Ethos Anthropos Daimon: The Law of Thought as Destiny

I have been reminded by amothman of my earlier promise to delve further into the enlightenment of Harold Waldwin Percival, and of his book <i>Thinking and Destiny</i>. And since his reminder comes coincident with a greater increase in search engine traffic by seekers looking for the meaning of Heraclitus’ “character is fate” (<i>ethos anthropos daimon</i>), it may be a good time to keep my promise.

So, to begin….

In an earlier post, we brought into relation the thinking of the former Harvard sociologist, Pitrim Sorokin with the transcendentalism of Harold Waldwin Percival. Sorokin identified three types of civilisation in history which he called “Ideational”, “Idealistic”, and “Sensate”. We also observed how these three types correspond to Percival’s “Triune Self”, or the whole Self, as comprised of the Knower, the Thinker, and the Doer-in-the-body. As Knower, Thinker, and Doer portions, their mode of manifestation or relationship to reality and experience is, respectively, the intuitive, the rational, and the sensory. In those terms, Sorokin’s “Ideational” culture is predominantly intuitive and attempts to represent the Knower; “Idealistic” culture is predominantly rational and attempts to represent the Thinker; and “Sensate” culture is predominantly sensory and attempts to represent the Doer-in-the-body.

These cultural types represent, in effect, the attempt of what is called the “transcendental” to become fully immanent — to achieve its epiphany, manifestation, or self-actualisation in historico-physical terms.

We also brought into consideration Aristotle’s distinction and relationship between potens and actus, or the potential and the actual, which has otherwise been referred to as “Framework 2” and “Framework 1”, or in other terms as quality and quantity, or spirit and matter, the supersensory and the sensory, the invisible and the visible, the ideal and the real, and so on, in other contexts and philosophical systems.

In Aristotle’s view, potentialities (or probabilities as now called) arise into actuality, into realisation or “take time” and “take place”, to endure for a while only to return to potentiality. In other terms, they become manifest and then return to latency, much as a plant grows from seed only to return to seed at the end of its cycle. Potentialities are “values” or ideals, and their manifest counterparts are called “virtues” or the “real”.

To the best of my knowledge, however, no one heretofore has ever attempted to explain in connection with these Aristotelian views how this transformation from potentiality into actuality or eventuality (or realisation), and then  back into potentiality again, transpires.

This is the issue of Heraclitus’ “character is fate” as well as Percival’s “Law of Thought as Destiny”. It is thinking that is the generative, regenerative, and also degenerative factor. It is the activating or eventuating potency. Earlier I referred to Man as a translator, or as the “bridge between two worlds” considered as the supersensory and the sensory, or the transcendent and the immanent. More properly, it is the Thinker portion of the human that effects the translation from potens to actus. So, you do, in effect, “create the reality you know.”

This is how Percival expresses it,

“Everything existing on the physical plane is an exteriorization of a thought which must be adjusted through the one who issued the thought, in accordance with his responsibility and at the conjunction of time, condition, and place.” (p. 55)

In another passage, Percival goes into more detail,

“A thought is a being created by the Conscious Light and desire; and which, when issued, has in it an aim, a potential design, and a balancing factor — which balancing factor, like the needle of a compass point, points to the final balance of the thought as a whole. The thought endures until the balancing factor has brought about an adjustment through the one who issued the thought. The balancing factor causes exteriorizations as long as the thought endures. Whenever the thought, moving in its courses, approaches the physical plane, it causes the one who issued it to be in place for an exteriorization of that thought. An exteriorization can happen only when there is a juncture of time, condition, and place. The laws which control the exteriorization do not always fit in with the intention and expectation of the persons concerned; and the exteriorization is then called an accident. An accident is a perceived physical part of a thought which is proceeding on its otherwise invisible course. The exteriorization makes visible that part of the thought which touches the physical plane and is not yet balanced. The demonstration is made on or through the person who is concerned with the accident.” (p. 55-6)

Those of you who are familiar with the Seth series of books will find this statement very familiar, where the law of thinking as destiny, or character as fate, underscores Seth’s constantly reiterated message, in book after book, that “you create the reality you know”.

We, however, live in a scientific and skeptical culture, and we properly expect to observe this process in our own experience rather than simply accept such statements as fact even if, intuitively, they “feel” valid.

In this post, then, I will demonstrate how this process of translation identified by Heraclitus, Percival, and Seth is the actual case, and is moreover verifiable in your own daily experience using methods that are properly “scientific”. If you manage to make it through to the end of my exposition here, it may dawn on some of you that many a thing you assumed to be true about life, the universe, and everything has been, in fact, dead wrong.

In the context of this post I want to reintroduce you here to the work of the social philosopher and “speech thinker” Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy and to his “grammatical method” and “cross of reality” as he articulated these in his books Speech and Reality and I Am an Impure Thinker; and which method he demonstrated in action in his major historical work Out of Revolution: Autobiography of Western Man and The Origin of Speech.

The grammatical method posits a new four-term logic (rather than three-term) based on the structure of grammar rather than traditional abstract dialectics. In earlier posts, I noted the significance of this “four-term logic” in connection with the four “structures of consciousness” of cultural philosopher Jean Gebser and even the “four Zoas” of William Blake, as well as the movement from a three-dimensional reality to a four-dimensional reality by the addition of time. In fact, Rosenstock-Huessy described himself as “time-obsessed” rather than “space-obsessed”.

For Rosenstock-Huessy, “in the beginning was the Word” was not just a story, but an experiential fact of daily life.

His “cross of reality” is a mandala-like structure that represents the visible shape of grammar, in which the multiformity of times and spaces is recognised and disclosed in the real-world social process of people speaking and listening. Speech is of a fourfold character, insofar as it must represent two times (past and future, backwards and forwards) and two spaces (subject and object, or inwards and outwards). No true language exists which does not attempt, in some way, to manage and regulate the spaces and times by representing them grammatically. The times and spaces of physical reality are represented in the basic four-person system we are all familiar with: “You”, “I”, “We” and “He” (or She, It), and in the main “moods” of speech: imperative, optative, narrative, and indicative.

