Archive for January, 2010

The Effect of the Flood of Illegal Immigrants from Mexico and South America on the U.S. Economy

January 31, 2010 Leave a comment

Besides racism, jealousy, and security, about twenty minutes ago it suddenly occurred to me why certain American conservatives and republicans might not want a flood of illegal immigration and to get rid of the ones already in America. When an illegal buys a product from some city in America, they have to pay taxes like everyone else,  and if any are driving through a toll road, they have to pay a toll, and that goes into the local or national treasury. Those taxes help fun food stamps, welfare, and disability and social security income. Familiar with the rantings of Shawn Hannity and Rush Limbaugh (whom many conservatives and republicans trust in), I noticed that they often ranted about how they had to work to survive and get to where they are, and how they don’t like their money being used to pay for illegals to live a nice life without having to work. I’d bet conservatives and republicans also don’t like not being able to lord it over anyone who isn’t working, which they feel they can’t do, if someone can simply say, “A large part of my income comes from the taxes of illegal immigrants” and therefore not from citizens, like Shawn and Rush. So then Shawn and Rush have less to boast about, their pride is wounded if someone can say that they didn’t have to work as hard, and in part survived off the taxes of illegals. Many would say, I’d bet, that Rush and Limbaugh are the leeches, babbling stupidity almost every day for almost three hours a day, and for distracting and misleading millions of Americans.

Update 6:12 P.M., N.M.:

Hmmm, I might be right:

The apparent jealousy over those receiving “free” money or help reminds me of  The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard:

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went. He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing? ‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’ When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’ The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’ But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” – Matthew 20, the N.I.V. Bible

This verse also applies to illegal immigrants who are angry over citizens who get the same amount or more, of what they had to work hard for.

From the N.Y. Times, June 19, 2006

More than half of the estimated seven million immigrants toiling illegally in the United States get a regular paycheck every week or two, experts say. At the end of the year they receive a W-2 form. Come April 15, many file income tax returns using special ID numbers issued by the Internal Revenue Service so foreigners can pay taxes. Some even get a refund check in the mail.

And they are now present in low-skilled jobs across the country. Illegal immigrants account for 12 percent of workers in food preparation occupations, for instance, according to an analysis of census data by the Pew Hispanic Center. In total, they account for an estimated one in 20 workers in the United States.

The building maintenance industry — a highly competitive business where the company with the lowest labor costs tends to win the contract — has welcomed them with open arms. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, more than a quarter of a million illegal immigrants are janitors, 350,000 are maids and housekeepers and 300,000 are groundskeepers.

What Does Michio Kaku Believe and Can He Be Believed?

January 30, 2010 45 comments

Post link:

According to Michio Kaku, about 30% of scientists (polled since WWII) are religious and believe in God. He also believes that the Bible is scientific (Coast to Coast AM interview), good. Some quotes from him:

What was God thinking when the universe was created? That’s where we are going with this thing [the super collider]. … The universe… is quite beautiful… it could have been random… it could have been horrible… that’s what Einstein believed. 11:51-11:52 P.M., 1/29/2010, Coast to Coast A.M.. his reply to the host Art Bell

“God throws dice, what can I say?”- Michio Kaku, 12:41 P.M., 1/29/2010, Coast to Coast A.M.

When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein’s early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realized that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine Order existed in the universe. His life’s calling, he would say, was to ferret out his thoughts, to determine whether he had any choice in creating the universe. Einstein repeatedly referred to this God in his writings, fondly calling him “the Old Man.” When stumped with an intractable mathematical problem, he would often say, “God is subtle, but not malicious. – Hyperspace : A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension, Page: 331

They [science and religion] can be in harmony, but only if rational people on both sides engage in honest debate. Einstein believed in two types of Gods, for example. He did not believe in a personal God, or a God of intervention. He did not believe that God answered our prayers. But he did believe that there was a God of Spinoza. This is the God of Harmony. He said we are like children entering a huge library for the first time, not knowing how to read the thousands of books that are beyond our understanding. Many scientists, therefore, might say that they believe in a God of harmony. For example, scientists believe in a Big Bang that started the universe. But then we have to ask what happened before the Big Bang (more on that later). Then we have to ask where the laws of physics came from. Personally, I think that the laws of physics are the only ones possible, that all other laws are mathematically inconsistent. Thus, God probably had no choice in creating the universe, as Einstein believed. – Kaku’s response in a chatroom to the user FifthDream, who asked him, “Dr. Kaku, what is your opinion on science and religion? Are the two in opposition or can there be harmony?”, 2003

To Michio: you’re always speaking behind Einstein when it comes to whether or not you believe in the God of the Bible or not, or a God who cares about his creation or ever intervenes or whether or not he predestined what will be. Please don’t do this, just say what you believe. Are you afraid of being wrong or ridiculed or discriminated against by the majority of so called “mainstream scientists”? People will ridicule you too, and probably have, for not speaking plainly. Though Jesus often spoke in riddles (and often only implied things) he gave explanations for much of what he said. And if he didn’t, other parts of the Bible usually explain, but where is the information to let us know what you believe about God? Talk about yourself for once, not Einstein, who’s Relativity Theory was wrong.

Update: 2/6/2011 10:20 AM:

Seeing that many people are still looking at this post since I posted it, I decided to watch an uploaded video on Youtube, a segment of a BBC documentary that a rude commenter had pointed out to me last year, but which out of resentment I ignored for a while. But I watched it a few minutes ago and transcribed the parts most relevant to this post:

Michio: “I imagine that eternal life was a powerful incentive for people who worshiped here (Well’s Cathedral). … The problem today though, is tIhat many of us is more skeptical. To get everlasting life in heaven, you have to trust that heaven actually exists. Speaking as a scientist, I think that there is a problem with regards to the afterlife and religious immortality, and that is there’s no proof that it exists. Remarkable claims require remarkable proof. But maybe, you don’t need proof. Well, I do.” – Micho Kaku, BBC Video: There Here After. ”

Later in the video, Michio tours the Grand Canyon with some old male geologist who claimed that “they” (who?) said that it took the stream (the one that usually goes through the Grand Canyon) “5 million years” to carve it out. Michio, after leaving him then said as a wide screen shot of the canyon was being shown, “Unimaginable eons of time are needed for water to carve out valleys.”

How in the world did he miss that the Bible says a worldwide disaster occurred which included it being completely flooded? Not only that, why didn’t he mention floods at all???????? Don’t floods also carve out things and make rapid changes? Doesn’t a constant downpour of rain erode certain hills and mountains and cliffs which have countless times caused devastating mudslides? What a big oversight. Then I found from a video to the side of that one, on Youtube, what after transcribing, was an interview from a beautiful woman named Dr. Kiki:

Dr. Kiki: “…those big questions, theoretical physicists seem to come up those, throughout their entire careers”

Michio: “That’s why I became a theoretical physicist. I wanted to bump up against those big questions.”

Dr. Kiki: “…constantly.”

Michio: “…and so, I mean that’s another question I was really interested in, is that.

Dr. Kiki: “I’ve heard that the majority of, theoretical physicists, are, incredibly spiritual, and, have, a great appreciation for, the concept of consciousness and the soul and the universe and where it came from because these are the questions which they’re constantly, asking. Um, for yourself, how do you, how do you, what’s your view on, life, and, you know, where is it, what are you doing when you teleport. life, if we ever get to that point.”

Michio: “Uh well if I knew the answer to, to life I would have inside track up there (he laughs while motioning with his hand with a thumbs up to Heaven). Uh but let me tell you how we, we, we physicists view things, right. For example, um, Einstein was asked the big question, ‘Is there a God is there a meaning to everything?’ right?”

Dr. Kiki: “Right.”

Michio: “And here’s how Einstein answered the question: He said there really are two kinds of God’s, we have to be very scientific, we have to dih- define what you mean by, ‘God’. If God is the God of intervention, the personal God, the God of prayer, the God that parts the waters, then he had a hard time believing in that, would God listen to all our prayers for, a bicycle for Christmas, and, smite the Philistines for me please (points in front of him as if pointing to them). He didn’t think so, however he believed in the God of order, harmony, beauty, simplicity and elegance; the God of Spinoza. That’s the God that he believed in, because he thought the universe was so gorgeous. It didn’t have to be that way, it could have been chaotic, it could have been ugly, messy. But here we have the fact that all the equations of physics, can be placed on a simple sheet of paper.”

Dr. Kiki: “Right.”

Michio: “Einsteins equation is only, one inch long (makes a inch length with his index finger and thumb of his right hand).”

Dr. Kiki: “Mmmm hmmm.”

Michio: “And the quantum theory is about a yard long(,) but you can squeeze it, on, to, uh, a sheet of paper (the intervew and Michio laugh).”

Dr. Kiki: “Right(,) with a small enough font.”

Michio: “Right. And with string theory you can even put those equations together. And string theory can be, squeezed into an equation one inch long (makes the inch length with his right hand again).”

Dr. Kiki: “Hmm. (with an upward tone).”

Michio: “And that equation by the way is my equation (laughs a little and widens his eyes), that’s string field(?) theory.

Dr. Kiki: “Nice.”

Michio: “That’s my contribution.”

Dr. Kiki: “Right.”

Michio: “But we wanna know, well where did that equation come from, you know? This is what Einstein asked, uh, ‘Did God have a choiccce. Was there any choice in building a universe.’ When he woke up in the morning he would say(,) he would say, ‘I’mwanna create a universe(,) I’m gonna be God today. What kind of universe would I create.'” Then Michio quickly said, “This is how he (Einstein) created much of his theories.”

Note: The interview was casual, Michio was confident, barely nervous-sounding if at all, didn’t have perhaps but a hint of boastfulness which at most was when he credited himself with the invention of string field theory, and it was fast-paced.

After typing this up I looked to see when this interview had been made, and at found this comment (which seems to confirm that Michio said “field” where I put the question mark):

Posted August 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Kaku, as usual, is being dishonest when he takes credit for contributing the equation for string field theory!

Light-cone string field theories were introduced by Stanley Mandelstam and developed by Mandelstam, Michael Green, John Schwarz and Lars Brink. An explicit description of the second-quantization of the light-cone string was given by Michio Kaku and Keiji Kikkawa. (From

I didn’t find out when the Kiki interview was made, but the interview on Youtube which I transcribed, above, was uploaded in April, 2009.

Here’s a video on Youtube in which Michio Kaku says that those who are opposed to the NWO are terrorists.

Related articles:

More on Michio Kaku’s Character Creationism and String Field Theory Controversy

Who Invented String Theory?

Mainstream Science: A Polluted Crowded Stream of Quacks and Cracked Pots

The Contradictory Anti-Christian Attacks of the Narcissist and Freemason, Mark Twain

January 30, 2010 5 comments

The Contradictory Anti-Christian Attacks of the Contradictory,
Narcissist and Freemason, Mark Twain

by Daniel Knight, 11:05 P.M.


The very expensive first floor library of the oh so impoverished sufferer and God-hater, Mark Twain.

Mark Twain, who was named Samuel Clemens by his parents, was born in Florida, Missouri on November, 30, 1835. He was taught Presbyterian doctrine when he was a child. About twenty six years later, on May 22, 1861, he became a Freemason at the Polar Star Lodge No. 79 A.F.&A.M., which was at that time, located in St. Louis. It was there that he obtained the degree (rank) of Fellow Craft on June 12 and later obtained the degree of Master Mason on July 10. He went from being a Presybterian, to a deist, to a doubter of God’s existence, to an atheist. He became morally and logically worse over time, just as the Bible says happens to those who forget his word. Here are various evil things which he said against God:

“If there is a God, he is a malign thug.”

“Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness… It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere.”

“[The Bible] is a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology.”

“It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought”

“If there is a God, he is a malign thug.”

“a God who… mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven”

“It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”

So God, whom Twain expressed overwhelmingly shows more mercy than hatred, expressed by you as “golden rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven”, bothered him, yet he called God’s character that of  “a malign thug”.

“The Bible has noble poetry in it… and some good morals… and upwards of a thousand lies.”

Which is the Bible Mark Vain?: An exact description of a real God, or a book of more than a thousand lies? Who is God Mark Vain?: A malign thug or giver of good morals, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, who makes life so incredible, that even a bitter life is prized by those who hate God as extremely as you? How can a malign thug have “some good morals“? And what were these “good morals“? Which is it?: “Love your neighbor as yourself” or was it “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” which even some of the most  Christian-hating atheists claim are “golden rules“, or “Forgive your enemies”, or “love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.”, or “Don’t pervert justice; don’t show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” or “If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.” or “Religion that God considers pure and acceptable is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”? Oh wait, I know: “Don’t lie”, “Don’t steal”, “Don’t murder”? Which ones of these are the “good morals” that you called “golden rules”? Why didn’t you point them out specifically like you did the opinions of your heart you hypocrite troll?

Mark Twain deluded himself into thinking that he was wiser than God, and in so doing became confused, so that he contradicted himself when he spoke against God. Mark Vain was also a hypocrite who new better than to rant against God:

“In religion and politics, peoples’ beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination.”

“A psalm of David: ‘Jehovah, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill?: He whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from his heart and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellowman, who despises a vile man but honors those who fear Jehovah, who keeps his oath even when it hurts, who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.'” – Psalm 15:1-5

“‘For the director of music. Of David: ‘Those who are morally lacking say in their hearts, “There is no God.”; they are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. Jehovah looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Won’t those who do evil ever learn, those ones who devour my people as men eat bread and who don’t call on Jehovah? There they are, overwhelmed with dread: for God is present in the company of the righteous. You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but Jehovah is their refuge. Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When Jehovah restores the fortunes of his people, let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad! – Psalm 14

Mark Vain should have “examined” his own accusations, should have taken the log out of his own eye before pointing at the splinters he thought he saw in the eyes of those he hated and those he thought he was superior to.

“Our Bible reveals to us the character of our God with minute and remorseless exactness… It makes Nero an angel of light and leading by contrast.”

So why didn’t you fear God enough to keep your false ravings to yourself?

“It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.”

“Strange… a God who could make good children… who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short”

Oh but God, your highness Mark Vain, are you saying you didn’t have the wisdom to think freely or speak freely? Or are you saying that this “malign thug” infinitely worse than Nero – a man whom you admit was evil for massacring and torturing Christians using lies as an excuse to do so – made you the exception? If you are the exception why are your sayings everywhere? How is it over 60 million Christians and believers in a God of “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” have advanced science far more than atheists, if God hasn’t given them good wisdom? How is it Christians have lived and survived for thousands of years if their God does not share his wisdom with them, and is not merciful? How is it you have been allowed to repeatedly blaspheme him in comfort into your old age, if he is without patience, love or mercy? And if life is “so bitter” why did you complain about God mercifully cutting it short you ingrate? Why don’t you point out what life is like for those who die with God’s forgiveness you fault-finder? And if Christians are mere robots, things without a free will, why did you condemn them as being responsible for evil? Stupid criminal!

“Strange… a God who… mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven and [yet] invented Hell”

Poor you, poor criminal: God made an eternal prison for an eternally hateful misleader who used his “free will” and mouth to blaspheme against good instead of to do good.

And, “Of the delights of this world, man cares most for sexual intercourse, yet he has left it out of his heaven”

So Mark Vain: God should have encourage man to become Christians so that they could get their 70 virgins or young beautiful servant boys? Why didn’t you become a Muslim you hypocritical pervert? And you thought that if God doesn’t mention something, IT DOESN’T EXIST? TYPICAL TWISTED ATHEIST LOGIC! And you think God can’t come up with something better than mere sex? Why did you limit God’s wisdom to a stupid man like yourself seeing that he made the universe and all that is in it, including sex, except sin? Stupid babbler.

“Man is a marvelous curiosity. When he is at his very very best he is a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm. Yet he blandly and in all sincerity calls himself the ‘noblest work of God.'”

I thought the Bible was false to call man’s heart so “desperately extremely evil” that it’s evil “cannot be known” by man? I thought it was false to repeatedly teach that Israel’s best deeds were like “filthy rags”? I thought the Bible was false to say that not a single person on Earth ever born was born good and that nearly no good man ever existed on Earth? I thought that Jesus was evil to say that non-Jews were dogs (as many Muslims, and no doubt atheists, believe was evil to say)? Which is it you dead fault-finder who damns God if he does and damns God if he doesn’t? Which is it you jealous corpse? And why do you complain about Hell if you say that man’s worst (wide spread, constant) evil is “unspeakable” and “unimaginable“? And how is it unimaginable if you know to point it out you babbler? You sure loved to babble the confused wicked thoughts of your heart didn’t you! Your babble was jealous of God’s words.

“Faith is believing what you know ain’t so”

No, “faith” means, “Belief in what is unseen (as in NOT SEEN, in other words what you can’t see)”, not “for which you can’t touch, feel, hear, smell or taste” or “for which there is no evidence”. There are so many stupid ignorants thanks to ones like Twain, and because of Satan, that many people think that “blind faith” is one word, or that faith itself means, “blind belief” which they imply “ignorantly believing in something for which there is no evidence”. Examples of this stupid ignorance are from a long-time atheist stalker in the comments section of this article, and one from a Buddhist here, who ironically is claiming while saying “blind faith”, that Buddhism is based on evidence (and yet he doesn’t even understand the difference between faith and evidence): “Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge“. Notice how his understanding is so poor that he uses knowledge in place of evidence, which is not a correct substitute, since a person can have incorrect knowledge which is not evidence. Google has recorded over 1,360,000 instances of the phrase “blind faith” on the Internet, showing wide spread confusion over the word “faith”.

“If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian”

Christian means, “Christ-follower” or “Follower of Christ”. So that statement makes no sense. Though Mark obviously meant, “He wouldn’t act like a Christian”, the statement is still nonsensical, and it stupidly stereotypes all Christians as being the same, even kids who are Christian. In 1910 there were millions of Christians, and many types, so how could Twain have known all the different types enough to pronounce such a judgment, and when according to his biographies, he didn’t spend his time studying Christianity, but only a little of it? He made no comments on the many doctrines of the many types of Christians, showing his ignorance of the subject. Twain was childishly bitter.

“if our Maker is all-powerful for good or evil, He is not in His right mind”

And what was the evidence that Twain base this judgment on?

“At other times, he [Twain] conjectured sardonically that perhaps God had created the world with all its tortures for some purpose of His own, but was otherwise indifferent to humanity, which was too petty and insignificant to deserve His attention anyway.” (Wikipedia/What is man?: and other philosophical writings).

Why would he “conjecture” this if Christ perfectly obeyed God while being persecuted by most of the world for loving God perfectly, and when he suffered an eternity of extreme physical and emotional pain for millions of people compressed into three days, and who still has not broken any of his promises to save mankind, or to have them do great good deeds by helping the needy and saving lives (and they are always doing so)? It was because he hated God, and so denied the truth.

Mark Vain was yet another blind, hypocritical, fault-finding, extremely bitter atheist whose mouth poured out hateful lies in his resentment of God’s justice and proud display of goodness, but one who lead astray millions, and gave birth to millions of mockers. Therefore mocker’s punishment will be severe, when he meets the God he knew was infinitely more dreadful and hateful than Nero.

How revealing of the evil of humanistic atheism that this atheist here doesn’t mention the clearly “good morals” and “golden rules” that his atheist babbling, mocker, hypocrite hero Mark Twain spoke of, but would not preach or put into practice, but only his dead hero’s twaining against God and everyone else’s evil! Truly atheists are “negative”!

Mark Twain will be condemned and then forgotten by the children of Wisdom, but forever remembered by the children of Hell. Mark Twain is dead and his foul words will burn in Hell with him.

The ingrate Mark Twain, enjoying the incredible technology that God allowed Tesla, an anti-social narcissist, to create.

Edison and Blavatsky’s Reasoning Against Darwinism and the Influence of Buddhism and Hinduism On Them

January 30, 2010 3 comments

Blavatsky’s Reasoning Against Darwinism, Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution”:

Suppose an Occultist were to claim that the first grand organ of a cathedral had come originally into being in the following manner. First, there was a progressive and gradual elaboration in Space of an organizable material, which resulted in the production of a state of matter named organic PROTEIN. Then, under the influence of incident forces, those states having been thrown into a phase of unstable equilibrium, they slowly and majestically evolved into and resulted in new combinations of carved and polished wood, of brass pins and staples, of leather and ivory, wind-pipes and bellows. After which, having adapted all its parts into one harmonious and symmetrical machine, the organ suddenly pealed forth Mozart’s Requiem. This was followed by a Sonata of Beethoven, etc., ad infinitum; its keys playing of themselves and the wind blowing into the pipes by its own inherent force and fancy. … What would Science say to such a theory? – SD ii 348

But there are certainly “designers,” though these are neither omnipotent nor omniscient in the absolute sense of the term. They are simply Builders, or Masons, working under the impulse given them by the ever-to-be-unknown, (on our plane) Master Mason — the ONE LIFE and Law. Belonging to this sphere, they have no hand in, or possibility of working on any other, during the present Manvantara, at any rate. That they work in cycles and on a strictly geometrical and mathematical scale of progression, is what the extinct animal species amply demonstrate; that they act by design in the details of minor lives (of side animal issues, etc.) is what natural history has sufficient evidence for.

In the creation of new species, departing sometimes very widely from the Parent stock, as in the great variety of the genus Felis—like the lynx, the tiger, the cat, etc.—it is the “designers” who direct the new evolution by adding to, or depriving the species of certain appendages, either needed or becoming useless in the new environments. Thus, when we say that Nature provides for every animal and plant, whether large or small, we speak correctly.

“I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States.” – Thomas Edison

“I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. [And whatever I can’t see” cannot exist.]” – Thomas Edison

“So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake… Religion is all bunk.” – Thomas Edison

“To those searching for truth – not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” – Thomas Edison

Below are selected quotes (with my comments between brackets, except one which is “[]” showing that I deleted a useless literary device) from the book Edison[:] Inventing the Century, by Neil Baldwin:

Mme. Blavatsky sent Edison a gift copy of Isis Unveiled along with application forms for membership in the Theosophical Society, which included among its diverse American adherents, Doubleday and William James. Edison immediately signed the papers, returning them to Mme. Blavatsky’s colleague Colonel Henry Steel Olcott, cofounder of the [Theosophical] Society… Edison’s cordial note read, “Please say to Madame Blavatsky that I have recovered her curious work and I thank her for the same. I SHALL READ BETWEEN THE LINES!” (A decade later however, perhaps in reaction to a report published in England by the Society for Physcical Research asserting that Mme. Blavatsky was a fraud, Edison vehemently denied articles in the press” the article’s appearing in the press quoting Colonel Olcott as stating that the famous inventor [Edison] was a card-carrying dues-paying Theosophist. Edison insisted that Olcott was mistaken even after the Colonel wrote to Edison [saying] that the signed membership form as well as a second letter from Edison acknowledging receipt of the Diploma of Fellowship were [both] enshrined in the Society’s international headquarters in Madras, India.)
Toward mid December 1878, four days before leaving America permanently for India, Mme. Blavatsky, who had become a naturalized citizen because, she said, “America is the only land of true freedom in the whole world,” and Colonel Olcott arranged a trip to Menlo park, as two members of the still ongoing celebrity parade to New Jersey. [Note, that previous paragraph seems to be grammatically wrong, perhaps because it says “and” when it shouldn’t. The author also should have said, “decided to become a naturalized citizen”]. When Mme. Blavatsky fell ill with discomfort from an emergency tooth extraction, and much to her chagrin was unable to make the journey, the Colonel went alone. He approached Edison not only as a fellow Theosophist, but also as honorary secretary to a Citizen’s National Committee created to act as a liason with the French government for the purpose of planning a major international industrial exposition in Paris for the coming year. Olcott hoped that the inventor would want to participate, which he most assuredly did. [“most assuredly did”? Pretentious.]
Having accomplished their business, the two men strayed off naturally enough into a conversation about “occult forces,” a field in which Edison had already done some exploring. Edison regaled (and intrigued) Olcott by telling him that he had attempted through the dynamism of will power (conducted via rubber tubes extending from his forehead) to move a pendulum suspended on the wall of his laboratory. Olcott narrowed the discussion of mental energy in general into the directly psychological realm…
Over the years up to and even beyond the flap over Edison’s affiliation with the Theosophical movement, Mme. Blavatsky, who was extremely prolific–her Collected Works take up more than ten thousand pages in fourteen volumes–published several articles discussing in partisan terms her ideas about his work; even though they never actually met, she was a deep admirer with a clear sense of the affinities between what Edison was after and what Theosophy valued: “Had our Brother Theosophist, Thomas Alva Edison, the inventor of the telephone and the phonograph, lived in the days of Galileo,” she wrote in her essay, “Magic” [yeah magic is just such a big contribution to science, hypocrite pagan], published in the Dekkan Star, Poona, India, in March 1879, “he would have surely expiated at the stake his sin of having found the means to fix on a soft surface of metal, and preserve for long years the sounds of the human voice; for his talent would have been pronounced the gift of Hell [oh yeah and don’t you know the pagans never did anything wrong and were such great scientists who peacefully gave us science, NOT. And what a cheap shot idiot: perpetuating the myth that Galileo was physically tortured and killed, when the truth is that he was given a luxury confinement. At least she didn’t say “The Church” or “Christians would have burned you alive.” Interesting also that she failed to mention that atheists had persuaded certain Catholics to persecute Galileo.] . . . Divine Wisdom has been discovered by Mr. Edison . . . in eternity of sound.”
In a March 1890 essay, “The Cycle Moveth,” [nope no pretention there, not] she approvingly cited Edison’s Monadic conception of matter, his intimation that there was a supreme unity manifesting itself within all particulate life, as expressed during an interview with G. Parsons Lathrop in a recent issue of Harper’s: “I do not believe that matter is inert, acted upon by an outside force. To me [] it seems that every atom is possessed by a certain amount of primitive intelligence; look at the thousand ways in which atoms of hydrogen combine with those other elements. . . . Do you mean to say they do this without intelligence?”
One month later, incensed to discover that “Brother Edison” was ridiculed and demeaned in the Review of Reviews as a “dreamer” for these Harper’s remarks, Mme. Blavatsky leaped to his defense yet again as a holistic think, a man with the spiritual wherewithal to accept the feasibility of a universal reality. [I can see from that nonsense statement where some of the New Age nonsense teachings came from.] In a provocative, indignant piece called “Kosmic Mind,” she took Edison’s side: “Would to goodness the men of science exercised their ‘scientific imagination’ a little more and their dogmatic and cold negations a little less. Dreams differ,” she wrote. [‘Whatever’ plagiarizing pagan. But you were right about (mainstream) scientists, the neo-skeptics, being dogmatic and (spiritually) short-sighted.] – pages 94-95

There was an old story that, on the day of his wedding to Mary Stilwell, the preoccupied Edison had to be roused from an experiment to get to the proverbial church on time. True or not, here was a man who, although he did give in to the tropical tranquility and sleep later than his accustomed dawn-breaking hour, needed to be close to his work. [And the author knows this how? And could you get any more pretentious with the pointlessly fancy wording?] The intellectual nature of that labor does seem to have been shaped by the major changes to his emotional life; it had returned, for a while at least, to a more spiritual plane, the kind of thinking that had been so seductive to Mme. Blavatsky and her followers. Ever since Mary’s death, Edison had spoken on occasion publicly of metaphysical concerns, his belief that within every atom, every subdivision of nature, there could be found “a certain amount of primitive intelligence . . . Look at the thousand ways in which atoms of hydrogen combine with those of other elements, forming the most diverse substances. Do you mean to say that they make animals of the lower orders. Finally they combine in a man, who represents the total intelligence of all the atoms.”
“But where does this intelligence come from originally?” he was asked.
“From some greater power than ourselves,” was the reply.
“Do you then believe in an intelligent Creator, a personal God?”
“Certainly,” said Mr. Edison. “The existence of such a God, in my mind, can almost be proved by chemistry.”
“This of it! A man in this skeptical century who dares believe in a discovery beyond all discoveries,” Edison’s shamelessly editorializing visitor concluded. “Here is a student of nature who is not afraid to have the spirit of a Galileo or a Kepler or an Isaac Newton . . . And so we discover down on Avenue B, in the prosaic city of New York, a philosopher who believes in a personal God.”
In the wonderful opening scene of the 1940 MGM classic, Edison, the Man, Spencer Tracy, playing the elderly but mellowed curmudgeon to fairytale perfection, is surrounded by a group of adoring children, smiling benignly upon them as the innocent questions come thick and fast, until with ultimate humility he smiles and points heavenward, saying, “That’s the real Inventor!” This was a statement from life, not a life concocted by the scriptwriter. – page 172

So, Edison was a creationist, he believed in intelligent design, but he rejected the designer’s master plan of salvation.


Apparently Tesla undertook a self-imposed vow of chastity, having been influenced in part by Swami Vivekananda, who preached chastity as the path to self-transformation and enlightenment.
Tesla met the Swami on February 13, 1896, at a dinner with Sarah Bernhardt after one of her performances in the play Iziel. As with the rest of the world, Tesla had first heard of the Swami during the summer of 1893 when the “Hindoo” gained overnight prominence after speaking at the Congress of World Religions, which had been held at the Chicago World’s Fair. As Tesla had been in Chicago within a month of the talk, it is conceivable that he met or saw the Swami speak at that time.
Vivekananda told “the great electrician” about “Vendantic Prana [life force] and Akasa [ether], which according to [Tesla], are the only theories modern science can etertain.”
Having studied Madam Blavatsky’s theosophical teachings, Tesla was already versed in the idea of Akasa and the Akashic Records, which are, in essence, the records of all historical events existing in some vibratory state in this ether.
“The Brahma, or Universal Mind,” the Swami continued, “produces Akasa and Prana.”
Tesla agreed with the essential premise of this Buddhist view, replying that the theory could be “proved mathematically by demonstrating that force and matter are reducible to potential energy,” and then the inventor invited Swami Vivekananda, some of his devotees, and Sarah Bernhardt to his laboratory for the following week to demonstrate through experiments this principle.
After Tesla showed the swami some of his “creations,” the swami advised that pure creation, in the sense that “something” was born from “nothing” was not possible. To Swami Vivekananda, creation was a process of combining existing elements into a new synthesis. This idea of the eternal nature of existence with no beginning and no ending was appealing to Tesla, and he later referred to this and related concepts in some of his writings. – Wizard: the life and times of Nikola Tesla, biography of a genius, pages 164-165, by Marc J. Seifer

all the great religions contain wise prescriptions relating to the conduct of life, which hold good now as they did when they were promulgated.

There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without. Owing to the similarity of our construction and the sameness of our environment, we respond in like manner to similar stimuli, and from the concordance of our reactions, understanding is barn. In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call “soul ” or “spirit,” is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the “soul” or the “spirit” ceases likewise.

I expressed these ideas long before the behaviorists, led by Pavlov in Russia and by Watson in the United States, proclaimed their new psychology. This apparently mechanistic conception is not antagonistic to an ethical conception of life. The acceptance by mankind at large of these tenets will not destroy religious ideals. Today Buddhism and Christianity are the greatest religions both in number of disciples and in importance. I believe that the essence of both [is what] will be the religion of the human race in the twenty-first century.

The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man’s new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct, Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.

Hygiene, physical culture will be recognized branches of education and government. The Secretary of Hygiene or Physical Culture will he far more important in the cabinet of the President of the United States who holds office in the year 2035 than the Secretary of War. The pollution of our beaches such as exists today around New York City will seem as unthinkable to our children and grandchildren as life without plumbing seems to us. Our water supply will he far more carefully supervised, and only a lunatic will drink unsterilized water.

More people die or grow sick from polluted water than from coffee, tea, tobacco, and other stimulants. I myself eschew all stimulants. I also practically abstain from meat. I am convinced that within a century coffee, tea, and tobacco will be no longer in vogue. Alcohol, however, will still be used. It is not a stimulant but a veritable elixir of life.” – Liberty, February, 1937, by Nikola Tesla, as told to George Sylvester Viereck

God would have made Tesla’s life one of constant joy and success if Tesla’s mind had rejected the mental Darwin virus and the myth that Christianity was a myth and asked God for forgiveness and accepted the way he commanded us to live. The same for Edison who oppressed and betrayed Tesla greatly.

It’s interesting to see that neo-pagans like Blavatsky and Edison could still see the error of Darwinism clearly, and that Tesla seemed to avoid endorsing evolution, that the New Age movement didn’t embrace Darwinism, but that eventually, thanks to atheists and the desire of neo-pagans to hold high-paying positions and to repel Christians, because Intelligent Design was one of the first and basic teachings of the Bible, which it stated clearly and specifically and that God creating the universe and all the life in it is used as a reason by the Bible and many Christians (especially Calvinists, of whom there are millions) to revere and obey God.

Related Articles:

More information on Madame Blasphemy:

Scientific Errors in Hinduism (it’s misleading to say “Scientific Errors” as if only a select few people were scientists (everyone is a scientists because we all learn using a scientific method that God naturally programmed into us all, some just ignore that instinct it at times and choose folly).
Contradiction in Buddhist Argumentation:
Karma Contradiction in Buddhism: (even an atheist can see a contradiction in Buddhism)

The Case for Global Government, from the Likely Perspective American Elitists

January 29, 2010 Leave a comment

Two days ago, at about 4 A.M., I thought of what advantage it would be to American Elitists, and the liberals of America, for America to lose it’s status as a country, and to merely become a province in a global world government, along with China also becoming a province. I wondered, because to turn America over to such a government would result in many in Congress possibly, and perhaps likely, losing their high ruling position. I thought that they, not wanting to go down in history as villains: They know that at least half of America blames them for making Americans the virtual slaves of China by often borrowing large amounts of money from China and usually not paying China back. The part of Congress not wanting to go down in history as evil, I think, is hoping that America’s debt will be voided, nullified, forgiven, if they become a province of a world government, including China, or even as part of China. And perhaps American liberals and their foreign family members and friends think this will happen too, and don’t want to look evil due to the leaders they voted in causing America to become a virtual slave to militant, oppressive, pollute-as-it-grows China. I don’t think that this will happen even if it comes true, because, I suspect, the non-Christian Han Chinese, many of them, believe that they are superior to other races, including other Chinese-races, and will want their money back, and take as much of America’s resources and money as they think is good (perhaps even taking American slaves, and their organs – I believe they will most likely make slaves of convicts and take their organs, being that prisoners are already legally used as slaves in America and because America’s prisons are overcrowded), and even when the Han think they have been paid back, will want to keep their advantage and continue to oppress America). Further, there is an estimated amount of 300 million poverty stricken citizens of China, and to prevent that number from further growing, and civil war, and wanting to be seen as wise and good, what remains of the Chinese government will push for those above them, if anyone, to take from America to at least quiet the anger of the poverty stricken among them, and the many well-off Chinese citizen’s who are friends or relatives of the poor ones who will most likely find forgiving America’s debt wrong. Threat’s to use their nuclear missiles, or hidden nuclear bombs, directly or via fake Chinese dissenters, might be used by the remaining Chinese government to scare whoever is over them, if anyone, into giving in to their demands. I have no doubt that whoever the world leaders or world leader is, will happily drain America’s resources, money and strength of America’s young and old, female and male, in their hatred of fundamentalist Christianity, hoping to rid America of it, in their hatred for truth. Do you think I am right? If not or if so, why or why not?

Shawn Hannity and Governor Rick Perry: Trojan Traitors

January 28, 2010 1 comment

Two days ago, on the Shawn Hannity Show, against a commercial break, a Shawn accepted a call from a female caller, and she told Shawn that there was someone more conservative than Gov. Rick Perry running to be the governor of Texas. Shawn asked her who that was, and she said “Debra Medina“. And she told Shawn that she was better because Perry was not showing that he was against the Trans-Texas Corridor which she told Shawn was a scheme to take away people’s property. Shawn replied, “Look, this idea that we can split votes between conservatives… this is an issue I will bring up in the days to come.” And then the show went to commercial. No surprise to me he said nothing about it yesterday, and probably nothing about it today. May God cause you to confess your pride, greed and hatred of truth and cause you to repent.

More about Gov. Rick Perry:

Youth rape scandal.

Perry Orders That Sixth Grader’s to Be Vaccinated Against Sexually Transmitted Disease.

Rick Perry’s Ties With Merck Run Deep

(Note: I thought I had published this yesterday.)

Massive Amount of New Powerful Scientific Evidence of Souls, Life After Death, Angels, and for the Son of God

January 26, 2010 5 comments

On the Jan. 25, 2010 edition of Coast to Coast A.M., the founder of the Near Death Experience Research Foundation, Dr. Jeffrey Long, discussed the results of his scientific research on near death experiences (NDEs) in which he accumulated the largest or one of the largest amounts of evidence supporting the existence of God, the human soul and it’s continued existence after the near death or temporary death of humans. The host was George Noory. Yet more evidence that shows that philosophies and religions contrary to a single all-powerful, loving, ultra-intelligent God are wrong.

Dr. Long with a partner wrote a book documenting his research titled Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences.