Page 1 of 22

New Discovery

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:15 am
by peacegirl

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:13 am
by Tristan
I'm interested. Feel free to post anything you'd want feedback on.

New Discovery

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:06 am
by peacegirl
Tristan wrote:I'm interested. Feel free to post anything you'd want feedback on.

Tristan, I appreciate your interest but when you say that I should feel free to post anything I want feedback on is too premature. Of course, I would love to discuss the discovery once I explain it, but once again, how can I answer to any feedback when I haven't posted anything? Either I am allowed to post or not? I'm still confused here. Are you a moderator?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:20 am
by Carleas
You can post long tracts here, but there's no guarantee that people won't give you feedback as you go. If you want that, you should do the Symposium.

Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:43 am
by peacegirl
Carleas wrote:You can post long tracts here, but there's no guarantee that people won't give you feedback as you go. If you want that, you should do the Symposium.

The symposium is something I might try later on but because this is a book, not an essay, I am not sure if I even qualify. I do think that this site, being that it recognizes the necessity of posting longer tracts for some subjects, is much more flexible than other sites I have been to. The goal is to be able to have people read what is necessary to make real progress in understanding the text. If people want to interject remarks that's okay with me, but I will post what I think is necessary in order to have an objective discussion; not a half baked one. I will post some more tomorrow.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:20 pm
by peacegirl
Skepticism alone is
not the primary problem that is preventing this knowledge from coming to
light, as everyone who hears my of my discovery would be skeptical. The
main problem is the pride of those people who consider themselves highly
educated scholars at the very top echelon of thought and knowledge. They
are more interested in who you are than what you have to say. Before this
group will even consent to listen you must qualify not by what you are
prepared to prove in a mathematical manner, but by your educational rank.

Do you see what a problem I have? I can’t convince these people to give me
the time even though I have made discoveries that will benefit all mankind.
This pride is the first half of the primary problem; that the very people who
have the intellectual capacity to understand the knowledge in this book
refuse to investigate what must reveal, if proven true, how unconsciously
ignorant they have always been. Is it any wonder they don’t want to check it
out? And even if they do, could they be objective enough when their
reputation for wisdom and knowledge is at stake? To overcome this
stubborn resistance and bring about this new world, it is imperative that the
knowledge in this book be adequately understood which requires that the
reader does not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and
false, but that he understand the difference between a mathematical relation
and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused
with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the
logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years.

purposes of clarification please note that the words scientific and
mathematical only mean undeniable, and are interchanged throughout the
text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion
of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not
necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be
exact and scientific. Consequently it is imperative to know that this
demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your
moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make
up your own rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very
life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to win, to
bring about this Golden Age that will benefit to stick to the
rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not
satisfy your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then it is obvious that
you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth, but only with
retaining your doctrines at all cost. However, when it is scientifically
revealed that the very things religion, government, education and all others
want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from
becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into
a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to
the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the
relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time
immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that
brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure
of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to
disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its
veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your
religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold,
your I.Q., your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of
expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation
whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8.
Whether or not you understand this mathematical relation has no bearing on
the truth, so please do not to be too hasty in using what you have been taught
as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you
should decide to give me the benefit of the doubt – deny it – and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:24 pm
by Sauwelios
peacegirl wrote:I am going to continue cutting and pasting

Have you already cited from the book, then?

With all due respect, I would appreciate it if you got to the point sooner rather than later.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:34 pm
by peacegirl
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:I am going to continue cutting and pasting

Have you already cited from the book, then?

With all due respect, I would appreciate it if you got to the point sooner rather than later.

I know you want me to spit it out Sauwelios and so does everyone else. Patience is in short supply but in order for me to give this work justice I MUST present it in a certain order. If you can bear with me it will be worth your while. If this is too frustrating then maybe you need to come back to it at a later date when I have finished cutting and pasting and read at your own pace. I also want to mention that jumping ahead and reading from the middle will not be fair to this work because we must have a foundation in order to understand the extension.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:36 pm
by peacegirl
According to Richard Milton in his book ‘Alternative Science,
Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment’, we are living in a
time of rising academic intolerance in which important new discoveries in
physics, medicine, and biology are being ridiculed and rejected for reasons
that are not scientific. Something precious and irreplaceable is under attack.
Our academic liberty – our freedom of thought – is being threatened by an
establishment that chooses to turn aside new knowledge unless it comes from
their own scientific circles.

Some academics appoint themselves vigilantes
to guard the gates of science against troublemakers with new ideas. Yet
science has a two thousand year record of success not because it has been
guarded by an Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating. It has succeeded
because bad science is driven out by good; an ounce of open-minded
experiment is worth any amount of authoritative opinion by self-styled
scientific rationalists. The scientific fundamentalism of which these are
disturbing signs is found today not merely in remote provincial pockets of
conservatism but at the very top of the mainstream management of science
on both sides of the Atlantic. Human progress has been powered by the
paradigm-shattering inventions of many brilliant iconoclasts, yet just as the
scientific community dismissed Edison’s lamp, Roentgen’s X-rays, and even
the Wrights’ airplane, today’s “Paradigm Police” do a better job of
preserving an outdated mode of thought than of nurturing invention and
discovery. One way of explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with
the new, even when there is plenty of concrete evidence available, is to
appeal to the natural human tendency not to believe things that sound
impossible unless we see them with our own eyes – a healthy skepticism.
But there is a good deal more to this phenomenon than a healthy skepticism.

It is a refusal even to open our eyes to examine the evidence that is plainly in
view. And it is a phenomenon that occurs so regularly in the history of
science and technology as to be almost an integral part of the process. It
seems that there are some individuals, including very distinguished
scientists, who are willing to risk the censure and ridicule of their colleagues
by stepping over that mark. This book is about those scientists. But, more
importantly, it is about the curious social and intellectual forces that seek to
prohibit such research; those areas of scientific research that are taboo
subjects; about subjects whose discussion is forbidden under pain of ridicule
and ostracism. Often those who cry taboo do so from the best of motives: a
desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific enlightenment is not corrupted
by the credulous acceptance of crank ideas and that the community does not
slide back into what Sir Karl Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of
opinion’. Yet in setting out to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some
scientific purists are adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable
from the tyranny they seek to resist. These modern skeptics are sometimes
the most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of science
impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth. And this
raises the important question of just how we can tell a real crank from a real
innovator – a Faraday from a false prophet. Merely to dismiss a carefully
prepared body of evidence – however barmy it may appear – is to make the
same mistake as the crank. In many ways cold fusion is the perfect paradigm
of scientific taboo in action. The high priests of hot fusion were quick to
ostracize and ridicule those whom they saw as profaning the sacred wisdom.
And empirical fact counted for nothing in the face of their concerted

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:40 pm
by peacegirl
The taboo reaction in science takes many distinct forms. At its simplest
and most direct, tabooism is manifested as derision and rejection by
scientists (and non-scientists) of those new discoveries that cannot be fitted
into the existing framework of knowledge. The reaction is not merely a
negative dismissal or refusal to believe; it is strong enough to cause positive
actions to be taken by leading skeptics to compel a more widespread
adoption in the community of the rejection and disbelief, the shipping up of
opposition, and the putting down of anyone unwise enough to step out of
line by publicly embracing taboo ideas.

The taboo reaction in such simple
cases is eventually dispelled because the facts – and the value of the
discoveries concerned – prove to be stronger than the taboo belief; but there
remains the worrying possibility that many such taboos prove stronger (or
more valuable) than the discoveries to which they are applied. In its more
subtle form, the taboo reaction draws a circle around a subject and places it
‘out of bounds’ to any form of rational analysis or investigation. In doing
so, science often puts up what appears to be a well-considered, fundamental
objection, which on closer analysis turns out to be no more than the
unreflecting prejudices of a maiden aunt who feels uncomfortable with the
idea of mixed bathing. The penalty associated with this form of tabooism is
that whole areas of scientific investigation, some of which may well hold
important discoveries, remain permanently fenced off and any benefits they
may contain are denied us.

Subtler still is the taboo whereby scientists in
certain fields erect a general prohibition against speaking or writing on the
subjects which they consider their own property and where any reference,
especially by an outsider, will draw a rapid hostile response. Sometimes,
scientists who declare a taboo will insist that only they are qualified to
discuss and reach conclusions on the matters that they have made their own
property; that only they are privy to the immense body of knowledge and
subtlety of argument necessary fully to understand the complexities of the
subject and to reach the ‘right’ conclusion.

Outsiders, on the other hand,
(especially non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or
analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to subtleties
of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have devoted long
painful years to acquiring. Once again, the cost of such tabooism is
measured in lost opportunities for discovery. Any contribution to knowledge
in terms of rational analysis, or resulting from the different perspective of
those outside the field in question, is lost to the community. In its most
extreme form scientific tabooism closely resembles the behavior of a priestly
caste that is perceived to be the holy guardians of the sacred creed, the
beliefs that are the object of the community's worship. Such guardians feel
themselves justified by their religious calling and long training in adopting
any measures to repel and to discredit any member of the community who
profanes the sacred places, words or rituals regarded as untouchable.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the taboo reaction is that it tends to
have a cumulative and permanent discriminatory effect: any idea that is
ideologically suspect or counter to the current paradigm is permanently
dismissed, and the very fact of its rejection forms the basis of its rejection on
all future occasions. It is a little like the court of appeal rejecting the
convicted man's plea of innocence on the grounds that he must be guilty or
why else is he in jail? And why else did the police arrest him in the first
place? This ‘erring on the side of caution’ means that in the long term the
intellectual Devil's Island where convicted concepts are sent becomes more
and more crowded with taboo ideas, all denied to us, and with no possibility
of reprieve. We will never know how many tens or hundreds or thousands
of important discoveries were thrown in the scrap heap merely because of
intolerance and misplaced skepticism.”

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:45 pm
by peacegirl
To the scientists of the Babylonian civilization, it seemed reasonable to
believe that the Earth was flat and was held up by elephants standing on a
giant sea turtle – even though their astronomy was highly developed and
they had observed the curvature of the Earth’s shadow moving across the
Moon during eclipses. They held this view because they could not imagine a
plausible alternative today. The idea of a flat Earth held up by elephants was
the most reasonable explanation available. Flatness seemed to fit their
everyday experience, and, although highly improbable, elephants were far
less improbable than any conceivable alternative. Yet, because it was based
on faulty evidence, it was actually only a superstitious belief. What
appeared the most reasonable view was really completely unreasonable. The
flat Earth theory was rejected by Greek scientists who observed that the Sun
and Moon were spherical and reasoned that the Earth must be too. Once the
flat Earth viewpoint was deprived of the appearance of being reasonable, its
wildly improbable nature became obvious, and it seems amazing to us today
that anyone could have believed in such a theory, however limited their
scientific knowledge.

I believe that something very similar is true of parts of western science
today. It actually contains some wildly improbable theories – as improbable
as elephants holding up the Earth. Yet these theories appear to represent a
reasonable view because they offer a natural sounding mechanism
explanation that seems consonant with common sense and our essentially
limited experience and understanding of the world. Whole areas of the
western scientific model come in this category: theories that seem as solid as
rock and, indeed, are the foundations of much of western thinking, yet in
reality are at best unsubstantiated and at worst no more than superstitions:
there are many examples of Earth beliefs that have been exported the world
over. But why should any rational person – let alone a trained scientist –
accept such beliefs?

One especially strange aspect of belief in western
culture is that we habitually use the word belief to mean two entirely
different things depending on whether we are speaking of belief in an
everyday sense (I believe in parliamentary democracy) or in the scientific
sense (I believe in the atomic theory of matter). It is normal in our culture to
take the second statement as meaning that the empirical evidence and
theoretical background of atomic theory are such that any rational person
who analyzes the facts must be compelled to accept the theory. We also
think that this process of ‘scientific’ acceptance is different in kind from the
ordinary acceptance of everyday things: a person might be right or wrong to
believe in the value and the effectiveness of parliamentary democracy
because it is a matter of opinion, but he or she cannot be wrong to believe in
atomic theory because it is a matter of fact. Yet the psychological process of
acceptance is actually the same in each case: it rests simply on the fact that
the conclusion seems to be irresistible, even to the well-informed mind.

appearance of being irresistible can in itself be a self-evident justification for
belief – just as it is ‘obvious’ that two and two must make four, and just as it
was obvious to Babylonian scientists that the Earth is flat. The problem that
this psychological process can present, as we saw earlier, arises because our
perception – and hence what appears obvious – is to some extent determined
by our beliefs. It means that all observers, scientists as well as savages,
employ a kind of mental inertial guidance navigation system which takes
over our routine mental processing; an intellectual autopilot whose perpetual
heading is star of our convictions, and which filters our perceptions to ensure
that they conform to those convictions. It is as though our perceptions reach
our minds through a screen – a matrix that is dynamically adaptive to our
world view and that can selectively modify the contents of our field of vision
in the service of that world view.”

In light of the fact that the orthodox scientific community has the power
to determine which new knowledge is worthy of investigation, and which is
not, it is extremely troublesome as those who have this kind of control are
often self-serving. This community has become a closed system, a private
club, where only the elite of academia are allowed entrance. This is not an
empty intellectual discourse but something much more sinister, for there is
the distinct possibility that a new discovery on the horizon may go
unnoticed. What if a so-called amateur happens to stumble upon the
solution to a certain form of cancer? Wouldn’t we want to know about it?
Are we supposed to ignore the results because scientists in this inner circle
claim that they did the research and came up empty? And even if the data
were analyzed, how would we know that the conclusions were not
misinterpreted due to the ‘psychological filtering system’ that is
unconsciously at work? Regardless of where this lack of objectivity comes
from, new knowledge may be overlooked or thrown into a slush pile never to
be seen again. Allowing a select few the privilege of offering their
conclusions on any given subject is discrimination of the worst kind because
it is disguised as genuine scholarship. This dangerous weeding-out process
will continue unless it is stopped by a public outcry since it is the people
themselves who will suffer the most damaging effects of this hidden agenda.
We must shed light on this serious problem or many more discoveries may
be lost to future generations.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:47 pm
by peacegirl
Have you noticed the parallels between the Catholic Church in the
middle ages with its dogmatism (that it cannot be what must not be - the
clergymen even refused to simply look through Galileo’s telescope and see
for themselves, because they were so arrogantly convinced that they held the
absolute truth in hands, and thus needed no verification), and today’s self-
righteous “church” of “scientificality” with its dogmas? I am therefore
offering this question of every reader but especially of philosophers,
professors and theologians because righteous indignation may prevent some
from going beyond the introduction.

Is there the slightest possibility that
your head full of knowledge does not contain as much truth as you would
like to believe? Would you gamble your life or the lives of those you love
that you really know, or is there just the remotest chance that you only think
you know? What is the standard by which you judge the veracity of your
knowledge and wisdom; the fact that it was taught in college? Is your
determination of truth based on the fact that it was written by a noted author,
composed from your own analysis and understanding, or revealed through
heavenly inspiration? What makes you so certain, so positive, so dogmatic?

Because this book dares to oppose the three forces that control the
thinking of mankind - government, religion and education - the most
dangerous thinking of all; the kind that really doesn’t know the truth as
Socrates observed but because of some fallacious standard presumes it does,
I have found it necessary to resort to this manner of introducing my work in
the fervent hope that I can break through this sound barrier of learned
ignorance, for which no one is to blame, and reach those who will be able to
extract the pure, unadulterated relations involved before another century
passes by or an atomic explosion destroys millions of lives.