Rosenstock-Huessy: Cross of Reality -- Multiformity of Man

The cross of reality is a radiant mandala because the four directions of space and time — inwards and outwards, backwards and forwards — expand, and they contract as well. This is quite a revolutionary concept of time because it shows time neither as a circle nor as a straight line or “arrow of time”, which are typically the only two conventional conceptions permissible. Rosenstock justified his cross of reality in these terms,

“To speak has to do with time and space. Without speech, the phenomena of time and space cannot be interpreted. Only when we speak to others (or, for that matter, to ourselves), do we delineate an inner space or circle in which we speak, from the outer world about which we speak. It is by articulated speech that the true concept of space, and that is its being divided in an inner and outer sphere, comes into being. The space of science is a posteriori, and just one half of the complete phenomena of space. But the truly human phenomenon of space is found in the astounding fact that grammar unites people within one common inner space. Wherever people articulate and vary one theme, they move in an inner room or community as against the world outside. And the same is true about the phenomenon of time. Only because we speak, are we able to establish a present moment between the past and future… By human speech, space and time are created. The scientific notions of time and space are secondary abstractions of the reality of grammatical time and space. Grammatical time and space precede the scientific notions of an outer space or of a directed time.” (Speech and Reality, pp. 20-1, “In Defense of the Grammatical Method”).

“The now and here of all of us, means that we are living in a twofold space and a twofold time. And the term twofold is literally true, because time unfolds itself in two directions, past and future, the deeper, the more vitally we do live. The extension of the past, the prospect for a future, increase, when we look backward and forward with intensity and courage. And in the same manner, space unfolds itself more and more, the more we throw ourselves into the process of facing the outside world and the inner process of agreement and harmony within the respective unit. Forward, backward, inward, outward lie the dynamic frontiers of life, capable of intensification, enlargement, expansion, and exposed to shrinking and decay as well.” (ibid, p. 18)

With these basic preliminaries out of the way, we can now say that what Rosenstock-Huessy calls “grammar” or “articulated speech” is what Percival also means by “Thinking”. They are somewhat equivalent. Grammatical speech or “articulation” is “the Word” by which what is called “the transcendent” is made manifest in space and time, or, as Rosenstock-Huessy put it, “God is the power that makes men speak.”

Let’s now bring Percival’s “law of thought as destiny” (and therefore, Heraclitus as well) into relationship with Rosenstock’s “cross of reality” and what is actually accomplished by “grammatical, articulated speech”. Let’s here review the main thought in Percival as quoted above as it attempts to describe how we, personally and collectively, construct the time and space we actually inhabit through a fourfold phasic process of realisation.

“A thought is a being created by the Conscious Light and desire; and which, when issued, has in it an aim, a potential design, and a balancing factor — which balancing factor, like the needle of a compass point, points to the final balance of the thought as a whole”, writes Percival.

“A thought is a being created by the Conscious Light and desire” corresponds to Rosenstock-Huessy’s dictum, “God is the power that makes us speak” or that enthuses the human to speak. This is “inspiration”, and it takes the form of the imperatival mood. “Let there be light!”, “Love!”, “Be!” is the initial situation in which the human or “Doer-in-the-body” feels itself addressed as a “thou” or “You”. The imperative form is the form of what I have called “the transcendental impulse”, and it is experienced as if being issued from the future, for all imperatives are a calling or vocation that calls us to change in some way and become different. This is the first phase of self-realisation in a situation where what is only potential or latent aspires or desires to become realised or actual. The “thou” or “you” so addressed by the imperative is actually still in the past. The imperative, as calling or vocation, issues from the future. Thus, it is the revolutionary mood and is what Percival above calls “the aim”, which is telos.

The “potential design” is the four phase process of its realisation as follows….

The second phase of realisation is the response or the self-discovery of the respondee as “I”. This is the optative phase. “May I become light” “May I love”, “May I be” is the response to the imperative. The Doer feels itself called. Or, I may decline to become light, love or being in which case the phasic process is abortive. But when, as respondee, I respond in the affirmative, the process of realisation may continue. I affirm it. I am willing to suffer or undergo the transformation and willing to serve as the agency of its realisation. This is the phase called “servant of God”. From transcendental impulse to willing instrument of its realisation. This is the “I am” stage.

The third phase of the process of realisation or actualisation is the “we” phase, the historical narrative of its actual realisation. “We have loved”, “We have lived”, “We have born witness to the light” is the narrative phase of the ideal’s actualisation in space and time. “We have done it!” This is the “victory” phase, as it were. It has evented. The ideal has been achieved, or it may have been abortive at this phase as well.

The fourth and final phase is the indicative stage. Here, the realisation or “exteriorization of the thought” may finally come to rest as an assumed “objective fact”. “Love is…” or “Light is…” or “Existence is…” is the “definitive” or final resting stage of the thought’s actualisation. This “is” is the factuality of the ideal become real.

The thought, having passed through the crucible, as it were, of the cross of reality, is now balanced. It has taken both time and place. It has evented.

The four-phasic process of articulation in Rosenstock Huessy’s “speech method” is: imperative (“You”), optative (“I”), narrative (“We”), and indicative (“It”). This corresponds exactly to Percival’s “law of thinking as destiny” in terms of a) desire, b) aim or telos c) potential design, and finally d) balancing factor, as its final fulfillment in which the thought can now assert itself as “fact” (for good or ill) for it has passed through all four arms of the cross of reality.

This phasic process may, by the way, take more than one generation to complete if it is a collective work, and is called a civilisation’s “ruling idea”. The various phases, in that case, are called historical “periods” or “styles”. But the pattern holds for the individual life as well.

The reason that we are at the terminus of our age is because we now take the very last stage, the “it is…” stage as the definitive or indicative, as being the first and as the only valid form of truth or reality. It is this that is called “sensate” stage. We have inverted the actual process of truth realisation.




