associated magnetic field, but difficult to solve them. Numerical solution implemented on computers does show flipping consistent with the observations, as this Wikipedia article states.

If the field change induced catastrophic geological consequences on a timescale of tens of thousands of years it would have been very clear in the geological record. But this is not seen.


really? how about that mountain building process? we ASSUME it is slow. wikipedia isn't the only thing around, and I don't care about White's beliefs, it is his involvement in those pentagon ordered researches.

As for millions of years, the problems with radiometric dating of all kinds could - and do -fill several books.

Even the atheist non creationist element among alternative researchers, usually committed to evolution over vast eons as an awe inspiring mystical object of religious kind of feeling (don't laugh, I've been there, done that, I know the mindset exists) is sitting up and taking notice, for their own reasons.
Craig and Anons,
Thank you for that tip on Google Translate. Some of his blog posts are in english and some in spanish. Now I know what to do to translate.

Mountain building is not assumed to be slow, it is inferred to be slow. Dating from the relative abundances of radioisotopes occurring naturally in several radioactive decay chains is fairly reliable (and has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating). Perhaps you would care to outline in your own words - for I wish to discuss with you, not authors you cite - what is wrong with it.

The forces induced in the ferromagnetic materials in the earth's crust by a reversal of the earth's magnetic field are way too small to have any significant effect. It's not a difficult calculation.

What interests me more is why, when the internet is so large that you can find almost anything there - true or false - you choose to believe this particular source, ie your criteria. Science does not seem to figure large in them, which is a great shame in scientific subjects.


Delegates boo putting God back into platform. I actually think the No vote was louder.
Dear Craig,

Universal redemtion/reconciliation/salvation is not official Roman Catholic Church teaching.

I have not read O'Collins book, but from what you have said, it appears to be merely the private opinion (not doctrine) of O'Collins and a few others. It is certainly not a Jesuit doctrine.

In the Chiesa article we read:

...The reasons given in support of Haight's condemnation are not insignificant. The 2004 notification lists them meticulously. In the judgment of the Vatican authorities, Haight uses a theological method that subordinates the content of the faith to its acceptability on the part of postmodern culture. And for the objective realities defined by the articles of the Creed, it substitutes symbols.

The result is the loss of substance of key truths of the Christian faith like the preexistence of the Word, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, the salvific value of the death of Jesus, the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church, the resurrection of Jesus. On each of these points, the Vatican notification says how and why Haight contradicts Catholic doctrine.

Haight has always cooperated with the sanctions he has received, although he has delayed this somewhat. He will soon leave his professorship at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. And he is preparing a new written response to send to the Holy See.

At the Vatican, they are seriously concerned about this case. They do not believe that it is at all confined to academic circles. Haight is a theologian with a significant capacity for communication, he is appreciated by the "liberal" culture extensively present in the media, and enjoys widespread support within the Church, especially in the Society of Jesus.

Of the last seven theologians scrutinized by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, four are Jesuits. In addition to Haight, the others are Anthony De Mello, Jacques Dupuis, and Jon Sobrino, the last of these a leading exponent of liberation theology.....


The "unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church" is not the same thing as "universal reconciliation" or "Apocatastasis."

It means that salvation has been universally won for all and that salvation is exclusively to be had in Christ. However, man has been endowed by God with the gift of free will and even though salvation has been universally won for all, this does not necessarily mean that it will be universally and freely accepted by all.

....In any case, the doctrine ( Apocatastasis ) was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church.

I hope I have been able to satisfactorily answer your question.
Former New Age astrologer warns about questionable influences creeping into church (alternative healing, yoga, mysticism)...

"The forces induced in the ferromagnetic materials in the earth's crust by a reversal of the earth's magnetic field are way too small to have any significant effect. It's not a difficult calculation."

precisely why, as a principle, but without any calculations, I reject the idea that the resulting crustal displacement would be as extreme as some think.

Also, that is not the only thing dragging it, Charles Hapgood's theory, which Einstein gave approval to, is that the main driver is the offcenter centrifugal force of the growing ice pack on Antarctica, which is very blobular in one direction.

On dynamo theory alone, the final position of things is hard to figure. But Hapgood's idea would have North America moving farther north and north west, with Greenland center or tip being located at the true north pole.

This is totally contrary to all the depictions shown on youtube maybe one exception.

Meanwhile, have you ever heard of the Heim theory about gravitational coupling to electromagnetism?

note to person I argued with about how to deal with a fornication situation not involving a virgin as per Law of Moses - I realized a few days ago, that apparently you do not realize that the Torah or Law is NOT merely the rules given to Moses in Exodus through Deuteronomy, the ENTIRE FIVE BOOKS INCLUDING GENESIS are what are called "The Law," and as per Jesus reference to Genesis regarding divorce, one can indeed refer to original pattern to deduce how to handle things not specified.

Consistent with that pattern is the sharp limitation put on polygamy, a man would have to provide equally for all the women, regardless of status, not only in food and clothing but in sexual attention. One who was not happy because other women decreased any of this for her, and she could leave without paying money, i.e., he loses the bride price. This means of course that in those days divorce could be initiated by the wife or concubine, something later rabbinic law did not allow, though a woman could go to court and persuade them to order her husband to divorce her.

Divorce for any other reason by the woman, would require paying back the bride price. This would limit female fickleness of course, but could be acquired by sale of clothing stashed food delicacies and even begging on the side or sale of extra of things she made out of allotment of stuff given her.

