All posts by LRS

THE END OF TIME

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

END OF TIMEMembers of The Order of Omega Time Travel Cult (myself included) are often asked the question “What do you think about 21 December, 2012?”  Here is an official reply to that question, courtesy of Members of The Order of Omega, pictured in a recent photograph, patiently awaiting the “End of Time”.

FLYING MONKEYS

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

flying monkeysExcerpt from the book THE OZ FACTORS by Lawrence R. SpencerSupport independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.

 

“Take special care of those Ruby Slippers. I want those most of all … now fly! fly! fly!”     –The Witch beseeching her Flying Monkeys to capture Dorothy in ‘The Wizard of Oz

              “THE PSYCHO-BABBLE OF FLYING MONKEYS —  It is said that the mythical Tower of Babble was a mechanism created by the gods as a way to create different languages among men. The variety of languages was intended to make it more difficult for men to communicate with each other. The barriers to communication, therefore, would make it more difficult for men to get together and figure out what the gods were really up to. In this way, the secret activities of the gods would be secure.

Like the ancient myth, there are modern, would-be gods and witches who have secrets and hidden agendas to hide. A common hiding technique is to “redefine” language and invent new words that are “politically correct”, yet nonsensical in reality. As with the gods of old, the intention of such redefinition of language is to disguise a hidden agenda or misdirect attention.

For example, psychiatry fabricate words to describe newly invented mental “diseases”–the so-called disease of school children called “attention deficit disorder” for instance. This nonsense language is called “psycho-babble”.

The Communist Party in Russia was notorious for their masterful redefinition of the language to re-educate the people of Russia into a new, socialized thinking about themselves and the world. For example, the Communists used the word “comrade” instead of “peasant worker” and “commissar” instead of “czar”. (The only real difference between a commissar and a capitalist and an aristocrat, who the commissar despises, is spelling! They are each supported by the work of other people, as none of them produces anything of value themselves.)

Politicians put a spin on existing words and ideas in order to covertly influence our thinking. Television, movies and news media feed us the newly defined, politically correct words and ideas as they are revised and released. For example, the federal government spends billions more than it collects in taxes every year. In the business world this is called “overspending” which results in “bankruptcy”. In the political world, the politico-babble word for it has been changed to “deficit spending” and results in a “budget deficit”.

The world of advertising is another culprit using these methods. The newest and therefore hip, cool, groovy trend or fad is usually designed to sell something–music, clothing, drugs, movie tickets, etc. For example, the marketing campaign designed to sell “oversized, overpriced, luxury, four-wheel drive, passenger trucks”, is made more acceptable with the phrase, “sports utility vehicle”.

The subject of the spirit, in the Western world, is another example of a subject which remains heavily shrouded in mystery and skepticism. There is a “politically correct” nomenclature used by the “doctors” of psychiatry to describe the spirit, which has been made intentionally obtuse and foreboding. Psychiatry uses condescending phrases like “paranormal”, to describe spiritual phenomenon, which literally means, outside of the normal. Of course, the unspoken implication is that being “normal” is supposed to be some nebulous state of perfect bliss and fulfillment that can be achieved only by a strict, life-long adherence to the rituals of the normal or chosen class. A “normal” person eats cheeseburgers, pays taxes, takes drugs, buys mass quantities of merchandise he or she doesn’t need, and believes that what he or she sees on television is “the truth”.

Another favorite phrase used to describe spiritual matters is “alternative reality”. Okay, so let’s see … there’s only ONE reality and it’s the reality you’ve been told to believe by the government and the television set and your shrink. If you don’t agree with the ONE reality they’ll lock you up in a loony-bin, drug you, electroshock you, give you a pre-frontal lobotomy. Finally, when your insurance company won’t pay them any more money to keep you locked up, they’ll let you out for the rest of your so-called “life” as a brain-dead vegetable. You have now been “cured” of your “delusions” and are “being reasonable” and “realistic”. Gee, that’s some “alternative” reality.

“Parapsychology” is yet another distorted concept which literally means, “the study of things around the spirit”. The only problem is that the “study” is being conducted by psychiatrists, with government funding, who, through a meticulous process of torturing laboratory animals, have “expertly” concluded that man is a stimulus-response animal, and not a spiritual being.

As we will see, the goal of such “research” is to learn how to CONTROL the behavior of men in order to make them more obedient taxpayers.”

A FREE SOCIETY

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Adlai Ewing Stevenson II (pronounced /ˈædleɪ/; February 5, 1900 – July 14, 1965) was an American politician, noted for his intellectual demeanor, eloquent oratory, and promotion of liberal causes in the Democratic Party. He served as the 31st Governor of Illinois, and received the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in1952 and 1956; both times he was defeated by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower. He sought the Democratic presidential nomination for a third time in the election of 1960, but was defeated by Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. After his election, President Kennedy appointed Stevenson as the Ambassador to the United Nations; he served from 1961 to 1965.

WITHHOLD A PIECE FOR PEACE, LADIES

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

A synopsis of the play “LYSISTRATA” by the Greek poet and play writer, Aristophanes ( 411 B.C.E.)

The Peloponnesian War has been dragging on for eighteen long years, and the beautiful Lysistrata, in common with the other wives of Athens, is heartily tired of the intermittent absence of their warrior husbands. She decides that it is time to bring an end to this situation. The only solution, she concludes, is a boycott to deprive the husbands of their wives’ love.

Lysistrata sets out to enlist the other women in the plan, but finds them somewhat reluctant. One thinks that to so punish their husbands would be punishing themselves; others offer similar excuses. Lysistrata tells them that they are cowards and that the poets’ jibes about women’s frailty are well deserved.

But she perseveres in her determination, and convinces the women at last that peace surely will come if they all dress, powder and perfume themselves irresistibly, then withhold their favors from their men unless they promise to take steps to end the war forthwith. The wives agree to try the scheme, and, for a start, seize the public funds. The old men of Athens try to burn them out of the treasury, but the embattled women retaliate with pitchers of water upon their heads. The President of the Senate arrives at this juncture, ordering the arrest of “that traitress,” Lysistrata.

The women win the scuffle that follows, the President admitting defeat; but he asks an explanation for the feminine onslaught upon the treasury. Lysistrata blandly explains their purpose: to save the public money so that the men won’t fight any wars over it. The President protests the absurdity of their fancy that the war is being fought over mere money. Lysistrata assures him that of course it is; that every war is for the sake of money–else why are politicians always manufacturing wars? Merely as an occasion to steal, she says.

Then Lysistrata announces that, from now on, things are going to be different: the men won’t be able to get any money for fighting because the women are going to take over the treasury. And why not? They manage the household finances. But household finances, the President tolerantly explains, are quite different; the public money is necessary for the fighting. To this Lysistrata readily agrees, but adds that the fighting itself is hardly necessary.

The listening women, weary of the argument by this time, seize the President, unclothe him and dress him as a woman. They tell him that they are going to take the state into their own hands, rescue it from the muddling of men, unravel the knots of war just as they straighten out a skein of wool, and unite all nations into a single thread of peace and good will.

But the President persists: war, after all, is the business of men, he says. Nothing of the kind, Lysistrata replies, it is the business of women–for who suffers most in the loss on the battlefields of sons and husbands? To end the debate, the women again seize the official and garb him as a corpse. He retreats in terror.

After a time, the wives of the enemy city of Sparta join in the boycott. The plan is a success: the husbands of both cities surrender to their wives, and, to recapture their love, agree to end the war. Here a male chorus observes that it was a wise philosopher who called women the paradoxical sex: you cannot live with them and you cannot live without them. A female chorus replies that, say what you will and do what you will, the women always have the last word, for theirs is the unanswerable argument. Together the choruses agree that there has been enough of idle quarrels: they urge that the discord cease.

Lysistrata is chosen as intermediary between the Athenian and Spartan envoys for formal termination of the conflict, and she lectures them soundly at the start of their conference. She is a woman, she says, but hopes that she is not without some sense; she reminds them that they are all of the same blood, the same gods and the same language. Why, then, do they kill each other? Why should they not come to terms? She agrees that it may be necessary for animals to fight, but certainly not for men–particularly for Greek men–to fight among themselves while barbarians are looking on.

A Spartan delegate announces that his side is ready to make peace if it gets what it wants, and an Athenian observes that what both the Spartans and Athenians want is to get their wives back again. Lysistrata sees some feasibility in this, but orders that first the former enemies must go off to a feast to repair their friendship. After that, she says, each warrior may take his woman home.

The warriors try Lysistrata’s program, and at length return as bosom friends. This accomplished, she bids them each take his woman, and all join in a dance of peace as the chorus pleads:A Spartan seconds this idea, proposing further, that they all get drunk–a suggestion not unpleasant to one Athenian who notes that people are surliest when most sober. If there were more drinking bouts among diplomats, he thinks, there would be no war; they would drown their quarrels in wine, have some singing together, and decide that, after all, an enemy could still be a good fellow.

“O let us prayTo the gods today
While in peace we eatOur bread and our meat.
That every fieldMay its harvest yield,
O Venus, arrayed in love, restore
The hopes and joys we have lost in the war…
Let the sword be forgotten for evermore.”