Stepping up to the plate with regard to radical Islam.

I think it is probably correct to interpret the position of radical Islam to be that the state is stronger that entrusts its government to those of its population who are recognized to be the most spiritual. This is written into the Koran.


Therefore it is possible that radical Islam, when it found out that I had seen on a building the same fire that Moses saw on a bush, and also found out that this fact was known to the top monarchy of the United States, that it was considered by radical Islam that the United States was weak because it had not trusted me to assume the role of government.

This organization of the facts, I might speculate, can be developed into a strategy for maintaining legitimacy in the world's top spiritual leaderships of an attack on the United States.

It would be nice if I could just think this and write words of leadership of the United States. To a certain extent I do this. However, it is not government. Government involves checks and balances. What I have is thinking in the dark about the impact of what I say and write. It's all guesswork.

If I knew that what I wrote was law, I certainly wouldn't write so indiscriminantly as I have done to date, largely trying to establish myself as an authority.

Authority and government are different.

Any ruling body which finds a  voice among its people that commands attention for one reason or another must assess how best to incorporate that voice into the rule of the people. In my case, the matter of my place in rule has been attacked within the organization. I cannot count on anything I write or do being parsed favorably. The position of my attackers within the organization is unknown to me. Also, the point at which they first packaged my life as undesirable is unknown to me. As a result, as I said before, I strike out into the dark.

One could imagine that attacks by Al Qaeda have been less spectacular since 9/11 because I have until now refrained from putting to words my interpretation of the attacks. To a certain extent it's a matter of belief. I am still pretty much a modest person and don't like to attribute world events to myself. When I do act to have such an effect it is usually not specifically designed to have a certain effect on my place in the world downstream from any such effects, only to perturb the world. It is my feeling, and a blatant one, that my poverty is the result of someone's doing, not any result of the law of averages affecting all the various things I have tried in an attempt to escape it. Not only the bottom line of my enterprises have been zero, but also the components of each one have followed the path of zero tolerance for productivity. It doesn't take complex thinking to imagine some scenario in which someone might at some point have concluded, for very concrete reasons, that I am worthless despite this or that success all throughout my life. Environments vary widely and certainly some might find me undesirable. I find this no reason to give up. The total environment has the kind of specifications of its rulers that the master of any small environment will have the basics that could manage a place there. This is the grounds on which political candidates are given a green light for positions of great power. It is a fairly straightforward process. My task will not benefit from an attempt to guess what objections these people have to me and then addressing them with some combination of defense and reform. This I conclude from the standpoint of the structure and dynamics of information. I cannot know the nature of the complaints. It is not that I have a certain attitude about it. It is that my existence is ruled by a certain economic principle which consistently persuades me not to go looking beyond a certain level of composure for the evidence of such complaints. This is inherent within a mindset that chooses to imbue a large environment with goodwill and leadership that it clearly otherwise lacks. The indifference to complaints begins early in such a venture.

The invisible hand in my economics of life made itself deducible when my father told me I wasn't going to get into Yale College. I believe I treated this information as only that. Had I been devoted to an agenda I might well have given it great importance and struggled with it in aggravation. So many years have gone by now that my aggravation is devoted to a whole universe of concerns about my fate. So long as I can rely on the word of IPBI (see my autobiography, segment 7100, item id 8656) that I am First (the only sensible interpretation of this being it refers to a monarchy in the United States) then I know that there is some agency with rulership powers here that will have reason to include an attribution of ability to rule in all its attributions of me, and that any attempt I make to do honor to such a position will include possible realizations of such honor. Unfortunately, this is as yet a pursuit of authority, not government, and the core problem of my life is unaddressed by this.

I will look forward to the development of governing powers in the plans for me. I would meet them with a change of approach. I don't believe any structures exist for such a development. I would go in that direction if there were an expression of interest. I would not if there were not. We already know monarchies exist without published inclusion in the Constitution. I myself do not know what documents apply to the rule of the monarchy that inducted me. I find it hard to believe that they would not exist within law, particularly since my discovery of a bulletin at the Yale Law School that referred to monarchies in the U.S., discussed in the autobiography, segment 5300, item id DCAD.