In theory, there was nothing preventing a girl from buying herself, and starting her own matrilineage, taking only a husband who would sell himself to her and go under her roof, restoring the Genesis pattern of the man leaves his family and cleaves to his woman. The children would be matrilineally named.

This could be tweaked into a tribal patrilineal group of course, the matrilineal groups being within the larger tribes.

It is unlikely anyone thought of doing this. In rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem it is noted that ALL the workers were armed, and elsewhere that a certain man AND his daughters worked on the wall.

Thus a kind of amazon revival was not impossible, but never implemented.

Your writing drifts between confuses shift of the earth's magnetic pole and shift of the earth's rotational axis (the imaginary line connecting the north and south poles). I can't tell if this reflects a confusion in your mind or an exposition that is not fully clear.

Hapgood talks about shifts of the rotational axis. Any mechanism that could change the angular momentum of the earth to the necessary extent would involve major interaction with outside bodies and would indeed have catastrophic consequences. Einstein would be well aware of that, and presumably of the fact that mythology is full of catastrophe. What mechanism for angular momentum change did Hapgood propose, and did Einstein say it was more than conjecture?

I respect informed speculators in physics like Heim. When the next major breakthrough comes along, some of them will be proved to have been pointing along the right path be right. Whether Heim will be one of them, only God knows. He got the fine structure constant and the number of neutrino species wrong, but whether his theory is easily rectified to account for that, or whether it is wrecked by these observations, I don't know - I haven't studied his equations. It might be helpful to cast them as a gauge theory rather than as a geometric theory, as has been done with gravity. Why do you ask, please?



Thanks so much for your response. Given the rest of O’Collins’ work, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt to the extent possible. This can provide more of a background on who he is:

He does state in the beginning “outside Christ, no salvation”. Yet, he asks questions: what about pre-Cross; salvation of ‘non-evangelized’? He cites Acts 17:22-31 as an example of pagans who may have held some Truth about Christ while not yet acknowledging Him [pp 318, 326]. He uses the term >Logos spermatikos (the seed-sowing Word) which is present in all, which apparently was used by some in the Patristic era [p 325]. I think this looks dangerously close to Levi Dowling’s theological concept of the ‘Word’ permeating all creation as in panentheism; yet, O’Collins states: “Salvation and revelation come personally – through the divine person who became incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth” [p 326]. But, citing Rahner, he speaks of “anonymous Christianity” [p 324].

He also states, “…The New Testament and early Christians clearly held that it will be true and is already true that ‘outside Christ there is no salvation’; and they implicitly add: ‘there is no place or situation that is outside Christ’. All human beings are part of the saving story…” [p 322]. A bit later, O’Collins writes, “To recognize in Christ the full revelation of God and the Saviour of all is not, then, to deny to other faith any true knowledge of God and mediation of salvation. The unique and normative role of Christ in the history of salvation extends to the numerous and varied ways he works as divine Wisdom in the lives of people who follow other religions, honour their founders, and receive salvation through their faith.” [p 327]. His overriding point is that since Christ is creator and sustainer, Christ is, in a way, in all, and His ‘divine Wisdom’ is expressed through the cultures and religions each person inherits [p 327].

O’Collins cites Vatican II (Nostra Aetate): “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from what she herself believes and teaches, nevertheless not rarely reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all human beings’ (italics in orig) [p 330] But, he goes on to cite Ad Gentes which speaks of the “evil influences” of these other religions despite the ‘rays of Truth’ in them [p 330].

Then, pointing to Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegration (1964)) he notes that this document is not only for those inside the RCC proper (having “full communion”) but includes those entities outside which possess ‘many of the elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church’ [pp 331-332]. The way I read this, in light of the rest of the chapter, he may well be extending this to faith communities beyond Protestantism and the EO, but, then again, not necessarily.

Yet, O’Collins goes on to say that Christ “cannot be logically accepted as Saviour of all without being accepted as Revealer of all” but goes on to say that how one interprets this is in regards to those who’ve never heard of Christ is a “difficult issue” [p 331].
"He does state in the beginning “outside Christ, no salvation”. Yet, he asks questions: what about pre-Cross; salvation of ‘non-evangelized’?"

Widening the discussion, my answers would be: pre-cross, notice Genesis 15:6, "Abraham believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness". Faith in God counted against sins even back then. (This passage is quoted in the NT.) But Jesus made it clear that you have to know God personally (in German it would be the verb kennen rather than wissen, ie know God rather than merely know about God) in order to be saved (Matt 7:23). Abraham did. And you know (wissen) if you know God personally (kennen), which is why you can be certain of your own salvation (although not of anybody else's).

You could also be saved by living a sinless life, but ever since Adam fell nobody does that (Romans 6:23; Jesus is the sole exception according to Romans 3:10,23). So faith is necessary. Unfair to those who never heard the gospel? No, they get what they deserve. Christians get better than they deserve. Nobody gets worse, which is the definition of unfairness.

Anon 8:57,

Yes, Hebrews 11. Certainly, from our perspective, Christ came at a point in our temporal existence which, by logic, would indicate none could be saved before His atoning work. We know that's not true by Hebrews 11.

You wrote, "...Unfair to those who never heard the gospel? No, they get what they deserve... I agree but perhaps with a caveat. O'Collins' point (as I understand) is that there are those who've 'heard the Gospel', so to speak, through Christ as revealed throughout the creation He both made and sustains (cf. Romans 1:16-20; Col 1:15-20; Heb 1:1-3) yet have not heard someone preach the Gospel verbally to them. The ultimate question is what happens to those who recognize/d a Creator, put faith in this Creator (as they understand) yet have never heard the message of Christ preached from the mouth of a Christian or the pages of Holy Writ? I can't say with 100% certainty.

All I know is we have the distinct privilege as Christians to preach the Gospel message. Christ is the one who both redeems and judges (John 5:21-29).
"Your writing drifts between confuses shift of the earth's magnetic pole and shift of the earth's rotational axis (the imaginary line connecting the north and south poles). I can't tell if this reflects a confusion in your mind or an exposition that is not fully clear."

your writing this drifts between confusion between my discussing one possibility or more than one, and not reading clearly at all.

I have REPEATEDLY drawn the distinction between them. I have made it REPEATEDLY clear that I am talking about two different ideas out there, that the axis could tip changing the position of true north,


the magnetic pole could radically shift, causing outrageous weather results,


that IF THE CRUST WERE TO SLIDE FOR WHATEVER REASON the end result position of continents ON THE SURFACE without changing the axis tilt one little bit, would reposition some one of them at the north pole.


I see Wikipedia FALSELY ASCRIBES THAT TO HIM, but I have read BOTH his books and it is NOT AXIS TILT CHANGE.

Crustal displacement is about the crust sliding across the mantle, rapidly, which could mean Greenland mid or tip would end up at true north WITHOUT AXIS CHANGE, or in the modern estimations for whatever reason, closer to the equator.

the causes for crustal displacement he located entirely in the centrifugal forces of the way lopsided Antarctic continent and its huge icepack, causing a pull on the crust in the direction of its biggest side, during each daily rotation of the Earth.

This he argued (and Einstein thought it feasible) would eventually make a critical point occur where a slippage of up to 3,000 miles would occur world wide over a period of days or weeks.

If you mix this with the work of White & co. you have two forces working to destabilize the always shaky crust.

NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT THE AXIS. This is about position of places relative to true north changing, like if you peel an orange in one long peel, put an ink spot on, then rewrapped the one long peel back on the orange, then pushed the peel around, would put the ink spot from the starting point somewhere else, without any change in the position or tilt of the orange itself.

Now it seems to me that your answers in general seem to be nothing you can't draw from the Internet. Let's see you recognize this one.

Delta T /x-3 sq .55555 times c to the minus 1 power over 7 times b sq
(pi times delta A) times mins .2

where does that formula occur?

regarding Christ and salvation, hints exist in Peter's Epistles of Christ preaching to the dead while He was dead and the tradition back to early days of martyrs was that prayer for the dead was worth doing.

The finality protestants ascribe to death regarding judgement is only to be found in The Bible in context of the LAST JUDGEMENT in Revelation.

Purgatory posits a place of punishment distinct from hell, RC made a racket out of it, and these unbiblical notions were rightly attacked by Martin Luther who apparently or at least his successors took it too far.

Christ said there was such a thing as a greater damnation, ergo there is a lesser, and said Sodom and Gommorrha, because they would have repented if they had seen the wonders Tyre and Sidon had seen and not repented, would be better off at the Last Judgement than Tyre and Sidon would be.

However, salvation in the sense of eternal life and salvation from damnation and having a relationship with The Father is only through Christ.

Now, if that means someone meets Christ and gets saved after death, that is still through Christ.

If that means someone is judged in terms of how he or she would have responded if given opportunities he or she never had, that is still through Christ.


You wrote, "The finality protestants ascribe to death regarding judgement is only to be found in The Bible in context of the LAST JUDGEMENT in Revelation... (and etc.)"

As I stated earlier, I do not want this to get into a RCC-Protest OR EO debate.
I am not getting into that, I am saying that the idea common to people on this blog, that death is the end, and thought to be early church doctrine is not early church doctrine though dying in your sins was a damn dangerous situation to be in, and its being unknown to evangelicals is because of a point in history not the Bible.

Still, ONLY through Christ Jesus can you come to The Father. Whether this event occurs or is completed before or after death is another matter, and it is NOT guaranteed to anyone automatically after death.
So we should preach the Gospel.

this is from a non Christian perspective, but the data in it and the photos scroll down to those about our architecture and stuff are important. interesting points about stuff in Christian rock and roll. Grover Norquist an important conservative movement person seems to have been helpful to Al Qaeda reps, the answer to this problem lies in the fact that the US is supporting Al Qaeda in Syria.

The whole Muslim Brotherhood radical islamic thing has ties to Nazism in its origins and other stuff.

occultism presence in American right and history and landscape and architecture.,+Tendencies,+Movements&source=bl&ots=dJUnVtvepZ&sig=07r3gQCp8IuGgC2DXfj8ckPIoZ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u0pKUJjKAamtiQL_9oHADw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Russian%20Fascism%3A%20Traditions%2C%20Tendencies%2C%20Movements&f=false

this book looks at occultism and fascism in modern Russia and struggles for a definition of fascism. I haven't read much of it yet but it seems to have a lot of information another sent me from an article I think I posted a link to the article.

I tried in good faith to teach you some of the physics you needed to know that was relevant to the topics you were discussing some months ago, but you dismissed it without understanding, so why do you now want to play tennis with me about physics? And why did you ask me about Heim?

The formula you quote needs a lot more brackets in order to make it unambiguous. From what you typed I could not write it down unambiguously the way it was obviously written where you saw it. If you care to type it in TeX, the standard format for writing complicated mathematical formulae when you have only typescript, I could reproduce it in the form you saw it. Please note also that it is standard practice when writing equations in any physics text to explain to the reader in advance what physical quantities the symbols represent. Check any textbook, at any level. The present formula is not one of the few that a trained physicist would need no explanation of the symbols to recognise, like E = mc^2 or Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, or the Schroedinger equation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.

If you tell me what the symbols represent, and type it unambiguously, I'll play your game on this occasion.

"your writing this drifts between confusion between my discussing one possibility or more than one, and not reading clearly at all."

Didn't you once say (in capital letters too) that you never used rhetoric?

I haven't read Hapgood (and never implied that I had) - that's why I set out general principles only, and asked you for more detail. Sounds like you are saying that there is severe shear between the outer layers of the earth and the deeper stuff. He was writing at a time when less was known about the inside of the earth than now, and I doubt that Einstein would endorse his theory today.

In fact, to learn what mechanism Hapgood WAS proposing I have just been fishing on the internet, and found this:

The final section, about plate tectonics, is decisive: Hapgood's theory is not tenable today even if the mass of ice accreting at the poles is sufficient, which is an important caveat that Einstein brought up.


plate tectonics is meaningless in this debate, because the crust would shift, IF it shifts, dragging the plates with it. Shift would be plates and all, and probably causing severe stresses with unpredictable results at the junctions of the plates.
rhetoric - that wasn't meaningless rhetoric, that is my honest impression of what you said.

the mantle is more plastic. the core is hot. the crust is cold. the mantle is more plastic that is densely fluid like near solid, because of heat and pressure, and gets presumably sloppier as it gets closer to the core.

tarpley, who exposed obama, tackles romney

If you have to go so deep that the plates are irrelevant then the amount of ice accreting at the poles is so tiny a fraction of the mass of the crust involved that it won't make any difference. And if plate tectonics is relevant then it wrecks Hapgood's theory, as the website I quoted explained.

It was a nice idea, based on gyroscopic notions, and Einstein (as usual) saw its potential very rapidly, but it has come to grief on subsequent models of the interior of the earth. Science advances - we know more today than we did then. It seems to me that you read a lot of stuff about science from a generation ago that has been superseded. Do spend your hours wisely.

I still don't understand why you asked me about Heims, and you seem to have dropped your challenge re that formula, but perhaps we can get this physics-related subject off this blog now, which is meant to be about New Age.


I can't do Tex no program for it on this as far as I know. no I didn't drop it I just didn't get around to reading that part.

I don't see what is so ambiguous.
just translate the verbiage into Tex yourself.

if something is times something which something is over something else, you put the something with an x followed by a long line above which you put the something else, and the other stuff is below it, after the "divided by" part.

try it.

I can hardly begin to explain why the formula you rendered is not clear. You don't need a TeX program, you just need to LEARN TeX; for example, x^2 is what we would speak as "x squared", ie x times itself. And "a \over b" is the TeX way of writing the fraction a/b where the line would be horizontal. Etcetera. If for some strange reason you want to talk to me in math on a website that doesn't display math formulae then you have to learn the language, as I once took the trouble to do. Even then you should define the physical quantities that the symbols represent, like anybody writing theoretical physics would.

If you really wanted the answer for a good reason on a blog devoted to New Age then you would be cooperative. And why are you ducking my question about your reasons for asking me about Heim?


fine, then write it up Tex style yourself.

As for Heim, I am not ducking anything. Heim is one of those people whose theories are back of the antigravity scene, and he posited a physics of multidimensions up to 8 or 12 I think, which would allow a whole lot of stuff that standard physics wouldn't expect. Also, he was one of those "ex" Nazis who was under contract with some companies researching this sort of thing in the 1950s before the subject suddenly went black, as in national security hush hush. Heim's theories are also such that superluminal speeds could be obtained.

(Personally I got my doubts about safe this would be, space dust hit at that speed, unless the field doing the work also shielded the craft, would be like boulders impacting the ship.)
as for the formula, stating the values for it, I said "Let's see you recognize this one." in other words, where is it in use? if you are such an expert in theoretical physics, go find it. Ask someone if need be or get such to email me with a name I can check on. After all I suppose you could find this buried somewhere on the Internet if you looked long enough, so a reasonable deadline to make sure the answer isn't a result of such checking instead of your own knowledge letting you recognize something however obscure, would be, let's see, a week. Sept. 14.
"fine, then write it up Tex style yourself."

Are you trying to misunderstand me? I can't write it up in TeX style (or any other) because the way you have specified it is not clear or unambiguous. I want it in blackboard style, of course, but on a website like this, TeX style is an unambiguous way to specify it in regular type. You could always post a pic of it blackboard style at your own blog, of course; if you do that, post the URL here. Don't forget to explain what physical quantities the symbols represent; after all if I ask you what "A=B" means the question is nonsensical without specifying A and B.

Thank you for explaining (I only asked 4 times!) why you were asking me about Heim. More likely it went quiet because they weren't getting anywhere with antigravity. It is one thing to be born in the 1950s, but physics has learned more since then and there is no need to there is no it is another to get stuck in that era.


"a reasonable deadline to make sure the answer isn't a result of such checking instead of your own knowledge letting you recognize something however obscure, would be, let's see, a week. Sept. 14."

I took enough exams in my younger days and I am not submitting to yours - forget it. In any case no proper examiner would ask me to recognise a formula that you can't define properly in which are not prepared to tell me what the symbols mean. Ludicrous!


to craig, ...for what its worth...Ernest L. Martin believes in UR and backs it up scripturally. his site is a.s.k. something or other.hes a scholar. is this the same craig i was able to once speak w/ over the phone from ? texas i believe,...if so please call me craig we need to connect. this is tony in vt. at 802-380-1648,...blessingsm
things generally go quiet because they are getting somewhere, or expect to - a different issue, and can be the result of money-to-gain contractors.

A good example is the stealth planes, which Popular Mechanics once characterized as (per my memory of years ago) the plane that doesn't exist, isn't being worked on, etc. etc. negatives and a lot of people have been seeing and getting leaks about and is now out the open TA-DA! the wierd looking thing invisible to radar (or rather, you look for a signature you would think was of a flock of birds).

The B2 is interesting in this regard of "antigravity," because while spending billions with a b (that line is from the movie Pentagon Wars, a hilarious treatment pretty accurate, of the boondoggling that went on through the history of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle) they at least figured out, that if you electrify the leading edge of the wing you can reduce drag and increase lift therefore, a little, which gives it an edge that, while not exactly antigravity, obviously comes out of that line of research.

It has been stated repeatedly that by the time something is admitted to publically as in the works, it is probably operational. This is of course reasonable given national security issues.

The Stealth concept was around long before the F117. If you can engineer a plane in which every surface points in one of only five or six directions, then a radar beam hitting it will send reflections back in only five or six (etc) directions; and unless one of those happens to be oriented at the radar receiver/detector then the plane will be invisible to that radar setup. And of course the plane is continually pitching, rolling and yawing slightly. The hard part was to make a plane that was so angular yet flew stably. In fact it couldn't be done without computer controls that continually made minor corrections, after which the F117 came along. I'm not surprised that Uncle Sam denied it, but the concept was out in the open long before; it was purely a technological problem.

Regarding the charging of the leading wing edge on the B2, please do not present conjecture as fact. It is not admitted, I doubt it would help reduce air resistance, it would not reduce the sonic boom as perceived on the ground (I have personally solved the equations for that one as part of an advanced student exercise), and if it goes on at all it will be to do with befuddling hostile radar. Not antigravity!


Too ignorant to realize her mathematics made no sense as she instructed the rest of the class, the loud-mouthed student's mathematical skills left her dizzy, yet confident.
I didn't say it WAS antigravity, but that it would have to have come out of that kind of research, and that it would reduce drag. A minimal antigravity effect of no use for anything not already in flight and under power, so thrown out likely and then reexamined.

I didn't perform a mathematical procedure, I presented a formula and asked if the expert could recognize it from somewhere. Naturally he might not, but he could ask around.

The refusal to rewrite and to make inquiries confirms my suspicion of some kind of laziness. It doesn't confirm my suspicions he is not a physicist, but in fact he has never as I recall presented anything you couldn't dig up off the web in a hurry to CYA.

this fellow lacks drive and curiosity, defining features of the whole scientific endeavor. Nothing odd in that in itself, but a lot of people grab their degree and run for the career and don't give a hoot when the earlier scientists would.

It also shows he is not into detective work of any kind, which means he is not able to come up with a respectable opinion on anything conspiratorial or black ops or hidden history or whatever.
from an email sent to me.

"Modern physics is now considering a theory that could
throw into confusion virtually all of the accepted
temporal paradigms of 21st-century science, including
the age of the universe....The speed of light...has been steadily slowing since the first
instance of time....Early in 1979,...Barry Setterfield, [charted] measurements of the speed of light
since a Danish astronomer named Olaf Roemer first measured
light speed in the 17th century [using] data on over 163 measurements using
16 different methods over 300 years....expected to see the recorded speeds grouped
around the accepted value for light....the older the observation, the faster
the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed

* In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
* In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
* In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
* In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)...statistician Dr. Trevor Norman [showed] that, even allowing for the clumsiness of
early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses
of early telescopes and other [issues],
the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago,
and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s....
Setterfield and Norman published their results at SRI in
July 1987 after extensive peer review....

2002 and 2003, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at
Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge,
Dr. Andy Albrecht of the UCDavis
and Dr. John Moffat of the U of Toronto have all
published work advocating...light speed much as 10 to the 10th power faster – in
the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it is today.

(...none of these researchers has
expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer, biblical
or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a
biblical world-view.)

Dr. Magueijo believes that light speed was faster only [at the start]. Dr. Barrow, Barry Setterfield and others believe that light
speed has been declining....

Dr. Magueijo [asked] what combination
of irrefutable theories demands that it be constant at all.

Setterfield now [says] four other major
observed anomalies consistent with a slowing speed of light:
1. quantized red-shift observations from other galaxies,
2. measured changes in atomic masses over time,
3. measured changes in Planck's Constant over time,
4. and differences between time as measured by the atomic
clock, and time as measured by the orbits of the planets
in our solar system....
Early astronomers noticed that galaxies considered to be
most distant from the earth had light spectra shifted
toward the red end of the spectrum....Galaxies whose observed light is seen as shifted into the
far red are considered to be moving at amazingly high
speeds away from us.

Hubble’s theory of the expanding universe demands an even
distribution of red-shift data.
Dr. William Tifft,...U of
Arizona,...found that the red-shift data were...grouped into quantum bands....[which fits] the
Setterfield Hypothesis[that slowing] light
speeds would cause changes in the quantum states of
atomic structure within these galaxies, leading to
quantum shifts in the light emitted ...Setterfield believes that the speed of light was
initially about 10 to the 10th power faster than it is
An unexplained Doppler frequency shift has been detected
from [Galileo, Ulysses and Pioneer] satellites, even though...
distances from the Earth are...too close for
a traditional Doppler shift to occur [and] suggests that equally plausible explanations
are variations in c."
now, that should be a good arguing point in dealing with the more scientific pretending oriented New Agers. From Blavatsky on, and probably to some extent earlier, mind dizzying spectacles of incredible eons of age are presented to the readers of such books.
oh, yeah, there was some effort to refute this red shift anomaly stuff, but while that may be out there on the web, this video mentions this and that it failed. One investigator started trying to refute this stuff and ended up convinced of it.
"The refusal to rewrite and to make inquiries confirms my suspicion of some kind of laziness. It doesn't confirm my suspicions he is not a physicist, but in fact he has never as I recall presented anything you couldn't dig up off the web in a hurry to CYA."

I haven't presented my technical scientific findings HERE because neither you nor 99.99% of Constance's readers could understand them, not to mention the fact that this blog is meant to be about New Age, not mathematical physics. You, Christine, failed to understand even the simple physics that I did present. As for the rest of your post at 5.46pm, I consider that it says more about you than me.



If you plot those values for lightspeed vs time, you find that a horizontal line - meaning no change - is well within the error bars.

Joao Magueijo caused a minor stir a few years ago with his variable-lightspeed theory; I discussed it in detail with a professor of physics - a former pupil of mine in one course - who is a friend of both Magueijo and myself. Unlike most creationists seeking to prove young-earth, Magueijo understands that you cannot just take Einstein's field equations of general relativity and let the speed of light, wherever it appears in these equations, vary with time. That is because the derivation of those equations proceeded on the basis that lightspeed was constant; if not, you need to go a lot farther back in the physics. (Technically, you cannot just pull lightspeed through the differentiations with respect to spacetime any more.) But you prefer a simpler theory to a complex one unless the data point to the latter - that's Ockham's Razor - and the experimental evidence for variable lightspeed is weak.


Anonymous 4:17, thanks for the succinct summary which I am copying here.

Anonymous said...

Too ignorant to realize her mathematics made no sense as she instructed the rest of the class, the loud-mouthed student's mathematical skills left her dizzy, yet confident.

That about sums up what is going on here.
Physicist, I may not be able to follow everything you write, but your calm rational approach is deeply appreciated. A sane voice that doesn't just give up is wonderful.
Christine, I see you have another website up. You really see yourself as a self-appreciated expert on everything there is on this earth. I can only admire such self-confidence. It must keep you from the questioning that others who are not as wise as you feel about what they do not know or understand. I'll bet you sleep good at night. You give new meaning to the phrase "Being full of yourself."

That said, you making common cause with the nutball Webster Griffin Tarpley? That explains a lot.

"Too ignorant to realize her mathematics made no sense as she instructed the rest of the class, the loud-mouthed student's mathematical skills left her dizzy, yet confident."

I did not display any mathematical skill, good bad or indifferent. That would involve working the formula out. I asked locate it in use.

I see more than one person needs a reading comprehension class.
another website? I assume you refer to

which has been around since 2009. or was it my halfass effort at being a movie critic? I have a couple of defunct websites from some time before that, one dates from 1993. Which do you refer to?
"I see more than one person needs a reading comprehension class."

Not to mention a writing class and a science class, Christine.
What you do is called speed reading.
It allows you to jump over miles of facts and details
and present findings as if you understood them,
which you don't because you only speed read the
article. You'll never get a PhD by speed reading
the text books.
I get the feeling that you speed read the Bible too.
"if something is times something which something is over something else, you put the something with an x followed by a long line above which you put the something else, and the other stuff is below it, after the "divided by" part.

try it."

While the loud-mouthed student challenged the class to try her equation, she had no alternative but to remind the rest of the class of their stupidity for the misunderstanding it was not a mathematical equation she instructed them to solve.
There are two kinds of speed reading, I do both, I learned speed reading AND comprehension and no I don't speed read The Bible except when looking for something in particular.

I read it straight through in about three months on three occasions.

What I noticed even on A QUICK FACT CHECKING years before that, was that the much vaunted biblically correct denominations all had at least one major deviation from The Bible but I was not about to start a new denomination so I just ignored the errors and worshipped Jesus wherever He was worshipped.

In many cases, the error consisted of a narrow, rigid focus on some one point ignoring nuances and creating thereby an apparent self contradiction in The Bible when different appearing statements on the same things cropped up in it. A more nuanced approach (aside from translation and context issues) resolves all apparent contradictions. A classic case is predestination and another is ecclesiology. The latest thing is supposed Christian rigid principles of govt. and economics, that don't fit when you read the whole Bible. Yet another is the focus on God as judge ignoring His mercy and on God as merciful ignoring His justice.

"In the early 1980s, Moon began pouring millions into Religious Right organizations. Over the years, he used a network of front groups to channel cash to people like Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer and others.

Moon’s ties to Falwell, although often overlooked, were especially important. In 1998, The Washington Post reported that a Moon front group called the Christian Heritage Foundation bought $3.5 million of Liberty University’s debt. A separate Moon group lent the school $400,000. Moon’s millions propped up the flagging Falwell empire during a time when it might otherwise have collapsed.

Moon money was also used to buy favor with a number of political leaders. Over the years, Jack Kemp, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, William Bennett, U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and even former presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush have accepted Moon money to speak at conferences.

One of the most curious episodes in Moon history occurred in March of 2004, when Moon was crowned “King of America” at a bizarre ceremony that took place in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.

A number of D.C. luminaries attended the event, among them several leaders who were then members of the Senate and House, including U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) and Reps. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-Md.), Christopher B. Cannon (R-Utah), Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), Harold E. Ford (D-Tenn.) and Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.)....It was later reported that U.S. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) arranged for Moon’s group to use the room, although Warner did not attend. Several politicians and religious leaders who attended the event later claimed they were duped and didn’t know it was connected to Moon."
How you go to such a thing and not know Moon has something to do with it, I have no idea.

Is there any limit to the omniscient loud-mouthed student's remarkable wealth of knowledge?
Wouldn't everyone find it more beneficial to stop this bickering and focus on a real issue such as Agenda 21?
Anonymous 3:03, Bickering? Do go on and tell us why you call analysis of what is being posted bickering? It seems you prefer a dictatorship where no one questions what a supposed authority writes. Heaven knows Christine has taken on the role of self appointed authority at this blog. Almost all readers have just walked away rather than confront this self-appointed authority who has taken over what was once a valid place to discuss New Age. Bickering? Just where do you stand?
okay, bickering. Let's look at Agenda 21.

The New Agers say think globally, act locally, and Agenda 21 (whatever name it runs under) does exactly that. well, two can play at that game.

think globally - we don't want New Age stuff running the world or any locality of it, we can't necessarily succeed in stopping it entirely, but it being evil we should oppose it.

act locally - where the hydra raises its head, chop it off.

since the goal of Agenda 21 is to "rewild" vast tracts of land, as in most of it, making it off limits to humans, God only knows what will be going on in secret in some of those places by the powers that be, and pack us into dense housing. The latter is made to order for lethal pandemics, by the way, so it fits the depopulation agenda fine.

high density cheap housing over stores is not evil in itself, but when the goal is nothing but this, stop the building of detached homes with yards, etc. that is another matter. Green belts are good even though often a part of such planning.

The main thing is to oppose or eliminate all long range planning at the city and county level, except insofar as these support NOT increase housing prices and such greed, but do support potentially semi self supporting backyard farming (which should be fought for since it is fought against by these people and by classy gentrification types) and suchlike.

There are water use and other things that are involved in Agenda 21. Did you know in some places it is illegal to catch and store the rain off your own roof?

quick explanation. Alex Jones may be over the top at times, but this is not an example of it. A good quick overview.

Green tyranny is another word for it, since that is the excuse, though often the actual plans in some places are bad for the environment.
I remember that bizzare event in that Senate building back in 2004 when they crowned Moon "King of America". I was living in Florida at the time and saw a report on that on the news. They caught little bits and pieces on video and I couldn't believe what I was seeing especially considering who was all in attendance.

As a math major I'm afraid I must agree with Christine's mathematical instruction. Let me simplify...

(this here * that there) / a little of this, you put a little of that (this here * that there)X followed by a long line (division bar "/") above which you put the some of this, and the miscellaneous stuff must be placed below that to avoid confusion. Complete these by dividing. Your mission is to isolate the variable and solve for X.

Try it.

By the way, I'm an expert in Ebonics too if you'd find that helpful.

Major Math

Math Major,

I see what you did there.

On another note.....

I find it a little disturbing that over the past few days one of the single most important stories in modern history (not to mention it's relevance to the subjects this blog is dedicated to) has begun to unfold. Yet, there is no one left here that cares enough to even bring it up.
Please do not keep us in suspense. What is the story we've missed of such importance? Is it the attacks on Americans in Libya and Egypt (on the 9/11 anniversary mind you)? Does it have to do with Obama, Bill Clinton, Romney, etc.? Is it lupus, is it lupus? The drought? The economy so impaired that it doesn't matter who's president? Is it lupus, is it lupus?
Yeah JD what is it ?
From what I've been reading lately, I might have to say that it's the stampede to legalize gay marriage.
According to Kenneth Johnson, Th.D, which in turn is based on what many of the old sages and Talmud experts said, was that the last time that the outcry for "gay" homosexual, marriage happened on this scale, was when God said, essentially, "to hell with this" , and He created the flood of Noah's time.
I believe it. They were marrying and giving in marriage.
How absurd is it that this outcry comes simultaneous with the outbreak of AIDS, globally in a kind of slow motion nuclear bomb around the entire planet in which tens of millions are dead and/ or dying from their insistence on practicing sodomy.

But what say you ?
I would imagine it has to do with this.

good point about marrying and giving in marriage could incl. the gay marriage thing.

used to be when these people wanted to marry, they did so in private ceremonies of no legal relevance. Now they want it public and legal. The excuse is to have legal rights of visitation and decision in hospitals like regular spouses and family, but I would imagine a presigned paper without marriage would do this also. It is the not merely tolerated but accepted agenda.
Wow, it wasn't my intention to be cryptic, more a commentary on the glaring ommision from the topics of conversation. Even in guessing, no mention is made of the subject.

The subject in question has been the break down of relations between the US and Israel and the continued push toward a strike on Iran. While US media is downplaying the rift, Israel appears to see the writing on the wall. Most in the US are falling back on it being election season and not expecting anyone here to rock that boat too hard until 2013. However many are beginning to insist that such a extended time table is too late. Given how this could be further shaped by the same ommissions from the Democrats platform that made such noise in recent weeks, I thought sure someone would have brought it up.

I guess the possibility of a strike on Iran with Israel being left on the hook doesn't have the same draw it once had. No worries, the unending arguments over off topic subjects will still be here tomorrow.
Christine, it might have been the case historically that marriage CEREMONIES were private, but the couple surely had the responsibility of letting the authorities know that they had got married. Laws - including Mosaic laws - distinguish between fornication and adultery, so the judges have to know who is married and who is not. And they have to know if offspring are legitimate and qualify to inherit, or not.

Anything involving Israel in the news is important--especially as it relates to Iran. The tension between Obama and Netanyahu should certainly be on everyone's radar. The resistance of Russia in regards to any interference of the West into Syria is huge. The illusion that Romney and Obama are clear choices--which neither are (although, the Dems had a more entertaining infomercial). Let's not forget the economic mess of the EU. Even China is having economic problems. Plus, the weather has been extremely odd lately.
I can't even follow most of the conversations in this blog now, but I'm learning a lot about physics.
the gay couples who married were ot doing so legally persuant to any laws and therefore did not have any responsibility to report.

By private ceremonies I mean things without licenses or anything just so they felt good.
If Israel hits Iran and we stand down, we won't be dragged into WW 3.
defending Israel with ground troops against an invasion after that, might remain regional, and non nuclear.

But if we wade into Iran or Syria directly - and there are troops on the ground near the borders now - we will face Russia and China and probably North Korea and Pakistan who is already pissed off at us.

Some elites want WW 3. Others have enough sense not to. Why US would go and irritate Pakistan almost on purpose seems like an effort to try to set the stage for a war with China.

China has a huge population, and the women's army section alone - fighters, not coffee brewers - is about the same or greater than our entire population. They can afford to lose people and probably want to. Quick population overload solution.

The best access is two ways, Russia grabbing Alaska and coming down the coast of Canada and China and Russia both with prepositioned troops in Mexico and countries farther south coming north in a pincher movement.

If a war with them stays regional only in the Middle East, that would be bad enough, with potential nuclear exchanges but even these might be only tactical nukes local to the fighting, the small sort you aim at troops and tanks.

Russia has been evaluated as not into bluffing, you get what you see with these people (so much for physicist arguing it is nothing but saber rattling a few months ago) and China has nothing to lose by a war.

Increasingly the dollar is being cut out as a means of trade and the BRIC countries are establishing a situation that would be unaffected by a sudden demise of America.

That writing has been on the wall for years now. And getting more legible by the month.

If Israel hits Iran and we stand down, we won't be dragged into WW 3.
defending Israel with ground troops against an invasion after that, might remain regional, and non nuclear. But if we wade into Iran or Syria directly - and there are troops on the ground near the borders now - we will face Russia and China... Russia has been evaluated as not into bluffing, you get what you see with these people (so much for physicist arguing it is nothing but saber rattling a few months ago)"

A bit odd to use the phrase "so much for" when we are all still theorizing and war has not broken out. Use that phrase only if Physicist or whoever is proved wrong.

I agree with your first statements, but I note that this is a massive (and unstated) change in your position. Anybody can check that over the summer you were repeatedly stating IN CAPITAL LETTERS the claim that if the USA joins Israel in a strike on Iran then the USA would bring on World War III. I'm very glad that you have now moved to a more reflective position.

Are you aware BTW how many Arab nations would love to see the present Iranian regime taught a lesson? They would shed only crocodile tears.

I fear more the quick regional exchange between Israel, Iran, and the regional allies that the USA doesn't get pulled into. The chances stand clear of Israel becoming the ire of the world if they move to strike on their own. After all what monster could want a full scale world war? Even a regional war could disrupt international trade in such a way as to push the worlds economies over the cliff. Now look at the social upheaval that could follow any of these aspects.

I don't see the USA being willing to step on China in any regional conflict, and doubt in turn if China would the USA. The symbiotic relationship of our economies would almost ensure the death of one and severe hardship if not death for the other as well. To even make up for the losses of revenue both nations would be left grabbing assets where possible. If this meant seizing assets of private citizens or forced service, so be it. All for the end result to be a world that doesn't function? I don't see it, but people make foolish decisions all of the time.

As I said, I fear more the regional exchanges (with a possible Russian exception), their collateral damage, and what could be used as solutions to the conflict.

there is no change in my position. i fail to see how to misread it like that. IF we join Israel in a strike, we will bring on WW 3. I said that all along, and IF we attack Iran or at this point maybe Syria, yes, we will have WW 3.

It is possible to remain regional but unlikely.

and so much for physicist - he is proven wrong by better than both of us, in that experts say Russia does not bluff, while he said they as well as everyone does. But Russia isn't like everyone, never was.

Even in American Civil War times, England knew better than to call its bluff when it warned of blockade (which means war) if England entered on the Confederate side, which it planned to do as its
agents had been fomenting the strife anyway.
the symbiotic relationship between American and Chinese economies is rapidly being reorganized. China soon will not need us any more. Also some debt has been swapped for real estate to them so they could claim some ground, I don't have the URL for this.

What monsters would want WW 3? the sort who run most governments in the west from behind the semi irrelevant electoral scene. Big money to make. and power to gain in the cleanup after, especially if they can get Russia and China into their game later.

However, at present these two are tending against that.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]