Now be honest
with yourselves; do you really know, or only think you know? If you will
admit there is just the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed
with the wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things
despite the high opinion you and others hold of yourselves; that the
expression the blind leading the blind could even pertain to you; I know this
is difficult for you to conceive; I say, if there is the slightest possibility you
could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to yourselves, then I
cordially welcome your company aboard, otherwise; you had better not read
this book for my words are not meant for your ears. But should you decide
to accompany me on this voyage I would like to remind you, once again, that
this book is not a religious or philosophical tract attempting some ulterior
form of indoctrination; it is purely scientific as you will see, and should the
word God seem incongruous kindly remember Spinoza and you will
understand immediately that it is not. While God is proven to be a
mathematical reality as a consequence of becoming conscious of the truth,
war and crime are compelled to take leave of the Earth.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:55 pm
by peacegirl
It is true that many men before me, including socialists, communists,
even capitalists also thought they had discovered the cause of, and solution
to, the various problems of human relation, and their enthusiasm was no
doubt just as positive and sincere as my own. However, there is this
difference between us. I have absolute proof that cannot be denied by any
reader; they did not.

Mine can be adequately communicated; theirs was
never disentangled from the illusion of reality borne out of abstract thought
and imagination. Mine is purely scientific; theirs an expression of dogmatic
belief. In view of the serious nature of this discovery, the effects of which
will beneficently ramify into every conceivable direction causing religious
minds to consider this the return of the expected Messiah; and since it also
contravenes a belief held true by nearly all of mankind, I am once again
asking the indulgence of every reader to please refrain from jumping to any
premature conclusions, to put aside if only for the time being the unverified
knowledge gathered from books and teachers and heed only the truth
reflected in my words. “But what is truth?” you might ask. “Let us say it is
that which cannot be denied by anyone anywhere.” “But”, you might reply,
“that’s just common sense; everyone knows that.” Well it is just this
common sense; that sense common to us all that I am making the very
foundation of this book.

It is for this reason that what I write will be
understood not only by those who can read the English language, but by the
entire literate world. There will be no sleight of hand revelation as is
dreamed up in philosophical circles by epistemologists; only a clear
undeniable explanation about facts of man’s nature never before understood.
Knowledge in this context is to truly know ourselves. If you are coming
along on this journey you will need to put on your thinking caps and try to
understand the mathematical relations soon to be revealed which permit you
to see this miracle.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:59 pm
by peacegirl
There is an ironic twist here for if all evils of our world no longer exist,
how happy would certain professions be to know that their services will no
longer be needed. Shouldn’t this news make those individuals very happy
who have been trying to correct the problems of the world? If the cry of the
clergy is ‘Faith in God’, isn’t it obvious that the priesthood would rather see
an end to all sin than to preach against it and shrive the sinners in the
confessional. They should be simply thrilled at the miracle God is about to
perform, even though it means putting them out of work. Isn’t it true that
politicians, statesman, the leaders of the world in general would much rather
see an end to all war and crime than to retaliate ‘an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth?’

If the Communist and Capitalist governments are truly
interested in the welfare of their people, then just imagine how excited they
will be to learn that the most perfect relations between all men will soon be a
reality even though it makes their services unnecessary. If a writer is just
about ready to submit his book to the public for the purpose of revealing
knowledge on how to raise children or live together in greater harmony as
man and wife, he will be absolutely in ecstasy to learn that God is going to
bring about such perfect harmony in a short time that all books purporting to
do this very thing won’t have any more value.

There is a good deal of irony
to this Great Transition for it reveals how completely dishonest we were
compelled to be with ourselves and others. A salesman is happy to make a
sale when he works on commission, but if he found out that another
salesman beat him to the punch he would be disappointed even though the
customer derived the benefits that were promised at the time of purchase.
The only difference between a salesman selling books and a doctor,
theologian, etc. is that the former must convince only his prospects while the
latter must also convince themselves. A salesman is not interested if anyone
uses his product, just so he is paid a commission. Doctors and theologians
and those in the helping professions are compelled to justify that they know
what they are advising and treating, otherwise, they could never accept a fee,
gratuity, or income for their service. Someone who struggles to earn a living
such as a salesman where the risk of injury is virtually nonexistent doesn’t
need the same kind of justification, and will even steal with a clear

Though we would all like to see an end to evil, there are two issues that
need to be considered. No one could be pleased if their source of income
was taken away as well as the very thing that gives meaning to their lives.
Doctors are sincerely interested in making their patients well, but they want
to be the ones to do it. Religion would like to see us delivered from evil, but
in some manner that confirms what has been looked for – Judgment Day.
The Chinese government would like to see an end to all evil, but in terms of
communism. Is it possible for the supporters of socialism and communism
to relinquish the thought that they are right, when they think they are not
wrong? Politicians would like to see an end to all evil, but they want to find
the solution. Would it be possible for the leaders of capitalism to willingly
resign their jobs when they think their services are no longer required? How
is it humanly possible for the organizations that fight for peace, for health,
for security; those that wage a war against the evils of humanity to be
sincerely happy about the very removal of the things they need for their
ultimate satisfaction? Everybody would like to see a great change; “I have a
dream” said Dr. Martin Luther King, “this view from the mountain top, but
no one desires any intruders or interlopers.” These individuals, who at
present control the thinking of mankind, set up a fallacious standard for the
conscious purpose of protecting themselves against others and will react with
hostility toward anything that shows they may be wrong unless it is
presented in such a mathematical manner that it is impossible to disagree
without revealing a still greater ignorance.

If this book was not a
mathematical revelation – which scientists will soon confirm – what do you
think the clergy, the government, the medical and teaching professions, and
many others would do if they thought for one moment this work was
someone’s opinion that threatened their security, power, and leadership
position in world affairs? They would tear this book to shreds. This
discovery has incurred the wrath of the establishment because it threatens the
status quo. No one wants to willingly admit they don’t have the answer.
The fact remains that these individuals are actually trying to solve problems
that are very much over their heads and what is being revealed to them is
only a method to accomplish the very things they have been attempting to
do, without success.

Unfortunately, those endeavoring to correct our ills
appear to be cutting off the heads of a diseased hydra – the more
psychiatrists we graduate, the greater becomes our mental illness; the more
policemen and moralists we have, the greater and more prevalent become our
crimes; the more diplomats, statesmen, generals and armies we have, the
greater and more destructive become our wars. And as an expedient to the
situation we find ourselves being taxed to death while our cost of living
steadily rises. Wouldn’t you like to see an end to all this?

Do you prefer
war or peace, unhappiness or happiness, insecurity or security, sickness or
health? Do you prefer losing the one you have fallen in love with or winning
and living happily ever after? Since I know that happiness is preferable to
unhappiness, health to sickness, I shall now begin a revelation of knowledge
which no one will be able to deny providing the relations are understood.
While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and
wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery and
divorce will be coming to an end, changing the entire landscape of family
relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical?
And aren’t you jumping to a conclusion that this is against all human nature?

If all the people in the world who get displaced because their services are no
longer needed were to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that the
income necessary to sustain their standard of living, whatever the cost,
would never be stopped as long as they live, would they have any reason to
complain about someone showing them a better way – the only way to
accomplish that for which they are getting paid? Although they and others
will be dissatisfied to learn the truth when it deprives them of personal
fulfillment, they are compelled to be silent because to utter any words of
protest would only reveal their ignorance which will give them no
satisfaction. I shall now set sail on a voyage which will perform this virtual
miracle by igniting a chain reaction of thought that will explode across the
planet and destroy with its fallout every conceivable kind of hurt that exists
among human relations, never to return. It is now within our power to reach
that mountaintop – the Golden Age of man – that we have all hoped and
dreamed will one day become a reality.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:22 pm
by peacegirl


Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:27 pm
by peacegirl


Long ago man formed a theory that the earth was flat because he
could not conceive of it as a ball suspended in space. It became a
dogma, such a fixed idea that when the first astronomer, in
attempting to explain the reason why darkness came over the sun in the
middle of the day, was denied an opportunity to present his findings
because his discovery called into question this sacred belief. Let us
imagine the first astronomer being granted an interview by the leading
authorities of his time to explain the cause of a solar eclipse.

“Dear gentlemen, I have come to you to explain my findings about the
shape of the earth. In order for you to understand the cause of the darkness
coming over the sun, it is first necessary to understand that the earth is not
“What’s that? Did we hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell us that
the earth is round which means it is floating in space?”
“That is true, and my discovery lies locked behind the door marked the
earth is round.”
“This is absurd! Who are you to come in here and tell us that we are
wrong? We are not interested in your theory because we say the earth is
flat, [and since we are wiser than you, more learned than you, more
educated than you, you must be wrong], so why discuss this matter further.
Besides, our chief medicine man chanted the incantation that caused the
darkness to vanish. Thank you very much for coming out to give us your
explanation but we are not interested in discussing this matter further
because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the earth is flat.”

This is the second half of the primary problem. The fact that a theory
such as the belief that the earth is flat can hermetically seal knowledge that
prevents our discovering the invariable laws of the solar system which, in
turn, prevents the knowledge necessary to land men on the moon. Children
were taught this by their parents who had received this knowledge from
their parents who were instructed by the medicine man who was considered
the wisest man of his time. Since there was no way the knowledge of the
medicine man could be proven false because no one knew any different, and
since he was considered the wisest man of his time, his conclusion that the
earth was flat brooked no opposition. Consequently, when those who were
judged inferior in wisdom or knowledge disagreed with the medicine man,
they were rejected. When an upstart scientist came along who concluded
that the earth was round after making certain observations, how was it
possible to get others to agree with him when they couldn’t follow his
reasoning which compelled them to compare him, not his knowledge, to the
medicine man, to the professors and teachers whose wisdom and knowledge
could not be impugned. To help you see how easy it is for a dogmatic
theory to prevent scientific investigation let us once again return, in
imagination, to the time when man knew nothing about the solar system,
and listen to a conversation.

“Say, Joshua; do you believe the earth is flat or do you go along with my
theory that it is round?”
“Even though most of mankind agrees that it is flat, what difference does
it really make what I think?” said our philosophical friend. “The shape of
the earth is certainly not going to be affected or changed no matter what my
opinion is, right?”
“That is true enough, but if the earth is really round isn’t it obvious that
just as long as we think otherwise we are prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery, consequently, it
does make a difference. How much so we are not in the position to know
just yet but thousands of years hence, perhaps in the twentieth century,
there may be all kinds of scientific achievements attributed directly to
knowing the true shape of the earth, such as landing men on the moon
which may never be possible without first knowing the true shape of the

You may look back and smile at the unconscious ignorance of our
ancestors but pay close attention to what happened to me as I draw up a
perfect comparison with which you can identify. Because my discovery
was purely scientific, my attention was drawn to an article by Eric Johnson,
now deceased, who was once among other things the President of the
Motion Pictures Association. It appeared in the November 6, 1960 issue of
This Week Magazine of The Baltimore Sun.

“If there is one word which characterizes our world in this exciting last
half of the twentieth century, the word is change. “Change in political life;
change in economic life; change in social life; change in personal life;
change in the hallmark of our times. It’s not gradual, comfortable change.
It is sudden; rapid; often violent. It touches and often disrupts whole
cultures and hundreds of millions of people. Behind it all lies an explosive
growth in scientific knowledge and accomplishment. Some 90% of all the
scientists who ever lived are living today, and the total accumulation of
scientific knowledge is doubling every ten years. But this is reality. If we
remember that, then we will never flinch at change. We will adjust to it,
welcome it, meet it as a friend, and know it is God’s will.”

Since my discovery would bring about the greatest change in all of
history, it appeared that this man would be willing to let me explain my
findings. By convincing him on the phone that it was now possible to put a
permanent end to all war as a result of my discovery he agreed to meet me
on a Sunday afternoon in Washington, D.C. Our conversation went as

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:49 pm
by peacegirl
“I’m really not a scientist, Mr. Lessans, and in all probability you should
be talking to someone else. Your claims are absolutely fantastic, but I want
you to know that even though I wrote an article about science, I am not a
scientist. Besides, after you hung up I became more skeptical of claims
such as yours because they not only sound impossible but somewhat
ridiculous in view of man’s nature. Frankly, I don’t believe your claims are
possible, but I am willing to listen if it doesn’t take too long and if I can see
some truth to your explanation; I do have another engagement but I can
devote at least one hour. Would you get right on with it?” I then told him
the story about the earth being flat and he smiled at this, and then told him
that a theory exists regarding man’s nature that is accepted as true by 98%
of mankind, and I pointed out that this theory is actually preventing the
decline and fall of all evil because it has closed a door to a vast storehouse
of genuine knowledge.
“I will be as brief as possible, Mr. Johnson, but in order for me to reveal
my discovery it is absolutely necessary that I first show you its hiding place
because they are related to each other.”
“What is this theory?” he asked.”
“You see, Mr. Johnson, most people believe consciously or
unconsciously that man’s will is free.”
“What’s that? Did I hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell me that
man’s will is not free?”
“That is absolutely right, Mr. Johnson. I don’t believe it; I know this for
a mathematical fact. My discovery lies locked behind the door marked
Man’s Will is Not Free, just like the invariable laws of the solar system
were concealed behind the door marked The Earth is Round – until some
upstart scientist opened it for a thorough investigation.”
“I have always believed it to be free but what difference does it make
what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be affected by my
opinion, right?”
“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if the will
of man is definitely not free isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think
otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend
on this knowledge for their discovery, consequently, it does make a
difference. The opinion of our ancestors that the earth was flat could never
change its actual shape, but just as long as the door marked “The Earth Is
Round” was never opened thoroughly for an investigation by scientists
capable of perceiving the undeniable but involved relations hidden there,
how were we ever to discover the laws that allow us now to land men on
the moon?
“Your door was opened many times through the years by some of the
most profound thinkers and never did they come up with any discoveries to
change the world.”
“It is true that determinism was investigated by people who were
presumed profound thinkers, but in spite of their profoundness none of them
had the capacity to perceive the law that was hidden there. Most people do
not even know it is a theory since it is preached by religion, government,
even education as if it is an absolute fact.”
“Mr. Lessans, I don’t know what it is you think you have discovered but
whatever it is, as far as I personally am concerned, it cannot be valid
because I am convinced that man’s will is free. Thank you very much for
coming out but I’m not interested in discussing this matter any further.”
And he would not let me continue.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:01 pm
by peacegirl
Now stop to think about this for one moment. A discovery has been
made that will go down in history as that which will change the entire world
of human relations for the better, yet because it challenges a theory which is
held by many world religions, there is a hostile reaction when it is
questioned. This is a perfect example of how this preemptive authority of
false knowledge which is passed along from generation to generation by
theology, by government, and by various other sources does not even allow
a person to open his mind to hear the explanation. The theologians I
contacted, though they admit they pray to God for deliverance from evil
also believe it is impossible for man to accomplish this apparent miracle. In
a sense they are right because the law that was discovered is equivalent to
the law that inheres in the solar system, over which we have no control.
Any system or dogma, religious or otherwise, which shackles man’s mind
and prevents scientific investigation needs to be discarded, so that the truth
can be uncovered.

This is much easier said than done because the
knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free was buried deeper
than atomic energy, and presents problems that are almost insurmountable.
Convincing a few people of this truth is one thing; convincing the entire
world is something else. Supposing the very people whose understanding it
is necessary to reach refuse to examine the facts on the grounds that the
discovery could not be valid because it starts out with the premise that
man’s will is not free. To show you how confused are those who have been
guiding us, a rabbi was told that the author
of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil claims
to have the permanent solution to every problem
of human relation,
and he replied, “How do we know that God wants us to remove all evil?”
Now you tell me, if he is doubtful of this why do all theologians ask God in
the Lord’s Prayer to deliver us from evil?

Another rabbi criticized me for
not attending the synagogue to which I replied, “Isn’t the reason you go to
the Temple due to your faith in God, your belief that one day He will reveal
himself to all mankind? “That is true”, he answered. “Well you see,
Rabbi, the reason I don’t go to the synagogue is because I know for a fact
that God is real. I don’t have faith or believe this; I know that 2+2=4; I
don’t have faith or believe that this is true.” Still hoping that I could
convince a member of the clergy to hear what I had to say, I phoned a
Catholic priest for an appointment and our conversation went as follows:

“What do you want to see me about?”
“Father, when you utter the words of the Lord’s Prayer I take for granted
that you are sincere and would like to see us delivered from evil, isn’t that
“Certainly, what kind of question is that?”
“Well the reason I had to ask is because I have just made a scientific
discovery that will bring about the actual fulfillment of this prayer, this
deliverance from evil.”
“What’s that you say? Deliver mankind from evil? Absolutely
impossible, it cannot be done.”
“But how can you know without first finding out what it is I have
discovered? Isn’t this your fervent wish, that God perform such a miracle?”
“It is.”
“Well then, why don’t you let me come out and show you exactly how
all evil must decline and fall as a direct consequence?”
“It’s impossible, that’s why I’m not interested. The only time such a
world will become a reality is on Judgment Day.”
“But that’s just the point; this Judgment Day when interpreted properly
has actually arrived because it conforms to the basic principle.”
“This still doesn’t convince me that I should devote my precious time to
what sounds ridiculous.”
“Sounds can be deceiving, Father. Who believed the first astronomer
when he predicted an eclipse, or Einstein when he revealed the potential of
atomic energy? Your skepticism, if I told you without adequate proof that
this discovery will bring about the inception of the Golden Age, would not
be an unwarranted reaction, but the actual proof is explicit and undeniable.
It is only natural for you to be skeptical, Father, but this is never a sufficient
reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific miracle.”
“I’m afraid that I will have to end this conversation. My advice is to
take what you have to one of the secular universities. I’m sorry I couldn’t
be more helpful but thanks for calling anyway.”

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:09 pm
by peacegirl
Later on, I tried to engage a pastor in a discussion about free will and he
responded to me by asking, “If man’s will is not free, then you can’t blame
or punish anything he does, is that correct? And when I answered, “Right”,
he actually got up and walked out of the room. You see, this learned
ignorance presents quite a problem, and only by getting the world to
understand what it means that man’s will is not free can I hope to break
through this barrier. This law of our nature is not a premise, not an
assumption, not a theory, but when 98% of the world believes otherwise,
they might just close the windows of their mind to any scientific
investigation which requires rejecting a theory that has dogmatically
controlled man’s thinking since time immemorial.

How is it possible to
explain the solution when nobody wishes to listen because they think they
know there isn’t any? Where is there one iota of difference between this
attitude and that of our ancestors regarding the shape of the earth? To show
how confused is the thinking of the average person who is not accustomed
to perceiving mathematical relations of this nature, when I told someone
that his answer was incorrect, he replied with a tone of resentment, “That’s
your opinion, but I believe it is possible”, as if the answer could be one or
the other. The earth cannot be round and flat, it has to be one or the other
and your opinion can never change what is. Remember, I am going to bring
about an unprecedented change in human conduct, but I can only do this if
you understand what I am about to reveal. If you can’t follow my reasoning
as to why the earth is round, you will be compelled to believe that it is flat
for it gives you satisfaction not to be wrong.

In other words, if I were going
to offer an opinion as to why man’s will is not free, then your educational
rank, your scholarly background could assert itself as a condition more valid
to deny my claim, but when I declare that I am not going to reveal a theory
but will give a scientific, undeniable, demonstration, then regardless of who
you are you must wait to see the proof before rejecting the claim.
Therefore, it is imperative that you know well in advance that my reasoning
will be completely mathematical, scientific and undeniable; so if you find
yourself in disagreement you had better reread that which you disagree,
otherwise, your stubborn resistance, your inability to perceive these
relations will only delay the very life you want for yourself. Many
professors consider the free will/determinism debate nothing more than a
philosophical discussion equivalent to finding out what came first, the
chicken or the egg. To them what difference does it really make? But if
this discovery can put an end to all war, crime, and evil in general, it makes
a very big difference and it is imperative that the world listen so that this
evil in our lives can come to a permanent end.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:30 pm
by peacegirl
It is time to draw an infallible line of demarcation between what is true
and what is false and you are going to be amazed at how much of what is
false passed for what is true. However, everything was necessary. As we
begin to understand the knowledge of our true nature what is revealed is
something amazing to behold for it not only gives ample proof that evil is
no accident, but that it was part of the harmonious operation called the
mankind system and was compelled to come into existence by the very
nature of life itself as part of our development. Once certain facts are
understood it will also be no accident that every form of evil will be
compelled to take leave of this earth.

Humanity has been gravitating at a
mathematical rate, and in an unconscious manner, toward this Golden Age
when the seeds of hatred and the domination of man over man will be a relic of our collective memory. It never
dawned on the theologians and philosophers that man’s choice of what he
considered better for himself, even though it may have been evil when
judged by others, came about in direct obedience to his nature or the will of
God who had reasons we were not supposed to understand – until now.
Many prophets foresaw the coming of this New World but didn’t know the
exact time frame, or from which direction, peace would finally make its
appearance although they were confident that when it arrived it would
change our world as we know it. Now the prophesies, conjectures, and
philosophies are no longer necessary for this long awaited Golden Age that
we have been looking forward to with prayers, hope, and great anticipation
has arrived at last.

This discovery I will soon make known to you reveals
the infinite wisdom guiding this universe, which is not only that long sought
standard and touchstone of truth and reality, but also that elixir of alchemy
for with it the baser mettles of human nature are going to be magically
transmuted into the pure gold of genuine happiness for every individual on
this planet, and for all generations to come. Please be perfectly honest, who
can object to relinquishing the belief in free will when the key to the decline
and fall of all misery and unhappiness lies behind the door of determinism?

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:35 pm
by peacegirl
In the beginning of creation when man was in the early stages of
development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to
control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the
reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of
comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it
was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, in order to reach
this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by
performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get
man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously
or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion,
was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to

The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary
of evil for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s
deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve
his problems without blame and punishment which required the justification
of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed
that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a
special faculty which allowed him to choose between good and evil. In
other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by
sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free?
To punish him in any way you would have to believe that he was free to
choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that
he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was
given no choice but to think this way and that is why our civilization
developed the principle of an ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and
why my discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this
point because if man’s will is not free it becomes absolutely impossible to
hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the
solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not
to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale
slaughter of millions?

Does this mean that we are supposed to condone
these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no
laws of punishment to control his nature? Doesn’t our history show that if
something is desired badly enough he will go to any lengths to satisfy
himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel?
What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what
they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free
strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies
the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in
power since time immemorial. Although free will has had a very long reign
in the history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and
for all, by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true. A
friend shared a story with me to show you how difficult it is to get through
this established dogma.

“The other day when I was in Temple a rabbi, during the course of his
sermon, made it very clear that man has free will. Professors, doctors,
lawyers, and just about everybody I know, agree that man’s will is free. If
this is a theory you would never know it by talking to them. Well, is it a
theory, or is this established knowledge?”
“Of course it is a theory,” I answered; “otherwise there would be no
believers in determinism. Is it possible for a person to believe that the earth
is flat now that we have mathematical proof of its circular shape? The only
reason we still have opinions on both sides of this subject is because we
don’t know for a mathematical fact whether the will of man is or is not
“But these theologians don’t agree with you; they say that man’s will is
definitely free. Look, here comes a rabbi; ask him if man’s will is free just
for the heck of it, and you will see for yourself how dogmatic he responds.”
“Rabbi, we have been discussing a subject and would appreciate your
opinion. Is it true, false, or just a theory that man’s will is free?”
“It is absolutely true that man’s will is free because nothing compels an
individual to choose evil instead of good; he prefers this only because he
wants to partake of this evil, not because something is forcing him.”
“Do you mean, Rabbi, that every person has two or more alternatives
when making a choice?”
“Absolutely; that bank robber last week didn’t have to rob the bank, he
wanted to do it.”
“But assuming that what you say is true, how is it possible to prove that
which cannot be proven? Let me illustrate what I mean.”
“Is it possible for me to do what has already been done?”
“Naturally it is impossible for me to do what has already been done,
because I have already done it.”
“This is a mathematical or undeniable relation and is equivalent to
asking is it possible for anyone not to understand four as an answer to two
plus two. Now if what has been done was the choosing of B instead of A,
is it possible not to choose B which has already been chosen?”
“It is impossible, naturally.”
“Since it is absolutely impossible (this is the reasoning of mathematics,
not logic, which gives rise to opinions) not to choose B instead of A once B
is selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of possibilities
when in order to make this choice you must not choose B, which has
already been chosen?”
“Again I must admit it is something impossible to do.”
“Yet free will, in order to be proven true, must do just that – the
impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has
already been done, and then show that A – with the conditions being
exactly the same – could have been chosen instead of B. Since it is utterly
impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely necessary for
mathematical proof, free will must always remain a theory. The most you
can say is that you believe the bank robber had a choice, but there is
absolutely no way this can be proven.”
“I may be unable to prove that he was not compelled to rob that bank
and kill the teller, but it is my opinion that he didn’t have to do what he
“I’m not in the mood to argue that point, but at least we have arrived at a
bit of knowledge that is absolutely undeniable for we have just learned that
it is mathematically impossible for any person to prove, beyond a shadow of
doubt, that the will of man is free, yet a moment ago you made the dogmatic
statement that man’s will is definitely free.”
“My apology, dear sir; what I meant to say was that it is the consensus
of opinion that the will of man is free.”
“Thank you, Rabbi, and now one other question and I will let you go. If
it is mathematically impossible to prove the will of man free, is it possible
to prove determinism, as the opposite of free will, false?”
“Yes, it is possible.”
“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”
“That my friend is your opinion, not mine.”
“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the opposite of
determinism, true? And didn’t we just prove that it is mathematically
impossible to prove free will true, which means that it is absolutely
impossible to prove determinism false?”
“I see what you mean and again I apologize for thinking this was a
matter of opinion.
“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical
knowledge and that is – although we can never prove free will true or
determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving determinism
true, or free will false.

Now tell me, Rabbi, supposing your belief in free
will absolutely prevents the discovery of knowledge that, when released,
can remove the very things you would like to rid the world of, things you
preach against, such as war, crime, sin, hate, discrimination, etc., what
would you say then?”
“If this is true and you can prove it, all I can say is that God’s ways are
mysterious and surpass my understanding. I enjoyed talking with you son,
and perhaps I shall live to see the day when all evil will be driven from our
“Even if you don’t live to see it, please rest assured the day is not far
away and that it must come about the very moment certain facts pertaining
to the nature of man are brought to light, because it is God’s will.”
“I must leave now but thank you for sharing your insights with me.”

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:45 pm
by peacegirl
After the rabbi left, our conversation continued.
“I am still trying to understand your reasoning as to why free will cannot
be proven true.”
“Let me show you why this is a mathematical impossibility by
rephrasing the question I asked the rabbi. Take your time with this.
“Is it possible not to do what has already been done?”
“Naturally it is impossible for me not to do what has already been
done…because I have already done it.”
“Now if what has just been done was the choosing of B instead of A, is
it possible not to choose B, which has already been chosen?”
“No, it is not possible.”
“Since it is absolutely impossible not to choose B instead of A, once B
has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of
possibilities when in order to make this choice you must not choose B,
which has already been chosen? Yet in order to prove free will true, it must
do just that – the impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time,
undo what has already been done and then show that A, with the conditions
being exactly the same, could have been chosen instead of B. Such
reasoning is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is
mathematical; scientific; undeniable and, as I stated earlier, it is not
necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be
exact and scientific.” Let me rephrase this in still another way.

“If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever it
is, is it possible to prove this something true?”
“Obviously the answer is no.”
“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following. If it is
mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that
something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something false?
Isn’t it obvious that the answer must be no, it is not possible unless the
person asked does not understand the question. In other words, if
determinism could be proven false, this would automatically prove free will
true and we just demonstrated that this is impossible unless we can turn
back the clock. Let me repeat: Since it is impossible to prove free will true,
it is also impossible to prove determinism (as the opposite of free will)
false, for if determine was proven false, this would automatically prove free
will true. How is it possible to prove free will true when this requires doing
something that is mathematically impossible? We can never undo what has
already been done. Therefore, the first step is to prove undeniably that
whatever your reasons for believing free will true cannot be accurate
because it is impossible to prove this theory since proof requires going back
in time, so to speak, and demonstrating that man could have chosen
otherwise. Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which
is absolutely necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is
assume that he didn’t have to do what he did. To show you how confused
the mind can get when mathematical relations are not perceived, Will
Durant, a well known philosopher of the 20th century, wrote on page 103 in
the Mansions of Philosophy – “For even while we talked determinism we
knew it was false; we are men, not machines.” After opening the door to
the vestibule of determinism, and taking a step inside, he turned back
because he could not get past the implications. Now let us understand why
the implications of believing that man’s will is not free turned Durant and
many others away. Remember, most people know nothing about the
implications of this position; they just accept as true what has been taught to
them by leading authorities. If determinism was true, he reasoned, then
man doesn’t have a free choice; consequently, he cannot be blamed for
what he does. Faced with this apparent impasse he asked himself, “How
can we not blame and punish people for hurting others? If someone hurts
us, we must believe he didn’t have to, that his will was free, in order to
blame and punish him for what he did. And how is it possible to turn the
other cheek and not to fight back from this intentional hurt to us?” He was
trying to say in this sentence that philosophies of free will would never stop
returning just as long as our nature commands us to fight back when hurt,
‘an eye for an eye.’ This is undeniable and he was one hundred percent
correct, but this is not what he actually said. He, as well as many
philosophers helped the cause of free will by unconsciously using
syllogistic reasoning which is logical, though completely fallacious. He
accomplished this by setting up an understandable assumption for a major
premise. “If there is an almost eternal recurrence of philosophies of
freedom it is because direct perception can never be beaten down with
formulas, or sensation with reasoning.” Can you not see how
mathematically impossible is his observation?

If you know for a fact that
four equals two plus two, do you need to prove it syllogistically?
Obviously not, because then it would sound something like this: “If there is
an almost eternal recurrence of four equaling two plus two, it is because
two equals one plus one, and one plus one plus one plus one totals four.”
Using this same type of syllogistic reasoning he tried to prove freedom of
the will by demonstrating, in the same manner, that determinism could
never prove it false.
Because Durant started off with a false premise, his conclusion was
equally false. He begins with the assumption that direct perception (which
are words that symbolize what he cannot possibly understand) is superior to
reasoning in understanding the truth which made a syllogistic equation
necessary to prove the validity of an inaccurate perception. Thusly, he
reasons in his minor premise: “Free will is not a matter of reasoning, like
determinism, but is the result of direct perception, therefore”…and here is
his fallacious conclusion, “since philosophies of free will employ direct
perception which cannot be beaten down by the reasoning of determinism,
the belief in free will must eternally recur.” He knew that free will was a
theory, but as long as proof was not necessary when it could be seen with
the direct perception of our common sense that it was impossible to turn the
other cheek (the corollary thrown up by determinism), he was compelled to
write – “Let the determinist honestly envisage the implications of his
philosophy.” This indicates that all his reasoning in favor of free will was
the result of inferences derived from the inability to accept the implications.
Durant is anything but a scientist and an accurate thinker. According to his
reasoning he assumes that free will is true because, in his mind,
determinism is false, and the reason he thinks determinism is false is
because man is not a machine. Then, not realizing how mathematically
impossible is his next statement he claims that philosophies of free will
eternally recur because reasoning and formulas cannot beat down the
obvious truth of direct perception.

Take a look at that last statement very
carefully and see if you can’t tell why it is mathematically impossible. If
free will was finally proven to be that which is non-existent (and let’s take
for granted that you know this for a fact) and accepted as such by our
scientific world at large because the proof cannot be denied by anyone
anywhere, would it be possible according to Durant’s statement for
‘philosophies of freedom’ to recur anymore? Isn’t it obvious that the
recurrence of the belief in free will is a mathematical impossibility once
freedom of the will is proven to be a figment of the imagination or, to
phrase it differently, a realistic mirage? Is it humanly possible for the belief
that the world is flat to eternally recur when we have mathematical
knowledge that it is round? Consequently, the continued return of the belief
in free will can only be due to the fact that it is still a logical theory or
plausible conception that has never been analyzed properly, allowing the
belief and its philosophies to persist. But Durant states that ‘philosophies
of freedom eternally recur’ not because of the explanation I just gave, an
explanation that cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, even by this
philosopher himself providing it is understood, but because direct
perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with
reasoning. Isn’t it apparent that such words have no relation to reality
whatsoever? If Durant believed direct perception was considered superior
to reasoning, is it any wonder he was so confused and his reasoning so
fallacious since the word ‘because’ which denotes the perception of a
relation, whether true or false, indicates that he is criticizing reasoning
while reasoning.

This doesn’t stop a person from saying – “I believe. It is
my opinion. I was taught that man’s will is free”, but it would certainly
stop him from trying to defend his position with an argument. One of the
most profound insights ever expressed by Socrates was, “Know Thyself”,
but though he had a suspicion of its significance it was only an intuitive
feeling, not something he could put his finger on. These two words have
never been adequately understood by mankind, including psychiatry and
psychology, because this observation is the key that unlocks the first door to
another door that requires its own key, and where the hiding place to this
fantastic discovery was finally uncovered. What made it so obvious to
Durant that man’s will is free? And why do theologians treat this as if it is
an undeniable reality? Durant is now deceased but over 20 years ago I
phoned to tell him I had made a fantastic discovery that was hidden behind
the fallacious theory that man’s will is free. He replied, “You must be on
the wrong tack, but take what you think you have to Johns Hopkins
University for an analysis. I not only contacted that university but many
others, to no avail.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:52 pm
by peacegirl
It is interesting to observe at this point that Durant was indirectly
involved in my discovery. To give you a little background, it was
November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would
change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a priest
state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and the hair stood
up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t understand why that
happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at the time but felt that I was
chilled for some reason. Up until that time I never gave much thought to
the subject of free will, not rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill
occurred every time the subject came up I began to see the connection.
That night in a dream I kept hearing this phrase, “The solution to all the
problems plaguing mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that
man’s will is free. I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the
next day I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book
Mansions of Philosophy. When I completed it I remarked, “He really
doesn’t know what he is talking about and Spinoza is right, man’s will is
not free.” Then, after nine strenuous months I shouted, “Eureka, I have
found it!”, and I have had no rest ever since.

After opening the door of
determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free, I saw
another sign that read – ‘Hidden behind this door you will discover the
solution to the problem of evil – the long awaited Messiah.’ I applied the
key, opened the door, and after many months in the deepest analysis I made
a finding that was so fantastic, it took me several years to understand its full
significance for all mankind. I saw how this new world must become a
reality in a very short time.
The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was
because they never attempted to look behind the door marked ‘Man’s Will
Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced man’s will was
free. Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw
the truth but in a confused sort of way because the element of evil was
always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God
commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the
Bible told them that God said – ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
When his enemies nailed him to the cross he was heard to say – “They
know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek”, he said.

Because Christ
exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness – and because he
saw such suffering in the world – he drew to himself those who needed
help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity
was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a
world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused and in spite of
every possible criticism how was religion able to convince the world to be
patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their
inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil
with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very
simple manner by dividing good and evil in half and God was only
responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with
freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the
creator of all goodness and since man does many things considered evil they
were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that
God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to
Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile towards any person
who speaks against free will.

Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza plus
innumerable others pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder
Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the
thinkers of that time how could any intelligent person believe in Satan?
Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a
caring and loving God, therefore Satan was destined to be born as the
opposite of all good in the world.

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:00 pm
by peacegirl
Because Spinoza was dissatisfied with theology’s explanation of good
and evil, he opened the door of determinism and looked around quite a bit
but he did not know how to slay the fiery dragon so he pretended it wasn’t
even there: He stated, “We are men, not God. Evil is really not evil when
seen in total perspective”, and he rejected the principle of ‘an eye for an
eye.’ Will Durant, not at all satisfied with this aspect of Spinoza’s
philosophy, although he loved him dearly, could not understand how it was
humanly possible to turn the other cheek in this kind of world. He also
went in and looked around very thoroughly and he too saw the fiery dragon,
but unlike Spinoza he made no pretense of its non-existence. He just didn’t
know how to overcome the beast but refused to agree with what common
sense told him to deny.

The implications really need no further clarification
as to why free will is in power. Nobody, including Spinoza and other
philosophers, ever discovered what it meant that man’s will is not free
because they never unlocked the second door which leads to the discovery.
The belief in free will was compelled to remain in power until the
present time because no one had conclusive proof that determinism was
true, nor could anyone slay the fiery dragon which seemed like an
impossible feat. Is it any wonder that Johnson didn’t want to get into this
matter any further? Is it any wonder Durant never went beyond the
vestibule? Are you beginning to recognize why it has been so difficult to
get this knowledge thoroughly investigated?

Since the modern world of
science was playing havoc with religion it needed a boost and along came,
just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave seven reasons why he believed
in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote his book, “Man Does Not Stand
Alone”, was almost convinced that God was a reality. He challenged Julian
Huxley’s conclusions written in his book, “Man Stands Alone”. Both tried
to answer the question, “Is there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this
universe?” Who is right? Huxley said ‘no there isn’t’, but Morrison’s
arguments were mathematically sound and he gave quite a boost to instilling
faith again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can
almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing happens
by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil. It went
something like this:

“Chance seems erratic, unexpected and subject to no method of
calculation, but though we are startled by its surprises, chance is subject to
rigid and unbreakable law. The proverbial penny may turn up heads ten
times in a row and the chance of an eleventh is not expected but is still one
in two, but the chances of a run of ten heads coming up consecutively is
very small. Supposing you have a bag containing one hundred marbles,
ninety-nine black and one white. Shake the bag and let out one. The
chance that the first marble out of the bag is the white one is exactly one in
one hundred. Now put the marbles back and start again. The chance of the
white coming out is still one in a hundred, but the chance of the white
coming out first twice in succession is one in ten thousand (one hundred
times one hundred).
Now try a third time and the chance of the white coming out three times
in succession is one hundred times ten thousand or one in a million.
Try another time or two and the figures become astronomical. The
results of chance are as clearly bound by law as the fact that two plus two
equals four.
In a game in which cards are shuffled and an ace of spades was dealt to
one of the players, ace of hearts to the next, clubs to the third and diamonds
to the dealer, followed by the deuces, the threes and so on, until each player
had a complete set in numerical order, no one would believe the cards had
not been arranged.
The chances are so great against such a happening that it probably never
did happen in all the games played anywhere since cards was invented. But
there are those who say it could happen, and I suppose the possibility does
exist. Suppose a little child is asked by an expert chess player to beat him
at chess in thirty-four moves and the child makes every move by pure
chance exactly right to meet every twist and turn the expert attempts and
does beat him in thirty-four moves. The expert would certainly think it was
a dream or that he was out of his mind. But there are those who think the
possibility of this happening by chance does exist. And I agree, it could
happen, however small the possibility. My purpose in this discussion of
chance is to point out clearly and scientifically the narrow limits which any
life can exist on earth and prove by real evidence that all the nearly exact
requirements of life could not be brought about on one planet at one time by
chance. The size of the earth, the distance from the sun, the thickness of the
earth’s crust, the quantity of water, the amount of carbon dioxide, the
volume of nitrogen, the emergence of man and his survival – all point to
order out of chaos, to design and purpose, and to the fact that according to
the inexorable laws of mathematics all these could not occur by chance
simultaneously on one planet once in a billion times. It could so occur, but
it did not so occur. When the facts are so overwhelming and when we
recognize as we must the attributes of our minds which are not material, is
it possible to flaunt the evidence and take the one chance in a billion that we
and all else are the result of chance? We have found that there are
999,999,999 chances to one against a belief that all things happen by
chance. Science will not deny the facts as stated; the mathematicians will
agree that the figures are correct. Now we encounter the stubborn
resistance of the human mind, which is reluctant to give up fixed ideas. The
early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took two thousand years to
convince men that this fact is true.
New ideas encounter opposition, ridicule and abuse, but truth survives
and is verified. The argument is closed; the case is submitted to you, the
jury, and your verdict will be awaited with confidence.”

Re: Declne and Fall of All Evil

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:04 pm
by peacegirl
Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in the world
could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil; consequently, he
was compelled to join the ranks of those who had faith. Nobody has yet
said he knows for a mathematical fact that God is real otherwise there
would be no need for faith. I know that two plus two equals four, I don’t
have faith that it’s true. Well, do you still believe there is no Supreme
Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws which include
the relation of man with man, and that everything happens by chance? Do
you believe that your faith in God has been in vain? You are in for the
surprise of your life.

This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the reader
the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The purpose of this
book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the universe. By
delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt is removed. Through
our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the evil is not removed to prove
that God is not a figment of the imagination, but only because it is evil. He
becomes an epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to
burn away the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the
cause of the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which
He also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these undeniable
facts. There is tremendous misunderstanding about the meaning of
determinism, therefore, it is necessary to show where the confusion lies and
prove absolutely and positively that will is not free so the reader will be
able to follow the reasoning which leads to my discovery. The fact that
man’s will is not free is the gateway that allows the reader to come face to
face with the fiery dragon himself, the great impasse of blame. It really
does not make any difference whether or not the proof of determinism is
established beforehand because undeniable proof is established in the
meaning; but for those who want proof before we attack the heart of the
problem I shall demonstrate in an undeniable manner exactly why man’s
will is not free. Once it is proven mathematically – which takes into
consideration the implications – there can be no more opinions or theories
expressed on the subject, just as our ancestors stopped saying, “I believe the
earth is flat”, once they knew for a fact it was round.

There is a great deal
of irony here because the philosophers who did not know it was impossible
to prove freedom of the will believed in this theory because they were under
the impression their reasoning had demonstrated the falseness of
determinism. The reason proof of determinism is absolutely necessary is to
preclude someone quoting Durant, and interjecting a remark about man not
being a machine. Is there anything about my demonstration thus far that
would make the reader believe man is now a machine? On page 87 in
Mansions of Philosophy he writes, “If he committed crimes, society was to
blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine, which had slipped a
cog in generating him.” In other words, he assumes that this kind of
knowledge, the knowledge that states man’s will is not free, allows a person
to shift his responsibility for what he does. One individual blames society
for his crimes as he rots in prison while another blames the mechanical
structure of the machine which slipped a cog and made him into a fool.
However, you will soon see that not only Durant but all mankind are very
much confused by the misleading logic of words that do not describe reality
for what it is. This is why it is imperative that we proceed in an undeniable,
not logical, manner otherwise someone may quote Durant, a priest,
professor, lawyer, judge or politician as an authority for believing in
freedom of the will. I recently had a conversation with a friend who was
very sincere in his desire to understand the principles in my book. His
questions were predictable coming from a superficial understanding of
man’s nature and represent the confusion many people feel when the issue
of determinism comes up.

“Isn’t it obvious that we must have standards of some kind so that a
child can be taught the difference between right and wrong, good and evil?
Supposing all individuals in a society are told that it is wrong to steal (I
hope you’re not going to tell me this is right), yet certain ones deliberately
ignore this and take what belongs to someone else; isn’t it obvious that we
must blame them because they were warned in advance that if they should
steal they will be punished? Are you trying to tell me there is no such thing
as a standard of right and wrong?”
“If you know the difference between right and wrong, and you also
know that a person cannot be blamed or punished for what he does because
his will is not free, isn’t it obvious that we are given only one alternative
and that is to prevent the desire to do what is wrong from arising which then
makes it unnecessary to blame and punish? Just as long as man has this
safety valve of blame and punishment, he doesn’t have to find the solution
to this doing of what is wrong. Parents can be very careless and excuse
themselves by blaming their children; and governments can be careless and
excuse themselves by blaming their citizens while plunging the entire world
into war.”
“But supposing they are not careless and they are doing everything in
their power to prevent children and citizens from doing what is wrong so
that blame and punishment are not necessary, what then? Are we not
supposed to blame and punish them, for our own protection, when they do
something wrong?”
“That’s just the point. Once it is discovered through mathematical
reasoning that man’s will is definitely not free, then it becomes impossible
to blame an individual for what he is compelled to do; consequently, it is
imperative that we discover a way to prevent his desire to do the very things
for which blame and punishment were previously necessary, as the lesser of
two evils.”
“This new world which looks good, sounds good, and seems
theoretically possible in its blueprint form…so far (since you haven’t shown
me yet how to rid the world of war and crime – two most important items),
it may be just another dream, and even if it isn’t, it took the Greeks two
millennium to convince mankind that the earth was a sphere. Even today,
there are still some people who don’t believe it, so how do you expect
people to listen to something that not only sounds impossible, but is so far
removed from contemporary thought?”
“This is the stumbling block I am faced with.”
“Are you telling me that this discovery, whatever it is, will prevent man
from desiring to commit murder, rape, start a war, annihilate 6 million
people, etc., is that right?”
“That’s correct. The corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, when it is
extended does not mean that we will be forced to condone what hurts us,
but we will be shown how to prevent these evils by mathematically
extending the corollary. And the amazing thing is that both sides of this
equation are correct. Christ said ‘Turn the other cheek’ and Durant said
‘This is impossible.’ Just think about this for one moment. Would you
believe that both principles are mathematically correct?”
“How is that possible?”
“God made the reconciliation of these two principles the time when He
would reveal Himself to all mankind. But to get here you can see what had
to be done first since the paths leading up to this understanding were
camouflaged with layers upon layers of words that concealed the truth.”
“Is proving that man’s will is not free the key to open the door and your
second discovery?”
“Of course not; I just told you that the fiery dragon must be killed to get
the key. First, I must prove that man’s will is not free so we can come face
to face with the fiery dragon, and I will prove it in a mathematical,
undeniable manner. Then I shall jab him in the right eye, then the left, then
I shall cut out his tongue. I took fencing lessons for the job. And finally I
shall pierce him in his heart. Then when I have made certain he is dead…
“I thought you killed him already.”
“I did, but there was a dragon for each person, so instead of giving
everybody a sword; steel is high these days, I shall slay him so the whole
world can see he is dead.”
“Do you mean to tell me there is absolutely no way all evil can be
removed from our lives without knowledge of your discovery?”
“That’s absolutely true.”
“Then your discovery must be the most fantastic thing ever discovered.”
“It truly is because God is showing us the way at last. However, before I
show how it is possible to resolve the implications it is necessary to repeat
that I will proceed in a step by step manner.

This dragon has been guarding
an invisible key and door for many years, and this could never be made
visible except for someone who saw these undeniable relations. If,
therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone as
Morrison understood from his scientific observations; that God, this
Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then
what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire
world. We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where
they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove
conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free
will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and
positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that
determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish
undeniable proof that free will is false.” So without any further adieu, let us