27 responses to “Ethos Anthropos Daimon: The Law of Thought as Destiny”

  1. misterdirk says :

    Tremendous post, much to ponder as I wrap up the year here. I’m keen to apply the four-phase articulation to a dramatic structure, to see if the alchemy of a performance can’t be thusly transformed.

    I was rummaging through my library to gather some of the titles you’ve mentioned above, for review. Coincidentally I came across J.L. Austin’s “How To Do Things With Words.” I’d love to read your thoughts and comments on that one.

    Perhaps not so coincidentally, I also uncovered your post from Dec. 31 last year, which I had printed out and shared it with my wife and some friends. It reminds me to thank you with all my heart for the exquisite work that you do here. These essays are manna.

    • Scott Preston says :

      Thanks misterdirk. Such accolades! I had to go back and re-read the post to see what I had done right, because I was concerned it might be too obscure and unclear.

      I’ll look into Austin’s book. But in a lot of cases, it’s not so much what we do with words as what words (and names) do with us.

      On the four-phasic process of realisation — it just occurred to me how the historical example of Christianity unfolds in this process of realisation. First, you have the transcendental imperative “Be thou therefore perfect even as Thy Father in Heaven…” as Jesus gave to his listeners. This is the imperative stage. The respondent hear, and if they agree that the imperative is reasonable and possible, they are transformed into disciples. “May I become perfected…”. The affirmation then leads to communication which forms a community, a “we” — the historical act. What is created is a “church”, a “community of the faithful” a “Christendom” which lives under the impress of this imperative and struggles to realise it. This is the process of history as godman-making, and its success as a Destiny depends upon recruiting each successive generation to fulfillment of the imperative.

      Needless to say, it remains an open quest and question, for it has never achieved the form of the definitive or indicative in which “perfection” or “God” could be defined in terms of “perfection is…” or “God is…” which would close the process. Nietzsche re-opened the question and re-affirmed the imperative process again with his ideal of the “overman” or “transhuman” as destination and appointment. Nietzsche actually tried to breath new life into the transcendental after its lapse into the “sensate” and sensationalism. Very ironic, and hardly noticed, if at all, by those who acclaim themselves “Nietzscheans” or even “anti-Nietzscheans”.

      So, the transcendental imperative still works its will on us, in sometimes unconscious ways — “the spirit bloweth where it listeth”, as it were, and sometimes “like a thief in the night”.

      By the way… while there are some valuable things in Percival’s Thinking and Destiny, I do not recommend it. Maybe I should post a critique of it, because I think there are some things in it which are quite misleading, and its best to avoid those things. Too much in Percival relies on our credulity, rather than our experience. And I do not care for “mystics” who rely upon our credulity, rather than on how their insights illuminate our human condition and experience.

  2. alex jay says :

    ” It is this that is called “sensate” stage. We have inverted the actual process of truth realisation.”

    A bit like placing the roof on stilts and then filling in the walls and the foundation.

    You’ve honed, tweeked and synthesised the four-fold Huesseyian “grammatical” method as a process that excels your earlier insights as I recall from the TDAB days (as wonderful as they were). And process is the operative word. I couldn’t help but be reminded of the progressional structure of the classical trivium educational system, when the order of progression necessitated a strict adherence to a mental movement from grammar to logic to rhetoric (grammar in this context is not to be confused with Huessey’s all inclusive interpretation – three in one – as to the ancients, grammar (observational/sensual order) was the foundation on which to build towards logic (removal of contradictions/ falsification in scientific parlance) and then articulation (rhetoric – personal conviction able to be projected coherently to others). Perhaps, here we have already witnessed the beginning of the reductionist/deconstructionist method of thinking, whereas Huessey dealt with the three-as-one (four in his case) in a more holistic manner by his interpretation of grammar (which, incidentally, is valid – though hard to digest in one lump for a budding young Socratic scholar) to include logic and rhetoric under the same umbrella as grammar. But … that is simply a timeline of style over content and only useful from a pragmatic approach from crawl to walk to run in teaching our progeny “how to think” and not “what to think”!

    Therein lies the crux of the dilemma … for without critical thinking (as taught by the trivium or Huessey’s cross of reality in a more sophisticated way) we are rapidly becoming the “last men” of a wasted opportunity and, even worse, the sin of Lucifer (the transiant ego) … but then the angels have always been jealous of our nature?!?! … after all, no angel dared excercise free will since that Miltonian moment … : )

    It is a process … and you can’t start with a given falsified fact (“sensate”) from authoritarian scoundrels without challenging it from our inherited right/privilege to intuite the calling, to acknowledge our acceptance, to spread it to our tribe (the human race) and hopefully, to make it a concrete reality … and dare I say it (???) Utopia, the noosphere, the “quintessential” – beyond the four points of space-time.

    “… but then I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one …”

    • Scott Preston says :

      The Trivium was, in a sense, incomplete because of the omission of the indicative phase, and also because of a tendency of the church-schooled mind to think in terms of the primacy of three. This is fairly typical of what Sorokin would call hierarchical “ideational culture” (it was also typical of the Brahman culture). However, since it couldn’t do without it, it was all included in or relegated to the Quadrivium, the four recognised sciences which then, altogether, comprised the 7 liberal arts. The Renaissance artists, significantly, lobbied to induct perspectivism as the 8th liberal art, but the churchmen would have nothing to do with that.

      This is the other interesting thing about Rosenstock’s model. Hierarchy is not performed in it. There is no “great chain of being” here, from on high to down low. As such, it is more “democratic” in the better sense. What arises, arises in the sense of Gebser’s “irruption”, and eventuates through the four articulations, literally “taking time” and “taking place”, as it becomes attired in the attributes of physical reality. The image is of a fountain or a flower emerging, rather than a chain of being. It is a biological model, since the arising inspiration must engage all the biological systems — nervous, circulatory, respiratory, and metabolic. The transcendental imperative engages the whole man or woman, that is to say, “heart and soul”, as it is said.

