When first recommended, this 600-page book was thought to be a documentary; however, the book turned out to be semi-fiction. Even so, rather than disappoint the recommending party, I determined to read the book if it killed me. I was soon absorbed in the authors’ considerable metaphysics erudition and story-telling expertise. Rather pointedly, this book’s underlying theme is to expose the Muslim incentive to terror and to reveal their penchant for theocratic enslavement. Aside from occasional grammatical blunders, the nemesis of all writers, Tea With Terrorists is not only an exposé of Muslim philosophy and Qur’an incitements but also a romance reflecting fealty, decorum, and circumspection.

As the story unwinds to climax, authors Craig Winn and Ken Power weave a philosophic accountability for the incentive warned in my own Qur’an Critique and as it concerns Islam’s world conquest. You can see a condensed Qur’an indictment in Ben Winter’s Qur’an Critique at:  < www.winterbriar.com >. Every American should read Tea With Terrorists and the Ben Winter Qur’an Critique, not only for an awakened awareness to terrorist presence in our very midst, but to a refreshingly idealized courtship between protagonists in the Tea With Terrorists’ romance element.

Captain Thor Adams and a multinational Special Forces Group, composed of four each Israeli, British, and American components, embark on a mission into Afghanistan, planned by attractive CIA operative Sarah Nottingly. Mission plans are compromised by a leak to Muslim forces; forthwith, most of the Special Forces unit are captured and submitted to gruesome tortures, including crucifixion, and amidst gleeful taunts from an inhuman enemy—observed by two of the escaped Special Forces Group. In this ambiance, a lesbian President and her female Defense Secretary consort pursue a corrupt political agenda advantageous to the Islamic cause.

Lest we give away too much story line, suffice to say: Thor and the beauteous CIA operative, Sarah, become romantically involved. As a united force of two, they undertake to discover what makes the Muslim dedication tick, seeking cause for the heinous savagery condoned under Qur’anic legal-historical auspices. Coincident with their private investigation, Sarah provides Thor with insight into Qur’an verses along with evangelizing dictates from Bible scripture, and bringing their (at the first) dichotomous viewpoints into unilateral focus. “Man is a religious animal. He will always find something to worship . . . . To Sarah, it (soteriology) meant that in matters of faith, you could demonstrate truth by testing scriptures ‘mathematically.’ If it could be shown statistically that it was true, then it probably was. The best solution was the one it took the ‘least’ amount of faith to accept.” Which, to Ben Winter, is a monotheism cop-out.

We remind ourselves, it is only a novel; however, the evangelistic tenor is obvious as is the overt warning about terrorist ethos. Sarah is exposited as a true-blue Christian devotee. Looking down the commitment road, she equips Thor with alternatives to his agnostic incertitude; however, Sarah’s prejudice prohibits a true logic application for the legal-historicism entirely frozen in ancient semantics; therefore, from this critique author’s Bible exegesis, her attempt to intertwine traditional values, word usage, and desiderated myopia, casts her in an expected mold and prohibits a rational and indisputable apologetic.

Suffering a bloody encounter in their search for effect and cause, protagonists are led into a no-mans-land of Qur-anic excess, to a ‘tea with terrorists,’ and to a startling revelation.

Catapulted into national prominence, amidst dire events effectuated by terrorist cells in the United States, and concurrent with an enviously financed honeymoon, Thor vows to right the wrongs and miscalculations made by previous advisors, staff, and Administration heads.

Winn and Power, you did our country a service by writing this book; however, gentlemen, I would challenge the ‘Jew’ nomination from bottom-page 506: Moses was not a ‘Jew.’ The usage was not applicative until some 400 years after Moses’ death. But I would give the devil his due; most so-called Jews (and other monotheists) probably do not know the difference either. Again I must call the Winn-Power combine to task for their exegetical expertise concerning “Palestina” origination. It was not Romans who coined the name ‘Palestina’; I refer the authors to 660 years earlier to Roman presence in Judea, when Isaiah 14:31 let the cat out of the bag in 725 B.C. These are minor errors, and most traditionalists could care less; however, a good critique should find error—notwithstanding, I would dread for Winn and Power to critique my own work.

And gentlemen, while Thor Adams and Sarah did correctly elicit source for Muslim terror incentives, they failed to resolve the metaphysical equation. Profound in another author’s observation, Ann Tyler’s: “The world was full of equations . . . there must be an answer for everything, if only you knew how to set forth the questions.” This question has been set forth, in contextual surety; and the answer has been posited to the present Administration policymaker corp. Surprise! They think thinkers are resident only in the Washington bureaucracy.

All present initiatives by US think tanks will be proven ineffective in the long haul, for they redesign traditional failures only. A metaphysical solution to the Middle Eastern madness can be found in the signature representation below.

If any on my e-mail list appreciate eminent and imminent danger warnings, plus lively fiction adventure and a smattering of metaphysical ideations woven into narrative flow, then, Tea With Terrorists might be your cup of tea.

​===w===

Fred Alan Wolf takes readers on a fascinating journey: from fundamental concepts of Quantum Physics to the utmost limits of science and imagination. Once Professor of Physics at San Diego State University, Wolf has published numerous scientific articles and lectured extensively around the world.
            Very insightful of the unorthodoxy emanating from eminent physicists, and setting forth the many thoughts and equations intended to resolve the fundamental motivation for universal action and reaction, Doctor Wolf introduces nonscientists to the many blind alleys encountered as physicists struggle with Quantum Mechanics. When first apprised of Wolf’s ambition to explain advanced theory in a simplistic exposition, his colleagues warned: “No one could understand quantum physics without a firm mathematical background.” For scientists, the underlying nature of Quantum Mechanics makes the quantum leap an uncertain affair; for: “There is no way to know with absolute certainty the movements of such tiny particles of matter.”  Thus, eighty years after the quantum nature of matter was first posited, the quantum world still holds surprises. Nonetheless, Professor Wolf ventures to take the uninitiated into a world of imagined ether, wave principle, electromagnetism, determinism (omnipotent cause), indeterminism (natural order), discontinuity (motion abrogated through observance), and continuity (motion seen as continuous when undisturbed).
            We should begin to understand “Taking The Quantum Leap” by first arriving to a firm definition for the Quantum Theory: which concept is concerned with structure and behavior of atoms and molecules, how radiant energy transmits in the form of discrete units, how energy is effected by abrupt change or steps in quantum frequency and momentum, and especially as the theory translates into numerical progression. In an atomic sense, the electron makes a ‘Quantum Leap’ as it negotiates abrupt changes from one energy level to another in orbital shells around an atom nucleus and thus exciting quantum energy gain. Quantum theoreticians would seek to discover its motivation and to isolate the smallest physical quantity independently existing particles, especially discrete electromagnetic radiation quality and quantity.
            In an effort to cover the entire physicist theory gamut, Wolf introduces theory and argumentation advanced by Newton, Planck (E = hf), Einstein (E = mc2), Bohr (quantum leap theorist), De Broglie (p = h/L); and this is not to belittle the eminence and contribution of Heisenberg, Born, Schroedinger and many others who have joined in the search to establish matter origins, light particle composition, and energy production. In a discussion of Schroedinger’s wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Congress, attended by about 30 of the world’s most eminent physicists, a discussion of electron motivation, as it relates to frequency and momentum, was explored and whether reaction resulted from a pulse wave or via excitation from other particles of matter. There the incongruous was proposed: “The wave is not the ultimate reality. The particle is not the ultimate reality. Reality is not the ultimate reality. There is, instead, one unbroken wholeness that appears paradoxical as soon as we observers attempt to analyze it.”
            From the mind and reasoning of Ben Winter, the above quoted statement suffers from definition insolvency. A perceived particle cannot be proven in Reality, for particles constantly change and conform to attraction and repulsion incentives. Reality is that which is unchangeable! Reality is historical; actuality should have been used instead, to communicate a state of implied presence, to correctly modify the particular language of particle perception and behavior. Obviously, despite the intellectuality assembled, the august group could not grasp reality’s definition finiteness. If intercepted reflection or other phenomenon conveys a concept to sentience, then reality must be sensed as historic. For, regardless the distance light travels, or sense intercepts, via radiation, wave, or reflection (such as an aged 14 Billion years reflection from distant Galaxies), or other belated communication, it requires a particular length of time to reach cognizance, and such being relative to light-speed of those things reflected from close at hand; therefore, we live in the presence (actuality) but we perceive all things in reality (historical recall). According to Wolf, addressing the world of atomic reality as observed by physicists:
“. . . reality depends upon our choices of what and how we choose to observe. These choices, in turn, depend upon our minds or, more specifically, the content of our thoughts. And our thoughts, in turn, depend upon our expectations, our desire for continuity.”  He continues, ‘When a physicist talks about reality, he or she means the “out there.”’ Would it not have been better stated: “back there.’
            Einstein proposed an orderly universe, and he suggested light to be composed of matter. To his death, Einstein opposed Bohr’s discontinuous viewpoint. And Wolf continues: “The resistance that each view offered the other resulted in a great deal of new thinking. Scientists would construct exciting parallels between many avenues of life that were previously thought of as very different. However, the debate between Bohr and Einstein has still not ended, though both are now dead. Indeed, the battle of continuity versus discontinuity may never end.”
            Wolf, in an effort to maximize the importance of particle behavior, quotes from the EPR Paradox (an article by Einstein and colleagues) as evidence of Einstein’s continued resistance to Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity: “A sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity is the possibility of predicting it with certainty, without disturbing [it].”  Thus, according to EPR, “ . . it is possible to predict either the position or the momentum of an object without disturbing the object . . . all the observer does is choose which quantity to predict.”
            Visualizing a quantum wave fundamentalism expressed in expanding qwiffs, and which qwiffs can be popped into collapse and cognizance, Wolf postulates a world of gnostic awareness, indeed Schroedinger’s quantum solipsism, wherein individuals create the whole of universe and thus live in philosophical relativity; thus, it leaves the scientist poised in actuality-reality hiatus. ‘The world of the quantum solipsist bears some resemblance to Descartes; “I think, therefore I am.”’ Thus, uncertainty and diverse theory imposes the Schroedinger observation: “A quantum solipsist says, I am the only reality. Everything out there is in my mind. To change reality—that is, to change objects into different objects—I need to change my mind.” Again, reality definition is slighted.
            Quantum theories, briefly outlined in Wolf’s book, are too many and too diverse to include all in this critique: i.e., parallel universes, paradoxical particle existence, conscious and unconscious duration. Even so, we, each of us, are all the above: “Your electrons are observed by your atoms, who are, in turn, observed by your molecules, which are watched by your cells, which are seen by your organs, which are monitored by your nervous system . . .”  Everett adds, “There is only one observer in the entire universe, and each reader may rejoice because—you are it! All other people follow the laws of quantum flow. They remain in a state of suspended animation, or however you wish to think of them, until you come along.”  Did Ben Winter, author of THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, not suggest, in a previous observation: “individuals create the whole of universe and thus live in philosophical relativity, poised in actuality-reality hiatus”? THE GREAT DECEPTION uniquely justifies the indeterminism theory. In no other publication can scientist or nonscientist find absolute truth to quantify monotheism finiteness and thus limit the determinism hypothesis.
            Wolf encapsulates his philosophical approach to the physics of atomic attraction: “I find it reassuring that reality as a whole is completely deterministic, all of it flowing while my little piece of the Big Qwiff appears to suffer from indeterminism and the uncertainty principle. What is remarkable about this interpretation is that it shows that the mathematical formalism is capable of determining its own interpretation.”  Such philosophy is acceptable only in lieu of THE GREAT DECEPTION hypothesis.
            Noting the keen insight of Physicist Bass, Wolf quotes the following concerned with atomic predisposition: ‘At the atomic level, consciousness is primitive, but necessarily so. Neurons contain possibly several billion atomic “consciousnesses.” We might call each such consciousness a mind. All together they are the agents that make up your intelligence agency.’  These observations corroborate Ben Winter’s own theory of atomic convergence as stated in previous writings: “Atoms are infused with their own intellectual inclination; thereby, they gain propensity with beneficially attracted electrons and atomic substrates and thus propitiate molecular-cellular sustenance and longevity.”
            In modern scientific investigation, we discover a growing Quantum Theory understanding and a dearth of indecision surrounding Quantum Theory application. But the mystery is not so mysterious! The Hebrew God was communicated as “I Am that I Am.” Over 3000 years later, René Descartes wrote, “I think, therefore I am.” And now, in the age of discovery, we find Quantum Mechanics to support basis for the two positions, for the advent of energy, and therefore for our very existence. I am is only a quantum consciousness—but a quantum leap into cognizance.

​To grasp The Abrahamic Incentive enormity and thus Middle East mindset, we must review the origins and initiatives bringing monotheism to its present crisis.

About 4000 years ago, Abraham designated two sons as recipients of two very unlike kingdoms—to the neglect of six other sons. At odds in genesis, the two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, produced progeny still at odds in present monotheism ambiance, nearly 4000 years later. In the interim, over an 1800-year period, beginning some 900 years subsequent to Abraham, Judaism, and Christianity evolved and ran its course—in no way influenced by the outcast Ishmael until about 600 years following Temple destruction.

The Abrahamic Incentive was initiated circa 1900 B.C., evolved to Abrahamic Messianism circa A.D. 30, and finally to Abrahamic Mohammedanism circa A.D. 600. As Islam encroached on the two former concepts, resistance produced bitter enemies; each imagined God favoritism. With an imaginative idealism, each enabled further division, to Jewish Moderates/Liberals, Christian Catholics/Protestants, and Islamic Shiite/Sunni diversity. Multiple sects, divisions, and interpretative cells proliferated through the years, each ambitioned to transcend opposing viewpoints. Antagonisms grew over millennia, and inestimable millions have died to uphold particular faith disciplines; where cause became secondary to the underlying commercial crusade.

In truth, the metaphysical feeds on immortality hungers only; where, immortal extension would compensate for life’s continual hardship and a failing Deity beneficence. In this spiritual contrariety, primitive desire overwhelms intellectual/plebeian reason and sweeps rich and poor alike into fanatical devotion. Thus, we intercept the deep-seated commitment resisting cause alleviation or factional amelioration.

Short of total Islam disintegration, which extreme is not likely nor possible to contemplate, police action remains for the present mindset; yet, military, diplomatic, and humanitarian means are proven to be stop-gap only; policymaker intellectuality cannot penetrate much less resolve the fanaticisms present in Judeo-Christian-Islamic legalities. Deeply involved in the melee and sans civilized World support, U.S. means must physically prosecute crimes against our country, beyond the scope of military, and in a metaphysical realm unresponsive to bullets or diplomacy; notwithstanding, we continue to buy time via diplomatic means, even while recognizing the enterprise to be lastingly ineffectual.

The Abrahamic Incentive provides a force to be reckoned with, though not without an inherent weakness; for a new remediation tool is available to broaden civilized concepts and to affect multi-millions steeped in psychological dependency. Addressing Middle Eastern legal-historicity, the Abraham prerogative weakness is documented, published, and available to alleviate present ignorance and discourage theocratic opportunism. Pedagogic alternatives to traditional teachings are now extracted from the very documents giving rise to extremist dedication. Only by redirecting theological energies by way of educational reform can we ameliorate the terrorist cause, which cause ignores bloodline exception and drinks a toast to its elitist narcissism--to quench inflamed passions of an age-old animosity.

In a religious ambiance, scholarly exegesis has always deferred to majority desire; then, following an exegesis vacuum, eisegesis becomes the norm; thereof, egregious renderings are introduced to the susceptible. Thus, reverse evangelism is indicated; where a propagandized Israeli and Islamic evolvement from The Abrahamic Incentive is extended into our present circumstance. Now, unyielding truths emerge to illuminate The Abrahamic Initative in a new light! Semantically, the Bible and Qu’ran proviso does not lend itself to an Abraham incentive past the time frame proscription set forth in its legal-historical framework; adopted cause is hindered by Ten Ages finiteness and the Abraham prerogatives inhered in theocratic rule. Outside this given, peace can be brought only by cessation of Ordinances, Obeisance, and Blind Devotion to an obsolete ideation.

Recently published, a new study highlights critical ignorance of legal-historical limits set in the Judeo-Christian-Islam disciplines—presently legalized in an inopportune time-space adoption. In THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, a 13-year work, Abraham’s devotion to theocratic autonomy is exposed as a lure to fulfill Ten Ages in the whole Covenant processes, now realized. Ishmael, Islam’s progenitor, was clearly disinherited of the salvation expedient. If The Abrahamic Incentive was closed to Ishmael, not only via disinheritance but by Ten Ages expiration, then, the Incentive must be closed to all by the legal-historical mandate. Symbols scholar, Ben Winter extracted this unique interpretive conclusion by discovery of Ten Ages fullness in time.

Widespread dissemination of this new hermeneutics would expose combatants to the fallacy in imagined cause and drastically shorten the monotheism war. Distribution would quiet Israeli and Islamic activists, calm Christian revolutionaries, and correctly define monotheism as an adopted anaclisis. Though the effort might require ten or more years, educating a metaphysically mad world could save trillions of dollars and numerous lives. This book strikes at the very heart of extremist motivation; it is the only agency possible to discourage our intangible enemy, and metaphysical enlightenment will make the world a less dangerous place to live.

Solution to the world’s terrorist problem is not insurmountable; we need only to shed our metaphysical skin and crawl out of a self-imposed, primitive darkness.

​===w===

​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===