The 175-year record on legislative achievements for civil rights in the US passed by the Republican Party versus the Democratic Party should dispel the myth that 'compassionate conservatism' is an oxymoron.

Consider these fascinating historical facts.

To stop the Democrats' pro-slavery agenda, anti-slavery activists founded the Republican Party in 1854. The Republicans won the 1860 federal election, and by that date the governors of every northern state were Republicans, just six years after the party was established.

Despite fierce Democratic opposition, Republicans passed constitutional amendments banning slavery, extending the Bill of Rights to the states, guaranteeing equal protection of the laws and due process to all citizens, and extending the right to vote to persons of all races and backgrounds.

Republicans in Congress also enacted the nation's first-ever Civil Rights Act, which extended citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, all colors, and all creeds. In 1875 the Republicans expanded on these protections.

Struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, this legislation would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Where were the Democrats during these historic changes?

Republicans led the fight for women's rights, and most suffragists were Republicans. Republican Senator Aaron Sargent wrote the women's suffrage amendment in 1878, though it would not be passed by Congress until Republicans again won control of both houses 40 years later. In 1916 the first woman was elected to the US House of Representatives, Republican Jeannette Rankin.

The Democrats were indeed the status quo party, reactionary, hostile to the principle of America as a nation of liberty and dedicated to equality. They blocked Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of all Americans, not only during post-Civil War "reconstruction," but also into the 20th century. In the South, those Democrats who most bitterly opposed equality for blacks founded the Ku Klux Klan, which in effect operated as the Democratic Party's terrorist wing. Every single African-American in Congress until 1935 was a Republican.

California was the first state to have a Hispanic governor, Republican Romualdo Pacheco, in 1875. The first Hispanic US Senator, Octaviano Larrazolo, came to Washington from New Mexico as a Republican in 1928.

The first Jewish US Senator outside the former Confederacy was a Republican from Oregon, Joseph Simon, and the first Jewish woman to serve in the US House of Representatives was a California Republican, Florence Kahn.

The belief that the Democrats were and are the party with a social conscience, the party that most clearly expresses American values, is simply not true.

Two years ago, America marked the 50th anniversary of the modern civil rights movement, which began with the Supreme Court decision (Brown v. the Board of Education) written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, a three-term Republican Governor of California. Republican President Eisenhower won the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957; moreover, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act.

The first Asian-American US Senator was a Republican, Hiram Fong from Hawaii; the first African-American Senator after Reconstruction was a Republican, Ed Brooke from Massachusetts. The list goes on and on.

It should come as no surprise that Republicans have led in the struggle for civil rights for all. It is no accident that Republican President George W. Bush has proposed that this principle of human liberty is in fact a right to which all people are entitled.

It's clearly necessary to begin thinking about what form deterrence will take against future terrorist attacks on the U.S. At least 5 such attacks have been prevented at the operational stage by Bush administration policies over the last six years. What is needed is more serious consideration of the value of policies that deter such attacks.

This is likely to become a more pressing concern, as America's ability to interrupt such attacks, if a Democrat becomes President, will be severely eroded. The Democrats are profoundly indifferent to national security, and have even managed to convince themselves that terrorism is some vast right-wing conspiracy. If the Islamists have learned anything from their defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is that they must do whatever it takes to re-establish their beachhead in the U.S. They must bring their war back to their declared target. There can be little doubt the Democrats will give them this opportunity.

Conventional wisdom contends that if a terrorist group conducts a nuclear hit on a major American city, there would effectively be no return address against which to retaliate, making such an attack non-deterrable. Bret Stephens, in his article, "Who Needs Nukes?" (The Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2007), pointedly asks: "Would it hinder Islamist terrorists if the U.S.'s declared policy in the event of a nuclear 9/11 was the immediate destruction of Mecca, Medina and the Iranian religious center of Qom?"

Very likely it would not directly matter a jot to the terrorists. But it would surely make Arab states, their governments, and their people, begin to question the wisdom of whatever levels of overt and/or tacit support is being provided to terror groups. And that would surely hit the terrorists, bigtime.

Stephens continues: "Would our deterrent be more or less effective if we deployed a range of weapons, such as the maligned 'bunker buster', the use of which a potential adversary might think us capable?"

At present the terrorists rely a great deal on Western decency, and the pressure exerted by America's covert enemies in Europe, Canada and elsewhere, restraining the legitimate exercise of American power. Wouldn't the presence of bunker busters in the American arsenal and the stated willingness to use them against terrorist hideouts perhaps have some deterrence value?

Stephens takes his eyes off the ball, however, when he asks: "How would the deployment of a comprehensive anti-ballistic missile shield alter the composition of a credible deterrent?" The ABM shield is intended to deter rogue states seeking to exploit the crisis of a major terrorist attack, by following it up with an attack of their own. Such a surprise attack by China, Iran, North Korea, or a post-Musharraf Pakistan is very plausible.

One of the ignored threats of terrorism is precisely the opportunity it presents for a nuclear or non-nuclear attack by a conventional state actor. A robust capacity to deter such conventional attacks must remain a central plank in America's defense network.

Isn't it possible that its effectiveness against terror attacks has been underestimated? As Max Singer, a colleague of Cold War theorist Herman Kahn, referenced in Stephens' article, once said: "Even nihilists have something they hold dear that can be threatened with deterrence. You need to know what it is, communicate it and be serious about it."

Intention is what you 'do' about your innermost desire(s).

The first thing is to feel an overwhelming gratitude for everything that God, the universe, or whatever name you give this first principle, has brought into your life up until this moment. Give thanks for who you are, where you are, and for what surrounds you, for all of it, because when the object, state, or experience that you desire is attracted into your life, it can't exist suspended in nothing, it needs 'you' and your life as the soil for it to be planted in.

The second thing is to verbalize your desire concisely (know your outcome). Just put into everyday language what you want to draw into your life.

The third thing is to visualize it. This simply means to see what you want in your mind - make it into a picture. And see yourself in this picture; see yourself in close association with the object of your desire.

The fourth thing is to have 'now' all the positive, enjoyable feelings linked with what you desire.

The fifth thing is to feel gratitude, again, but feel it now as though what you desire is already present in your life. So express your thanks, in the present tense, for this thing having come into your life: "I'm so thankful now that ..."

What is it about this process that gives us a power to achieve a desired goal? What is this 'power of intention'? At the sub-atomic level all phenomena, physical and non-physical, actual and potential, exist as dense clouds of energy, vibrating at varying speeds. Even a potentiality, something which doesn't factually exist yet, is there, as energy. What is its form? It is a thought, the energy produced by a thought.

The power of intention is thus a tangible, measurable, utterly real thing: the power of thought, as energy. And we control our thought.

Our conception of precisely what 'thinking' is, is grievously inaccurate. We truly have no idea the power we wield.

After viewing 'The Secret' I turned to those authors whose work a century ago forms the foundation today of a growing cultural phenomenon: using the Law of Attraction as a means of self-development. 'The Secret', released in March 2006, has revived this self-mastery philosophy and the work of such turn-of-the-century writers as Thomas Troward, Wallace Wattles, and Prentice Mulford.

Troward expresses the belief that each human individual is an energetic amalgam of body and mind, or rather two minds: the objective and subjective. The objective mind has the capacity to choose, that is 'to decide', what its identity is. It instructs the subjective mind accordingly, which obeys unquestioningly. The objective mind is like a host in a castle (the universe), a mind that knows much about its world, but at the price of not being able to leave it, to travel beyond it.

Although the subjective mind unhesitatingly obeys the instruction received from the objective mind (on who it is), it has the unique capacity to leave its world - it can travel outside to that realm coextensive with the material universe, and from which the object of your thinking is manifested into the world. That different plane is referred to as both thinking and self-aware, the "Formless Substance" (Wattles), the "Supreme Power" (Mulford), or "Pure Being" (Troward). So, what your objective mind desires is attracted to you from the 'Formless Substance' via your subjective mind.

That is the Law of Attraction in a nutshell.

Let's get to the heart of the matter. How do I attract what I desire?

All of these authors describe a clear series of steps, a sequence that the drawing power of the mind performs, and which all of us do already. By being unaware, however, what we attract into our lives occurs by default.

What are these steps?

The foundation of this power is maintaining a state of sincere gratitude to the universe for all that has come to you in the past. That is the first step, expressing gratitude.

One of the speakers on 'The Secret' mentions having a "gratitude rock", which he keeps in his pocket. Whenever he inadvertently touches this rock he makes a point of silently giving thanks for something in his life. He suggests that such a practice is hugely beneficial, not least for taking our attention away from any negative current of thought and feeling we may find ourselves in.

A human being in a profound state of gratitude effectively activates the link between its subjective mind and the thinking Formless Substance.

The second step is to form a clear 'intention' of what you wish to attract into your life, and verbalize it unequivocally.

Third, turn your intention into a 'visualization'. By this is meant forming in your mind a picture of the desired object, making it as vivid as possible in all details. Enrich this image by using all your senses.

The fourth step is 'dramatization', making your visualized mental image part of a moving picture. Place yourself within it, like a character in a movie. Replay this short sequence repeatedly, changing the story that
'you' in this mind-movie live through. Always ensure you come to the same desired outcome.

Fifth, hold to your intention with 'unwavering faith', as Lisa Nichols in 'The Secret' suggests. Such faith embraces the belief that our thoughts do have this power to access the Formless Substance, and from it manifest the objects of our thoughts. In practice simply suspending your disbelief in such a process is enough. Your belief will become stronger as the Law of Attraction works for you.

Sixth, constantly return to your state of gratitude, but do so also in terms of your intentions. This means express your gratitude for a future benefit, but do so in the present tense, as though it has already occurred. For example, one of my intentions is to attract into my life a Beneteau 35 cruising sloop, so to use Bob Proctor's formulation I verbalize it thus: "I am so happy and thankful now that I have a Beneteau 35!"

Why is this important? On the plane of the Formless Substance there is no time, no space. The Beneteau 35 I will have, from the perspective of that plane, has already passed into my possession. By recognizing this fact in the verb tense of my gratitude statement I make it more real for my subjective mind.

As Mulford states, "You are a part of God, or the Infinite Force of Good; [and within you] are powers, now possibly in embryo, but ever growing greater. [...] Your every thought is a force, as real as a current of electricity is a force. The thoughts you are now putting out are working to shape your face and body, affecting your health for good or ill, and making or losing for you money." (p. 64)

The point here is that what you habitually think and visualize builds up the actual circumstances of your life. Your everyday thoughts, your mind-pictures, and the feelings that attend them, concretely 'put together' your life as it is today, including your career, your finances, your relationships, your health.

If you want to change your life what you need to do is activate the Law of Attraction. This means changing what you think, what you see in your mind, and the feelings that such thoughts and images bring.

As Michael Beckwith states in 'The Secret', "There is in each of us a Power greater than the world, a Power that will feed you and clothe you, guide you, direct you, and sustain you through all Eternity. That is what I know."

Dare to build the life of your dreams!
-
Sources:
1) Prentice Mulford, "Thought Forces". London: Wm. Clowes & Son, 1913.
2) Thomas Troward, "The Edinborough Lectures on Mental Science". New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1904.
3) Wallace Wattles, "The Science of Getting Rich". Holyoke, Mass.: E. Towne, 1910.

What is positive thinking? It is first having a 'thought', which then produces within myself a positive 'feeling'. A thought followed by a feeling. Moreover, every thought produces some such feeling.

After a series of thoughts which evoke within myself a series of positive feelings, the 'vibration' of my mind and body would subtly change. The vibration is the localized energetic movement of one being within a field of such energetic movement. Indeed, all physical and non-physical phenomena are in a state of continuous
'vibratory' movement, and greater or lesser 'transectory' movement (from one place to another).

The intensity of vibration of the sub-atomic energy of my mind (and body) is therefore under my control because it is 'caused' by my thoughts, which is referred to as the Law of Vibration.

The temper, or register, of the vibration (positive or negative) draws to itself thoughts being produced by other minds that are in a similar state of vibration. An individual's vibration also influences the clarity of the connection (reception and transmission) between its subjective mind and the Formless Substance.

The Law of Attraction states that a mind attracts whatever it thinks about, all the more so depending on the strength of the feeling that attends any given thought.

What then can we say about positive thoughts in this context? Let us say, first, that each positive 'thought + feeling' pushes my mind's vibration slightly further into a positive register. Second, let me suggest that a drawing together of my mind's thoughts with the positive thoughts of other minds occurs, and comes to me as a profound sense of 'connectedness'. Lastly, let us tentatively conclude that the register of my connection with the Formless Substance (Law of Attraction ) is determined by whether my thinking is positive or negative.

As we know, the Law of Attraction is always in operation, indeed there is no reason that thoughts which produce a negative emotion would not also establish a connection just as readily with the Formless Substance. Clearly the Law of Attraction is a double-edged sword.

Thinking positive is not just a matter of mental hygiene. It doesn't just metaphorically enhance your experience of your life. No. It does far more. It literally builds your life, because it draws towards you either what you most want to experience, or what you most fear to experience. Allowing ouselves the 'luxury' of negative thoughts is in truth about the worst thing we could do.

I would urge you, then, to cultivate the habit of thinking those thoughts that produce a positive feeling-state for you. I might add that the easiest way to guide yourself in a positive direction is through the magic of expressing sincere gratitude, as often as you can.

Profoundly giving thanks for all that the universe has brought into your life doesn't just give you a dippy glow of well-being. It has a real power because it viscerally puts you in the stream of positive thoughts. In fact, a thought expressing gratitude is itself one of the stronger forms of positive thinking. 

You will find as time goes on that your gratitude expands and you become astounded at the presence of such unbounded riches in your life. The Law of Attraction is bringing more into your life as you're giving thanks more. You're in the sweet spot, a virtuous circle of a constantly expanding life.

What this entails is uncovering the 'self', and then working out what the steps to that process are. Perhaps we might best approach this using a deductive line of reasoning. In other words, let us determine what the 'self' is not.

I am not merely a physical organism, a body, although that is surely part of my self. We usually refer to the body as something that 'belongs' to me: my face, my hair, by body.

Nor am I my brain located within this body.

Others refer to me by my name, but that too is simply a sign representing me, two words: 'Stephen' and 'Carter'. That certainly is not who I am.

My self is not the matrix of environmental forces that contribute to my experience of being a 'self' (physical, family, social, political). 

Lastly, I am not the totality of my thoughts, if such an infinite quantity could be enumerated. I am more than a producer of thoughts.

If I am none of these identities, then what's left? This mysterious 'I' can perhaps only be referred to as that-which-we-cannot-know, a soul, a non-physical spirit.

According to the theory of the Law of Attraction, my 'self' separates into two minds: the identity-deciding activity of the objective mind, and the trans-dimensional communicating activity of the subjective mind. The latter operates as the satellite dish of the subconscious, directed to the 'Formless Substance' that permeates the material universe. The objective mind 'decides' who it is, and the subjective mind obeys this directive.

I am led to conclude that 'I' therefore am my objective mind, an entity that treasures its own independence above all else, but which, ironically, depends utterly on its vital connection to the universal subjective mind dispersed throughout the Formless Substance.

Self -discovery is coming to understand that the self is therefore a brilliant collaboration of two minds, working in superb harmony as the visible part of the iceberg of my individual human soul.

The stunning thing for me in the Law of Attraction is the idea that 'we invariably become what we think about most.' I gradually came to understand what this in fact means.

Travel with me in my discovery of just what that statement entails.

We hear the formulation that I freely choose what images and thoughts to give my attention to. Moreover, those images and thoughts that I voluntarily return to, repeatedly, control the vibration (or frequency) that my mind and body fall into, which in turn controls what is attracted into my life.

The metaphor I use for the mind and body is this: imagine the physical universe as a cosmic forest fire in which each individual tree on fire is an individual mind and body.  The flow of energy visually occurs like in that image, as I imagine it.

So, I turn to my own existence. I am a soul, a non-physical spirit, and I presume that my spirit's 'essence' must be the thoughts and feelings produced in and by my mind.

Is there evidence that thoughts have power, that is actual power in the material universe? Thomas Troward, in one of the three new chapters he added to later editions of his "Edinborough Lectures on Mental Science", gives evidence by referring to Hippolyte Barraduc's work with the 'biometre', an instrument that measures the intensity of force or power allegedly exerted by a subject's thoughts. The actual instrument consists of a bell jar with two copper needles suspended inside. Extensive precautions are taken so that nothing material inside the jar, or in the immediate vicinity outside the jar, is allowed to exert any measurable influence on the copper needles.

Troward himself experimented with Barraduc's instrument and found that when he stood in front of it, and composed his mind into a state of entire relaxation, the two needles 'moved' to register the following readings: Left, 20 degrees; Right, 10 degrees. Then when he put his mind into the strongest mental attitude he could, the needles moved to quite different readings: Left, 10 degrees; Right, 30 degrees. Two doctors and other observers were present and verified that nothing was present that could have materially caused the needles to move.

Troward was convinced this registered the material impact, or actual energy, the frequency level, exerted by his thought waves as they radiated from his mind, much like radio, television or satellite waves. I don't find this particularly farfetched. It's plausible that thoughts, as an electromagnetic phenomenon, are in fact waves, and that their 'force', or frequency, would therefore presumably be measurable.

In this context, the Law of Attraction speaks of thoughts as falling into three categories, ones I initiate or create, ones I receive from other minds (subconsciously, I gather), and ones I receive from, or send to, what Wallace Wattles referred to as a 'formless substance' that permeates the physical universe.

My mind then is a nucleus within that clot of fiery energy in the forest fire of the universe, to render it visually. And my mind's thought-waves have a measurable power level.

Stop and consider that there is truly only one thing that you have absolute freedom to control -- your own thoughts. No one can cause you to think something that you don't want to think. Any other aspect of our existence is subject to external coercion, but not our thoughts. We are utterly free inside our own minds, free to think whatever we wish.

But how do I literally 'become' what I think about most? How is it that the content of my most habitual thoughts is drawn into my life? This is one of those aspects of the Law of Attraction you either suspend your disbelief over, or reject. The thoughts I think, I send, inadvertently, into the formless substance. Once there (which is immediate because it's all around us) they are 'impressed', and produce a version of the content of those thoughts. That's admittedly a rather nightmarish idea on its face, but it has a strange resonance for me. The one thing I have absolute freedom to do as I wish, my thinking, draws to me, very gradually, the very thing I give my thoughts over to. 

I truly become what I freely choose to think about.

The implications are staggering, 'if' we accept this as in any way a plausible picture of what the universe is. If so, then the universe is a living entity, an infinite field of conscious and benign energy, one of whose forms is 'thought'. It is a field in which each of us constitutes an energetic, individual part.

The implication are threefold: 1) mind manifests and controls the body (and its health), 2) mind controls what is attracted into its life, and 3) mind becomes what it gives its attention to.

The moral message within The Secret is profound. It is breathtakingly optimistic and empowering. I choose to suspend my disbelief in the weaker elements of its argument.