      The transcendental imperative arises when human purposes go off the rails, which is what is called “sin” — apparently an old archery term meaning “miss the mark” or deviation from a trajectory. The four European revolutions which have made the Modern Era follow the same articulation — Lutheran, English Civil War, French Revolution, Russian Revolution — also form the arms of the “cross of reality”.

      According to Rosenstock, a fifth must yet arise to both close this era and open a new era. This fifth, he anticipated, would be based on the principle of “health” and would take the form of a new integration. As we see in the events of the day, this fifth is already in process of formation and self-articulation, and is slowly gaining momentum.

    • Scott Preston says :

      By the way… in Out of Revolution: Autobiography of Western Man Rosenstock observed a peculiar fact about the succession of the revolutions that appears to have been missed by everyone else. That is, that each of the revolutions were separated from each other by four generations, or about a century. This is, sociologically speaking, lawful. And if it is lawful, then we are soon approaching the century mark since the Russian Revolution of 1917, another span of four generations, and it seems we are already seeing this in preparation today and that it is now global in scope. Hence a “new integration”.

      That does not necessarily mean that it will be as violent as it was in the past. In some jurisdictions it will be, and in others not. Not all nations that became “modern” had to follow the path of violent revolution. There is a certain kind of “ecology” at work.

      • alex jay says :

        Actually, I don’t interpret the “trivium” as absence of the “indicative” (with Huessey’s grammatical formula – or any other), nor would I consider the “quadrivium” as its substitution (different beast). Rhetoric is the “indicative”. Rather, in the trivium, the “imperative” and the “optative” (intuition and the “I” personal experience – observation) are merged to form the basis for the leap into the next phase of logic (the “we” if you like – avoiding the trap of the ego into solipsism) leading to the “indicative” fact of the matter in its articulated rhetorical “balancing factor”.

        The “trivium” is just the foundation to build on in the mental process as a toddler turns into a child, to an adolescent, an adult – and back to a child in his old age (personal disclaimer – and not connected to the “riddle of the sphinx”) . The “quadrivium” in its mathematics, geometry, music and astronomy is not an afterthought to compensate for the lack of an “indicative”, but rather a realisation of the mind’s preparatory (seminary) ability to deal with every potentiality in a creative application of the parameters established through our senses and intuition (and, unfortunately these days, indocrination/propaganda and dogma – the “foreign installation”).

        And … Oh please! don’t talk to me about the “church” … I might just have a Dawkins moment … and that would be even worse than a Monbiot one … : )

        Nothing to do with hierarchies … yet we’ve always had this problem. Reminds of the movie “Cool Hand Luke” when the prison warden says (in a southern drawl type of way): “What we got here is a problem to communicate”.

        Language may have turned us into “translators” of the divine plan (there is no plan, only imagination) … but it has also turned us into monsters … oh the paradox?

        • Scott Preston says :

          I will contradict and persist in my view that the indicative mood is absent from the Trivium. The indicative form is proper to objective science, and that is not represented in the Trivium. Proof, the reception Galileo received. Of course, the problem was that Galileo believed that the indicative was the ONLY form of truth. Once the indicative became established as the only valid form of truth — this is the second proof — the Trivium became “the trivial” — proof of the revolution that occurred in which the subordinate sciences turned this relationship of Trivium to Quadrivium on its head.

          Equally… the OED also relates that the history of the word “technology” (or reasoning about the means or art) first applied to the Trivium, as the study of how to represent divine or transcendental truth, and so initially had nothing to do with mechanics. The common denominator in the sciences of the quadrivium is the language of number and the numerate, which belongs to the indicative form, and was therefore subordinate to the Trivium.

          In a sense, the Trivium was more the roof, rather than the foundation, since it was closer to the purposes of Heaven or the Trinity. For then it was Theology, and not Physics, that was called “queen of the sciences”, and in physics the only valid form of truth is the indicatival form.

  3. amothman33 says :

    It is not so much what we do with
    words, but what words do to us.
    Ibn Arabi says ,words and concepts are beings like you and me, after all I hurt you with words and make you happy with words and that is why we are asked to meditate and silence the thinking engine, be a field for planting good seeds , to avoid the poisening effect of the bad seeds. God is so simple if only we let ourselves get exposed honestly to the radiations of the divine light. It is faith that leads to knowledge, not knowledge to faith. Kowledge is distractive, no wonder A N Whitehead said that he has not read more than fifty books all his life and emphasised that the process of learning is built in the process of unlearning. Silence in the lap of the everpresent origin.

    • Scott Preston says :

      I’m surprised that you knew that about Whitehead — that he had read very few books (I heard 45). But then, I’ve only read one of his The Adventure of Ideas and that was so long ago I think I’ve forgotten it.

      Ibn Arabi says ,words and concepts are beings like you and me…


      You would probably appreciate the Seth material, then, as Seth has much to say about thoughts as beings, and how the quality of the psychic atmosphere or mental environment attracts certain thoughts and repels others.

  4. amothman33 says :

    Donot be surprised Scott, I read alot of Whitehead befor translating his Modes of thought into arabic.

    • Scott Preston says :

      Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised, but I don’t know anyone even in my own more or less English-speaking circles who knows the name of Alfred N. Whitehead, let alone an Iraqi exile in the UAE who is a Sufi and who translates Whitehead into Arabic.

  5. alex jay says :

    ” The indicative form is proper to objective science, and that is not represented in the Trivium.”

    Hmmm ? … Yes and no. Though why you bring in Galileo reminds me of the lost centuries – since the vandalism the Christians perpetrated in Theodosius’ reign of the Alexandrian library (probably 90%of all accumulated knoweldge wiped out!). No wonder that Islam became the new force for the preservation of ancient knowledge (ironically, Syria/Damascus … and what a monstrosity have those poor people been subjected to recently … that spread through the caliphate) while Europe was captivated by such great propagandists as the Venerable Bede (didn’t quite make sainthood – bummer) who flipped the the ancient gods into saints, and basically was the precursor of Eddie Bernais version of the great “scam” (mind you, the salafists/wahhabists are the ugly shadow of Islam – the Ku Klux Klan version of Christianity) that supported the authority and power of the clerical establishment. But then, the “Priests” have been doing this shit in every culture since recorded history … probably, because they can’t get a daytime job : )

    Disagree on the “trivium” as a form of objective science as the product. Rather, I interpret the trivium as a thought process that takes into account information (intuitive as well as observational) filtered through a logical test (falsification) and determining the fact of the matter as articulated through rhetoric. The quadrivium is the aplication of that foundational process …

    I still love you and you’re far ahead of me on Jacob’s ladder (but we have a problem with hierarchies!)

    • Scott Preston says :

      It is understandable, I think (although not necessarily praiseworthy or commendable) why the Alexandrians were despised. That same contempt finds expression in Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy’s assessment of “the Greek Mind”, as he calls it. It was the dominance of the indicative mood. ERH felt that the Alexandrians had falsified the truth of experience through their abstractions, particularly in the famous Alexandrian Table of the Persons and Tenses of language, which we all have had drilled into us practically from birth and which ERH believed set the cornerstone for false consciousness. The Alexandrian list is the first usage, in fact, of the word “paradigma”, and we are all familiar with it, in terms of first person, second person, third person in singular and plural forms

      I love You love He, She, It loves

      We love You love They love

      For ERH this was pure BS. “We” is not the plural form of “I”, but a completely separate person, the historical person “tribe”, “nation”, “neighbourhood”, “community”, etc are “we forms” as historical unities, not plural “I”s. So that, we have four persons of grammar and not three in singular and plural forms.

      In fact, it seems to be true. Korean has a basic four person system only corresponding to “I”, “You”, “We” and “He”.

      As for turning the pagan gods into saints or angels, even the Muslims did that too (as the 99 names of God or as the djinn or “genies”). It was highly commendable, as it preserved contininuity between the past and the future. The gods were actually recognised as real entities, only they were thus made to serve a universal rather than a tribal or national purpose as they had done previously. In Mohammed’s time, there were 360 tribal gods. They weren’t destroyed. They were actually either recognised as one of “the names of Allah” or compelled to submit and serve the “one God”.

      I mean, it’s a great improvement isn’t it? When you are encouraged to hang bulbs instead of your enemies’ skulls on the Yuletide tree? And if you can’t convert your gods to saints and servants, then what good is “conversion”? By clearing away all the old terrors of Old Nature infested and haunted by spirits, goblins, demons, and spiteful gods, Nature itself was converted — into “The Book of Nature” — a friendly place. Now, thanks to “the People of the Book” science could get to work reading it without fear of being overwhelmed by it.

    • Scott Preston says :

      By the way, alex jay, you may already be familiar with this article by Naomi Wolf from The Guardian, but it probably will interest you. And it is consistent with what I wrote earlier about die Gleichschaltung and the deformation of democracy into the corporatist state.

      • alex jay says :

        Yes Scott, I am familiar with Ms Wolf’s article and the subject matter in some detail. Though why the release of the documents is seen as a revelation only confirms the depth of ignorance (or as Gore Vidal coined so succintly: (paraphrase) “The United States of Amnesia”) the majority of the people exhibit when it comes to trusting their governments to do right thing by them instead of their puppet master banks/corporations.

        I think she has a point for the motive of the release. If they wanted to cover it up they could have easily, notwithstanding FOIA – just label it under “national security” like every other criminal, embarassment etc. covert operation that they decide is too sensitive to reveal to the “bread and circuses” obssessed plebs. By allowing its release, they are sending a warning shot to all activists that they are in full control and those who dare to challenge the power of the “ring” are under the constant gaze of Mordor. This is for the younger generation, as anyone involved in the student demos, civil rights movement, Black Panthers etc.back in the ’60s can attest: “What’s new?” “Cointelpro” has been running unabated since 1956:

        The formula is time-tested: initially, infiltrate a mass popular movement to steer the agenda, and if that doesn’t work like with OWS (and boy! did they try), then control through intimidation, blackmail, and violence as a last resort against the noncompliant.

        Currently, the last thing standing in their way, having successfully destroyed the economy, is an armed citizenry (as history is repleat with evidence of how tyrannies gain control), which is the next and last – I believe – obstacle to the dystopian neo-feudalist agenda, while the powers-that-be are arming themselves to the hilt.

        But … that’s another lengthy story that I’m sure we would probably have a lot to disagree upon?

        The only difference now is they have the technology

        • Scott Preston says :

          Actually, no. It’s not an armed citizenry that is going to make the difference, but a disarming citizenry. I don’t at all see why we should appreciate lemmings rushing to buy semi-automatic weapons after Newtown and Aurora as somehow progressive, and not reactionary.

          Regimes change when people simply cease to credit them any longer, when they refuse to follow orders, when they decline to worship at their altars, when they no longer have ears to hear their legitimating rationalisations.

  6. alex jay says :

    Told you we would disagree. I thought very much like you on the issue for most of my life. In fact, one of the reasons I emigrated to England was to escape the gun culture. I never owned a gun and never intend to (too old to care about my personal safety and the family is grown up so the Braves can look after themselves, while I sit in my teepee smoking my pipe).

    But … “O tempora, O mores!”

    Ironic that you should offer a Ganhdian solution to regime change when it was the great man himself who said:

    “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

    I suggest to you that your civil disobedience solution is the only resort for an unarmed population. So, on the occasions it did work, and usually only through outside pressure as the case of South Africa, the overwhelming examples of history, to the contrary, involved a choice between armed conflict or subjugation. And for the most part (virtually all) of history it has been those that controlled the best weapons’ technology that ruled and enslaved the unarmed. To that extent, the colonial experience under British imperial rule, elicited the pragmatic wisdom of the Founding Fathers to enshrine the antidote for authoritarian domination within its second most important prerequisitive for a “free society”; ergo the 2nd Ammendment of the Bill of Rights. Some observations at that time, which illustrate the historical understanding of a passified citizenry prone to the control of its overlords without the means of a practical defense can be understood with the following caveats:

    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
    – Thomas Jefferson, 1764

    (FBI statistics show that over 99% of legal gun owners never use them against another human being)

    What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
    – Thomas Jefferson

    (Ergo the panic of the establishment to purchase over 1.6 billion rounds of “hollow point” bullets in the last year – banned for use in warfare by convention – for the “Homeland” security police state. What are they preparing for? – too expensive for target practice)

    Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
    – Ben Franklin

    (One knight fully armoured on horse with sword and lance was considered to be the equivalent of ten men with pitchforks)

    Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
    –Thomas Paine

    (The last act of any tyrannical force against its perceived challenge for domination is to disarm potential threats against their agenda)

    A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
    – George Washington

    (No more prescient statement written in the 18th century can describe the current situation in regards to these cancerous governments we have to endure in the so-called 1st world countries)

    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
    –Patrick Henry. Etc, etc, etc ….

    • alex jay says :

      Oh heck! I was just getting started, but I guess I shot my wad on word allocation so I’m in two minds? Whether to pursue all the reasons why I changed my mind on the gun issue or to make myself a toasted cheese sandwich …

      The sandwich won out … maybe later if the opportunity presents itself, I can
      go into the mass shootings and the probable reasons that are hardly ever discussed in the mainstream. But sufficient time to lay down this link, which deals with a possible and fairly convincing reason as to the “why” instead of blaming an inanimate instrument that is the “how” …

      Also, more than 3 (could be 2 can’t remember – anyway, lots more) times the amount of homocides committed with firearms are perpetrated with baseball bats and hammers or similar objects (FBI statistics).

      So let’s ban baseball! : )

      It’s not the tool that makes a physco … it’s the disintegration of the mental-rational state of consciousness in our enantiodromia moment of tranisition that’s causing this collective insanity and its hyberbolic reaction. Guns are not the problem, people are!

      • Scott Preston says :

        Now, alex, you really can’t separate guns and people can you? And here’s anecdotal evidence why.

        Seems this poor Michigan policeman wasn’t allowed to bring his hand-gun across the border when he entered Canada to attend the Calgary Stampede. So, while he’s in Calgary visiting with his wife, he is approached by two menacing punks who ask him “aggressively” whether he’s been to the Calgary Stampede. At this point, he’s reaching for his non-existent lead-spitting persuader to deter the aggressors and to persuade them to back off.

        Turns out, the toughs, the menacing punks, the threatening no-gooders were two young hired “city ambassadors” handing out free tickets to random people to attend the Stampede. The officer from Kalamazoo Michigan, however, obviously feeling naked, vulnerable, insecure — and paranoid — without his handy-dandy full-metal-jacket spitting friend and security blanket — thought he was being assaulted by two free ticket-wielding youths. He was so disgruntled, that he even wrote a letter to the Calgary newspaper to complain about Canadian gun laws being not being sufficiently liberal — (er, um…or conservative?) — enough.

        Even in Alberta… Canada’s foremost Province of Redneck Paranoia… the Michigan cop’s own sense of paranoia was considered highly … er, paranoid.

        • alex jay says :

          After you’re last comment – fetishism indeed! – I thought I’d let dead dogs lie, even though capitalising the “NO” on the inanimate object point I was making did wave a red flag in front of me (and I do love arguments as long as they are conducted civily – fortunately we don’t have a problem with that on this forum). Actually, I didn’t want to stretch out the discussion as I felt it reached the point of we agree to disagree and neither you or I were going to change each other’s mind. However, now that you have revitalised the argument with this follow-up post, it appears that you haven’t reached the I’m bored with this topic point, so great! let’s continue.

          I don’t know how long it will take, and to avoid using up my word allocation as in one previous post, I shall present my case in a separate comment to this preface (after lunch).

    • Scott Preston says :

      I read today where a British inventor has invented bullet-proof and stab-proof clothing. I’m sure he’ll make a killing. A Canadian inventor has recently invented a “cloak of invisibility”. Only, it now represents escalation doesn’t it? Now, people will have to supplement their personal home armoury with grenade launchers, which I’m sure the new bullet-proof attire won’t stop. It’s an ironic twist to the notion that “a man’s home is his castle” — or fortress, as it turns out.

      I’m not sure appealing to the bons mots and conventional wisdom of the past is any guide to the present. The American founding fathers apparently didn’t have much faith in the resilience and survivability of their republic, perhaps because the house they built was built on shifting sand, unstable foundations, and not framed properly? The Second Amendment stipulates an armed citizenry within a well-regulated militia, not a vigilante mob. A standing army was not provided for, initially, and was considered a threat to republicanism. There’s a great deal of difference between a citizen-soldier and a vigilante survivalist, after all. “Every man a policeman” is not quite the same thing as “every man a soldier”. The Swiss have managed to preserve their democracy for 700 years without a standing professional army, and haven’t developed a “gun culture”. When I was in Switzerland, I stayed with a couple during which time the husband was doing his annual military service. His rifle was kept in the home. He, like most Swiss it seems, considered it only a necessary evil. I toured the formidable mountain defences the Swiss had built up over the centuries, and it’s no wonder nobody, ever since the decimation of the Austro-Hungarian Grand Army by a vastly outnumbered Swiss force, ever wants to repeat it.

      But then, the Swiss don’t have a culture of excessive egoistic individualism. In Switzerland, everyman is a William Tell. In England, everyman should be a “Robin Hood,” but this was nipped in the bud. But in America, everyman thinks of himself as “the Lone Ranger”, who is a vigilante.

      Now, the gun is definitely NOT a mere neutral or “inanimate” instrumentality. It is an intentional object and therefore an objectification of intent. It approximates, in meaning, Tolkien’s “ring of power”. It is a symbol also, and is invested with mana and charisma. It is therefore a fetish. This is what I saw lacking in the Swiss attitude to the gun. It was no fetish. It is also, in that sense, information. It has other aspects, including the meanings “power”, “deterence,” “survival”, and so on, so it is definitely not the case that it is in any way “inanimate”. A fetish is not inanimate once it is invested with teja, mana, or charism.

      What is called “gun culture” overlooks a number of other facets to the crystal. It is rooted in a multi-faceted myth. It could also be called (and one might call this “blowback” effect) “power culture” or “deterence culture” or “survivalist culture” or “security culture”. The gun represents, in a sense, “one ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them” — that is, all these other overlooked facets of what gun culture really means. So, no, it is not “inanimate” and the expression “guns don’t kill people. People kill people” is just myopic, and ultimately a self-annihilating logic, in the social sense. Gun culture represents the logic of “every man for himself”, which is the survivalist mentality, and the survivalist mentality is “every man a policeman” — a Lone Ranger, a Dirty Harry, the potentially dangerous, unknown and unpredictable Mysterious Stranger of Eastwood’s spaghetti westerns. It is hardly the case that “gun society is polite society” — that assumes that every man or woman’s natural inclination is toward evil or taking advantage or “pursuit of self-interest”, and only the threat of violence and death makes them “good”. So, gun culture is also fear culture.

      The movie “The Road” wasn’t about a hypothetical future apocalypse. It was about the present.

  7. alex jay says :

    Following on from my last comment, I’d like to challenge your attempt to animate the inanimate when you state:

    “Now, the gun is definitely NOT a mere neutral or “inanimate” instrumentality. It is an intentional object and therefore an objectification of intent. It approximates, in meaning, Tolkien’s “ring of power”. It is a symbol also, and is invested with mana and charisma.”

    (Meanwhile, Bilbo and Frodo had their little blade – “Sting” was it? – as their feeble protection against Sauron’s weapons of mass destruction – what a fitting allegory to the gun issue today when the might of Mordor – “the State” – wants to relieve us hobbits from any means of resistance)

    The gun (as all weapons tech over the years) is an object – period – and the intentionality is “in the eye [finger] of the beholder”, It approximates in meaning a plethora of potential applications of which fetishism is the minority position in the same way that the automoblie is a means of getting from A to B for the vast majority of their owners except for the motorheads (car fetishists) that pretend they’re NASCAR drivers that kill more people than guns – intentionality aside, though not altogether as many gun incidents are also unintentional. To generalise the symbolic significance of the gun falls flat in logic and historical evidence irrespective of the propaganda, which I think many people have swallowed in the Eddie Bernais tradition (Ouch!) of CNN, MSNBC, the Guardian band-wagon of hypocracy and all the other “liberal” pimps and their “conservative” (assholes) straight men in this “comedy of errors”.

    So … how can one be against guns for most of one’s life and then pro guns? Necessity … or as quoting Cicero in an earlier post (taken up by one of my favourite authors, Edgar Poe): “O tempora, O Mores. (Or possibily stretching it to one of our favourite people, Heroditus: “everything is in a state of flux”). And the flux is headng towards entropy…

    Anectotal examples aside (like your link of that silly moron crossing over to Canada without his sixshooter umbilical cord), and I’ve got plently from the other direction – but then, I appreciate paradoxes, but more fundamentaly, Im still waiting for the noosphere to happen – sixyish years (?) after Telihard Chardin in his dotage was still bemused feeding pigeons in Central Park as to why humanity just doesn’t get it!

    And if they did, I wouldnt have to remind you of the reasons why it would be a fool’s errand to capitulate to any form of centralised control (as Lord Acton stated: “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”). To that extent, before we reach the “integral” consciousness collectively, we still are living within our experience of how we got to where we are … and so let this be a beacon of light to steer us away from the mistakes of the past, ergo … some examples I think would prick up some ears as to why it would be foolish for the Americans to give up their 2nd Amendment lightly – subject to a change of consciousness and a disarmament of the military/mercenary whores that support this current criminal banking controlled oligarchy:

    All quotes and reasons to think carefully, and ignore the mendacity and triviality of the contrived agenda!

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    (End of quotes)

    To finish: Interesting to note that when the Japanese Admiral, Yokomoto was asked about a stategy to invade the continental USA his answer (paraphrased) was: You gotta be joking … there would be a gun shooting at us from every blade of grass.

    I know it sucks, Scott … but sometimes you gotta fight …ask the indigenous folk of the Americas and most of the world having faced the technological advanced weaponry of their colonisers. Now, it’s no longer a foreign installation … it’s domestic and personal …
    As it was designed … and American guns under the 2nd Amendment (since Bush/Obama have gutted the Constitution over the 12 years are the last obstacle for a worldwide passification of the “great unwashed”. From that point of view, unlike your version, YES!!! Guns are a symbol, a desperate symbol of clutching at straws to have an impact in their lives, having been conditioned to the mythology of the “American Dream” of individuality and freedom as they discover the charlatan behind the curtain of deception

    • Scott Preston says :

      I object to your objectifications. Technologies constitute the symbolic environment of the technological system, an information environment, as much as the icons of the Middle Ages constituted the symbolic environment of theological culture. They mediated the meanings of that culture in both overt and covert aspects of it, the visible and the invisible. In the same way, technologies in the Technological Society are icons, and not mere objects, utilities, instrumentalities, “tools”. They are media as mediators of meaning, and like the icons of old, they have both a covert meaning and an overt one, an implicit aspect and an explicit aspect, a latent significance and a manifest significance, a hidden dimension as well as a evident one, or the visible and the invisible components. And it is very often the invisible or hidden. covert, or latent aspect that is the dominant and determinant one in assessing the social significance of the tool as icon.

      Why assess the meaning of “gun” any different than you would assess the meaning of “money”, or any other thing that is capable of fetishisation or evaluation as icon? It is quite evident that both share the same charisma, which is the meaning of “power”. Power is a very ineffable value, but which comes affixed to certain objects which become power objects. In a money culture, money is power. It has no power in a barter economy. In a weaponised culture, guns are power, an illusion of security without the feeling of safety. There’s a certain irony in the fact gun culture has not enhanced at all the security of American society or sense of well-being. In fact just the opposite. There was an article just today that demonstrated that gun culture contributes a large share of the blame for the lower relative US general life-expectancy. Hardly, I would think, reason to link weapons culture and weaponised society with enhanced well-being.

