​Some time ago, I was in correspondence with a Californian named Jeff. Jeff had a more than casual interest in ontology (in our awareness to presence) and how it might affect popular metaphysics. Continually, he advanced some very challenging questions.

Jeff enquired about the qualities of perception: Do we really exist in our perception of time and space; and in this regard, how can we know what is tangible and intangible and as it must eventually relate to the monotheism expedient? These are difficult questions, even for the most astute philosopher. But after considerable thought and a sudden realization of how Reality and Actuality might be misperceived, the following was forthcoming from my own sense of relative cognizance.
 
At my computer desk and contemplating the cognitive essence of what is real and unreal, of the intangibility in metaphysics, and of life and life’s propensity to seek immortality, surprisingly, the definitive qualities of Reality and Actuality became obvious, displacing traditional values; for, immediately outside my patio door, the answer appeared in qualitative and quantitative perception.

The quality of Reality and Actuality was reflected from a flowerpot suspended some 14 feet away from my desk, hanging in the patio beneath an arbor support. Suddenly, qualitative perception of the flowerpot presence became suspect; for, the immutability in quantitative measure and its importance to qualitative perception forced this exegete to a startling and incontestable conclusion. Ontologically, I could not concurrently exist in the presence of what I thought I was seeing! Amazingly, error in the perception of presence became obvious; what was perceived to be a present object was a present object only in the popular sense; for, in truth, phenomenon presence can never be intellectualized in other than a past state. Its presence can be perceived only as a past incident, historically reflected to cognizance, however aorist in time and space. The flowerpot was present in actuality, but my perception could be described as reality only.

Why?

To gain proper time and space perspective, with present and past comprehension, we should use a relative model to establish cognizance in quantitative indisputability.

With telescope assistance, we can intercept galaxy light from the far fringes of space, some 14,000,000,000,000 (fourteen billion, [14 x 1012]) light years distant from remote earth, a remoteness situated far out on the Milky Way’s Galaxy spiral. In other words, each reflected iota from distant space fringes requires 14 billion years to arrive at earthling receptivity. We observe the distant Galaxy, though it might not really exist after so long a time; yet, its light has presence. How? To be sure, we receive light reflection some fourteen billion years tardy to the actual light emission. Now, as Einstein proposed, light and time are relative; his theory is true; therefore, whatever distance light must travel, a certain time lapse is indicated, whether fourteen billion light years or 14 standard feet millisecond. Scientifically indisputable, the flower pot just 14 feet away cannot be seen in its present state; for, I must see it in retrospect, in historicity. Everything received by sentient means (the body senses) is sensed in historical recall, in retrospect. Once awareness to the limits of sentience is understood, then, we can make a definitive distinction between Actuality and Reality. We cannot live in the present, only in the historicity provided by sentience recall.

In a related question, contingent on answers to the first proposition, this exegete would add: noumenon (intuited by the mind) and phenomenon (known by the senses) permit our ontological wonderment and existence awareness. In the philosophy of Kant, an object such as the word usage ‘soul’ cannot be known through perception, although its existence can be demonstrated. By way of explanation, an experienced phenomenon differs from concepts noumenonally encouraged by Bible historicity; religion defined soul has a definition whose modernly perceived equivalent resists separation from its legal-historical reality. Intuitively, we sense an animated world through the noumenon, but source composition is received in bits and pieces, proven by lapsed time in the light-speed phenomenon. If we call phenomenon ‘recognized Reality,’ then, we are correct; for, the light-speed idiom inheres only historical perception—disputing the Reality mistakenly adopted into modern language usage. For, Reality is only recall.

Actuality, then, must mean ‘implied presence,’ inasmuch as we have established Reality to be historical and ‘implied presence’ being the only definition left for Actuality. Noumenal is a mental exercise--neither Actuality or Reality--not created through sentience but through mental innovation--whereas Actuality and Reality are perceived through the senses, and thus, phenomenal. Of course, both Actuality and Reality measure sentient impact, for both register phenomenon perception—but Actuality is transient in presence while Reality has permanence in historicity. Thus, we come to grips with the legal-historical basis (truth from repetition) for the noumenonal ‘soul’, which survivalist coinage is fed by invented desideratum and not to be confused with sentient existentialism.

About ideas and ideation: Kant observations seem appropriate, “that the ‘idea’ is transcendent and non-empirical.” That is: ‘idea’ is just that, an intellectual creation not proven by experiment or experience and thus noumenal. Once produced via senses cognizance, it can become an object and thus phenomenal. This author perceives ‘ideation’ only as a created image brought to mental awareness, not yet validated by sentience. A perception can assume Reality only in sentient recall, a product of previous evaluation, thus historicity, and thus Reality.

Distinction between the qualities of Reality and Actuality, as with any philosophical study, must eventually regress to the age-old study of ethics and ethos and finally to the legal-historical incertitude surrounding metaphysics; for, study must address the existential awareness whole; therefore, legal-historical awareness must be brought forward to satisfy Actuality-Reality questions as they might affect quantitative and qualitative contribution to the metaphysical schedule and thus to time frame perception.
About Bible history: the Bible can represent only legal-historical (repeated articulation) Reality. Bible exposition appears in Actuality; but like a great stage play, its principals and stage props exist only in Reality. Bible legal-historicity can be defined as an accepted truth only from repeated homilies and duplicated exposition--much as World History. One is as provable as the other. Did George Washington live? Did Neanderthals live? According to legal-historical accounts, they did live! Did Jesus Christ live in the last Age? Did Adam live in the first Age? According to legal-historicity, they did live in those designated Ages! However, we cannot prove any existence beyond legal-historical sanctions.

If the Messianic advent was phenomenal, then modernist utility must be defined as noumenal. Our problem, in modernist application, is in trying to make Reality become Actuality. Such is impossible, of course; like perceiving water to freely run uphill! Actuality can become Reality but not vice-versa. The only recourse for modern religion is to adopt the Messiah phenomenon via noumenal expedience. The Bible story is timely-episodes sensitive; therefore, we can deduce the Bible story to be conformed in Ten Ages increments, each antique to its successor, each lapsed into Reality.

About the Ten Ages Reality and Paul's cognizance of an Age Actuality: Yes, Paul was well aware of Daniel's Ten Ages and limit to Covenant longevity. Yet, Paul was almost casual in his mention of Ages. At II Timothy 1:9, he intimated two Ages only casually; but does this account represent the entire Ages scope? I think not!. Jesus also mentioned Two Ages, but not exactly the same as Paul’s Two Ages. The ‘previous Age’ in Paul's A.D. 68 time, at II Timothy 1:9, was the Messianic ‘age to come’ uttered by Jesus in Matthew 12:32 (summer of A.D. 28). But Paul was in the 10th Age when he wrote the II Timothy epistle. He was in the 9th Age when he wrote the I Timothy epistle. Compare “until the appearing” in I Timothy 6:14 with “now made manifest by the appearing” in II Timothy 1:10. Paul lived unto Parousia! My book, THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, gives much more detail concerning the Messianic reign and its place in the Actuality and Reality arena.

And about your God-breath enquiry: ‘Theopneustos’ means ‘God Inspired,’ or ‘Inbreathed of God,’ but in Greek Reality. If Daniel visions were inspired in Actuality, then we can say in retrospect: the Ten Ages concept now exist Theopneustos in Reality. As far as I know, this author is the only one ever to detect Ten Ages in scripture (and to subsequently posit his findings for critique). Ten Ages, as the whole of God-covenant extensions in time and space, exist in Reality not in Actuality; therefore, they are not relative to the modernist futurism! Consistent with age-old metaphysical conceptions, man continues to major in a minor; predictably he substitutes Actuality for Reality’s immutability. In conclusion: no, we do not live in the present; we cannot live in the present. Our mental efficacy is not sufficient to bring us into the present; we can only think we have total awareness. In words of the renowned philosopher, Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.” And another great philosopher, Sarte, describes ‘existentialism’ as man’s propensity to conform himself in roles most advantageous to his narcissistic value of Actuality and Reality. Habitually, man circumvents the truth in science and semantics, opts for opinion and word usage, and thus deceives himself of his true nature.

===w===

This is an important critique of an important ‘News Showman’s’ effort to rise above stardom and keep his feet on the ground. Bill O’Reilly, outspoken, and critical of untruth, is nonetheless subject to error and ingrained perspective. This author is anxious to give O’Reilly a fair critique.

Basking in the No Spin Zone, Bill O’Reilly alerts us to Who’s Looking Out For You? And within Introduction, he brings readers to a rather profound and ubiquitous observation, accusing propensity outside the golden circle: ”Self-delusions can negate even the best advice and most accurate observations.” En garde! Let us proceed!

Outside an obligation to follow Bill O’Reilly’s own ‘tell-it-like-it-is’ philosophy, Ben Winter has great admiration for O’Reilly’s style and effort to present a ‘truth-in-evidence’ programming format. One could hardly accuse the Fox News Showman of dodging debates with the ‘bad guys’ profiled in exposition--many so politically or objectively prejudiced as to appear shallow in their response to hard interrogatives. Our hat is off to you Bill O’Reilly--and we like you here at our house--but you do not get away scot-free.

Regarding your caution against bad advice or unsavory companionship from “a ship of fools” reference, this author is reminded of his own literary endeavor and would excerpt the last verse from a preface poem in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified. “O ship of fools had you embarked, And set a sane more resolute course, A ship of fools you might remain, But safe ashore without remorse.” In this regard, we agree with and repeat your quote of the indomitable George Washington; “associate yourself with men of quality if you esteem your own reputation, for ‘tis better to be alone than in bad company.” Good advice!

But when you give RFK credit on page 70 as champion of the little guy (minority vote) and all around “Who’s Looking Out For You?” champion, you stretch credibility pretty thin: “RFK brought down hundreds of wise guys, including the fearsome and corrupt labor boss Jimmy Hoffa.” Hello! Was not Jimmy Hoffa brought down by his own gangster clan—with a set of cement shoes—and which gang still operates with impunity and in full cooperation with the righteous Mayor, former Mayor, and wondrous woman Senator from New York? Why was Old Man Kennedy so adamantly set on a Presidential son? And why did Attorney General Kennedy pursue the Mob with such vengeance but little lasting benefit? Was it payback time?

On page 76 you mention ‘cultural assimilation’ as a cause for regressive tones in civilized conduct:‘It is not uncommon for a fifth-grade boy to call a female classmate a “bitch” or a “ho” {whore).’ Yet, all ‘minority apologists’ share the political podium with escapism rhetoric. Of course, political correctness is ‘cool.’ Flip the page forward and you castigate “‘The New York Times,’ the ‘Washington Post’, and the news divisions at NPR, PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS, and many other outfits . . . scared stiff of engaging in the cultural battles that are being waged for the hearts and minds of American children. Sorry O’Reilly, O’Reilly Factor, and FSN, I did not read any hard-hitting text addressing the problem now escalated in the wake of succeeding vote-hungry politicizations, and which will continue to escalate. This critique author understands the political expedience underlying public indoctrination and commercial efficacy—as you do. And, you do a good job despite the handicaps—but Jimmy Hoffa brought to heel by Robert Kennedy? You must also believe in Santa Claus. Bah humbug!

O’Reilly’s Bill Moyers portrait is right on target! Moyers often shoots himself in the foot, and the newspaper quote epitomizes Moyers’ narrow view and his ideologue denials but inherency: “We [PBS] are not ideologues. Ideologues look at the world in a certain way and try to shape everything to fit that view of the world. I take my opinion and my view from the world as I find it.” Ben Winter adds: Bill Moyers fools his own narcissistic self; he soft-pedals Islam culture, enjoys conservative castigation, wallows in Democratic tom-foolery, revels in anything anti-establishment—and he always slants questions toward the ideologue favorable to his own narrow viewpoint.

Gingerly, with tongue-in-cheek, Bill O’Reilly is careful to tread the Religion road on tiptoes. Careful Bill, nothing is worth nothing! With incongruous, but typical Roman Catholic commitment, he equates monotheism with “beautiful sculptures and stained glass windows and a 2,000-year-old tradition that makes sense.” Islam does the same thing in architecture and the ‘black stone.’” While you advise Qur’an perusal to be unnecessary for terrorism understanding and intimate the Qur’an text benign, tell us Bill O’Reilly, where does your scandal-ridden religion differ from Muslim scandal-ridden religion? Not one iota! Evidentially, supported by laypeople, clerics in both disciplines prey on youth! From your writing, like Bill Moyers, you know little about neither your chosen religion’s incentive nor Islam’s religion incentive, thus placing susceptibles at survival risk. All Bills, and other pseudo-religionists, are ignorant of the most important question facing mankind. Thus, I do not selectively criticize the two Bills; however, Bill, tell me what you know about ‘Ten Ages’ as a limit to the monotheism existentialism in evidence! Your answer, which I will never hear, will determine the depth of your knowledge, not your intelligence; they are two different things. Frankly, I do not care other than to make the point; I would only hope either Bill might intercept this critique and reflect on a less than perfect religious experience and an understanding so lightly considered as an intangible safety net. I know: you believe, this and that, . . . . . et cetera!
Concerning secularism’s rise, we quote Bill’s caveat: “a philosophy that argues there is no room for spirituality in the public arena, . . . from the intolerant secularists who hold power in many different quarters.” Perhaps secularity’s role should be defined. Is everything outside Roman Catholicism secular? Which must we assign to the non-secular definition: Judaism, Catholicism and other Sectarian monotheisms, or Islam? They are all monotheistic. Logically, we can determine each to be opposed to the other two—that is, if we understand monotheism rules and opposing disciplines. Which two are secular? A statement of belief will not suffice; a good syllogism would be apropos. Please, “Just the facts, ma’am.”

Of the three monotheisms, all are alive and well—but which can surpass its legal-historical non sequitur? After all, anaclisis is the crutch used by all three, including camel drivers, the rich, the destitute, and even Fox News principals. Even so, Immanuel Kant said it was okay: “No man has the intellect to deny another man’s God.” But Kant’s conclusion was not entirely correct, modernly; outdated as it were and as it pertains to popular conception, he spoke of ideation not the manifestation of real or tongue-in-cheek omnipotence.

How can Benjamin Franklin (page 116) look down from ‘heaven’ as constituted in his 1787 remarks to the Constitutional Convention: ‘. . . imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, . . .? But you are right, O’Reilly; “Either a society has morals or it turns into the Mongol hordes.” But just to keep the record straight, for Benjamin or Bill, John saw heaven descending to earth (at least below the mountain top)—not rising into fantasyland!

Your advice on political philosophy and discipline is to think logically (page 157): “Facts look out for you. And that’s a fact.” But many facts devolve to relative truth. And Ben Winter would ask for fact qualification. Surely it is a perception not susceptible to relative truth. On page 177, speaking of racial hustlers ‘who has accumulated power by blaming the white man for everything,’ we approach the truth in America discontent. “A desperate population is vulnerable to exploitation by them (racial hustlers).” No less vulnerable is the majority young, slowly demoralized by an invasive culture promulgated by plagiarist fools immersed in an inherent folly. The die is cast, and there can be no turning back from the total corruption and moral decay festered in our cultural revolution.

Let us turn back to page 134, Bill O’Reilly. Much as I admire your hard-hitting journalism format, you should limit your articulation to those things well researched and topics with which you are familiar. Even a voice of reason becomes unreasonable outside its expertise. You had the audacity to brag: ‘. . . we rejected the argument that reading the Koran book would help us get to know the world that the 9/11 killers inhabited. Number one, I don’t think the revelations of the Prophet Muhammad have anything to do with homicide and terrorism. And second, I reject the argument that you have to digest a book of poetry and religious interpretation in order to “know” your enemy.’ That tragic statement should earn you the dumb award for all time! The Qur’an resembles a book of poetry and peace about like the Mafia manifesto and should be accepted only by apologists propagandizing their inherited psychosis. I suggest you read Qur’an Suras 5.33, 9.5 - .29, 33.61, and 47.4—just for starters—each is contextually slanted to encourage infidel murder! Qur’an Suras (Chapters) are talking about you Bill O’Reilly and 260 million other Americans by association. And dummy US, UK, French, German, UN Conspirators, and other government entities harbor these rats even while acknowledging themselves also on the hit list. William Jefferson Clinton and his like-minded, traitorous wife, actually sided with the Islam conspiracy against Yugoslavia sovereignty and received public adulation for their nefarious and subversive endeavor. Of course, it took the heat off other scandalous behavior! (Slobodan Milosevic reprisals might be equated with Israel resistance.) And when celebrity ordained Bill O’Reillys commiserate Islam comeuppance, they enrich Qur’an poison to our enemy’s glee—including the 7 million Qur’an devotees resident in our midst—and including seditious blacks or whites who adopt Muslim nom de guerre designates. No heroes here, only enemies!

As Gomer Pyle would say: “Shame, shame-shame, shame, shame”!

Bill, your continuing apologetic for black propensity on page 186 and encouragement for the masses to reject false prophets, racial instigators, and phony patronizers is well taken. (patronizers is not regular, however.) But you missed the deterioration syndrome existing below your elevated safety seat. Inevitability stalks with ignorance and resistance to morality, disdain for philosophical ethics and ethos, shunning of education, partisan politics, and wise-guy patronage at the U.S. feed trough.

Who’s Looking Out For You concludes with Bill O’Reilly’s promise to let the chips fall where they may as he iconoclastically battles the system and champions rights for the underdog. A noble endeavor indeed, and articulated in Bill’s inimitable and unvarnished style. He boasts: “That style is not for everyone, but, in its own way, cutting through the fog is a noble endeavor.” We cannot accuse Bill O’Reilly of modest!

We end our critique and urge Bill O’Reilly to continue his crusade against injustice and ignorance—and at the same time, learn something about the Qur’an incentives so blatantly published for readers at elementary school reading levels and which is neither poetry nor religious interpretation.

​===w===

         A Stem Cell is an unspecialized cell; that is, it produces nothing but itself until given special impetus; then, it can be compelled to produce specific and specialized cells such as Pancreatic, Neuron, Hematopoietic, Cardiomyocytes, Hepatocytes, etc. Laboratory Stem Cells are a developed stem cell line coming from a single embryo; thus, they can become a cell colony able to reproduce indefinitely. But scientists who work with these cells say many of the 64 known colonies are not fully developed and may never produce benefit. In scientific essence, this processes is entitled, ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer.’
      Embryonic stem cells are the basic building blocks for some 260 body cell types; these building blocks can become anything: heart, muscle, brain, skin, blood or other somatic utility. Research hopes to guide laboratory transformation and coax stem cells to treat diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and/or other body disorders.
          To know Stem Cells, one must understand first how molecular development (atom combinations producing molecules) represents the first stage in cellular development. It has been said: “The cell is the bedrock of nature.” But this writer, Ben Winter, disagrees; for the bedrock of nature rests not in cellular complexity but in single atom propensity—and these are somehow composed of, or effected by, subatomic particles, and these by yet unknown energy sources. Before becoming a ‘bedrock cell,’ many trillions of atom actions and reactions must transfer energy before a human cell can maintain itself and its environment, beginning as a single molecule (bonding of two or more atoms).
      Basic biochemistry understands the assembly of two or more atoms to constitute molecular creation. ‘Hydrogen atoms’ are the most abundant element in the universe, mechanically used in the production of synthetic ammonia and methanol, in petroleum refining, and in the hydrogenation of organic materials. ‘Oxygen atoms’ constitute 21 percent of Earth’s atmosphere by volume and occurs as a diatomic gas in compounds such as water and iron ore. Oxygen combines with many elements and is essential for plant and animal respiration—and compulsory for most combustion types. Oxygen and hydrogen retain the propensity to create water; all it takes is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom bonding to create a water molecule —even so, a catalyst is needed to instigate condensation into appreciable precipitation, and thus, to unaided perception. Therewith, we gain insight into molecular development; notwithstanding, all different chemical molecules are created from differing atom combinations.
      Without water, our environment would be unfriendly to present life forms. And life’s chemistry is enormously complicated, where atom trillions within body cells must be built step by step, from uncountable molecular composites, composed entirely of atoms. Amino acids, enzymes, proteins, and perhaps other unknown incentives (all atomically bonded) are building blocks ‘evolved’ from simple molecules, to complex cells; these cells are then imbued with instigation and mitigation to make cellular life functional.
      Theoreticians Matthias Schleiden and Theodor Schwann concluded cells to compose the entirety of animal and plant bodies. Each cell was discovered to be an individual unit, with its own life. Schleiden and Schwann worked in the early to middle 1800s—during Darwin’s travels and The Origin of Species publication. Creationists discount Darwin’s Natural Selection theory, especially religious biochemists; for, they perceive cellular development to inhere ‘irreducible complexity’ through omnipotent creation.
     This author, Ben Winter, finds the ‘irreducible complexity’ in cellular composition to be self-incriminating; for such complexity is not irreducible but can be reduced further, to the very least molecule, to single atoms, and to subatomic affinity involving symbiosis. Thus, ‘bedrock of nature’ rests not in molecule inspired cells but in single atom inherence. Without water, our environment would be unfriendly to present life forms. Yet, simple water molecules do not own the complexity in more dynamic symbiosis cells.
     Stuart Kauffman of Santa Fe Institute fame, championed atom propensity: “the tendency of complex systems to arrange themselves in patterns—and not due to natural selection: ‘Darwin and evolution stand astride us, whatever the mutterings of creation scientists. But is the view right?. . . . I believe it is not. It is not that Darwin is wrong, but that he got hold of only part of the truth.’” Darwin could not explain molecular structure, of course; biochemistry advancements were not present in Darwin’s investigative time!
     Realistically, human cells contain many trillions of atoms; many are residue from the combinations furnished by many other trillions of atom constructions repeatedly used and habitually reduced to basic units (atoms), in a quantum transformation processes utilizing ultimate workability and inherent atom activity.
    We know Hydrogen and Oxygen have the inherent propensity to produce water—without creature influence. By repeatable experiment, we know this to be an essence of Hydrogen and Oxygen properties. Might we not conclude: propensity exists in other atomic essence? Gold ore does not appear as an initially occurred metal, but gold atomic incidence has the propensity to assimilate under the right conditions—into grains, threads, and nuggets. Such atomic attraction is mimicked by B cell antibodies, whose ‘Y’ extension from the cell body is so constructed, on its split extension, as to fit the shape of encountered objects (bacteria [atomic conglomerates]), and thus bond—which B cell then replicates its antibody properties. Does not the human brain resemble polypeptide construction folded into quaternary structure? We find much resemblance in visible assemblies and microbiology. Does not a polypeptide endure the same fold around its backbone as a developing fetus?
    The cell is a molecular machine, mostly composed of interacting proteins. In the production of ATP, a mononucleotide found in cells, several molecular steps are involved; first, a composite molecule begins the processes with a conglomerate assembly of carbon, hydrogen, phosphorus, etc., (properly bonded in number and atom diversity to the host atom). Thus we begin an incredibly complex addition of atomic substrates and subsequent rejection of no longer needed atom components. Evolvement, from one stage to another, is motivated by named energizers composed of yet other atom composition; from this composition, additional atoms are attracted to prepare for the next stage and notwithstanding the discard of previously added but no longer needed atoms in the congregate. A dozen or more sequenced stages illustrate the scientist’s perceived ‘irreducible complexity’ in cell and protein production. Even in the construction used to suggest irreducible character, we can easily discount the ‘irreducible complexity’ claim.
     The Monotheism/biochemistry writer, Behe, described Darwin’s evolutionary account as “a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.” In premise, Behe posits a ‘propositional’ truism: ‘absence of journalistic evidence constitutes an absence of scientific viability.’ Surely, the anomaly only means discovery has not been forthcoming. Remember this definition and compare Behe’s definition of Darwinian evolution with his own ‘evolutionary’ description involving cellular development. Ben Winter would observe: Contrary to Behe bias, AMP production, similar in complexity to other molecular designs, cannot be separated from Darwin’s larger scale hypotheses; for, molecular development derives from nonliving matter and is subsequently developed entirely by natural means!
     Creationism appeals to majority intellect; often, Evolution is painted in evil contrast to Creation purity. Such represents mere attempts to placate metaphysical convictions and enthuse confederation in majority consensus. Condemning evolution does not make the Evolution hypothesis wrong; it only makes the Creationist confederate feel good.
     It makes little sense to bash Darwin’s evolution theory; for evolution and creation via molecular instigation live side by side with biochemical interaction--sans contradiction. In THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, author Ben Winter posits a time-sequenced amelioration for Biblical, Astrophysical, Geological, Biological, and Evolutional measurements. Plus, biblical depiction of ‘Ten Ages,’ as a quantitative measure, incorporates the entire Bible physical and metaphysical measure in a true correlation with time and space. In the interest of science, ‘Evolution’ or ‘Intelligent Design,’ then, remains unresolved and left to individual determination. Unmindful of controversy, ‘Intelligent Design’ and ‘Evolution synthesis’ works hand in hand to produce ‘Stem Cells’ and functioning life forms, regardless theory, superstition, or discipline. Atom ‘intelligence’ ‘evolves’ through bonding, co-valance, and evolved atomic inherency critical to life and stem cell production.
     Assisted in the laboratory, stem cell development is instigated with an ovum nucleate removal and its replacement with DNA from another cell. With special catalyst, the ovum begins to divide; one tiny cell evolves into two, the two into four, and doubling thereafter until, at a certain stage, stem cells can be removed from blastocyst mass—the blastocyst residue then being discarded. These stem cells can be designated ‘unspecialized cells’ and grown into skin cells, nerve, heart, liver, lung, blood, pancreas, etc.—thereby offering to rehabilitate or regenerate new parts for ailing human organs or cells within such agency. And while stem cells offer the potential for many ailment cures or prevention, ethical problems arise in monotheism resentment to possible human cloning advancements and therefore to metaphysical belief infringement. Monotheist appeal, then, contains a whole new ethical consideration; but regardless opposition in our free society, Clonaid claims to have replicated a living human and completed the gestation time frame. But this has little to do with stem cell development for clinical benefit. If one should diagnose the pre-egg, pre-blastocyst, pre-DNA institution, pre-ATP instigation, he would arrive to the basic unit: a never still, always on the move, single atom nucleate with its prescribed electron energy shell harboring the very essence of quantum mechanics--energy--and life.

​===w===

      Tiresomely predictable, Dr. Borden persists with an unimaginative and conventional perpetuation of Symbols and Numbers miscalculation; therein, he promotes further Beast misinterpretation. Any interpreter would do well to study a recently available emendation to typical doctrinaires and discover the Bible Story's true premise: that is, a systematic march to and fro by the 'Chosen People' as they fulfilled Ten Ages comprising their own and peculiar Covenant obligation. Doctor Borden may have earned distinction in his chosen field, but such does not guarantee insight to cabala understanding. In another Theology Doctor's abridgement, “A Doctorate means only that you have persevered.” This author would commend Eli Borden for such perseverance and for his sincere ambition to enlighten an obtuse world, however burdened with traditional rote.
     Anaclisis esteems no degree of academic acclaim; but rather, fear of the unknown; it equally affects the learned and unlearned. Recognizing academician and plebeian propensity to equal metaphysical susceptibility, Ben Winter would recommend a hiatus to traditional perceptions, to disregard previous impressions (as much as possible), and proceed to investigate the strict semantics peculiar to Bible documentation. Dr. Borden's prognosis concerning “Daniel visions being opened to understanding and therefore Revelation, in mid-First Century A.D.," ignores his own futurist requisites; for, he proposes a future 'end time,' post-First Century A.D. (after A.D. 70), which, together with his claim to Daniel insight, is nonsensical to the limit imposed by Daniel’s non-access until the futurist time in Borden’s on prohibition to the evidence he would dextract.
     We should first acknowledge the future 'events sequence' to be feasible only in the Parousia fulfillment: that is, one continuous event but Daniel not being accessable until the ‘end time’; if so, then, we should attempt to establish parameters for accomplishment.  Devolvement between the point in Daniel visions to Parousia beginnings was sealed to understanding until the 'end time' actuality. You cannot have two Parousias Dr. Borden; so what shall it be, the time leading up to Temple destruction in A.D. 70 or some Temple destruction in the future. Therein, 'relative negativism' would seem to be indicated, to clear our mind of infeasible applications and alert our cognizance to practicality. And we would forewarn the curious; such technique is not ubiquitous in Borden’s “The Death Of The Beast.” Dr. Borden violates his futurism (second coming extension) prognostication when he pronounces Daniel to be interpretable, for Daniel visions were sealed until the 'end time,' or Parousia; therefore, antagonistic to his own assertions, the visions would remain inviolate until Dr. Borden's unseasonable and unreasonable 'end time' forecast.  Realistically, the good Doctor cannot unseal Parousia cabala prior to his imagined time frame. If the good Doctor can interpret such, then he must do so in post-Parousia beginnings; thus, his futurism becomes unseasonal unless he can experience an aorist event complete with 'end time' horrors, Temple worship, and ongoing Parousia.
     Opinionative offense marks page 1; here, Borden posits in bold type: "Revelation is a book written for every generation!" Such cannot be the case, for the vision was to Seven Churches in Asia. In specific instruction, Revelation 2:10 would limit certain utility, “. . . and ye shall have tribulation ten days: . . .”  We do not intercept the quote meaning to define a literal ten days;  but realistically, we cannot furnish commentary on every traditional inharmonic opinion on the ancient semantics; for, “The Death Of The Beast” contains about 340 pages of continuous departures from semantic reason. But suffice to say, those ‘ten days’ had special meaning and are inapplicable to modernist or futurist application. One can find a reasonable interpretation for Bible cabala in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, by Ben Winter.
     The good Doctor should have questioned: why only “Seven Churches In Asia” (Asia Minor)?  And he should question why 10 brides awaited Messiah, regardless their preparedness. And why Seven Brothers would be proposed (by the Sadducees) to contend for a wife they all had previously wed—and all dead at the time? Why the Samaritan woman had been Covenanted to Five Husbands, and was then living with a man and un-Covenanted?  Of course, he did not!  Neither have other futurist advocates!  The numbers oppose conventional pedagogy, and more than one bride opposes Paul's one wife limitation.  Why, then, ten for the Messianic Bridegroom?
     Traditionally, conventionally, and typically, lest there be some misunderstanding where Dr. Borden is coming from, he proliferates the ultimate misinterpretation when he writes on page 4: “Seven reasons will clearly illustrate that Revelation was written initially about the fall of Rome in the first century; . . .”
     The above statement, then, represents Dr. Borden's premise: all prophecy, parables, and other prophetic literature must conclude with Rome's imminent destruction--and then prescribe an 'eternal generation' to await Parousia. Such linguistic liberty makes absolutely no sense!
     This author would ask, why ‘initially’ in the quote and not ‘totally’?  But choice of words for Revelation text origination is not the issue; the issue revolves around selecting Rome as protagonist to earn Deity anger, judgment, and retribution; notwithstanding, the recalcitrant children of Israel were scheduled as promise recipients and to merit judgment actions. Misinterpretation is made more farfetched when we consider the imminence and urgency in Revelation language and the great length of time required to accomplish Rome’s demise. And if The Death Of The Beast, or any other commentary, should propose Rome or the Pope to have been imminently deposed in the first century, such entity's eminence in biblical text would stretch credibility to the utmost--notwithstanding the Pope's failure to exist in biblical times. And concerning imminent destruction--if the Pope had existed then, does not the Pope and his henchmen still sell absolution to the unwary, 2000 years after the 'at hand' destruction proposed by Dr. Borden? To shorten this critique, Winter would castigate Borden's shortsightedness with the following brief comments:
1.) Page 249, the Beast should be Israel, not Rome as claimed.
2.) Page 226, the Locusts should be Saints, not Demons as claimed.
3.) Page 208, the 'Second Death' is not Spiritual Death but 'death' of Spiritual Death.
4.) Page 262, Gematria, or numerology, can be made to mean whatever the author
might  imagine or desire. The numerical oddity, 666, however computed, is the number of a man. No 'man' meets the existentialist criteria other than tribal Israel, as'man' pseudonym. Such a 'man' is described in II Thessolonians 2:3.  This entity represents the same seed line from whence the "son of 'man'" must evolve.
5.) Page 204, (inchoate with 1st Seal, through 208 and 4th Seal) How wrong can you
       get?  The Beasts, opening the Seals, wish only to show their own characterization
       to John.  And the First Seal contents do not represent Messiah.  If you want to
       know who, read the book.
6.) Page 126 and 164, Revelation was not written between "69 and 79 A.D."; it was
        written in A.D. 60.  How could it be written after the fact and still recommend an
        imminence for certain events.
7.)Page 20, Interpreting the Image relative to Nebuchadnezzar's dream, Borden
        wrongly proposed the Medo-Persian Empire to be one inferior to
        Nebuchadnezzar's Empire and thus represent the Imaged silver breast and arms.
        Reason fails to be reason if we propose an inferior kingdom to conquer a
        superior kingdom.  No, the inferior kingdom to succeed Nebuchadnezzar was his
        grandson, Belshazzar, not the Medo-Persians.
8.) Page 15, The Roman Empire was not responsible for Messiah's crucifixion; the
        honor belonged to Judean Temple authorities.
9.) Page 21, The Shaggy He-goat, Daniel 8, did not represent Greece as proposed by
Borden; but the symbol was a far more sinister opportunist (Grecia) with translated features representing Israel heritage. One should remember who belongs as principal characters in the entire biblical Ten Ages sequence.
10.) Page 41-43, Sorry but Nabonidus was not ruler over Belshazzar or Chaldea at
        Belshazzar's death; for Belshazzar was Chaldean king at his death time, not
        Babylon king as traditionally thought. Nabonidus was long gone--many miles
        away, out, in the desert (at Temah) doing archaeological work and building
        Temples.  Chronology is distorted when limited to the biblical Daniel Chapters’
        insequential collation.
11.) Page 47-48-49-53-56, Concerning Daniel prophecies, Borden’s commentary is
        obsessed with the Medo-Persians as principals in Daniel’s prophetic visions. He
        miscalculates the Tribal People's cabala style and demonstrates a propensity to
        expose one and symbolize another. The visions are consistent however; for
        prophetic symbology, though changed over time intervals and symbols choice,
        always represents the same thematic protagonist.
12.) Page 38, Here, Dr. Borden neglects the Babylon desolation so energetically
qualified by subsequent evidence. However, the biblical desolation instance does not mean destruction, but rather, nonexistence to Babylonian influence following Cyrus and the Persian eminence. Consistently, no one lives there today as Babylonian, but rather as Iraqi; but, to be sure, people still live there and always have as far back as history can record. Estheticism, idealism, and spiritualism are commendable in ethical attributes, but are always relative, and can never replace reason and logic as syllogistic affirmation for symbols intent.
     Lest this critique become extended and overly tedious, let us offer a summation.  Dr. Borden's book faithfully conforms to traditional interpretation and expectation, and cannot be faulted in this respect--however, its conformity to historical fact and semantic integrity is lost in 'propositional truths.'  Admittedly, my own brief comments can do little more than roil confusion in the casual adherent; therefore, as a foil to those extraordinary persuasions fostered by conventionality and insalubrious recommendation, this author submits "THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified" as a source to logically refute popular symbol interpretations and offer relief to the world's anaclitic dependency, to relieve the monotheism adherents hard-pressed and impoverished misunderstanding.

===w===

Seyyed Nasr emerges as the world’s leading Islamicist and has authored several books on Islam studies. Philosophy and Islamic Studies professor at George Washington University, Washington, D.C., Nasr also reigns as Foundation for Traditional Studies president. He first saw the light of day in Tehran, Iran; but influence being what it is, he received an advanced education at M.I.T. and Harvard University. Upon receiving his degree, he returned to Iran and taught at Tehran University for about 20 years. Ardent and energetic exponent of Islamic teachings, plus writer of endearing apologetics for Middle Eastern culture, intellect, prosperity, and freedom, where does the insightful professor choose to expound such tribute? Of course, he chooses the place where freedom, prosperity, and security exist in a tangible environment, the United States of America.

How is it, the esteemed professor would choose to live in a decadence so publicly criticized by source materials, consanguinity, and inhered philosophy?

We should well-note: Professor Nasr confesses typical Islamic belief with his admission on page 39: “The daily prayers that punctuate the Muslim’s entire life, from the age of puberty until death, are constituted of verses and chapters from the Quran, while Islamic Law has its root in the sacred text . . . . the Quran contains the roots, or principles, of knowledge pertaining to both the domain of action and that of intellection and contemplation . . . . for Muslims, everything about the Quran is sacred . . . . that central sacred presence that determines all aspects of Muslim life and the source and fountainhead of all that can be authentically called Islamic.”

From Ben Winter perspective, and though awed by the professor’s academic standing, ‘sacred text’ and ‘everything’ appears to be used in the synecdochical, seeking acceptance in general rectitude, yet dodging specific embarrassment in Qur’an calls to fundamentalist mission. Blatantly encouraged in Qur’an text, specific inhumanities are covered-over by Imam clerics, accusing the Western world of disinformation and misinterpretation.

In his apologetic, the good Doctor dared only to quote philosophical tidbits from the prophet Mohammed’s repertoire; never does he or other Islam apologists mention the constant Qur’an theme: denigration of Jews and Christians, infidels as it were! In Qur’an text and Muslim life, defaming Jews and Christians is the lesser evil; many Qur’an passages contain prompts to more stringently deal with offending Jews and Christians: (Sura 5.33) “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; . . .”

Again, specifically, Sura 47.04: “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.”
 
If the good Doctor is enthralled with ‘civilization,’ humanity, economy, culture, and moral excellence accredited to Islam, then why migrate to a decadent and depressed civilization described as the United States of America? Regardless Seyyed Nasr’s motive, under the umbrella of University liberalism, apologetics and evangelistic fervor are publicly propagandized to further Islam desideratum. Islam’s aniconic renown seeks notice; yet Allah presence is knowingly indicated in geometric design, arabesque, and rhythmic repetition in sacred art. In migratory habit, Islam infuses this ubiquitous and subtle art form into local culture and soon transforms it into Islamic reality.

In Nasr’s apologetic, we hear much of Islam’s predilection to science and the arts, to respect for other religions, to distortion of Islam in the West, and to Islam as the final and plenary Revelation for ‘all’ mankind.

In the inflected inclusiveness of ‘all, we must challenge Doctor Nasr’s perception of subject, time frame, and objectivity contained in Sura 7.172. According to Nasr, Allah’s question of “Am I not your Lord?” received an answer ascribed to the ‘whole of humanity’: “Yes, verily we bear witness.” Actually, Doctor Nasr’s perception of address and intent is incorrect; for, the prophet Mohammed’s elucidations are contextually addressed to the disloyalty of Israel’s twelve tribes, to their false testimony, to illumination as seed of Adam, and to a disloyal people first receiving the word.

Seyyed Nasr posits Islam as a return to Abraham’s religion, even to that of Adam: “. . . restoring primordial monotheism without identifying it with a single people, as is seen in the case of Judaism, or a single event of human history, as one observes in the prevalent historical view of the incarnation in Christian theology.” Thus, mimicking Qur’an emendations to Reality, Doctor Nasr exposes his prejudice and embarrasses academia with that which he proudly hangs as a rejection to Actuality.

Complicating philosophical intellection raised from Qur’an incertitude, Nasr frequently refers to “the outward meaning of the text and to its inner message. The science of Quranic commentary is one of the most important of the religious disciplines taught to this day in traditional Islamic schools.” Ben Winter observes: this science does not emanate from Qur’anic text so much as it does from extensive Commentary written over the past 1400 years. With this dependency, Islamic devotees rely on ancient opinion, desideratum, and legal-historical narratives written by over-zealous and under-edified troglodytes—still cave dwellers despite modern advances.

In this book, we cannot escape the mumbo-jumbo of intellectual escapism: “Islam came into the world to create a balance between the outward and the inward, the physical and the spiritual, and to establish an equilibrium on the basis of which human beings are able to realize the Unity, or al-tawhid, that is the goal of human life.”

Contemplating Nasr’s world of prophets, angels, jinns, nominative omnipotence, and life goal, we experience the liberty of innovative exposition; which world can be attained only through sapiential advise from the good prophet. And at the end, Mahdi will come, after Christ returns to Jerusalem, “which will bring human history to a close and lead to the Day of Judgment.” Typically, like Jewish and Christian counterparts, Nasr’s Islamic conscience will not permit the utterance of Messiah when referring to Jesus Christ. Such nomination infers the unthinkable, a Jewish, son of God, ruling over a Hebrew God Kingdom—and adopted by others as inclusive of all. However, ALL utter ‘Christ’ with the least conviction as to its unutterable derivation.

On page 77, freedom is defined: “in Islam not simply as individual rebellion against all authority but participation in that freedom that in its fullness belongs to God alone. Muslims gain freedom, not confinement, by conforming to the Will of God, Muslims are able to transcend the imprisonment of their own egos and the stifling confinement of their passionate selves.” Ben Winter observes: Thus, freedom or passion, fortune or misfortune, administered by angel or jinn, cannot be diverted by individual effort, but must await the ‘will of God.’ Perhaps this willingness to leave all to the will of God can account for an impoverished Middle East and to the present world problem of Qur’an inspired terrorism intent on maintaining the status quo!

Nasr accounts the existence of Shari’ah (the path), a divided circle containing sufficient directives to satisfy Muslim requirements for devotion and lifestyle; yet does Qur’an verse overshadow Imam recitations of Shari’ah duties. A system of Sulfism effectuates the Shari’ah construct and expects to forecast eschatological success.

According to Nasr bibliography, the Islamic calendar started with Muhammed’s hajj, or pilgrimage, to Medina in A.D. 622. Thus, always 21 years behind the Gregorian, 2003 would be registered as 1982 in the Islamic calendar. Beginning with its institution, the Islamic calendar registers a continuous war both within and without its religious extremisms. Ever praising the perseverance of Islam, Nasr, a student of comparative religions, admits to Bible origins for Qur’an principals and principles; yet, the professor neglects Ishmael’s clear disenfranchisement of Abraham’s promise, and which disinheritance is detailed in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, written by Ben Winter. THE GREAT DECEPTION boldly limits monotheism utility to Jacobian progeny, limited in Daniel’s vision of Ten Ages, fulfilled in John’s End Time Revelation of activities, and culminated in The Temple destruction.

Nasr writes a very informative book, though filled with legal-historical reference; yet, he successfully illuminates the ethics and ethos incorporated into Shari’ah directives. One need not read other books on the Islam stimulus or Muslim motivation, for they all read pretty much alike. Typically and habitually, Muslim writers toy with philosophical ruminations and egocentric rationale. Illuminating Islam by incandescent shrewdness; they neglect an overshadowing illegitimacy, incongruity, and danger to world peace.

===w===

      At Eve’s Genesis interchange with the Serpent, she assumed an adversarial quality; thus, she conspired against her helpmeet Adam. The mental apparition raised Eve’s innate curiosity and her natural inclination to question authority; Serpent subtlety, in her innate nature, did the rest and caused Eve to question existing prohibitions against partaking of the particular Edenic ‘fruit.’ God, who had given Adam and Eve presence in the Garden, placed the particular fruit symbol out of bounds. Naturally, Eve could not resist its attraction. And here, sanctioned in legal-historical mysticism, the unprecedented was recorded: Eve defied God and gave Adam fruit from the forbidden tree. Regardless fruit form and man’s definition, ingestion conferred intellectual awareness; thus they were able to discern good and evil difference; for, even in an ingenuous state, they possessed the ability to question established order; however, they could not discern the real quality resulting from cause to effect, though they hid from God due to an inherent guilt; nor could they detect quantification in the enormously proliferated seed line which was to follow. For scripture did not accord Ten Ages knowledge to their transgression at the first; only later was the seed line’s march ‘to and fro in the earth’ brought to incremental measurement and into the scope of Covenant finiteness.
      Eve, “the mother of all living,” inheres special Legal-Historical awareness. We posit her motherhood in the special niche demanded for seed line progeny who would suffer the quality lost in Adam’s weakness, promised restitution in Abraham progeny, and restored by Messiah; but such restoration was not promised for all men, only to those descended through the elite progeny nominated to receive the transition in righteousness. And now, such translative difficulty demands special analysis for the Serpent character, for Serpent aptitude, and for Serpent viability. For, only in man’s recidivistic nature can we find distinguishing features operable in the Serpent-Satan character.
    In Genesis 3:1, Job 1:7, Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 (plus Rev. 13 and 17) is established the conditional nature in the Beast, Dragon, Devil, Serpent, Satan, and finally, conditional in the self-determining nature of man (often exposited in the Bible as common to major characters). No elenchus can dispute parallels in the foregoing reference. It remains only to determine the function or operative mechanics as they relate to human propensity. Paul in an Epistle Chapter salutatory to a One God faithful marriage (warning against susceptibility to idols and/or false doctrine), says, in II Corinthians 11:3, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” Obviously, such subtle ‘beguilement’ originated at Genesis 3:13; thus, in the II Corinthians example, Serpent, or the adversative, takes a mental aberration form, an adversarial attitude toward established order.
      The anomaly was given beguiler authority in Job 2:1-:7. In verse :6, the sons of God came before Him, reflecting Satan subtlety. Here, by and by, suggestion was given to poor Job, and he developed a devil obvious even to his four friends. After a lengthy exchange, Elihu spoke (Job 36:22-:23), “Behold, God exalteth by his power: who teacheth like him?” (:23) “Who hath enjoined him his way? or who can say, Thou hast wrought iniquity?” From the foregoing, it was Job who wrought the iniquity, not a god-like Satan! And, following Job 40:15, we find God had created Behemoth (iniquitous horde), “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass (herbs, bw) as an ox.” God goes on to berate Job for his inability to influence leviathan; for this creation, when God directed, was one who could cause the Jordan to flow, but he, the beast, could not be influenced by Job; for, it was pointed out: behemoth could do nothing without God’s help; and in the end, Job was object of the subject created in his own problematic conscience. Thus we discover multifaceted and subtle links to Satan habitation and motivation.
      In Revelation 20:2 Messiah bound the dragon, “the old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan. (Rev. 12:3, 12:9), “. . . which deceiveth the whole world: . . .” This anomaly was that ‘which deceiveth the whole world.’ (seed line world) Thus the perception was confined to a certain circumambience, time frame, and ethnicity. Confined to particular seed line ethnicity, embraced within Heaven and Earth perimeters, and restricted to a Ten Ages time frame, Satan was the serpent intellection that beguiled Chosen People on their march to parousia and to required terminus for the dual definition--for all time. Peter had first hand experience with this conditional infestation at Matthew 16:23, when, Jesus said to him, “Get thee behind me, Satan . . . for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” We come to realize, Peter exhibited the same seed line self-determination (mental independence) manifested in Eve, in Moses, in Abraham, in Peter, and in Parousia principals.
      The King James Version College of Translators, and later other translator interpreters manifested the same attitude as did Peter. Therefore, in 1611, when describing future interactions between progeny and serpent, the select College group invented ‘propositional truth’; that is, they interpreted text out of context, and assigned what to them was logical interplay between the serpent and ‘mother of mankind.’ For, when the King James translator college, and subsequent translator mimics, encountered the relative nature in serpent, ‘cattle, and every beast of the field’ existence, it was natural to conform relative phraseology to literal concept. And the snake, to any observation, does appear to be subtle, crafty, all knowing, and secretive. In the Genesis Serpent and Eve interchange, we must expect a figurative and symbolic presence due to our established snake, serpent, Dragon, Behemoth, Leviathan, Beast, linguistic accommodation. They are the same. The parallel is not debatable in scholarly exegesis. The several nominates serve inseparable function and infest the same literal host but in a figurative sense. Double talk? Of course! The Bible is full of it! But here, we speak of figurative essence in a literal host able to serve the metaphoric function. Here, we depart from partial-traditional renderings and seek greater understanding in an unorthodox but plausible rendering to account for scripture incongruity in the Eve-Serpent actions.
      Our subject is Eve and her experience with the Serpent, eastward, in Edenic Paradise. In Genesis 3:13, “And the Lord God said unto the woman, what is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” And to serpent duplicity, God said, “. . . upon thy belly shall thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: . . .” We know the serpent does not gain nourishment from eating dust; therefore, we must use a little reason to extract reason. We might suspect such condemnation to denigrate the snake’s primary interest—eating; certainly, the reference is not to dust as a primary diet. In verse :17, mankind is promised to eat of the cursed ground also—through intending produce—might not also the dust intend produce also? But let us quote the entire Genesis 3:15 account as we insert parenthetical substitutes, alternates approved by Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon: “And I will put enmity (hostility) between thee (serpent, satanic adversarialness) and the woman (seed line), and between thy seed (bad characteristic) and her seed (good characteristic); it (adversarialness) shall bruise (overwhelm) thy head (beginning), and it (adversarialness) shall bruise (overwhelm) his (serpent/Israel self-determination) heel (last, end).” (something had to furnish the heel)
      Common ordinary snake/serpents are not hostile to mankind. Some poisonous varieties will stand their ground and strike intruders, but it is not their nature to be hostile to humans; therefore, in view of the serpent’s reclusive habit and aptness to defend himself when cornered: How many Fer de Lance or King Cobra heads have been bruised by or have bruised Homo sapiens heels? How many women would dare bruise their heel on a snakes head? Let’s be realistic! None!
      Admittedly, the following interpretation is a stretch from conventional interpretation, but let us rewrite the Genesis 3:15 account: ‘And I will cause hostility between the beast and Woman-Adam seed line, and between beast characteristic and Israel characteristic; adversarialness willl overwhelm seed line beginning and adversarialness will overwhelm Israel’s end. Here, we have a perfect conflation of symbolic Beast and Israel long-standing opposition to God order, from envious beginning in the First Age to tragic end in the Tenth Age, the Last Age. In THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, we can find complete definition for the Ten Ages, for Serpent-Beast synonyms, and how the Ten Ages smooth Bible interpretation into harmonious fulfillment.
      We Homo sapiens have inherent propensity to seek the unknown, the mysterious, the strange, the intangible, the unexplainable, and the metaphysical. To escape our propensity, and to gain God favor, man invents friendly circumstance and imagined precedence to qualify the immortality urgency—much as convention has qualified serpent-Satan misapplication. But overwhelmed by belief sanctions and bereft syllogistic practice, mankind slights his religiosity without Ten Ages guide lines. All scripture must agree with its counterparts or be found wanting. Eve’s indiscretion is no exception; she was mentally tempted, and we must remove the metaphoric construction from superstitious incongruity to purposeful symbolic prediction—foregoing the easy interpretation—meeting the adversary head-on. Only in congruent renderings can we make sense of a language obfuscated through inadvertent misinterpretation.

​===w===

      In THE DEATH OF THE WEST, Pat Buchanan, Presidential aspirant, author, and TV panelist, forecasts gloom and doom for western civilization— however, not without an escape avenue—but threatening nonetheless. He ascribes cause to declining birthrates in White United States-European culture, and to over-production by Middle Eastern, African, and Hispanic migrating hordes, whose relentless fecundity overcomes host culture. These masses seek U.S. beneficence but disregard the Americanization processes and strive to institute those cultures from which they have so recently escaped. How stupid to bring their nemesis with them! These ethnics, along with American Indian tribes, irresponsibly resist modern advances by seeking the old ways in cultural isolation and thereby encouraging dissidence to the very system so attractive to world populations.
      According to Buchanan, the white race, per se, roughly averages about 1.4 children per female; whereas, darker skinned people average about 5.6 children per woman. Accordingly, it would not require a mental giant to forecast drastic change in Western Culture.
      Ben Winter agrees; in fact, a drastic change has already occurred over the past fifty years; but the next fifty years will see even greater change. Under the present status quo, the United States will become a third world country! Arabia, Black Africa, and Hispanic overcrowding are models most representative of future culture in this country. Warlords or Gang Hierarchy, in each ethnic province, will exact tribute not only from its own hapless ethnicity but also from raids against neighboring enclaves. Is Eastern Afghanistan/West Pakistan and African lawlessness more desirable than Western civilization? Is the primitive Hajiz, with Mecca and Medina exemplars, an idealistic improvement? Is this the inheritance desired for American grandchildren, for our great-grandchildren—if they can live to see its reality? Seven million Middle Easterners are already among us. Terrorist cells are already ensconced in major U.S. cities, awaiting an opportune moment. Does our Constitution provide for this nonsense? Evidently, rightwing politicians would impose this burden on their own great-grand children and great-great-grandchildren, merely to enjoy their own brief moment in the sun. This great tragedy is enacted when a semiconscious electorate continually reelects the same selfish representation year after year—under the guise of experienced leadership! This is our one great problem!
      This author, Ben Winter agrees with much of Pat Buchanan’s philosophy—except in the area of religion. Our problem cannot be solely attributed to the decline of Christianity, as accused by Buchanan; which decline is thought to promote an insidious assault on righteousness and personal freedoms; but we can fault an increasingly permissive society, both Christian and Secular, who opt for political opportunism, less stringent constraints, and extra-special rights for ethnic segments in a society where hard work and illustrious entrepreneurialism are representative of the success vehicle and majority rule. Yet, minorities rule where democracy should reflect majority rule; and they usurp majority power which is willing to abdicate its right and serve as whipping post for ethnic misadventure.  The undoing of America can be attributed to political correctness, to the romancing of ethnic blocs for personal gain, and to selling a part of America, not for National benefit, but for sleazy self-profit. Our downfall takes its cue from Judeo-Christian-Islamic calls for charity, even to funding militant cause, misdirected piety, and a basic pusillanimous anaclisis common to Judeo-Christian-Islamic disciplines. Despite a threatening climate, there arises no political stand against cultural devolvement, no patriotic stand to turn back anti-cultural invasions, no deviation in the statistics reflecting an insalubrious culture, and no rising awareness to the political opportunism inherent in excessive immigration. The Democrat elite loves it; the Democrat plebeian is ignorant of its ultimate result; the Republican leadership and fellowship is just now awakening to great opportunities in following suit—all, despite dangers inherent in the Democrat agenda.
      As Teddy Roosevelt said, “A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has yet to become an American.” How true! If immigrants do not like this culture, then they should go back to the culture best suited for their ilk! But they will not. They desire to import an obscene culture, to one superior yet liberal to change; and in the prosperous climate they seek refuge, they find the freedom to enjoy and destroy, simply because restrictions to imported cultures are absent in the new freedom. Why not leave the language, earrings, nose adornments, turbans, and burqu mentality in Asia and Africa where ethnic and primitive revulsions are appreciated. Good people exist in all cultures, ethnicities, and classes; but if they are attracted to this culture, let them desist from the old culture from which they would escape.
      If we proportionally mix Suweto, Kabul, and Juarez impoverishment into United States populations, then, the future scenario is not difficult to foresee. Citizens will not be safe on the street or in the home—certainly not in the Church—but possibly in the Mosque. Cultural replacement will be complete. And they’ll beat the hell out of you for ignoring the dress code or stone violators for religious violations.
      “IS THE DEATH of the West inevitable?” So asks the unambiguous Buchanan! Other great prognostications have failed: such as “Democracy dying during the depression,” “Burial by Marxism,” and “End of the world at close of the millennium.” But the prediction now outstanding is based on quantitative as well as qualitative evaluations. Unequal birth rates and metaphysical adversity works its magic. It is as inevitable as time itself—unless a radical monotheism devolvement takes place—and notwithstanding the political ‘right thing’ might predominate. American majority voters are not capable of resisting ‘familiar face’ inducements; they continue to vote liberal glad-hands into office; thus, slowly, the tragic wall writing becomes legible; and the inevitable proves its inevitability. Self-gratification and dark-skinned liberalisms will overcome any future white culture conservatism. We have come full circle, now we sacrifice our children to gods unimaginably demanding—as was the god, Moloch, only 2800 years ago. We did not travel far while making the great circle.
      Insidiously, media anchors shape America’s cultural expectation. Slanted coverage infuses a false and unbeneficial message as they shape viewer perspective, liberalize majority viewpoint, encourage miscegenation, acquiesce to cultural disintegration, and edit reports to lessen the impact of minority criminals: such as, with only “12 percent of the population, Blacks had committed 90 percent of interracial violent crimes in 1994.” News commentators and politicians march in the forefront of our cultural disintegration, to denigration; hopefully, they and their children will be first to suffer the brunt of future victimization.
      The deterioration processes is simple as told by Pat Buchanan: ‘Among the new weapons of cultural conflict developed by the Frankfurt School was Critical Theory. The name sounds benign enough, but it stands for a practice that is anything but benign. One student of Critical Theory defined it as the “essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.”’ On multiple fronts, deterioration of Western culture is steadily replaced by unseemly culture. What will life be like in fifty years or another century? “As Sophocles said, one must wait until evening to see how splendid the day has been. Is it the evening of the West?”
      Patrick Buchanan observes, “Before the West could be conquered, its faith must be uprooted.” But How? Further observation concludes, “capture the institutions that shaped the souls of the young: schools, colleges, movies, music arts, and the new mass media that came uncensored into every home, radio and . . . television.” In the face of this formidable competition, parental guidance can have little effect. For, “we live under the rule of minorities whose vision of what America ought to be is shared by five justices on the Supreme Court, most of whom not one in ten Americans could name.” Unsavory and undisciplined cinema and athlete role models are constantly thrust upon America’s young and impressionable. Considered a standard of normalcy in academia, “In the African-American community, 69 percent of all births are out of wedlock, . . .” In this climate, religion serves as a social goodtime; sexual indiscretion is a right; ethics imposes a constraint on lifestyle; and ethos represents an indistinct, antique language.
      On the political front, “The founding Fathers would have been ashamed of what Clinton and Albright did to the Serbs.” In every sense of the word, War Crimes conduct under the Clinton Administration paralleled Bishop Sheen’s condemnation of modern preaching: “to straddle the ox of truth and the ass of ignorance.” But the attack did divert attention from the Monica Lewinski scandal—the war also furthered Islamic cause in the Balkans! We joined with the Islamic jihad as they attempted to secede the Kosovar state from Yugoslavian confederation! Washington politicians ignored Islamic incursions while berating Serb reprisals. Why would the Serbs not kill as many terrorists as they could? We do this very thing in Afghanistan and other locations!
      And now, assault against the proud emblem of Confederate valor must be sacrificed to Black anarchy—white liberals are quick to capitulate and ignore history’s integrity. History should be regarded as a statement of reality; it cannot be changed to desired actuality! Foolishly, our dying culture gives up its heritage, its history, and its honor. Slavery was not confined to the South; it existed in the North also—and Africa. The propensity to slavery can be charged to the very ones who suffered its consequence. Blacks created their own slavery; Arabs merely advantaged an opportunity requiring little investment, where Black leaders captured and sold fellow Black commodities from an endless resource. Now, opportunistic Blacks seek reparation from the country that freed them, and American taxpayers owe their sorry estate exactly nothing. Ironically, and though Mecca is the centerpiece of an important part of Arabia’s slave trade, many Blacks adopt the Muslim religion and Arab pseudonyms as a lofty ambition. How stupid for Black activists and illiterates to honor Arab insensitivity and ignore Arabs as the most obvious vehicle for disseminating the enslavement fostered by Black leaders. And even more opprobrious, Blacks seem to be ashamed of their ethnicity, their mothers and sisters; and they seek mates from the hated white race. Incongruous?
      Buchanan closes with a quote from abolitionist John Brown, who rode in the back of a wagon on his way to be executed: “’This is a beautiful country.’  And so it is. And that is why we must never stop trying to take her back.”
      Patrick Buchanan’s book is highly recommended to any person concerned with the future of this great county, who want to ascribe cause for our present distress. But Buchanan is in error when he attributes the cause strictly to Christianity’s decline; no, monotheism is part of the problem. For, the same incentive fuels Judeo-Christian-Islam shortcomings. To understand the philosophy bringing us to this present dilemma, one should attend Patrick Buchanan’s timely caution and then read THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, by Ben Winter. Here, one can discover the maximum extent to monotheism utility, coursed over a Ten Ages itinerary; which discovery limits time frame for the Judeo-Christian discipline and denies any Islam claim to feasibility. In this book, monotheistic application is reduced to its most common denominator; and cultural antagonisms, motivated by monotheism dictates, must fade in either the presence of legal-historical incertitude, ethnic liability, finite time frame, or premise obsolescence. With monotheism demise will follow a quick decline in cultural diversity; and to be sure, law will continue sans Judeo-Christian influence; for, man must always enact laws to protect himself from himself.

===w=== ​

​      Incredibly, in Holy War, Inc., in 235 informative pages, Peter Bergen weaves 900 bibliographic contributions into prosaic continuity and thus elucidates the magnitude of worldwide terrorism. Additionally, acknowledgements are awarded to over 200 fellow journalists and contributing sources. Skillfully and knowledgably, Bergen profiles known Middle, Near, and Far East principals and accomplices: principals whose religious fervor raises al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and many other jihad fanaticisms into world consciousness.
      In progressive documentation, Bergen exposes the susceptibilities of so-called civilized countries, which tolerate known iconoclasts to other than Islamic belief and which abide a movement whose fourteen hundred year evangelic and bloodthirsty fervor has grown to almost unmanageable proportions. Countless mosques and Muslim charities serve as clandestine recruitment fields and money laundering devices: devices used to encourage and sustain jihad activists in full view of an accommodative and sycophantic liberality. Always reactionary, freedom proponents, opportunistic ‘rights’ activists, and U.S. bureaucracy, submit to humanitarian naiveté and give foreign guests carte blanche freedoms, reluctant to disturb the status quo; thereby such bureaucracy endangers itself and other ‘infidels’ not alert to Islamic cause. Here, suicidal religionists find unwitting but willing allies to their pervasive movement—and the ‘Holy Land’ fools reciprocate our hospitality with treachery--willing to die and destroy Americanisms for an intangible cause, a cause obsolete as well as denied, in the legal-historical source depended.
      Bergen sets the ideological stage for barbaric propensity, in a land effected and affected by Macedonian, Mongolian, Ottoman, Crusader, British, Socialist, and Arabian conquest: a tide intermittently raised and lowered in tribal coalition and tribal opposition: where fluctuations sustain Warlord rule over almost half the world population--financed by larceny, privatization, bribery, and betrayal. Through unimaginable hardship, premiddle-ages mentality pauses in metaphysical hiatus, static to civilization’s advancement, and imposing an ambiance steeped in Islamic subjugation—much as Christendom was forced during America’s colonization. And inchoative to Middle East superstition, Islam’s societal atrocities are theocratically and superstitiously coerced on one billion Islam subjects—a majority unaware to the insult imposed in anaclitic subjectivity—consecrated to Holy War in their enthusiasm, and which aggression makes no distinction between combatants and unaware citizenry.
      While America slept, trusting in an ineffectual Intelligence Service, Islamic operatives advantaged U.S. largesse, availed our advanced educational opportunities, received unique training thanks to capitalistic eagerness, and repaid our resourceful capitalism with unprecedented fury. Insidiously, an estimated 7 million Muslims, inhering Islamic dictates and jihadist sympathy, infiltrate United States societies. Along with other religious fanatics, the Saudi, Osama bin Laden, advantaged our propensity to welcome others, when he said, “It is our job to instigate. By the Grace of God we did that and certain people responded to this instigation.” Seeking training in the al-Qaeda movement, eager recruits enlist, train, and disperse into numerous countries: Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Britain, Pakistan, Syria, Kashmir, Jordan, Turkey, Palestine, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, Morocco, Oman, Yemen, Tunisia, Tanzania, Malay, Bangladesh, Australia, India, Philippines, Chechen, Uzbek, Tajik, Uighur, Burma, Germany, Sweden, France, Arab-America, White-America, and Afro-America. And these are only a few of the known countries and cultural groups participating in jihadist activity. To demonstrate infiltration levels, Osama bin Laden’s older brother, Salem, brought his millions to the U.S. and enlisted “a well-connected Houston businessman, to represent the bin Laden family business interests. The following year, the businessman, Bath, purchased a plane-leasing company in Houston on behalf of Salem. Bath was friendly, for example, with George W. Bush . . . whose father was director of the CIA . . .” This is not to denigrate the Bush connection but to exemplify widespread infiltration and ingratiation.
      When the World Trade Center came down in a cloud of dust, Osama bin Laden’s brothers and sisters, and other Arab opportunists, flushed like a quail covey and sailed away until the dust settled, fearing reprisal from an angry citizenry.
      Our President was heard to say, “Islam is a peaceful religion.” Mr. President, Islam is not a peaceful religion, never has been, and never will be. Of course they pay lip service to peace, but peace is not their nature. War, ransom, bribery, and extortion is their nature; infiltration, fleecing, conquest, and enslavement is their strategy. Islam Clergy proclaims, “the way to establish this Islamic order is through an offensive jihad against the enemies of Islam, whether they be non-Islamic societies or Muslim societies that are not following the precepts of the Koran.”
      We discover countless terror activists and conspirators nominated in Bergen’s comprehensive account of worldwide Islamic fomented jihadists. One very important instigator is Professor Abdullah Azzam, bin Laden’s close advisor: “the ideological godfather and the global recruiter par excellence of Muslims drawn to the Afghan jihad . . . . it was Azzam who influenced Osama to finance the Arab fighters . . .” But this is only one instance of fanatical millions dispersed the world over. Numerous jihadic madrassas Holy War Schools) infest Islam populaces (“over 200,000 students in Punjab province alone”)—teaching anti-Western aggression regardless host country politics and metaphysics. One school boasts several thousand students, and one in Pakistan has over 2800 students. Even in the United States, college and private school liberality condones and encourages extremist viewpoint while denigrating American lifestyle and policy.  Azzam wrote, “to stand one hour in the battle line in the cause of Allah is better than sixty years of night prayer.” This is a widespread belief, and they have the audacity to freely “recruit men, and raise millions of dollars for the cause” within United States borders. One such recruit, said: “We are terrorists, yes we are terrorists because it is our faith. Listen to this verse from the Koran: ‘You should prepare whatever is within your reach in terms of power and horses to terrorize Allah’s enemies.’” Allah enemies are defined as disbelievers in Islam.
      When bin Laden formed the World Islamic Front, he cited this Qur’an instruction: “Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged . . . But when the Sacred Months are past, then kill the idolaters wherever you find them . . .” Key text from a World Islamic Front manifesto, includes: “. . . in order to obey the Almighty, we hereby give all Muslims the following judgment: The judgment to kill and fight Americans and their allies, whether civilians or military, is an obligation for every Muslim who is able to do so in any country . . .”
      Islamic militancy is excited by any belief stranger, or infidel, presence in Arabia: that is, any but Muslims are prohibited from making a presence in “Holy Land” territory; and they advocate death for all Americans: “We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets.” Bin Laden predicted a “black day for America.” Soon after the foregoing statement, Embassy bombings in Africa occurred, already in the works--as was the World Trade Center collapse in its planning stage.
      Sleeper cells, organized groups awaiting opportunity to serve in the Islamic war, exist everywhere. How easily they penetrate civilized society and even governmental auspices. One, Ali Mohamed, finished high school in Egypt, rose to the rank of Major in the Egyptian army, worked in counter-terrorism at Egyptair, emigrated to United States, married a Hispanic medical technician, and wormed his way into the U.S. Special Warfare Center; where, he was a valued instructor. Additional languages were English, French, and Hebrew. An active fundraiser, allegedly, he also was associated with the Massachusetts Alkhifa Refugee Center, which recruited as many as 200 recruits for the Afghan movement. One friend, Nosair, had documents with plans to attack the World Trade Center—discovered after the fact. Often in bin Laden’s presence, working for al-Qaeda, Mohamed continued to seek work in U.S. government agencies and once admitted to knowing those responsible for the Embassy bombings.
      London resident, Abu Hamza uses a mosque as cover to abet the Islamic terrorist cause. He learned his craft in Bosnia—where the Clinton Administration joined him in advancing the Islamic war against Christian constituencies. Always opportunistic, particular bureaucracy does whatever is expedient at the moment—carefully ignoring the real threat to world populations. And should we inquire into subsistence received by Abu Hamza, the ingrate, about “welfare payments he draws from the British government that he so despises”? His philosophy: “two religions cannot unite and a church bell cannot sound on the Arabian Peninsula.” And though Hamza drew checks from the British government, he was very active in al-Qaeda and was inspiration to Abu Hassan and his terrorist group in Yemen. In Dammaj, Yemen, there exists a madrassa (religious school) that sometimes boasts 8,000 students, many from Britain and the United States. Though the Yemeni Sheikh, Moqbul al-Wadai’i, headmaster, publicly denies connection with terrorist groups, here is a quote from him in a fatwa (bulletin) sent to other extremist groups: “The Christians have fanned the fires of conflict . . . . That is why you, honorable people of one faith, must call all to total jihad and expel all the enemies of Allah.”
       And the United States negotiates with Yemen, though “Mohamed al-“Owhali, one of the bombers of the U .S. embassy in Kenya in August 1998, had already told U.S. investigators that the bin Laden group planned next to attack an American ship in Yemen.” What better place for ambush—a haven for kidnappers and Islamic fanatics!
      “Islamic leaders have always cherished the idea of the umma, the world community of Muslims.” Thus the Islamic movement issues fair warning; their operations are manifest in, to name a few: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Azerbaijan, Tunisia, Canada, Lebanon, Philippines, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Chechnya, Egypt, Somalia, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Russia, Sweden, Sudan, Tajikistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Kashmir, India, Morocco, Spain, United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy; but we have not even begun to exhaust the list. Fourteen hundred years of bloody history denigrate President Bill Clinton’s assessment, “the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islam extremists”: echoed by President George W. Bush, “Islam is a religion of peace.”
      So, when the World Trade Towers came down, jubilation went up from al-Qaeda quarters; bin Laden said: “America is struck by God Almighty in one of its vital organs. So that its greatest buildings are destroyed. Grace and gratitude to God. America has been filled with horror from north to south and from south to east.” And before the dust settled, in American colleges and on the streets of Islamic nations, praise for the terrorists was raised in jubilant mockery. And we, the American people, are to treat Muslims as peace loving? How foolish!
      Rising not far from civilization’s birthplace on the Euphrates and even nearer to the birthplace of Abraham’s promise, Islam had its beginnings at a small oasis in the Hajiz Wilderness, present site of Mecca and home to Mohammed. Bloodied by constant wars and intertribal conflict, Mohammedanism, or Islam, lurked in the background as Islamic devotees made great science advances down through the centuries; but hanging by a thin thread, a Damocles Sword, a Superstition Scimitar, swung overhead and overshadowed benefits from these great advances. Now, the thread is frayed; hopefully, it will break, and the Sword will fall and decapitate the deceptive monotheism bridging the gulf between Abraham’s Promise and Arabic Presumption.
      To fully understand the threat now facing civilization, Bergen’s book is highly recommended; but he does not have answers; he only posits the need for awareness. World governments do not have the answer, for they depend on an ineffectual truce to balm the movement rather than eliminate the cause. Military might or conventional techniques cannot mitigate extremism or destroy misguided desideratum; yet, recently, an effective means has been published. The answer lies in a little known publication, THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, by Ben Winter. In this book, Islam legality and credibility is indubitably denied within the premise from which it derives incentive. Only with an awakening to the disrepute in Islam origins can we discourage the fanaticisms fueling Muslim aggression. Mohammedan cause was not only born in infamy, but in obsolescence, as can be proven in its legal-historical denial.
      Reassuringly, competent White House Officials are making every effort to reduce world threat. But they cannot achieve complete success on the course now embarked. Therefore, everyone should read Holy War, Inc. to realize the problem magnitude, a problem overwhelmed by present mediation techniques. Everyone should peruse THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified for the bottom line, for an alternative to monotheistic madness! 

Billions and Billions, by Carl Sagan, hopes to heighten awareness to the exponential immensity constituting our interstellar existence, to quantification in microscopic beginnings, and infinite potential to contribute meaning and purpose in our own existence: to “Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium.” Early on, Sagan advises, “If you know a thing only qualitatively, you know it no more than vaguely. If you know it quantitatively—grasping some numerical measure that distinguishes it from an infinite number of other possibilities—you are beginning to know it deeply.”
      In late 20th Century environs, Sagan interjected a voice of reason, protesting Homo sapiens propensity to inhumanity, to self-serving interest, and to industrial effluence. Sagan enjoyed an envious vista, and his intellectual presence captured the attention of influential world leaders; in this intellectual capacity, he shared insight into those futurist areas most troublesome to astrophysics and metaphysics hypothesis and was thus able to gain audience with politicians, scientists, and sociologists responsible for short-term and long-term extensions to present civilized concepts.
 
Sagan Observation: An outspoken iconoclast to political expediency, both leftist and rightist extremes, Sagan advocated urgent attention to our present headlong plunge toward an uninhabitable earth. And, of course, he was right; for differing political systems were obviously at work to advantage their own industrial might over others. In National endeavors to bolster the economy and gain political power over the masses, Sagan warned of chemical and mineral residues proliferating to the detriment of all; in this formula for environmental disaster, the masses are posited as willing participants, and who seek self-preservation rather than means to herd benefaction. Regarding man’s origins and potential, he would limit Homo sapiens modest genesis to a singular, cellular prepotency—giving rise to present human appearance—that all humanoids are related by common patrimony—and originated in East Africa.
Ben Winter Commentary: In critique, author Ben Winter would call attention to Sagan’s rise to the top in his profession; thus becoming the greater consumer rather than the greater environmentalist advocate. At the ladder top, it is easy to urge lower rung enthusiasts to sacrifice energy expenditure as they attempt ladder ascendance, to desist effort, and forsake the climb from mediocrity to lofty comprehension; yet, despite inherent limitations, even those at the bottom would, like Sagan, spend the necessary energy to enjoy a view from the top. And, Sagan recommends global effort to bring living standards to optimum levels. Yet, to elevate plebeian from the bottom rung to top, must, in itself, require a greater expenditure of natural resources, increased industrialization, and agrarian exponential; therewith, such ambition defeats the very conservatism advocated to inspire environmentalism and, simultaneously, to alleviate the starving masses syndrome. Basically, inhering a socialist mindset, Sagan politicizes mankind’s primitive inherence so faithfully reproduced in genes, his propensity to hunt and gather as he chooses; and to circumvent this inherency, Sagan would make all consumers subject to the state (though he did not directly state the means): thus would man be made to observe environmental dictates, to reside in industrial conformity, to indistinction in miscegenation, to bottom rung submission. Despite Sagan’s observations concerning global warming and evidential pollution, self-preservation industriousness, continues world-wide, paying lip service to environmentalism. For, in our constant energy quest, we ask only of ourselves, if any at all: which is worse, atomic waste, fossil fuel residue, or Chlorofluorocarbon emissions? Either have the potential to create incalculable risk in global warming or habitat disaster. Sagan cautions: “A temperature change of a few degrees is serious business.”
        Yet, in no sense of proportional evolvement can this critique protagonist agree to mankind’s evolvement in “one small locale in East Africa a few million years ago—wandered, separated, diversified, and became strangers to one another” as postulated by the renown astrophysicist. Such racist finiteness belongs in a fictional work, not scientific exposition. Like most white ethnic liberals, Sagan capitulates to popular desideratum and proposes mankind to have evolved from black beginnings—neglecting the paucity of evidence--and ignoring natures neglect to deposit contradictory fossils in easy to find locations throughout the world. No! Mankind had to evolve from a wider potential in the chemistry environment necessary to produce early and diverse specimens. By Sagan’s heuristic creation medium, all fish, all birds, all reptiles, all bacteria would differentiate from individual protista specimen and isolate into species. I would expect more from Carl Sagan. In his own words, “Only in the visible (light spectrum, bw), where many molecules are transparent, is the anomaly of white skin even possible. Over most of the spectrum, all humans are black.” Would Sagan’s ‘light spectrum’ explain the marked difference in physiognomy amongst ethnic diversity? And would not the following Sagan observation, concerning ‘important discoveries,’ treat the above mankind origins theory as mere speculation?
 
Sagan Observation: In explaining science efficacy, Sagan remarked, “In science the most important discoveries are often the most unexpected—not a mere extrapolation from what we currently know, but something completely different. The reason is that Nature is far more inventive, subtle, and elegant than humans are.” In context, he suggests “modern astrophysics is on the verge of determining fundamental insights on the origin, nature, and fate of the entire Universe . . . . but the prediction I can make with the highest confidence is that the most amazing discoveries will be ones we are not today wise enough to foresee.”  Thus we must temper scientific hypothesis with suspicion, even from one so popular and knowledgeable as Carl Sagan—and which is not to denigrate his vast store of knowledge.
       A quotation from Montaigne’s Essays, It takes courage to be afraid, precedes the analogous story about Croesus and Cassandra. Croesus, king of Lydia, was he who asked a question of Pythia, Oracle of Delphi, concerning kingly success in a contemplated battle. She replied, “He will destroy a mighty empire.” Croesus neglected to ask who’s empire; immediately, he launched his forces, and was defeated!
      Cassandra became a goddess, able to outdo even the Delphic Oracle; but alas, no one would believe her prophecies. “The stories of Croesus and Cassandra represent the two extremes of policy response to predictions of deadly peril--Croesus himself representing one pole of credulous, uncritical acceptance (usually of the assurance that all is well), propelled by greed or other character flaws . . . . and Trojan response to Cassandra representing the pole of stolid, immobile rejection of the possibility of danger.”  Thus do politicians and mankind in general respond to sign and countersign. Carl Sagan would encourage alternative energy development in the area of nuclear fission, fusion, and solar energy gathering devices. In the same breath, he castigates the United States expenditure of some 30 trillion dollars in an arms race with the Soviet Union. Proposing instead, we raise living standards for world populations and help the poorest nations to economic independence.
Ben Winter Commentary: Neither Croesus nor Cassandra was afraid, neither was successful: indeed, it takes courage to be afraid—to be cautious—to be aware of consequence. Thus Sagan dared Science and the masses to be afraid of global warming, to ozone depletion, to resourse waste, to environmental contamination. Science and environmentalists caution the masses to conserve energy and reduce environmental demands; straightway, in environmental unawareness, in haste to advise others, exempt advisors drive an auto to the airport, board a fuel guzzling volitant and order a cocktail—while, back on the ground, family members further contaminate the environment by burning more fossil fuels in the second car, in the guise of necessity and pursuit of happiness. Where, then, does the effort begin? Does it begin with the fellow on the bottom rung, just beginning his climb to the top? Evidentially, mankind does not have the courage to be afraid! Or else, inherently, the one on the bottom rung has equal ambition to stand on the top rung and enjoy life’s bounty—leaving environmentalism to the next climber standing on the bottom rung.
 
Sagan Observation: Concerning the beginning of life and as it might relate to pro-life and pro-choice, Sagan makes an interesting observation. “There is no right to life in any society on Earth today, nor has there been at any former time . . . . despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to Earth origins, 4.6 billion years ago.”
Ben Winter Commentary: Biologically, everything is alive, even in reductionism detail. Where, then, can we separate deity perceived sanctions from immutably liveliness in evidence? Can political activism decide viability through metaphysically encouraged sanctions, or can viability be depreciated by life form reductionism? Is procreation a mandate in the legal-historical processes or an ancient instruction evolved in genetic timeliness. In THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, in a Chapter devoted to the creation phenomenon and life origins, Ben Winter posits a reasonable sequence to bring the biological, geological, astrological, evolutionary, and biblical accounts into complete agreement.
 
Sagan Observation: At the end Sagan admitted: “I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.”
Ben Winter Commentary: Regarding Carl Sagan’s practicality regarding metaphysical afterlife, his observation is confirmed in Ben Winter’s THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified. Limits to the only known monotheism theocracy are delineated in Covenant finiteness, dictated by Ten Ages subservience, and lived by prediluvian patriarchs, Abraham, and Jacob progeny.
     
Carl Sagan lived as he died, setting forth logic as a guiding principle, at peace with himself, and trusting in scientific intellection. Was he correct in all his deductions? Only time will tell! Yet, his was a strong voice calling for awareness to our selfish quest for industrial superiority, to our energy foolhardiness, and to our anaclitic consternation. In this, he was right on target!