GOOD GOD...NAKED

While talking about Genesis at lunch the other day, it came to the Brianetics Ad Hoc Theosophical And Physical Therapy Disquisitive Synod that God must be naked. It plainly states that Man was made in His image, and since neither Adam nor Eve wore clothes it is self-evident God is naked as well.        And, by the way, Eve took up with a talking serpent - and should have been a red-flag - which led to the expulsion from Eden and the Fall of Man. Yet what upset her most was that she found herself naked in front of Adam, the only other person on Earth and in front of whom she had been naked for who knows how long. Yet instead of being overwrought for causing war, disease, the Democrat party, death and natural disasters of every stripe, Eve was most upset because she could find nothing to wear.   

And that's all there is to that.

  Lunar Eclipsed

Above - Left to Right Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin

There is now a serious documentary on the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing and how it was staged. Apparently, the whole thing took place on an Area 51 special effects mock-up in the high desert of Nevada. Now, if the theory is correct and NASA staged the entire lunar landing and kept the entirety of the Lunar Mission - from the three Appollo 11 astronauts all the way down to the hundreds of mission control analysts, radar operators, ground crewmen etc. - from leaking the fraud to this day, Brianetics submits that the hoax represents a greater achievement than an actual moon landing would have been, So congratulations to NASA for this incomparable and incomprehensible success. Of course, Brianetics has no doubt America landed on the moon July 20, 1969, and shame on those who believe otherwise. Just on a fundamental level, don't you think the Soviets were tracking the Apollo moon capsule and would readily expose any incongruities they discovered during that flight? Not a peep from the Soviets - not to this day. Unless you count peeps of their sleeper agents who persist in fomenting this hoax theory. Nice try, comrades. See you on the barricades.

       Flat Wrong

So you see, only Americans are Americans. Everyone else is a resident alien and must register as such or back to the Old Country you go, foreign rabble. And when your country is a burning cinder of ruin, there is no work nor jobs to be had and the Euro is worth 4 double stuff Oreos please don't write home for aid..

And that's all there is to that.

The British came! The British Came!

DURING THE BRITISH INVASION THE BRITISH INVADED BUT HISTORY RECORDED THE WRONG BRITISH INVADERS. Yes, I know. Hard to believe. First, they told us Columbus discovered America when he didn't even discover Columbia now this. No wonder kids today think socialism is better than found money; mis- education. But this digresses.

They have been reporting the British Invasions in error since 1812, the year The War Of 1812 ended rather than began. The British Invasion led by the Beatles was, in fact, correctly set forth in history as February 7, 1964. Of course, by that time historians had not only televisions broadcasting from the world over but from over the world as well. Telstar had been transmitting signals from orbit since 1962, and with this plexus of telusion informing their scholarship how could they get anything wrong?

No, The Beatles did, indeed, establish their beachhead in 1964.

The problem is this: There was an earlier British Invasion that was not only unreported but ignored, if not entirely unnoticed..

The primary reason for this oversight, in this view, was the lack of a great and mighty assemblage storming our shores; so great and mighty that American citizens exalted in their arrival and feted them with an adulation of such triumphal euphoria as had not been  seen since Antiquity.

The earlier - or proto-Invasion - while taking place a scant 5 years or so prior to The Beatles - did so incrementally from circa 1955 forward. Additionally, the proto-Invaders never mounted a concentrated incursion; rather they skulked across the Atlantic one at a time, maybe two or three. Never in the same year; never attracting the notice of a slumbering nation.

For these proto-Invaders were not baby-boomer pop music divinities.

They were actors. Venerated thespians of British cinema. You heard right; still, if you doubt your senses just raise your eyes a line. It's right there where it has always been, for God's sake.

This thespian proto-invasion began circa 1955. Though British actors had steadily migrated to the colonies and the sound stages of Hollywood for decades prior to 1955, their numbers were much greater than their impact on the screen. 

In conclusion, when next the British Invasion is being discussed in your presence, be sure all involved are made aware that the real fab four were not John, Paul, George and Ringo but Peter, Peter, Michael and Peter. (Sellers, Ustinov, Caine and O'Toole)

And that's all there is to that.

Footnote To The Roman Empire

The vaunted, storied Roman Empire. Their Roman Arch revolutionized civil engineering and enabled miles upon miles of aqueducts to furnish running water to a burgeoning metropolis. The aqueducts themselves were a marvel of engineering. They built paved roads stretching from Britannia to Syria, and along those roads they needed bridges and tunnels to negotiate the terrain in continuance of these roadways.

There were the Roman baths with heated water in constant flow as well as the therapeutic steam similarly constant. Magnificent temples, such as The Parthenon, and public arenas like the still-legendary Coliseum bejeweled the land, due in large part to the exclusive use of marble beginning with The Temple Of Jupiter.

Roman numerals standardized means of counting and communications, organizing both commerce and society as never before. Development of surgical instruments and procedures; the Julian calendar...concrete, and even the concept of the newspaper - The Acta Diurna - came to us from the Romans.

Along with their system of sewage and sanitation, which were - again - works of a highly advanced society.

And yet, though they achieved all of these incredible things and more, in the same span of Empire - some 507 years in the West - they couldn't figure out how to make a shoe. In fact, they did little to improve on the sandal itself.

So what were they thinking? That the toes were hardly worth the same attention and intellectual scrutiny as Hadrian's Wall? Or the Pantheon dome? Didn't they realize Roman soldiers used their feet to get to the battles, then again to stand their ground in the battles? Just throw some leather across the top of the foot, for God's sake! And cover the poor, exposed toes so, at the very least, they would be protected from a stubbing against a paving stone laid on their road to Cannae!

How long would it have taken to draw up that podiatric innovation, anyway? A simple dip of the quill...stroke here, there...over and around...EGO FECI! A shoe. And still plenty of time to catch the starved wildebeests rend those pesky Christians limbs from torsos.

Ahh, but not only was advancement in footwear oddly stagnant, but they seemed content beyond all reason with the toga. Sure, robes can be quite comfortable as well as decorative...but as daily attire? Scuffing the hem all the time with dusty, uncovered toes...Plus, the men dressed same as the women! So who wore the pants in the family? No one; there were no pants to be worn. Sheesh! You can flood the Coliseum for a historical reenactment of a great naval battle but you can't figure out how to make a garment that sheaths both legs against the elements while eliminating all those yards of billowing toga always in need of gathering upon one's arms?

Well, it certainly bewilders the Brianetics Historical & Yesterday's News Bureau. 

As always, Brianetics both welcomes and encourages any enlightenment forthcoming from the readership, whether in sandals and toga or shoes and sans-a-belt pants or any combination thereof.

And that's all there is to that.

If It's Not One Thing It's Another

I think we can all agree that a stitch in time saves 9. But 9 what, exactly? And why not 10? With a more vigilant sensibility perhaps the issue would have been addressed a bit earlier - and that timely stitch would likely save 10 and the world would be shut of the yoke of being a stitch short. But I suppose that's 6 of one and half a dozen of another.  But 6 of what? And if we don't know what comprises the 6 how can we possibly ascertain that the half-dozen of the other is comparable? But wait... maybe it's 6 stitches and then half a dozen other stitches. But that would leave us 3 stitches short. Or would it be 6 stitches? 3 stitches from 6 of one and then another 3 from half dozen of the other. Or do we add, and if so what is our final sum? I find it all very confusing but 5 will get you 10 one day second guessing will be put to rest when someone comes forth to put their 2 cents in just to gloat over how they were able to put 2 and 2 together for the rest of us and it only took them 24/7 one week. 

Well if that's your little 3-card monte game you're 4 donuts short of a baker's dozen because you have zero impact on us. We walk like we're 10 feet tall, and you have to be one half-wit to think otherwise. 

U S A! U S A! U S A!

On a serious note, Brianetics is proud to present the following assessment of the end to the Viet Nam War. Spoiler alert: The USA emerged triumphant.

(by Bruce Herschensohn)

Decades back, in late 1972, South Vietnam and the United States were winning the Vietnam War decisively by every conceivable measure. That's not just my view. That was the view of our enemy, the North Vietnamese government officials.  Victory was apparent when President Nixon ordered the U.S. Air Force to bomb industrial and military targets in Hanoi, North Viet Nam's capital city, and in Haiphong, its major port city, and we would stop the bombing if the North Vietnamese would attend the Paris Peace Talks that they had left earlier. The North Vietnamese did go back to the Paris Peace talks, and we did stop the bombing as promised.
On January the 23rd, 1973, President Nixon gave a speech to the nation on primetime television announcing that the Paris Peace Accords had been initialed by the United States, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, the Viet Cong, and the Accords would be signed on the 27th. What the United States and South Vietnam received in those accords was victory.  At the White House, it was called "VV Day," "Victory in Vietnam Day."
The U.S. backed up that victory with a simple pledge within the Paris Peace Accords saying: should the South require any military hardware to defend itself against any North Vietnam aggression we would provide replacement aid to the South on a piece-by-piece, one-to-one replacement, meaning a bullet for a bullet; a helicopter for a helicopter, for all things lost -- replacement.  The advance of communist tyranny had been halted by those accords.
Then it all came apart.  And It happened this way: In August of the following year, 1974, President Nixon resigned his office as a result of what became known as "Watergate." Three months after his resignation came the November congressional elections and within them the Democrats won a landslide victory for the new Congress and many of the members used their new majority to de-fund the military aid the U.S. had promised, piece for piece, breaking the commitment that we made to the South Vietnamese in Paris to provide whatever military hardware the South Vietnamese needed in case of aggression from the North. Put simply and accurately, a majority of Democrats of the 94th Congress did not keep the word of the United States.
On April the 10th of 1975, President Gerald Ford appealed directly to those members of the congress in an evening Joint Session, televised to the nation.  In that speech he literally begged the Congress to keep the word of the United States.  But as President Ford delivered his speech, many of the members of the Congress walked out of the chamber. Many of them had an investment in America's failure in Vietnam. They had participated in demonstrations against the war for many years.  They wouldn't give the aid.
On April the 30th South Vietnam surrendered and Re-education Camps were constructed, and the phenomenon of the Boat People began.  If the South Vietnamese had received the arms that the United States promised them would the result have been different? It already had been different. The North Vietnamese leaders admitted that they were testing the new President, Gerald Ford, and they took one village after another, then cities, then provinces and our only response was to go back on our word. The U.S. did not re-supply the South Vietnamese as we had promised. It was then that the North Vietnamese knew they were on the road to South Vietnam's capital city, Saigon, that would soon be renamed Ho Chi Minh City.
Former Arkansas Senator William Fulbright, who had been the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made a public statement about the surrender of South Vietnam.  He said this, "I am no more distressed than I would be about Arkansas losing a football game to Texas."  The U.S. knew that North Vietnam would violate the accords and so we planned for it. What we did not know was that our own Congress would violate the accords. And violate them, of all things, on behalf of the North Vietnamese. That's what happened.
I'm Bruce Herschensohn.

MR. HERSCHENSOHN'S VIDEO CAN BE VIEWED AT:

The Truth about theVietnam War-YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk

So there you have it.  After decades of rancor, political and civil unrest, the United States has proven it's strength and resilience with this decisive victory over Communist Viet Nam. We shed the tears, now we can cheer at the victory parade. This is your Brianetics correspondent, thank you for reading.

BRIANETICS NEWS SPORTS AND THAT CUTE RED-HEAD THAT DOES THE WEATHER IN SUCH SHORT LEATHER SKIRTS WITH THE ZIPPER IN FRONT.

WORDS FROM THE WISE

Or perhaps not so much wise as indolent - but in a crafty way. It is reported that William Shakespeare, noted playwright and barley-hoarder, gave the English language some 1700 or more words that it did not have before his enlightened neologistics. And, yes, the Brianetics Learned Symposium On The Narrative Structure Of Classical Literature, Evolution Of Linguistic Nuance and Who Came Up With Those Little Dots And Curves People Put In Sentences All The Time For Stuff  has just coined "neologistics" for its first neologism of the current millennium.

Number of Words in the English Language as of January 1, 2021 went above 1M when the ‘Millionth English word’ was declared.  Since then the number has soared to 1,062,759.4 - .5 and counting due to the addition of neologistics. This according to the Global Language Monitor.

Which means the 1700 words Shakespeare created amounts to an additional increase to the language of only 0.159960947% of today's English vocabulary.

Ahh, but now comes the rub. In the sub-basement of The Charles Dickens Museum in recently discovered archives moldering next to a box containing Miss Favisham's bridal trousseau were these two  hitherto unseen photos of The Bard of Stratford-on-Avon. And they have given the Shakespearean World pause, to say the least.

You will notice the photo on the left shows a Shakespeare clearly perplexed and vexed alike as he vainly searches the dictionary for just the proper word to use in a pivotal scene in the play he is currently struggling to flesh out. Then, in the photo right, you will see a Shakespeare quite pleased with himself. In fact, there are no other renderings of The Bard in such good humor. Why his good humor? Because instead of spending endless hours of tedious, enervating research trying to find that perfect word or phrase, Shakespeare decided to take the much easier, more convenient and most self-satisfying path of just making up words that sounded perfect for his purposes. That's why he is holding quill to parchment; jotting down a new word to use in place of the words that were available to The Bard but nonetheless inadequate.

That's right. William Shakespeare was too lazy and lacked the skill to illuminate his couplets with words long available in the English language, like English teachers have made their pupils do under penalty of failing the class.

And that's why otherwise exceptionally intelligent students wound up at Miami of Ohio instead of Dartmouth - because on the Verbal SAT's they could not correctly define Consanguineous, Empiricutic nor Imploratory and the like. That's right, Newton-IQ students wound up at Hertz rather than NASA because William Shakespeare wasn't quite satisfied with The Queen's English. 

Not only that, but he's lionized by academics worldwide; even deified by some who swoon in rapture whenever The Bard's august theophany is manifest in theater or recitation. Oh, now they rhapsodize about his incomprehensible genius, his seemingly all-inclusive vocabulary - the largest in history, some say. So prodigious that it is more voluminous than The Oxford English Dictionary, and yet he STILL had to invent words because the language could not fulfill his dramaturgical vision.

But WAIT! How can Shakespeare be worthy of these breathless encomiums lauding his preternatural vocabulary when he knew some 1700 words no one else could have since he, himself, put them into common parlance? 

How about the guy who makes up a ridiculously high number - so high it can only be used in theoretical quantum physics and the internet...will he, then, have a greater number of numbers to use than those who didn't realize you could count past, say, 2 million? Well, Shakespeare did that very thing, only with words.

And that's all there is to that.

NOXIOUS FEMININITY 

Without even factoring in "toxic masculinity" - which is merely men behaving differently than women - the erosion of the American Male bedrock is horrifying to behold. If men are now afraid to wear shirts with size-tags because they might chafe, who will fight our future wars with South America and the Global Climate Paris Electric Car Accords cabal? And the Left has even stigmatized the humble shirt! Suddenly, it's a mark of shame for men to wear their shirt tails out -- unless they have those shirts with specially tailored tails that don't look like they should be worn tucked in, anyway. What's next, reassigning the gender designation Male to something less threatening? Like Proxvir?

(proxvir Meaning | Gender & Sexuality | Dictionary.com)

Not to mention major league teams wearing pink to support the fight against breast cancer - which is laudable, to be sure. But where are the little ribbons on WNBA uniforms, or wafting from the caps of LPGA women duffers to show their concern over testicular cancer? Nowhere. Incontestable proof women just don't care how many men die from toxic testicles. They likely find it a poetic justice. And that's all there is to that.

The 11th Plague Of Egypt

Brianetics is once again delving into a conundrum of literally Biblical proportions. It seems curious that Pharoah didn't just execute Moses since he was such a pester. Moses was already banished for killing an Egyptian taskmaster, so Pharoah could have condemned him to death just for defying his exile. Add fomenting dissent in the realm and the inhumane atrocities wrought upon all Egypt - its Nile lifespring, the ecosystem therein and livestock thereout; food stores, even the very air itself. But worst of all, the demonic suffering inflicted upon its prople - serfs, craftsmen, merchants, builders, children and even the royal Pharoah's family were victims of the Moses pan-scourges. Today that would be deemed an act of terror and cause to martial all the forces of the civilized world to pursue the perpetrators to a swift and bloody death that brings joy to many and sorrow to none.

Yet despite being the 11th Plague Of Egypt, Moses gets a free pass. Strolling around the royal grounds, luncheon and drinks with Aaron and the rest of the Hebrew guys. Just lazing around the community bonfire, chuckling and snickering about all the boils now seen on the Master Builders face. "Ha Ha - weeping boils on his nose. Pass the chazeret, will ya, Ithabad, And the wine."  No locusts running amok in the Hebrew enclave, it seems.

So much nuisance would have been averted if only Pharoah executed Moses upon the prophet's return. And this does not even include the debacle at the Red Sea - all those brave charioteers and bowmen, just swallowed whole by collapsing walls of sea...

In conclusion, Brianetics finds it worthy to note that Moses was not named by his birth parents - that we know of - but by Pharoah's daughter. So he had an Egyptian name into adulthood and kept that Egyptian name even after discovering he was born a Hebrew. Even as he was challenging one of the most oppressive regimes in antiquity; the regime of which he once was prince. 

Even as he returned to Egypt to live among his blood relatives and Hebraic community, still he called himself Moses. But why? Why didn't he take his Hebrew birth name, if there was one? Or at the very least have the Hebrew elders perform rites of purification so he could take a proper Hebrew name.

There is only one logical reason, according to the Brianetics Ad Hoc Committee On Matters Of Fact Of No Matter As A Matter Of Fact, and that is Moses was just too proud an Egyptian and too vain a royal to give up the name by which everyone knew him. It certainly informs the notion that Moses, himself, decided not to spend any more time with these Hebrew kvetches, 40 years was too much already. And that's why he never crossed into the Promised Land, not because of some time-out Yahweh used to punish him like he told everyone. 

Yes, and that whole Let My People Go thing was just Moses getting his vengeance on Pharoah for never being considered for the throne himself and forced to work for Jethro in that backwater Midian, of all places. Not exactly The Court of Great Egypt in all its splendor. That chip on Moses' shoulder was plain to see and easy to understand. To anyone who cared to look and consider.

And that's all there is to that.