      It cannot be a source of security for any American to know that there is one gun for every citizen in the US — the ideal of the NRA and the source of the paranoia of every “survivalist”. “An armed society is a polite society” makes the gun the actual mediator of all human relations in that respect. Money may talk, but the concealed or unconcealed weapon speaks louder than words. In other words, in a genuinely speechless society, a completely atomised and fragmented society of excessive egoistic individualism can such a conception as “an armed society is a polite society” possibly have any meaning. The gun, in such a context, is not an instrument, it is a symbol. For it takes the place of speech. And, as Rosenstock-Huessy once put it, a speechless society is a violent society. For where authentic community creating speech is absent, only violence or the threat of violence can restore orderly relations between human beings.

      Why is that so difficult to understand? Have you never stopped to ponder, for example, why “a revolution devours its own”?

      The gun wants to kill. That is its intent. It simply finds in a human being a willing instrument for the fulfillment of its implicit intent. Who is master? Who is slave? In a technological milieu, those relationships become quite ambiguous, which is why McLuhan quipped that human beings had become little more than the sexual organs of the machine — the Technological System’s means of reproduction.

      There’s a certain irony, of course, that your views reinforce those of the military-industrial complex — the arms manufacturers — who have an economic stake in persuading people that its a very unsafe world, that their security is constantly being compromised, that every American citizen should be “an army of one” because their neighbour just might be one himself. Teddy Roosevelt might have said “walk softly and carry a big stick”, but I think he would be surprised that it came to be taken as a general principle guiding the attitude one should take towards one’s neighbour.

      But, now, today, who is “the neighbour”? In a society of high mobility, encouraged as “social mobility” “labour mobility” everyone and no one is the neighbour at the same time. “Gun culture” basically means a society of strangers.

      Weapons culture, in other words, does not in any way lead to “integrity” or “integration” — it is a symptom of the exact opposite.

      By the way… what are your historical sources for that “gun control” history? Surely not Alex Jones?! Because most of it is not the least bit true. The Nazis actually encouraged gun clubs and shooting clubs because they wanted to prepare their people for another war. It was the Versailles Treaty that prevented German rearmament, and in shooting clubs the Nazi state found a way to circumvent the restrictions. Alex Jones’ reasoning is rather fanciful.

      • alex jay says :

        “By the way… what are your historical sources for that “gun control” history? Surely not Alex Jones?!”

        Well … NO – actually, I checked that particular quote through Wikipedia (I know, the lazy option, yet somewhat reliable as they do tend to reference their sources).

        “The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” Under the new law:

        Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.”[4]
        The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
        The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
        The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
        Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]
        Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns’ serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.” (end of quote)

        So yes, whilst they may have encouraged gun clubs you will note that outside the members of the State machinery (Nazis, in other words) strict gun regulations excluded most elements of the populace, especially the Jews (need I say more?). Which is the point I’m trying to make. For that is precisely what is going on in America today. The desire is to only allow members of the security state to be armed while disarming the general population. The events after Katrina attest to the threat the government perceives an armed citizenry consequently, disarming the New Orleans gun owners was a priority and implemented through draconian tactics.

        Now, if the a gun ban was to include the police-homeland (another Nazi term) apparatus, I would go along with the disrmament argument. I AM NOT a lover of guns! As this is highly unlikely, the American people would be fools to give up their 2nd Ammendment rights unilaterally.

    • Scott Preston says :

      More than a hundred scientists from virtually every major U.S. university told Biden’s task force in a letter that research restrictions pushed by the NRA have stopped the United States from finding solutions to gun violence.

      The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has cut gun safety research by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to one estimate. Congress, pushed by the gun lobby, in 1996 put restrictions on CDC funding of gun research. Restrictions on other agencies were added in later years.

      Interesting contradiction, of course. The gun lobby has placed restrictions on free speech in order to protect what they (mis)perceive as the sanctity of the Second Amendment. Now, that’s quite an interesting self-contradiction, wouldn’t you say? And for some of the same reasons I gave earlier — the gun is a substitute for speech. Why is the gun lobby afraid of research into the social effects of weapons culture to go to the extent of having it defunded and suppressed?

    • Scott Preston says :

      Also… when you mention “inanimate”, you are assuming by that “inorganic”, and that only the organic form possesses consciousness. But it ain’t necessarily so that what we call “consciousness” or intent is only a property of the “animate” or organic. We merely assume intent as a property of the animate — meaning largely visible evidence of willed movement, or growth, motility, etc. None of that is necessarily true. It’s merely an assumption. Even many physicists dispute that interpretation of “animate” these days.

  8. alex jay says :

    Guess I used up the word allowance yet again in midstream … oh heck, never mind … Just to finish my point, objects are what they are grammatically (indicative – the he/she/it) and the interpretations necessarily animate them . So sure Scott, by interpretaion you can give life to an inanimate object, but the inanimate object cannot intend (free will), so we get back to the conscious actor. Don’t we? Ergo the gun, the club, the sword, the bow etc. are merely technological vehicles for domination and have squat to do with fetishes ouside the media brainwashing, which will soon metamorphisise (forget my spelling) into far more sophisticated ways of control by bio-engineering, resource monopolisation (control of food, water and air – Agenda 21), and to be quite blunt, the culmination of a century-old project to reduce the human population so that “the useless feeders” (From neo-Darwinists like Galton to the “Robber Baron” snake oil salesmen like the Rockefellers in their aristocratic pretensions) are simply less than human. Have little time for Marx (I have little time for practically all socio-political gurus), but .. class/caste as a structure for society is an abomination … and contrary to the very inexhaustable potential of our gift (GRACE) – irrespective of this contrived Matrix that has conned too many people to ingest the blue pill.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: