A FEW SKY GRAY THOUGHTS ON POLITICS AS A BRITTLE LITERARY DEVICE

A FINE MAN AND DEDICATED PATRIOT named Christopher Logan honored me recently when he sent me a message inquiring, "Do you think I was being too rough with her?"

Damned if I know. She doesn't seem to be backing down, and is remarkably patronizing in her own right. Let's face it. Some people just don't get it, won't get it, can't possibly get it until IT affects them in some personal way. Perhaps a few quotes from Thomas Jefferson, J. Quincy Adams, John Wesley, Bishop Sheen, Winston Churchill, and Mohammed himself will get her attention, but probably not. Because she's of the mindset right now that it is better that 100 guilty terrorists go undetected than one innocent Muslim be given a second glance in an airport line. There's no defeating that logic in these sad, post-modernist, politically incorrect, globalist times since it parallels the romanticism that our own US legal system is grounded in...

For better or for worse, smiley-faced Pollyannas will always be with us.

You and me? We just keep plugging. In due time, we might be prepared to be of even greater service to those who criticize us now...

Q: Thank you for not attacking me but providing me with the information. But your quick turn to the passive-aggressive has not provided much in the form of education. I'll investigate anyway.

Laurie, I'm not here to educate you. One liners on Facebook will never get that done. There is a wealth of information out there just for the picking. You are correct. You must do the investigations, yourself. Take no single source as truth, or at least not until you have determined the source as reputable over a string period of time. That's the best any of us can hope to do. But what seems to be at issue here on this thread is whether or not this question of a global jihad in its myriad of forms is a matter of personal opinion, anecdotal evidence, or mere genuflection, but rather of determinable fact by a tough, keen look at all the evidence available.

Propaganda is very tough to parse with mere cursory efforts...

And I suggest to you that Mr. Logan has the right beat on the issue, Laurie. News that screams forth everyday from all corners of the planet where Islam is actively pursing more territory, more corpses, more power under the guise of sharia, is not a mere blip on the screen. The signage of Islam on the march is everywhere. Signs, signs, everywhere are signs. Perhaps you know the song, perhaps not. But the point is, there's a whole lot more to this Islamic muffin than just some flour and a handful of blueberries.

Gabriel: Information is not knowledge.

Kirsten: This is an often misconstrued concept!. But, to quote: Knowledge is Good.

Bruce: Well I didn't want to say anything but I am glad you know this.

Gabriel: Well dear public, feel free to expose me to what else you and yours might speculate I need to know. The nasty truth is not as mysterious as we've been led to believe. GATHER OR DIVIDE. The whole point of my imaginary punk rock band is to suggest that each one of us must make the play. Bystanders be damned. Ignorance is bliss, twice the fun, bur perilous in spoilage. Our retaliation?

Inherit a role. Allow it to count. Face the music. And realize that this is the only rule by which we know ourselves as intricately as our detractors do.

Josh: Correlation does not imply causation!

Gabriel: Obviously correlation is a more pertinent state of affairs, since to put matters in terms Karl Popper might appreciate, scientists can explain First Cause, but we are stuck with all pending correlations.

Maybe that was Wittgenstein, not Popper, but since they exchanged thoughts with fabulous animosity, the pending correlations in this case are probably nothing more than the dollars and cents of an ego economy - commonly called hubris - rather than the clarity that some uncertainty principle might avail us when the necessary light we might require to accept a generality at the sufferance of a specific is corrupted by political motivations.

In other words, all politics is tainted, and plagued with guesswork, but I am a survivor of my own knowledge, not yours.

Correction: scientists CANNOT explain...well, that unintended typo effectively puts the skid into this thread...

After fielding a few snarky remarks from leftist associates and reading some of the neck-snapping snorts of some rightie cohorts, I feel compelled to state:

Politics is just as irrational and existential a belief system as religion, at times just as pernicious, at times just as comforting, both springing from a loose structure of competing droves. In fact, we know today, there is little difference between politics and religion in its abstract condition or its peculiar habits. Superstition and misconception dominate both. Empty rhetoric imposes and services both.

Faith is central to each, and faithlessness is punished in one form or another at every turn. Some might even say there is no rational distinction between politics and religion, but are merely similar thorns on the same blighted rose bush...

Like Ezra Pound, I cherish the right of every man to have his ideas judged one at a time.

GT

NOT YOUR FATHER'S NEW MATH

Part I. Memorizing Each Postulate By Morning
I am a panic of NONE.
I am a race of NONE.
I am a language of NONE.
I am a religion of NONE.
I am a law of NONE.
I am a God of NONE.

I am a panic of ONE.
I am a race of ONE.
I am a language of ONE.
I am a religion of ONE.
I am a law of ONE.
I am a God of ONE.

I am a panic of ALL.
I am a race of ALL.
I am a language of ALL.
I am a religion of ALL.
I am a law of ALL.
I am a God of ALL.

Part II. Crossing the Equator With Dirty Weapons
I am a panic of 40, sixty-four million, over thirteen billion served.
I am a race of 40, sixty-four million, over thirteen billion served.
I am a language of 40, sixty-four million, over thirteen billion served.
I am a religion of 40, sixty-four million, over thirteen billion served.
I am a law of 40, sixty-four million, over thirteen billion served.
I am a God of 40, sixty-four million, over thirteen billion served.

I am a product of HERE AND NOW.

[ 2007, Washington, DC ]

MEETING HALFWAY OR NOWHERE AT ALL

Okay Christopher, I need to get out of the house. So you say you're down with some decentralized meeting of the group. I'll call your bluff. Let's meet. You're on the west coast. I'm on the east in DC. Let's meet in late January in some location on the mighty Mississippi. Your call of which town or city.

Among the larger cities - St.Louis, Memphis, Minneapolis, St. Paul...

Some larger towns - Hannibal, Vicksburg, Dubuque, Davenport...

Your choice among these or any other you would be willing to oblige with a personal appearance. I say we aim with certainty for a date in late January. Let's prove our mettle, man. Dead of winter. As natural as it gets. Get there on our wits, and whatever other advantages we can muster. Real life. No excuses. No more bullshit. We're just agreeing to meet at a certain time and place. No other plans. If one of us doesn't feel confortable with winging it, he can intuit his own backup plans, but he doesn't have to share this plan with the other. We can shake out the dust once we meet at the appointed place and time.

What do you say? Who knows. Perhaps like Tolstoy, one or both of us will catch pneumonia and die of our stupidity. Or we can grow stronger in our renewed sense of adventure like say, Blaise Cendrars.

But frankly, I've grown a little tired of all this chit chat which leads nowhere, literally, nowhere. And all this - we are ever so clever, but the rest of the world is bullshit - that passes for intellectual discourse on this list.

You certainly don't have to agree to this fool's errand. But I do view my challenge to you it in terms of an old-fashioned duel. After all, you are just another character in the storybook of my mind. I want a closer look into that character. I want to know what this character is made of—hot air, hot embers, stale smoke, or wild duck.

I'm telling you that if you set place and time, I will be there, or will die trying. Why? Because "this" is my religion. Forcing people to confront their own dishonesty by putting myself on the line with mine as its struggles with truth in advertizing. But certainly, using your own powers of radicalized reason you may not believe me for you do not know me. One or both of of us may not show. It will be up to the person or persons who DOES show to prove it to the listgroup (namely, the person who didn't show) by any means necessary. Of course, knowing how impossible it is to PROVE anything in terms of ideological debunking, I realize this proof will be meaningless to those who cling to their disbelief, and mention proof with a smile and a grain of salt.

Salt, ah, another poison.

Gabriel Thy
Program Director
Radio Scenewash Network
www.scenewash.org

Now listening to: "Debonaire" by *Dope* on the "Felons and Revolutionaries" LP