It is my judgment that government by me would require a different documentation than exists now in support of my place in this monarchy. I have pretty much gone the route with this state of affairs. I don't want it to be represented that my being spiritual has anything to do with religion. For me, it has always been a matter of survival. This produces the corollary of putting my descendants on an equal plane as I keep for myself. There is no other use for much of what I have learned than my descendants avoiding more effectively what I avoided only to the point of immolation. A well governed population is a better substrate for conferring survival logistics upon one's own offspring. They provide exceptions.

Islam today.

It might serve understanding of current global politics if I say something about my role in it all.

First, there is the matter of my advice to certain bodies of power in the United States, given at some time in the past--perhaps a few years ago. It was a time of great feelings of instability between the motives due to a sense of violation, on the one hand, and the motives of historic compassion among peoples of the Christian faith, on the other. I sensed at that time that the real danger was not in the actual forces at play, but in these feelings of instability. With that sense in my forethoughts, I issued an advisory to certain powers which had been following my work and progress, to the effect that it was my view that those with the responsibility of defining policy at a high level of authority needed to make a decision of whether they would stand as opponents to Islam in an absolute way because of its association with the new global terrorist threats, even though this association did not necessarily justify identifying the one with the other, or, rather than that, taking some other stance. I intended no hint of personal favoratism in such a decision, and I believe none was taken. As a result, certain powers moved quietly toward a more robust position of opposition to all of Islam than had been given serious consideration before my advice was given. I have no position on whether this position of opposition is valid or invalid. I consider it a religious matter and I am not devoted to any religious partisanship so such matters strike far from my most fervent desires.

I have instead of a position on the relationship between Islam and Christianity a position on the relationship between religion and science. It is that, in my view, science yields results which have greater validity than any results of religious endeavor. The sphere of human life, as that of all life, is greater than any religious crystalization of principles can ever gather together. Instead, religious principles are crafted so that the considerations which science takes as necessary, that of proof and consistency, can be safely discounted and belief substituted for them, with what has been historically a fairly good improvement over what went on before any of the religions were conceived. Such a method, that of religion, is suitable for promulgation and reflective consideration of broadly based principles which go beyond what science can currently provide on a more objective basis, and this is helpful. But I would suggest that there is merit in applying what Jesus said, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's." to science and religion. This would disengage religion from the question of evolution, an incendiary suggestion admittedly, but something which I think Jesus might have found to have great practicality were he living today. It would also tend to allow all religions to stabilize their growth against other developments, including other religions, and take some satisfaction in being allowed some significant credit for their beneficence, while at the same time take some humility to heart in the face of such massive blessings from science that have accompanied the gradual loosening of the hold of religion on the universal scope of mankind's enterprises.

Let this be read as the thought of a deeply modest scientist who formerly engaged one or two religions as an adherent, to one or other degree of faithfulness.

Islam is retardative to progress.

All religion is retardative to progress. This includes Islam. Science has replaced religion as beacon for the future.

Why H. sapiens struggles without knowing why

The central reason H. sapiens struggles without knowing why is that he thinks others see everything he thinks he is when he speaks. Over time he becomes more convinced he has a certain identity whereas actually what he has is an expanding collection of permissions to set aside facts. The unknowingness this produces can be discovered fairly easily and long ago women did so and applied it to their sexual ambitions. This is the origin of glamor.

It is possible that Mohammad made this discovery. Islam's defenses against women developing glamor may be motivated by it. The militancy of these defenses indicates the workings of an informed directorate. However, Islam has not solved the central problem, which is the spread of the spoken of error into the population.

United States no longer corrupt and materialistic in my view

With the election of Barack Obama I consider that the United States can no longer be characterized as a corrupt, materialistic society, and therefore I look for a change in policy of radical Islam toward this country inasmuch as I think of that faction as innocent and aware of realities and therefore as able as I to perceive the implications of the election. I await signal of this change and if they do not come in a reasonable amount of time I will change my policy of support for radical Islam to one of opposition, to the furthest extent of my powers.