34 thoughts to “Decline and Fall [*POEM*]”

  1. My German grandmother would say God makes the sky blue and the grass green, since she only received a grammar school education, she had no scientific understanding of the world, and all causality was the result of a supreme invisible hand which she believed. I would give her long explanations of how sunlight refracted to make the sky blue, and she would grab my arm and say you are really smart, then she would go back to work, she worked nonstop and washed her hair in rainwater.

    She went to church every morning, and when I would visit she would drag me along for the first early mass which was before I wanted to get out of bed. She was an excellent gardener, and had Mother Mary statue in the flower patch. Whenever I would visit she would ask me first thing as she opened the door to her little cabin, have you been going to church? I would reply hell no grandma and laugh, then she would point her finger at me and sternly say I was going to hell.

    Later on in life and not that long ago I first learned earth was a prison planet, a kind of galactic prison for wayward souls, then I read Lawrence Spencer’s book ‘Alien Interview’ which is a slam dunk explanation for what is happening on this f-cked up planet we call earth. I also recommend Joseph Atwill’s landmark book “Caesar’s Messiah’. Both are available free online in text and pdf.

    My Grandma lived inside a myth bubble, in her mind life was simple, her job was to get to heaven and the priest laid out the rules which she followed reverently. Mass, confession, prayer was her ticket out, heaven in the next life she believed. I am not so sure about that, or that reality is that simple. I think the idea that we are (already) in hell has merit, as all I have to do is study history and turn on the news. A non stop horror show.

    Earth is kept in chaos, on purpose. Like any prison, the idea is to keep conditions miserable for the inmates. We are never to learn who we really are and why we are here, we are engineered with short life spans, and erased of all memory after we go to the light, which is really a soul trap, how we are recycled back to earth again after death. Our idea of a savior are proven myths, wishful thinking we entertain, giving us hope while we toil then die. No one gets out of here. All are reincarnated again and again and again. So in a very real sense we have already been sentenced to hell, a hell planet, earth.

    Satan rules earth, Bible says so, and that ought to tell you where you are. We are also ruled by Jews, the chosen ones, the proxy for Satan, they are the Synagogue of Satan on the planet, the minions of the evil ones that put us here. Just think about it, it makes sense. If you are on a planet with Jews you must be in hell.

    1. In case anyone is wondering what this poem is about, here is a clue. The mysterious lines in Italics in the opening verse, “I will put my hook in your mouth, and my bridle in your lips”, is a quotation from the Book of Isaiah. (Isaiah 37:29). As frequently happens in the Old Testament, this is God speaking. The entire 8-line poem is God addressing mankind and issuing this warning: “You will sow what you reap. If you sow tares, you will reap tares.”

      1. The purport of the poem is: it’s not God who is punishing you, it is your evil karma. In other words, “God” is simply an instrument of karma. He cannot interfere with cause and effect. If the chicken crosses the road and gets run over by an automobile, that is not “God’s fault”. God can’t interfere with the chicken’s “free will.” He can’t intervene and rescue every silly chicken that crosses the road at the wrong time. It’s up to the chicken to get it right.

        So it is with us human beings. No one gets away with anything. Every good deed will be rewarded one day, and every evil deed with be punished one day. It may take a long time but the time will come: either in this life, many years later, or in the life after death. Remember the word of the old hymn: “The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small.”

        This short 8-line poem is packed with metaphysical meaning.

        1. How did I know that the two mysterious lines came from the Book of Isaiah? Sheer chance! Coincidence! I happened to be reading the Book of Isaiah only yesterday and came across the lines there. And here’s a poem by Xanadu published only a day later and I read the same lines again! If that isn’t a weird coincidence, what is? 🙂

          Jung has a word for these uncanny coincidences.

          He calls them “synchronicities” and gives numerous examples. A “synchronicity”, as far as I can understand, is more than a coincidence. It’s a highly charged MEANINGFUL COINCIDENCE, indicative of design in the universe. The coincidence, in other words, is “planned”. And who can “plan” a coincidence like this to occur except the supreme Mathematician, the great Designer of the Universe?

          Just my two cents…

          1. Saki,

            Considering how MEANINGFUL the COINCIDENCE is you experienced, what EXACTLY is the meaning of the MEANINGFUL COINCIDENCE? I mean NOTHING in the Universe and NOTHING here on earth is any different than it was before the COINCIDENCE, everything is the same as usual. NOTHING has changed because of this COINCIDENCE. I’m sorry, but I fail to understand the great meaning of the COINCIDENCE you experienced.

            Due to inflation two cents now is worth NOTHING, 0 , ZERO, ZILCH. lol…

            1. I am not responsible for your failure to understand, Joe. If the village idiot fails to understand that 2 + 2 = 4, it’s not my job to teach him how to count, is it?

    2. @Yukon Jack.

      “No one gets out of here. All are reincarnated again and again and again. So in a very real sense we have already been sentenced to hell, a hell planet, earth.”

      A good comment, overall. Painful to contemplate, but sounds logical. Ever since I was introduced to the reincarnation idea, it bothered me (still does) endlessly that we are not told what we have done, or neglected to do, in previous life or lives which should cause us to be led by some unknowable force into sometimes agony-filled circumstances. They say we shouldn’t view our suffering (really bad, sometimes) as “punishment” (that’s an evil Western idea!) but rather as “progress.” Right.

      The Christian version is that we have one life, we do the best that we can, trust in the lord, be “good” – and then wait for the afterlife which, with or without purgatory, will be a pleasant existence for eternity.

      Whether this is my first and only trip, or my 200th, I don’t feel as if I am somehow a “better” person for having been in this gaol (jail). However – every old culture does have stories about a Golden Age. So, the pendulum has swung. And it will inevitably swing the other way once again.

      1. All we have is hope, and that is why religion which offers hope sells. We are offered hope of a better life with god in heaven yet no one can describe heaven. Dante described Hell in detail, but no one has a lock on what heaven is like.

        The Holy Bible gives us hope of a better life. No one (besides myself) asks the obvious question why isn’t life good now, why should I have to wait for some unproved next life? Being the skeptic, it seems obvious we are being made an unproved offer. It is like buying a car without having seen the car, how do you know the seller even has the car?

        Christianity says if you believe you get a free pass to heaven, not based on deeds, but on belief. And according to the many evangelists I have argued with over the decades, entrance to heaven is on belief only, which means you can be a mass murderer and get a pardon right up to your death so long as you profess belief in Jesus Christ.

        Such a path to heaven means you can and will have sins in abundance. I talked to a meth addict who actually said he was going to heaven, and I asked but you use meth, and he said yes he did, and admitted he was a sinner, but because of his faith he was going to get through the pearly gates. So even the drug addict knows that heaven is by belief and not blocked by the weakness of the body.

        So as a mighty skeptic I wonder if this belief of getting into heaven is not wishful thinking. Who wouldn’t want to go to heaven and lounge around all day, no work, everything perfect, babes everywhere. So the joke, what if heaven is full of gorgeous women but you are not allowed to touch, what kind of heaven would that be? That would be hell for a cowboy. LOL (Usually that joke is told with expletives, strong sexual references and the liberal use of the f word, followed by knee slapping and more whiskey)

        Anyways, back to hope – I wrote a whole lot of essays that hope was the cope dope and that hell was sustained through meager amounts of hope. I said whatever was farming us was using hope as a weapon, that humans would endure any amount of suffering so long as god slipped them some hope now and then. I also said that if god was moral he would end this hell simulation, but then I concluded he wouldn’t because he was sustaining itself on our suffering and prayers.

        Hope is the Cope Dope on Prison Planet Earth
        On July 2, 2018 By YUKON JACK
        https://i.imgur.com/c5u6lut.jpg

        Why Selling Hope is the Path to Riches
        On May 10, 2020 By jackyukon
        https://i.imgur.com/T8zypcB.jpg

      2. “Theosophists for instance will preach an obviously attractive idea like re-incarnation; but if we wait for its logical results, they are spiritual superciliousness and the cruelty of caste. For if a man is a beggar by his own pre-natal sins, people will tend to despise the beggar. But Christianity preaches an obviously unattractive idea, such as Original Sin; but when we wait for its results, they are pathos and brotherhood, and a thunder of laughter and pity; for only with Original Sin we can at once pity the beggar and distrust the king.” (GK Chesterton)

        1. @ Darrell

          You quote GK Chesterton as if his pompous diktats were the final answer to these complex metaphysical problems. They are not. Your glib assumption that the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, formulated by St Augustine, has somehow magically replaced, superseded, and given the deathblow to the “erromeous” doctrne of Reincarnation, is a false assumption.

          You may choose to believe this dogma of the Catholic Church because you find it personally comforting but others are under no such obligation to follow suit. St Augustine is by no means the spiritual or intellectual superior of Gautama Buddha and the Vedic sages who preached the equally unprovable alternative view of reincarnation based on karma.

          Both these views are beyond empirical investigation, depending entirely on “faith”. In Popper’s view, which is now almost universally accepted by scientists, no statement has scientific validity that is NON-FALSIFIABLE. Since the doctrine of Original Sin cannot be “falsified”, it is beyond the reach of science and therefore lacks all scientific validity.

          To put it simply: neither doctrine (Original Sin OR Reincarnation) has any factual basis, let alone a scientific basis. Both are opinions. Or as Pat here would say, “guesses”. 🙂

          Sorrow for raining o your parade, Darrell. No offence meant.

          1. “Sister” Monica,

            I have no problem you disagree with Catholic doctrine, that’s your business. Considering that there’s not much about Catholicism you like, maybe you dislike Catholicism totally, then don’t you think it’s time you stop calling yourself “Sister” as if you’re still a Catholic nun? You are NO longer a Catholic nun, and I don’t even think you’re a Catholic. You’re no longer a Catholic nun and there’s hardly anything, if anything, you like about the Catholic religion, so why exactly do you want everyone to address you as “Sister” as if you’re still a Catholic nun?

            I’m sorry, but it makes no sense to address you as if you’re a Catholic nun when you are NO longer a nun and haven’t been a nun for a very long time and plus you’re hardly a Catholic. When you do talk about Catholicism you never say anything positive about the Catholic religion, never. Again, that’s your business — I believe in freedom religion — believe anything you want to, disbelieve any religion you want to.

            But why exactly do we all have pretend you’re a Catholic [ when it’s obvious you don’t like the Catholic religion ] and why do we have to address you as if you’re a Catholic nun even though you’re no longer a Catholic nun and you left the convent, left the religious life, because you hated everything about being a Catholic nun?

            You are NOT a Catholic nun. You’re barely a Catholic, you don’t like anything about the Catholic religion, you always badmouth the Catholic religion, you’re NOT a nun, you’re hardly a Catholic or maybe NOT a Catholic at all, but we’re expected to address you like you’re Catholic nun, and not only that, we’re actually expected to see you as being a devout Catholic nun [ what a joke ] . Which leads to another question : What is wrong with you?

            1. @ TROJ

              Everything you said in that ridiculously long comment was said in the FIRST pargraph! So why did you add three more longwinded paragraphs saying exactly the same thing? What are you suffering from exactly? Is there a medical term for this condition, i.e. involving “obsessive pathological repetition”?

              There has to be a medical term for this condition, but I’m damned if I know what it is.

              1. Re SISTER MONICA

                In response to your complain about Sister Monica not being a Catholic and therefore not entitled to call herself “Sister”, a complaint incidentally you have alread made in about 600 previous comments (!!!), let me just say this:

                (1) Sister Monica believes in the Christian ethos, reads the Bible constantly, goes to Church whenever she can, and, most importantly, has the deepest reverence for Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary;

                (2) Sister Monica, at the same time, rejects many of the Church’s doctrinal teachings or dogmas — which is why she left her Catholic convent. Not booted out, not excommunicated, not evicted. She left voluntarily, partly on grounds of ill health.

                (3) Thousands of nuns do this every year and branch into teaching, often in Catholic schools. Here many of them adopt secular garb, but quite a few of them continue to wear the nun’s traditional habit including the veil or wimple. There is nothing to stop these ex-nuns retaining their former title Sister (Sr) in front of their names. This is done with the full knowledge and consent of the Bishop of the local diocese as well as that of the Head Teacher of the school. It’s all perfectly acceptable and above board.

                (4) IF the nun has been excommunicated or evicted form her former convent for bad behavior, however, she would NOT be allowed to retain her title. In Sister Monica’s case, this prohibition would not apply, given that Sister Monica left her convent without disgrace. She also contributes to various Catholic publications as a paid professional writer and provides her local church with generous donations.

                I hope this explanation will satisfy you; if it doesn’t, it will satisfy most other readers of this website.

              2. Maybe I’m a :

                1 : NPC. NPC’s have a tendency to repeat themselves and when they do it’s called “NPC Disorder” if you’re looking for a term for “this condition”.

                ~ or ~

                2 : maybe you’re very thick-headed and the only way to get thru to you is to constantly repeat the same thing over and over again. “Stubborn as a mule” if you’re looking for a term to use that best describes your condition.

                Those are our only 2 choices, pick one. I’m going with #2. I’m not going with #1 because I pass all of the reCaptcha tests and NPC’s are not capable of passing reCaptcha tests, so the answer has to be # 2. Thank you.

          2. The Doctrine of Original Sin Vs. Reincarnation

            The doctrine of Original Sin is ridiculous. I reject it root and branch. The idea of reincarnation makes much more sense to me. Both doctrines however, as Sister Monica learnedly points out, have no scientific basis. Both are no more than opinions based on faith. Neither opinion can be “proved”. They are simply ways of explaining the world; specifically, of solving the unsolvable problem of all the pain and evil in the world.

            The big difference between these two “opinions” is this:

            Reincarnation is a reasonable and plausible world view which can actually be investigated scientifically. In other words, an actual scientist interviews a whole bunch of children in India who can all remember a past existence, claiming in some cases that their FORMER parents are still alive and living in a neighbouring village. Sounds a bit scientifically dubious; could also be fraudulent; but at least it adds up to “eyewitness testimony”.

            The doctrine of Original Sin, however, cannot be investigated in this quasi-scientific manner. Because the doctrine of Original Sin is based on the bizarre idea that all the suffering and death in the world is INHERITED from our FIRST PARENTS in the Garden of Eden. We are all under sentence of death because of Adam and Eve disobeying God in the Garden of Eden by eating the Forbidden Fruit. Satan, disguising himself as a wily serpent, tempted Eve into eating the fruit and Eve then tempted Adam to do the same thing. This act was the Original Sin, the First Sin ever. No sin has ever had more devastating consequences. Because we, mankind, are the inheritors of this original taint.

            Understand this: Augustine totally rejected the idea that the story of the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden in the Book of Genesis was a “metaphor’ or “symbol” or “myth”. That was an alternative (more reasonable) viewpoint in the early Christian Church which Augustine had initially favoured, but against which he later turned most bitterly. He insisted that the story was LITERALLY TRUE. This was NOT an imaginary garden, a legendary garden, he said, as many earlier Christians claimed. This was a REAL garden somewhere in Mesopotamia and Adam and Eve were REAL PEOPLE. The Serpent, too, was a REAL SERPENT (not a fantasy serpent). 🙂

            How Augustine came to believe this nonsense and get the popes of the Catholic Church to accept it is a long story. Suffice to say Milton was the last in a long line of Christians to believe in the LITERAL TRUTH of the Garden of Eden and he made this abundantly clear in his epic poem “Paradise Lost”. Dante? Yes, he believed in the Genesis myth this too.

            (It was Augustine, incidentally, who waged a bitter war against the “heresy” that the Genesis story of Adam and Eve and the Fall in the Garden of Eden was a “myth” or “symbol” or “metaphor”. The Catholic Church then went ahead and pronounced this view a dangerous “heresy”. Anyone who then promoted this “heresy” was duly excommunicated and sometimes hounded to death.)

            There is not a single reputable scientist in the world today who believes in the Genesis myth or its spinoff, the Doctrine of Original Sin. Many scientists and academic philosophers, however, can be found today who are devout Buddhists and who subscribe to a belief in reincarnation.

            1. St Augustine, like all the Church Fathers, believed in the literal truth of Genesis 1-11 from the time of his conversion. I’d like to see evidence to the contrary. He believed it because it was the teaching of the Catholic Church from the beginning, the Church being preserved from error by the Holy Spirit (the 3rd Person of the Blessed Trinity) promised by Christ (“I will send you [the apostles] the Holy Spirit Who will guide you in all truth”) – but not preserve them or their successors from sin – as it was the belief among the Israelites from the time of Moses, who wrote Genesis, and what he wrote he saw by special revelation from God. But if one doesn’t believe that the Old Testament is the inspired word of God, or that Christianity is the fulfillment of the OT and the one true religion, then of course there is no reason not to believe in the conscience-palliating theory of reincarnation. What happens after death is clearly taught by Christ in the gospels, and has been faithfully taught by the Catholic Church from the time of the apostles and is in the writings of almost all of the saints, such as is in this classic work by one of the Doctors of the Church:
              http://www.amazon.com/Death-Judgment-Heaven-Hell-Meditations/dp/1530479126

              I don’t see how one can dispassionately read the gospels and then then think that there is reincarnation. I don’t see how one can read them and think that they were just made up stories. Did Jesus rise from the dead? If so, there is no reincarnation. If He didn’t, what happened to the body? If it was in anyone’s interest to debunk the gospels, it would be the Jews, and they have said from the time of Christ that He performed miracles through wizardry, i.e., from demons. And it was certainly in their best interest to produce the body.

              Also, how do you explain the apparitions, message, and “Miracle of the Sun” witnessed by about 70,000 at Fatima, and the vision of hell the 3 children experienced? Is that compatible with reincarnation? (Click on my name for a 28 min documentary on it.)

          3. The difference between Buddha and the Vedic sages and Jesus is that the former were wise men, whereas Jesus was and is the incarnate Son of God, both God and man, who performed many miracles, even raising the dead to life, who willingly suffered and died for our sins and rose from the dead. If He didn’t rise from the dead, what happened to the body, and why would the apostles and countless others gladly accept execution if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? Even the Jews could think up nothing better than His disciples came and stole the body while the contingent of Roman soldiers were sleeping (dereliction of duty punishable by death).

            Chesterton (1874-1936) finally became a Catholic in 1922. When asked why, he replied, “To get rid of my sins.” Can a convert or adherent to any other religion/philosophy say the same thing? But like I’ve said before, there was a takeover of the visible structures of the Church in 1958, which is why there was a revolution in the Church which mirrored the revolution in the culture.

            Re- Original Sin, I can think of no better (or more eloquent) explanation than that given by the great Oxford scholar John Henry Newman (1801-1890), who wrote in his acclaimed Apologia Pro Vita Sua (“A Defense of His Life”):

            “To consider the world in its length and breadth, its various history, the many races of man, their starts, their fortunes, their mutual alienation, their conflicts; and then their ways, habits, governments, forms of worship; their enterprises, their aimless courses, their random achievements and acquirements, the impotent conclusion of long-standing facts, the tokens so faint and broken, of a superintending design, the blind evolution of what turn out to be great powers or truths, the progress of things, as if from unreasoning elements, not towards final causes, the greatness and littleness of man, his far-reaching aims, his short duration, the curtain hung over his futurity, the disappointments of life, the defeat of good, the success of evil, physical pain, mental anguish, the prevalence and intensity of sin, the pervading idolatries, the corruptions, the dreary hopeless irreligion, that condition of the whole race, so fearfully yet exactly described in the Apostle’s words, “having no hope and without God in the world,” —all this is a vision to dizzy and appall; and inflicts upon the mind the sense of a profound mystery, which is absolutely beyond human solution.

            “What shall be said to this heart-piercing, reason-bewildering fact? I can only answer, that either there is no Creator, or this living society of men is in a true sense discarded from His presence…“And so I argue about the world;—if there be a God, since there is a God, the human race is implicated in some terrible aboriginal calamity. It is out of joint with the purposes of its Creator. This is a fact, a fact as true as the fact of its existence; and thus the doctrine of what is theologically called Original Sin becomes to me almost as certain as that the world exists, and as the existence of God.”
            (General Answer to Mr Kingsley: https://erenow.net/common/apologia-pro-vita-sua/8.php)

            Also, being a traditional Catholic, I believe the pre-1960s, pre-Vatican II Church to be a truth telling thing. Newman talks about that later in the same chapter. Chesterton does too, in his own inimitable style, in the 2nd part of his acclaimed book, The Everlasting Man, which I put together as a separate book: On the Man Called Christ and the Church He Founded http://www.amazon.com/dp/B08HQ72JD3/ref=sr_1_2

            I’ll close with another GKC quote (he is one of the most “quotable” writers in the English language):

            “The [traditional] Catholic Church hasn’t been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried.”

    3. No one should go through life without reading G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy (1908), the sequel to his also widely acclaimed Heretics (1905), the latter in which he skewers with depth, humor, and ebulliently beautiful prose men like George Bernard Shaw (a good friend of his despite being opposites in philosophy), H.G. Wells, Rudyard Kipling, and other prominent writers of the time. In Orthodoxy he presents his own philosophy, largely inspired by the logical incoherence of his opponents.

      GKC posits Original Sin as the only coherent explanation for the existence of evil, the only alternative being meaninglessness and despair, and in the practical realm, murder or suicide. As he puts it in Orthodoxy:

      “Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin – a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some [people], in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.”
      https://www.ccel.org/ccel/chesterton/orthodoxy.html
      https://www.ccel.org/ccel/chesterton/heretics.html

      See also this much shorter early work:
      https://www.ecatholic2000.com/gk/blatchford/cont.shtml

      1. Darrell is either avoiding me or he ascended bodily up to Heaven where he’s sitting at the right hand of The Father. Darrell is Godlike in his knowledge and acumen and theological ALL-KNOWINGNESS. LMFAO!!!!!

  2. Isaiah 37:29
    29Because your rage and arrogance against Me have reached My ears, I will put My hook in your nose and My bit in your mouth; I will send you back the way you came.’

    https://biblehub.com/isaiah/37-29.htm
    ————————

    Let us assume that the above Bible quote is from God and aimed at us. What does it really mean and imply? If God created us, and is mad at us, and upset that we rage against him then he must not be omniscient because he would have known BEFOREHAND that we would be pissed about being forced to toil. So if God created us anyways then he must be a psychopath, because only a psychopathic crazy deity would create beings that hate and rage against it. Then this insane crazy deity judges us for being pissed at being created and forced into slave labor. God, which can do anything we are told, should have created obedient robots, that would toil and slave without complaint. And because the robot would have no soul, there would be no need to judge it, as a robot just blindly follows it’s program.

    Here is the bottom line, the real original sin is god creating us. No specie wants to be a slave, especially a sentient being like a human. So the very real crime was our creation, no god should have ever created us, and it was a heinous crime to do so. So that means God is not only a crazy psychopath but also a hardened criminal.

    So if you are logical and objective, and also loving and sane, why would you want to know this god, pray to it, love it, or read about it? I do not for the above stated reasons, and if I did then I would be also crazy like it is. And if I worship it out of fear of judgment, then I am not noble, righteous, or a very good person for trying to be the teacher’s pet and confer upon myself privilege. If I pray to God for favors or things, then I am a suck up. If I do it’s bidding and murder God’s enemies ( like those Muslims) then I am a tool.

    So are humans a damned specie? I say yes we are, and the proof is that billion times a day humans curse the creator. So if I was God I would be awfully embarassed at what I created, and after seeing what a fail my human creations are, I would seek to eliminate them.

    I give God the grade of F- for creating man.

  3. I will put my hook in your nose
    Might read ‘I will put my hook up in your nose.”
    This fits in with the swabs that are crammed up the nose nearly to the brain for the fake and useless PCR testing for the covid19 bio-weapon so-called virus.

  4. This poem was written by a 16 year old. No woke youngster here.

    Let’s return the forest to its natural state,
    trust me boys this will be great!
    We’ll shut down the loggers and cut back the cows,
    this will leave more room for wolves and spotted owls.

    We will build little roads for ATV’s,
    and big old camps for boats and RV’s.
    We will lift all restrictions of fire laws,
    let no loggers in with axes or saws.

    Yup, we are goin green that’s what they said,
    send your cattle our way, we’ve got wolves that need fed!
    We will put riparian areas for the elk to eat,
    then make them cowboys keep our fences neat.

    We will measure the grass, mark all the trees,
    we will count all their cattle and collect our fees.
    Those loggers make our forest bare,
    make it look like a mans head that ain’t got no hair.

    That’s what they said many years ago,
    and in takin’ action they wasn’t too slow.
    So the grass grew tall, the forest got thick
    and cowboys and loggers, it made them all sick.

    Now we sit here in a smoke covered town,
    Forest Service trucks runnin’ around.
    This coulda been stopped, but it wouldn’t be heard.
    Those greenies didn’t listen, guess they’d rather it burned.

    As humans we’ve failed to protect our land,
    so Mother Nature stepped in and gave us a hand.
    But it coulda been stopped by fallin some trees,
    and that, I think, now everyone sees.

    So there you go, it’s in its natural state,
    but don’t cry now, it’s already too late.
    You wanted a green forest, you wanted it seen,
    well take a good look cause black’s the new green!
    – Carson Lee

    1. Very applicable poem, insofar as the current topic is concerned. Whatever mankind does on this earth is inspired by his survival and prosperity. Timber is harvested because we build shelters from it. The harvesters do it because it is their livelihood. The by-product is healthy forests less prone to fire disaster. When we interrupt cycles, catastrophes often occur, as we are seeing, now. The healthy practice is moderation in all things. Let young timber stand until it grows into a robust tree. Practice moderation in your life until you have achieved contentment with it. Heaven and Hell BOTH exist on this earth, or there wouldn’t be anything to upset either God or Satan. God gives us something to look forward to. Satan gives us dread. A careful and moderate navigation between the two will absolutely disclose the surety of an after-life. How would you prefer to spend it??

  5. Was it Karl Popper or Kurt Gödel or someone else entirely who asserted, with or without “proof”, that Science proves NOTHING? Certainly axiomatic “Western” sciences fall immediate prey to limits of Man’s nonsecular outreach, strivings to know and to understand GOD’s Creation and the place and role therein of mankind. René Descartes reportedly successfully sold the dialectic dividing the Divine from the Natural, leaving in his wake washing our bifurcated shores today Yogananda’s sweet ditty, “Spirit and Nature dancing together, victory to Spirit, victory to Nature”.

    Alan Watts, bless his soul, spent a lifetime putting the two major pieces of Humpty Dumpty back together again. Who knew beforehand and so intimately delights of dichotomy? In the mean times before and thereafter, conveyed by a series of yogis and other wise men (more than three this time around!), Eastern sciences made their way to rescue hopelessly schizoidal maniacs in the Occident, some whom behaved quite normally to the casual eye, none of whom oriented well to the silent sound of GOD’s name.

    How we ever CON-fused YAHWEH with the Father addressed and referenced by the Master Jesus bespeaks the past power of illiteracy and the Word spun of whole cloth, maya’s veil. Hat’s off to the perpetrators, to the sycophants who perpetuate the Lie. The eight lines of the poem brought immediately to my demented mind lines from The Incredible String Band’s “Dear Old Battlefield”, to wit:

    Just another rusty brother
    Seeing his old role replayed
    Looking in the world like a broken mirror
    Seeing his old face displayed

    They come and go, come and go
    Why do you advertise goodbye
    Living a lie will lay you low
    What can I tell you, what can I sell you
    But the truth will make you high

    Death is unreal, that’s the way I feel
    There’s more to be revealed
    Lovers and friends meet again and again
    On the dear old battlefield

    I will see my memory lightly let me go
    I know that we will always be
    But times pass fast and slow

    Agelong cradlesong almost had me sleeping for good
    If not for the plan of the magic man
    Who finally helped me out of the wood

    On the dear old battlefield

  6. Yukon Jack you are a deep thinker and for my opinion you are right on the money.

    “God, who in the beginning was the creator, appears in the end as revenger and rewarder. Deference to such a God admittedly can produce virtuous actions; however, because fear of punishment or hope for reward are their motive, these actions will not be purely moral; on the contrary, the inner essence of such virtue will amount to prudent and carefully calculating egoism.”

    ― Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena

    Here are four videos which they are maybe the best, about this world and the humans beings
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVFYOKY6QOQ
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JW7NaA4TE8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-5sr0KQnks
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ya6Ts4cmKo

    The hellish nature of the world.
    The main source of evil is man himself: homo homini lupus. Those who quite consider the latter see the world as a hell that surpasses that of Dante by the fact that one must be the devil of the other.

    The world is hell, and the people are on the one hand the tormented souls, on the other hand the devils in it.
    matt

    1. Maybe you have a point to be so pessimistic.

      But if I may make two points:

      (1) Your comment is either on the wrong thread and is totally OFF-TOPIC as far as this poem is concerned. Have you even read the poem? I doubt it. Because if so, you would have mentioned the poem and critiqued it.

      (2) Your pessimistic attitude is meaningless as a factual statement. You are suffering from chronic depression. As was Schopenhauer, a mentally and emotionally sick man…… In the clinical sense. Goethe would have had nothing to do with Schopenhaueur and would have told him: “Get out! I don’t want you as a guest in my house. See a doctor!”

      In short, what are you trying to do? Infect normal, healthy-minded, cheerful people with your pathological melancholia and make us all want to commit suicide? You need medical treatment, my friend. Quick.

      Trying to make cheerful people hang themselves s NOT the solution! 🙂

      1. Yukon Jack doesn’t have the answers.
        He doesn’t even know what the right questions are!
        He believes in the Anunnaki, for God’s sake! 🙂

      2. Wouldst thou the young year’s blossoms and the fruits of its decline
        And all by which the soul is charmed, enraptured, feasted, fed,
        Wouldst thou the earth and heaven itself in one sole name combine?
        I name thee, O Sakuntala! and all at once is said.

        —Goethe

  7. Saki thanks …
    I didn’t think this was a hostile side – where insults are immediately uttered – but please you can have it.

    At first, Goethe and Schopenhauer were friends – I don’t think you’re able to talk about these two.

    Second, I’m not talking about the automatic sensing of hedonists who, without brains like animals, only see life from the pleasure side.

    I am talking about a philosopher who will still be read when there will not even be dust from your bones.
    Honoring your Hollywood education – I think that’s a bit too high for you.

    Furthermore, I replied to Yukon Jack’s first comment – if I want to talk to children’s students, then I ask you first

  8. You can see both sides of the coin – and that doesn’t mean that everyone has to adopt Schopenhauer’s philosophy –
    that everyone has their side – but I doubt that people look at it over themselves or try to filter out the truth content from it.

    That, too, is art,
    is God’s gift,from a few sunny days
    to carry so much light into one’s heart,
    that when summer has long since passed,
    the glow still exists.

    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832)

    1. What are you getting so hysterical for, you angry little fly caught in a bottle?

      You don’t have a monopoly of opinion on this site, “MattfromGermany”. This site is not a replica of Nazi German. I advise to take off your jackboots before you start shouting at other people on this site.

      Adoration of Schopenhaueur is not compulsory, understand? No one is forced to be pessimist just because YOU are!

      As for Goethe, you are not fit to quote him or praise him since you are lack his Olympian serenity and detachment. Goethe belongs to mankind, not to jackbooted German neo-Nazis like you.

    2. Matt, I wouldn’t take the personal insults too seriously. Women often tend to speak and write more from emotional impulse than from dispassionate reason. I know from personal experience here. No offense, Ladies. It’s all good. Men need such chiseling from time to time from the fairer sex to help them grow in virtue. All part of God’s mysterious plan, not willing anything evil but permitting it as a consequence of the gift of free will, and drawing a greater good out of it, the greatest good of course being the salvation of our immortal souls.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *