Was Judas the first Liberal?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: July 29th, 2021, 4:39 amI think the philosophically/psychologically interesting part is the fact that all of this extrapolation and profound influence on human culture, and all of our human convictions that we're talking about profound truths, stem from the way the solar system happened to form, and specifically the orbits of the moon and earth, combined with the fact that we evolved to be able to process complex visual information by recognizing patterns, and particularly patterns that might represent living things (particularly human living things).
Thing is, if people want to understand the "As above, so below" situation, they need look no further than the protoplanetary disc that existed before the planets had properly formed.

Simply, any material - asteroids, planetesimals and dust that came near the first proto-planets would have been either consumed or evicted - "cleared from their orbital space", as is the jargon. The dynamics of predatory and territorial behaviour that has echoed down the ages and is now performed consciously.

The brain, as always, takes credit for all this in retrospect, like a child steering a toy wheel in the passenger seat as its parent drives.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Belindi »

Nick_A wrote: July 30th, 2021, 12:23 am
Belindi wrote: July 29th, 2021, 3:43 am
Nick_A wrote: July 28th, 2021, 12:33 pm
Belindi wrote: July 28th, 2021, 3:16 am Nick wrote:



I hope you are not stopping at mankind. "The higher parts" of all conscious beings are "descended from above". Your inner Descartes is showing, Nick,
Conscious life descends from above There is no conscious animal life on earth that arose from the earth. Animal life is a creature of reaction like a machine reacting to external and internal influences. Consciusness is not necessary for animal life to perform its function. Only the ability to react is. Man has the potential for consciousness but normally lives and dies a creature of reaction.
That's an eccentric usage of 'consciousness'. Consciousness means being aware of something or some event.

You contrast reaction with consciousness as though the two are mutually exclusive. In actual fact we are conscious of reactions almost as soon as the reactions happen.

We are not usually conscious of reactions that are governed by the parasympathetic system, such as digestion and blood pressure.
We are aware ( i.e. conscious of)when we have had a spinal reflex reaction such as eye blink or knee jerk.

Perhaps you confuse consciousness with insight. For instance sometimes a person may be unaware that they are under the control of an emotion to the extent that their rational judgement is suspended.
You have described animal reactive consciousness very well. But what is human consciousness and what is the difference? Human consciousness is self awareness as we react to life. We are self consciousness for brief intervals. It is an indication of a human potential but as of now, we are not conscious and live by animal reactive consciousness.
Belinda replies: Some individuals are more free than others to reflect before they react. Psychoanalysis is for helping people to be more self aware. Few individuals completely lack self awareness. Jesus Christ , or Socrates, are among the few individuals who were self aware nearly all the time.

Ouspensky provides an experiment to verify the limits of consciousness
I shall try to explain how consciousness can be studied. Take a watch and look at the second hand, trying to be aware of yourself, and concentrating on the thought, 'I am Peter Ouspensky,' 'I am now here.' Try not to think about anything else, simply follow the movements of the second hand and be aware of yourself, your name, your existence and the place where you are. Keep all other thoughts away.

You will, if you are persistent, be able to do this for two minutes. This is the limit of your consciousness. And if you try to repeat the experiment soon after, you will find it more difficult than the first time.

This experiment shows that a man, in his natural state, can with great effort be conscious of one subject (himself) for two minutes or less.
Belinda replies: It is hard if not impossible to concentrate on a boring ploy of any sort. I suppose there may be a few individuals who are able to suspend their creative urges in order to concentrate on an activity that is specially designed to be boring.However none of the saints have been famous for being boring people.
The most important deduction one can make after making this experiment in the right way is that man is not conscious of himself. The illusion of his being conscious of himself is created by memory and thought processes.....................
Would a mob be possible if its people were self aware; if they saw themselves reacting like a mob?
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Nick_A »

Steve
Steve3007 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:39 am
I think the philosophically/psychologically interesting part is the fact that all of this extrapolation and profound influence on human culture, and all of our human convictions that we're talking about profound truths, stem from the way the solar system happened to form, and specifically the orbits of the moon and earth, combined with the fact that we evolved to be able to process complex visual information by recognizing patterns, and particularly patterns that might represent living things (particularly human living things).
But suppose the artificial creation of our moon created the necessity for the demiurge to manifest organic life on earth? Is it just a remarkable coincidence that the earth has an atmosphere which supports organic life?
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Steve3007 »

Nick_A wrote:But suppose the artificial creation of our moon created the necessity for the demiurge to manifest organic life on earth? Is it just a remarkable coincidence that the earth has an atmosphere which supports organic life?
It's a remarkable coincidence in the same sense that it's a remarkable coincidence that our legs are exactly long enough to reach from our body to the ground. What an amazing coincidence that they exactly fit that space!

No doubt there are other living things who evolved on planets with differently constituted atmospheres who are singing the praises of their own environment too. Or to put it another way: If there were billions of planets, all with atmospheres of different composition, and only one composition was suited to the evolution of life, then of course that one would be the planet that contained life. If the inhabitants of that planet said "isn't it amazing that of all of those billions of planets we could have been on, we happen to live on the one that is just suited to us! What a remarkable coincidence!", what would you say to them?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Steve3007 »

It's an old, old pre-evolution fallacy: the idea that since we live in an environment to which we are well suited, somebody must have made that environment just for us to be put in. As I said, it seems at least possible (though it's obviously impossible to tell for sure) that there are countless other living things spread throughout the universe in countless other environments who, understandably enough, fall for the same fallacy. It seems to me a deeply hubristic fallacy, based on our longing to be special, and our resistance to the continuous process of being pushed by evidence further and further from the centre of the universe where we placed ourselves.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Nick_A »

Steve3007 wrote: July 30th, 2021, 10:25 am It's an old, old pre-evolution fallacy: the idea that since we live in an environment to which we are well suited, somebody must have made that environment just for us to be put in. As I said, it seems at least possible (though it's obviously impossible to tell for sure) that there are countless other living things spread throughout the universe in countless other environments who, understandably enough, fall for the same fallacy. It seems to me a deeply hubristic fallacy, based on our longing to be special, and our resistance to the continuous process of being pushed by evidence further and further from the centre of the universe where we placed ourselves.
Perhaps the universe isn't here to serve us but we exist to serve the universe. The universe makes perfect sense we are yet to comprehend. Leonardo Da Vinci's famous drawing of a male figure perfectly inscribed in a circle and square, known as the "Vitruvian Man," illustrates what he believed to be a divine connection between the human form and the universe. Sacred geometry reveals the logic of our universe and how it isn't a random accidental creation.

Universal laws are a conscious creation and cannot occur mechanically. It is Man's potential to consciously evolve to understand their meaning.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7092
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Nick_A wrote: July 30th, 2021, 4:48 pm
Steve3007 wrote: July 30th, 2021, 10:25 am It's an old, old pre-evolution fallacy: the idea that since we live in an environment to which we are well suited, somebody must have made that environment just for us to be put in. As I said, it seems at least possible (though it's obviously impossible to tell for sure) that there are countless other living things spread throughout the universe in countless other environments who, understandably enough, fall for the same fallacy. It seems to me a deeply hubristic fallacy, based on our longing to be special, and our resistance to the continuous process of being pushed by evidence further and further from the centre of the universe where we placed ourselves.
Perhaps the universe isn't here to serve us but we exist to serve the universe.
The universe has no need of our help. We (infact all life) shall come and disappear into nothing ness and the universe shall abide as if nothing had happened.
The universe makes perfect sense we are yet to comprehend. Leonardo Da Vinci's famous drawing of a male figure perfectly inscribed in a circle and square, known as the "Vitruvian Man," illustrates what he believed to be a divine connection between the human form and the universe. Sacred geometry reveals the logic of our universe and how it isn't a random accidental creation.
Pure human hybris. Who the hell does "MANKIND" think he is?
We are a speck on a piece of dust on the back of a bacteria, on the back of a flea, on the back of an elephant, and the universe is the continent of Africa.
Take a look at Youtube and type in "How the Universe is Way Bigger Than You Think". They come back and say we can serve the universe.

Universal laws are a conscious creation and cannot occur mechanically. It is Man's potential to consciously evolve to understand their meaning.
Nah. Just another anthrompomorphization; hybris.
You might like this one too. "Universe Size Comparison 3D" on you tube
Last edited by Sculptor1 on July 30th, 2021, 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Nick_A »

Sculptor1 wrote: July 30th, 2021, 5:40 pm
Nick_A wrote: July 30th, 2021, 4:48 pm
Steve3007 wrote: July 30th, 2021, 10:25 am It's an old, old pre-evolution fallacy: the idea that since we live in an environment to which we are well suited, somebody must have made that environment just for us to be put in. As I said, it seems at least possible (though it's obviously impossible to tell for sure) that there are countless other living things spread throughout the universe in countless other environments who, understandably enough, fall for the same fallacy. It seems to me a deeply hubristic fallacy, based on our longing to be special, and our resistance to the continuous process of being pushed by evidence further and further from the centre of the universe where we placed ourselves.
Perhaps the universe isn't here to serve us but we exist to serve the universe.
The universe has no need of our help. We (infact all life) shall come and disappear into nothing ness and the universe shall abide as if nothing had happened.
The universe makes perfect sense we are yet to comprehend. Leonardo Da Vinci's famous drawing of a male figure perfectly inscribed in a circle and square, known as the "Vitruvian Man," illustrates what he believed to be a divine connection between the human form and the universe. Sacred geometry reveals the logic of our universe and how it isn't a random accidental creation.
Pure human hybris. Who the hell does "MANKIND" think he is?
We are a speck on a piece of dust on the back of a bacteria, on the back of a flea, on the back of an elephant, and the universe is the continent of Africa.
Take a look at Youtube and type in "How the Universe is Way Bigger Than You Think". They come back and say we can serve the universe.

Universal laws are a conscious creation and cannot occur mechanically. It is Man's potential to consciously evolve to understand their meaning.
Nah. Just another anthrompomorphization; hybris.
You might like this one too. "Universe Size Comparison 3D" on you tube
The human body is a machine designed to transform substances by it bodily processes. Regardless of how we imagine ourselves, our objective purpose is that of a machine.

Your finger serves a need of the body or this machine. You could lose your finger but the body continues to function. Your bodily cells which create your finger are born, live, and die within a day. It is the same with Man in the universe or the body of God. The Machine of the Man animal serves this purpose of transforming substances. It is born, lives, and dies. (dust to dust) Now suppose one of your finger's bodily cells evolves and becomes a brain cell? Its life span and its purpose is different. It no longer serves just an animal purpose but also a conscious purpose associated with the mind of our source.

The purpose of life isn't found in the results but rather in the process. The process of a person's life determines their future.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7092
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Nick_A wrote: July 30th, 2021, 11:48 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: July 30th, 2021, 5:40 pm
Nick_A wrote: July 30th, 2021, 4:48 pm
Steve3007 wrote: July 30th, 2021, 10:25 am It's an old, old pre-evolution fallacy: the idea that since we live in an environment to which we are well suited, somebody must have made that environment just for us to be put in. As I said, it seems at least possible (though it's obviously impossible to tell for sure) that there are countless other living things spread throughout the universe in countless other environments who, understandably enough, fall for the same fallacy. It seems to me a deeply hubristic fallacy, based on our longing to be special, and our resistance to the continuous process of being pushed by evidence further and further from the centre of the universe where we placed ourselves.
Perhaps the universe isn't here to serve us but we exist to serve the universe.
The universe has no need of our help. We (infact all life) shall come and disappear into nothing ness and the universe shall abide as if nothing had happened.
The universe makes perfect sense we are yet to comprehend. Leonardo Da Vinci's famous drawing of a male figure perfectly inscribed in a circle and square, known as the "Vitruvian Man," illustrates what he believed to be a divine connection between the human form and the universe. Sacred geometry reveals the logic of our universe and how it isn't a random accidental creation.
Pure human hybris. Who the hell does "MANKIND" think he is?
We are a speck on a piece of dust on the back of a bacteria, on the back of a flea, on the back of an elephant, and the universe is the continent of Africa.
Take a look at Youtube and type in "How the Universe is Way Bigger Than You Think". They come back and say we can serve the universe.

Universal laws are a conscious creation and cannot occur mechanically. It is Man's potential to consciously evolve to understand their meaning.
Nah. Just another anthrompomorphization; hybris.
You might like this one too. "Universe Size Comparison 3D" on you tube
The human body is a machine designed to transform substances by it bodily processes. Regardless of how we imagine ourselves, our objective purpose is that of a machine.
"Objective purpose" is as close to a contradiction in terms as I have read in a long while without being one. The notion of L'Metrrie's L'Homme Machine was influential and controversial in its time, but has not persisted without reservation. And the point about having a plastic brain is that our purpose is self generated through the experience of our lives, more than any other animal known.
Even if a thing could have an objective purpose, then what the Dickens would that be?

Your finger serves a need of the body or this machine.
The mechanistic nature of your finger can be limited by its mechanical structure, but there is nothing about it that proscribes what you do with it. Whether you are picking your nose or sticking your finger in a leaking dyke it not objective.
You could lose your finger but the body continues to function. Your bodily cells which create your finger are born, live, and die within a day. It is the same with Man in the universe or the body of God.
You have no evidence of god. Can you tell me why men have nipples?
The Machine of the Man animal serves this purpose of transforming substances. It is born, lives, and dies. (dust to dust) Now suppose one of your finger's bodily cells evolves and becomes a brain cell? Its life span and its purpose is different. It no longer serves just an animal purpose but also a conscious purpose associated with the mind of our source.

The purpose of life isn't found in the results but rather in the process. The process of a person's life determines their future.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7092
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

CIN wrote: June 9th, 2021, 12:25 pm
Nick_A wrote: June 9th, 2021, 12:19 pm Judas claimed the nard should have been sold and the money given to the poor after removal of administrative fees. Typical liberal philosophy. Jesus replies in a way sure to insult the liberal philosophy saying that "you will always have the poor among you." So much for social justice.

Is there any way a a person can defend Jesus' shocking reply or should he be canceled as not PC by the cancel culture?
Matthew 19:
"21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven."

Seems like Jesus was a much bigger liberal than Judas.
True.
I find it hard to understand how right wingers can also be religious.
Judas was the first capitalist, able to sell his friend for a few sheckles.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Nick_A »

sculptor1
You have no evidence of god. Can you tell me why men have nipples?
You have described the intent of the thread. Judas refers to those who find the degree of meaning their hearts search to experience in human society. Jesus mission was to awaken those who can feel the meaning their hearts are searching for beyond society and comes from their source. Arguing subjective opinions like the purpose of nipples in men satisfies the secular mind. Contemplating "what is God" nourishes the spiritual mind. Judas represents a mindset that cannot evolve from the secular mind into the broad perspective of the universal mind. When the secular mind sells out the universal perspective I call it the effects of the liberal mindset which cannot understand the universal perspective and those whose hearts are drawn to the inner light..
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Steve3007 »

Nick_A wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:It's an old, old pre-evolution fallacy: the idea that since we live in an environment to which we are well suited, somebody must have made that environment just for us to be put in....
Perhaps the universe isn't here to serve us but we exist to serve the universe....
Perhaps. Or perhaps the concept of servitude isn't really relevant.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Nick_A »

Steve3007 wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 5:45 am
Nick_A wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:It's an old, old pre-evolution fallacy: the idea that since we live in an environment to which we are well suited, somebody must have made that environment just for us to be put in....
Perhaps the universe isn't here to serve us but we exist to serve the universe....
Perhaps. Or perhaps the concept of servitude isn't really relevant.
Do you believe in the objective hierarchy of being or do you accept the modern belief that everything is the same?

Old fashioned chess would have a hierarchy determined by wins and losses in USCF tournament play. PC chess is a different game. The players move in whatever way it feels good. No pieces are captured since it is considered offensive. The white and black pieces are considered the same so the idea of the game is to retain equality enabling the pieces to learn of their sameness through education. rather than striving for superiority in old fashioned chess.

At some time in the near future the Great Chain Of Being and its description of objective hierarchy will be canceled by experts to be replaced by PC chess as an educational tool to teach the pleasures of equality. That will be real societal progress.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Steve3007 »

Nick_A wrote:Do you believe in the objective hierarchy of being or do you accept the modern belief that everything is the same?
No and no. (I don't believe in any "objective hierarchy of being" and I don't believe that everything is the same.)
Old fashioned chess would have a hierarchy determined by wins and losses in USCF tournament play. PC chess is a different game...
I'm not really interesting in responding to your objections to what you perceive as political correctness, "woke-ism", communism, etc. You make your feelings clear on those subjects in a large proportion of your posts. Message received.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Was Judas the first Liberal?

Post by Nick_A »

So the situation clarifies. Without a sense of scale, Jesus mission on earth is impossible to understand. Conscious evolution seems absurd since there is nothing there to evolve; it is all the same. The liberal position. The futile attempt to resolve the tension between blind belief and blind denial is impossible so resolution is determined by the temporary superiority of "might makes right"
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021