About WORDS

 

 

 

 

Welcome to the About Words website. Below is a brief audio introduction to this site.

Did you know that one of the most popular words on the internet is God?

a simple explanation of the global financial debt bubble

In the last ten years, as I have been writing about the historical extremes of the current global debt bubble, I have noticed the lack of perspective of the general public in regard to the current extremes. Let’s compare a few examples of history.

In the case of current times, people get loans based on their current income as well as their credit history. That is only extreme when we compare it to historical norms.

Solidarity lending involves collateral-free loans through solidarity groups and village organizations like this one in Bangladesh. Photo by Brett Matthews. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Normally, people would only get large loans (in contrast to short-term “pay-day loans”) if they had collateral. In other words, AFTER they own real estate free  and clear, then they could RISK their ownership with a “title loan” or equity loan, like people might do if they own an automobile free and clear. That is “normal” historically, like loans from pawn shops.

So, there is a limited amount of resources available- like if you had 100,000 of something and someone came to you and wanted to borrow a bunch of it from you, then you would want to know that they ALREADY OWNED something that was worth MUCH MORE than whatever they were borrowing from you and have them sign a contract that prevents them from selling it without you getting paid your debt. Think again about a title loan on a car. The lender gets listed on the certificate of title issued by the state. The state promises to use military force to protect the legal rights of the lender. (Note by the way that in some countries, one particular group of people may be allowed to lend at interest, while for all other people, it is illegal as in CRIMINAL to lend money at interest- at least for anyone without the permission or licensure of the ruling class!)

Cloverdale-Jewellry-Loans (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In lending, court systems are important. The court systems are the military organization that enforces debts, like repossessions of cars and foreclosures and evictions from real estate. Courts also create currency systems through their military power.

Heraldic badges of the Canadian government (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is another simple point that many people do not get. Courts dictate debts that the public owe to the courts. These are called taxes. The courts also dictate what form of payment is acceptable for payment of taxes. That is the foundation of public demand for government currency (to pay the tax debt claims that the governments invent and impose by military force on the masses).

So, many people are very focused on access to credit. That is typically a sign of how poor they are. If they had loads of cash, they would not care much about credit. They would not need it. They would not be desperate and anxious and frightened. They would not complain that politicians were threatening them. They would realize that all systems of invented tax claims are inherently threats and not complain about it, but accept it and adapt to it.

That reminds me of another traditional method of obtaining loans. Imagine that the US military lined up a lot of tanks on the border of Canada (or Iran) and then asked for a huge loan from the government of Canada (or Iran).

Queen Elizabeth II wearing the Sovereign’s insignia of the Order of Canada and the Order of Military Merit (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That is also normal historically. People focusing on income-based borrowing is simply not normal.

The US military may ask for a tax treaty by which the Canadian government promises to give the US 1% or 10% of all revenues or whatever. Again, that is totally normal historically (not specifically in the history of the US and Canada, but like between various nations and tribal gangs across the last few thousand years).

When the US Treasury borrows money from someone (called the sale of a treasury bond), then ALL of the underwriters (taxpayers) are responsible for paying back that debt. The US court system is responsible for extracting that wealth from the public. Or, if the US military lines up tanks on the border of Iran or Canada and “offers” a “rescue loan package,” then every inhabitant of the “occupied colony” is targeted for repayment of the war reparations or loans or whatever name is used.

So, what is going on with the huge marketing campaign to get the masses of the US in to massive debt (for mortgages, etc)? Some people emphasize that a lot of the lending is coming from China. Because of the massive trade deficit which the US keeps growing with China, China has been lending the US money (including through the mortgage industry) to continue the rapid transfer of wealth from the US to China. Whether this is a sign of Chinese wisdom or just the military intimidation of the US is to me rather obvious (military intimidation).

However, when people are desperate, they may be very hysterical in their willingness to vilify the rope salesman for selling them the rope with which they hang themselves. If China is being bullied by the US in to lending money to the US middle classes, why? Because the court system itself will benefit from a massive wave of foreclosures. Further, if the federal government “rescues everyone” from a massive wave of foreclosures, they may do so by basically nationalizing real estate (confiscating it).

Forecasting exactly how things will go involves some amount of speculation. Noticing that the current historical extremes of income-based lending (rather than collateral-based lending) are historical extremes that can return quickly to historical norms involves very little speculation. In contrast, people who blindly presume that the current historical extremes will endure another decade or even a full year are the ones who may find that their speculations are extremely naive.

Why did the global financial bubble grow so much in the 20th century (at least for the US and Europe, etc?) The prices of fossil fuels, on the whole, plummeted from the 19th century until 1999 (with a brief rise in the 1970s when the US increased consumption of fossil fuels so fast that it began importing rather than just using up what was produced in the US). With the advance of industrial civilization due to fossil fuels (plus computer technology), the effectiveness of global military operations rose in efficiency so much that court systems of organized coercion globalized.

The various military leaders across the world began to organize a union. They formed organizations like the league of nations and the united nations. These organizations promote “peace” in the sense of a well-organized system of global coercion. Rather than competing gangs and systems of coercion, there is a single network of the operations of coercion which dominate the masses. Instead of ruling classes across the planet competing with each other, there is a single ruling class forming.

The debt crisis in Europe (and, to a lesser extent, in the US and Japan) represents a massive transfer of resource control from the masses to the ruling class.  Governments will “be forced” to raise taxes, which will rocket the demand for cash (to pay taxes) and crush the already weakening financial bubble. People who have been speculating that credit will be easier and easier to access will shift from complacency and occasional complaints about politics to terror and panic.

The Centre Block on Parliament Hill, containing the houses of the Canadian parliament (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

EXACTLY how society will return toward a collateral-based pattern of lending is not really that important of a question to me. Will the masses be allowed to continue private ownership of collateral at all? For how long? How will the masses resist the military dominance of the global ruling class? Given that the masses seem completely hypnotized by the propaganda mythology of the ruling class (publicized through socialist institutions like public schooling),  will the masses even resist at all? For now, the masses continue to chase debt (and credit) in a mad rush for bankruptcy that marks the crowning achievement of the marketing profession: “Borrow! Consume!”

Stock market of Brussels (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Supreme Court of Canada building, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The religion of consumerism is not intended to last forever. It is just a means to an end. The holy temples of Rome (Egypt, Babylon, etc) became the courthouses and government agencies of the West (and even the stock market building in Brussels looks like a Roman baking temple).

As the global debt bubble deflates, the masses will wake up to the foundation of all currency systems: military force (which create public demand for currency through the tax extortion systems of the ruling military class). For now, have you noticed that the myth that a relatively unimportant substance like gold or silver is the basis of human systems of social domination is soaring in popularity (due to massive marketing campaigns)?

Related articles

• The Great Deformation: Is an Even Worse Financial Bubble Just Around the Corner? (ncrenegade.com)
• Global Government Debt Is Already 80% Of Global GDP (blacklistednews.com)
• Economic Growth Enigma: Money or Energy (worldstreets.wordpress.com)
• Coming Collapse, Massive Global Debt, The Bernanke Fed (financialsurvivalnetwork.com)
• Number of the Week: Total World Debt Load at 313% of GDP (forum.prisonplanet.com)
• Velocity of Money and the Crack-Up Boom (dollarcollapse.com)
• Predatory Lenders Target Soldiers (eatingthepoor.wordpress.com)
• The Student Loan Bubble Looks Awfully Like the Housing Crisis, Top Bankers Say (motherboard.vice.com)
• America the Pissed…Oligarchs, Sleep Lightly! (truth60.com)
• China and the Future of the Paris Club (yfpfwong.wordpress.com)

how high carb diets signal the brain to “just keep eating”

Interesting talk here. This guy is a biochemistry professor and “not the best speaker” for undergraduate or lower level biochemistry enthusiasts, but I did get one very simple and profound thing in the 28th minute: eating lots of carbohydrates results in such a huge flood of insulin that the insulin receptors in the brain TOTALLY withdraw.

A chimpanzee brain at the Science Museum London (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What does that mean in human experience? With all the insulin receptors withdrawn, the brain will always signal to the body “you are still hungry.” Eating too much carbohydrates BLOCKS the brain’s ability to sense when it should stop eating.

Why? Because the brain is hungry for fat. The only people who eat grain-based diets (when high quality fats are available) do so based on intensive cultural programming (like public schooling, TV ads, propaganda from the religion of the FDA, indoctrination from doctors licensed by the same network of religious institutions, etc).

English: Obesity is rising as we lose contact with traditional ways of eating. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Why does a high-carb diet result in insulin receptors withdrawing (what evolutionary purpose does it serve)? To prepare for winter periods of hibernation. When a human is eating lots of carbs, the brain interprets that as a signal to go in to an emergency mode to prevent starvation. Hunger signals are constant. Fat is conserved. The “obesity” of bears fattening up for winter is based on eating lots of carbs (to the best of my knowledge). When the bears resume “normal” diets in the spring (wtih increased levels of fat), then the starvation mode reverses and the insulin receptors extend back out to “normal” (non-emergency) receptivity.

So, “insulin resistance” is a rather imprecise label. High carbs diets lead to rocketing rates of obesity because those diets interfere with the brain’s ability to feel full (satisfied or “satiated“). High carb diets increase the experience of hunger. High carb diets lead to a hormonal panic of conserving fat to prepare for winter. Paleo diets (with complex carbs but not a lot of simple carbs) do not trigger the “prepare for hibernation” obesity response.

Related articles

• The Paleo Diet (collegecaveman.wordpress.com)
• Why some people stay skinny and others get fat (scienceofhumanpotential.wordpress.com)
• Myth: Insulin Makes You Hungry (eattoperform.com)
• Extreme Fat Loss: Skinny-Fat Edition (eattoperform.com)
• What is a Low Carb diet? (lynisha79.wordpress.com)
• The Carb Cloud Has Crested (fatthenfitnow.wordpress.com)
• Diet program review – The Atkins Diet (facenoire.wordpress.com)
• Low Carbohydrate Diet Review – Atkins and South Beach Diets (smarthealthblog.wordpress.com)
• Curing Type II Diabetes by Reducing Chronic Inflammation (newhealthparadigms.wordpress.com)
• The “Killer” Diet – Part 4 – Carbs (onehealthybugger.wordpress.com)

Investing for stable, steady growth

When people are interested in improving their investment results, what do they want more of? Typically, they want more of two things: stability and total gains.

Stability means that the total value or account balance will consistently rise with only very small declines. (That is also known as “wealth preservation” and the most common strategy for preserving wealth is diversifying across the most stable trends and markets.)

Total gains of course means that whenever you choose to withdraw money from your investment accounts, there is a lot more money there then what you put in. So, in summary, we value gains that are not just consistent, but also large.

Now, for some added perspective, let’s look quickly at the best-performing group of stocks in the US stock market last decade: the HUI sector. Note that most investors and even investing professionals have never heard of that group of stocks (because most people including financial professionals have not been focusing on the best results that are easily available to them- they either try too hard or not hard enough).

The above chart shows the performance of the stock prices of that group of 15 US companies. From a low of $35 in late 2000, the price of the HUI sector increased tenfold by 2006, gaining over 1600% by 2010.

Did your stock market investments grow that much last decade? Most investors (including in the US) experienced little or no gains overall in their stock investments last decade. In the case of US investors who had been heavily concentrated in US high tech companies such as are found on the US NASDAQ stock exchange, typical returns for the decade were losses of 50% or more. (See chart below.)

In other words, rather than witnessing consistent gains, many investors experienced continuing losses. Still, many of them continued to stay invested in losing methods and strategies for most or even all of the decade.

In fact, you may even be one of them. Whether or not you experienced disappointing investment results last decade, you may be quite interested in producing investment results that are both more stable and more profitable.

However, you may not know how to produce the results that you would value enough to alter your investing method. That is why you are reading this, right?

Before I say more about a simple strategy to consistently produce large gains (while maintaining a stable balance), let’s combine the two charts above to make something very clear. Here are the two charts shown together:

While the large gains of HUI (the tan line) are obviously far better than the large losses of the NASDAQ composite index (“COMP”), we can notice periods when HUI did quite well and periods where it did not gain. In the years 2000, 2004, & 2008, HUI lost value for the year (especially in 2008).

Why do I emphasize this? Because even when investing in 15 companies (which might seem like a lot more diversification than investing in only 1 or 2), there can still be long periods of no gain or even large losses (just like when investing in a bundle of 100 or more stocks like in the US NASDAQ).

Diversification itself does not provide for stability or wealth preservation. The specific method of diversification must fit the goals of the investor, or else that method should be discarded or at least revised.

So, if you want a stable balance or market value (with only very small declines), that requires WISE diversification. Further, that may even mean avoiding illiquid markets like real estate (markets that can be very hard to quickly sell, often taking weeks or even months to exit from the investment).

Wise diversification means having a group of investments that are all consistently increasing in value. If one or two of them briefly fall a few percent or even more than that, that still will not effect the total balance much. Why? because the majority of the investments are still making consistent gains!

Imagine a real estate investor who loses even 10% or 15% in a particular year. If that investor is also investing much more net worth in other investments that are all making large gains (like the best stocks, the best commodities, and the best currencies), then even losses as large as 10% in a year in one investment will not produce an overall net loss. Why? Because that investor was wise enough to diversify in ways that profited from consistent trends in other markets besides real estate.

Now, let’s review my personal background a bit. Then I will reveal the other issue besides diversification that is essential for vast improvements in your investment results. Let’s read a paragraph from an investment commentary published in 2003 on March 3rd:

“Yes, we can profit from the collapse of the credit bubble and the subsequent stock market divestment. However, real estate has not yet joined in a decline of prices fed by selling (and foreclosing). Unless you have a very specific reason to believe that real estate will outperform all other investments for several years, you may deem this prime time to liquidate investment property (for use in more lucrative markets).”

I wrote that. Here is the link to the full article: http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/hunn030303.html .

Is it interesting to you that in early 2003, I was referencing that real estate markets would eventually decline in price because of an increase in foreclosures? Is it intriguing to you that I was referencing a collapse of the credit bubble (which means a decrease in the total amount of borrowing and lending, like for mortgages)?

I referenced it being “prime time” to liquidate (sell) property. I emphasized that other markets might be “more lucrative” (more profitable).

What investment markets were I emphasizing in early 2003 as more lucrative than real estate? If you click the link above and scroll down to the end of the article, here is the last image you would see:

That is a chart of the performance of the HUI sector in the two years prior to March 2003. That sector, which went on to gain over 1600% last decade, is the one that most investors ignored in favor of things like real estate and stocks from the US NASDAQ (both of which had their worst decades in a very long time).

I strongly recommended against real estate. I emphasized the gains of over 200% in the prior two years in HUI (which I knew would accelerate if commodity prices continued to outperform most stocks).

What else did I recommend? I noted the multi-year rallies in commodities like Gold and Oil. I also emphasized why I expected most US stocks to do less well than commodities.

“easy credit fed the stock market hysteria…. Many even rushed to refinance homes again (trading equity for cash) to create the final wave of the 90s stock mania.”

Of course, that wave of real estate borrowing did not end in 2003. As it continued, many US stocks eventually recovered from their declines- but not all.

Except briefly before crashing in 2007, the high tech sector of the US NASDAQ exchange was down more than 50% from it’s 2000 peak almost the entire time last decade. The housing sector plummeted in 2005 (“HGX”) and the financial sector (“XLF”) plunged in 2007 (shown below).

So, that is a little background on why you might be especially interested in what I personally can tell you about extraordinary investment strategies. In addition to diversifying, the other simple key to consistent profits is to analyze trends and exit from trends as soon as they weaken.

As an example, let’s look at HUI in 2003. First, here is the “raw” chart:

Here I add one trendline:

Here I add another:

The two lines are obviously parallel, right? That is called a trendchannel. They form very frequently in many price charts, including for bundles of stocks like the HUI sector of 15 US companies.

To a trend analyst, I would notice that when HUI rebounded in early October, that rebound was at a parallel slope (angle) to the three weekly highs from mid-August to mid-September (the green line). So, I would buy HUI and hold it as long as that established uptrend continued.

I would buy between 190 and 200 in early October, then hold and watch very closely in the first week of November for a possible exit at 200. That was the second test of the lower (red) trendline.

In late November, I would exit between 245 & 255 when HUI “broke” out of the trendchannel. I might sell “conservatively” when HUI reached the green line (depending on what other opportunities I noticed in other markets). Or I might hold on while HUI surged up above the trendchannel briefly and only exited when HUI penetrated back in to the trendchannel.

In any case, that would be a gain of over 20% in several weeks. That is better than most people do in a year. Are you interested in results like that?

Then, in December, when HUI reached the lower trendline again, I would be looking for buying in again- but ready to exit with a small gain or even small loss if prices did not continue the upward trend. Here is the same trendchannel plus the next two years of HUI:

Depending on what I saw in other markets, I might not be interested in HUI again until mid-2005 when HUI fell toward 160 (a prior low) or even in November 2005 when it broke above 250 (the brown line).

Maybe you understand the trend analysis referenced above. I picked a relatively simple example, but the point is that there are lots of trends happening all the time. If I find a few of them and trade them conservatively, I will keep my account balance growing steadily. Any particular day or week, there could be a small loss in one or two of the positions, but with several positions all in clear uptrends, the account balance would consistently increase with occasional slight declines (triggering “trailing stop orders” to protect the prior gains).

Why don’t more investors do this? Because it is unfamiliar to them- even complicated and stressful. The research of comparing several markets can be time-consuming and tedious.

Why don’t more professionals offer this? Most investment professionals earn commissions from selling investments, not a percentage of any gains. They have no vested interest (profit-sharing), so their motivation to perform well is minimal if any. They do not suffer any great loss when their clients lose money. They are salespeople, not business partners.

What is different about me? I am open to offering you access to being a partner in my trading business. I am so confident in my results that I only ask for a share of the profits that I will consistently generate for you. Contact me if you are interested in partnering with me so that you can watch your investment account balances consistently multiply.

Related articles

• Upside breakouts everywhere (superbullinvestor.com)
• Speculative Oil Investments (beta.fool.com)
• Real Estate Overtakes Commodities as Top Sovereign Asset – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
• American Capital Fights Fed Exit Worry as Investors Flee (bloomberg.com)
• Pittsburgh Based Real Estate Investor’s Club to Co-Promote New Investment Model (virtual-strategy.com)

“Where are all the real men?”

“Where are all the real men?!?!” some girls say.

“They are only fantasy,” I explained.

You may not like me. That’s not my focus.

You may not love me. That’s not my business.

I am a man. I can be aggressive.

I can be competitive- even repulsive.

For when I crave privacy, I push others away.

I may withdraw. I may criticize.

I may condemn. I may analyze.

I may ignore. I may insist.

I may counter. I may resist.

Some may complain about politicians and lawyers- that they never quite do as you prefer.

If I offer you some pity, will you go away, nerd?

If you want a faithful leader, what do you have to offer?

Oh, and if you stopped trusting socialists finally, welcome to the club, girls! Anyway, no, I don’t need to see your IDs. With dresses that short, legs that long, and no underwear at all, I think I’ve seen all that I need to see. Come right in and have a great night…. Okay, next in line, come forward. Let me see your IDs. Sorry, no, it’s required by law.

By the way, why doesn’t anyone ever ask “where are all the REAL women?”

Related articles

• Bizarre One-Sided Grape Smuggling Underwear For Men (laughingsquid.com)
• Why do guys do this? (johnsonmadichie.wordpress.com)
• The Women of Libya Are Not Allowed to Wear Any Underwear by Order From Mufti Ghariani (libyaagainstsuperpowermedia.com)
• Raw Deal for Men Under Obamacare (glpiggy.net)
• 11 uneccessarily gendered products you never knew you needed (deathandtaxesmag.com)
• The time when right-wingers celebrated the death of a politician (liberalconspiracy.org)
• Ottawa teen pimp accused said she was lesbian, ‘guys repulse me’ (sunnewsnetwork.ca)
• Did Japan ‘Need’ Comfort Women? (takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Julian Assange: The Internet threatens civilization (salon.com)
• Week 7 Blog: Privacy and Spectacle (emuney85c.wordpress.com)

homosexuality: a behavioral choice or a genetic condition deserving special rights?

“If being a vegetarian is a choice, then when did you decide to become an omnivore?” Homosexuality is a type of behavior, not a genetic condition (like one’s natural hair color or skin color). Bisexuality is also a type of behavior, similar to practicing diets that are omnivorous, vegan, carnivorous, etc- although only species that are fundamentally omnivores can “decide” to exclude certain foods (gluten-free, dairy-free, pork-free,etc).

English: Silhouette or a pregnant woman and her partner. The woman is in advanced pregnancy at about 39 wks gestation. The flickr photographer reports that this is an edited image. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fundamentally, humans reproduce through heterosexual behavior. So, if someone is celibate, that generally does not qualify them for special status or special rights.

Does practicing bisexuality or homosexuality qualify someone for special rights? When did you choose to be an “oral sexer?” What special political privileges do you want for that?

Sex can be enjoyable during pregnancy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When did you choose to get a tattoo? What special privileges do you want?

What about people who “are” vegetarian and gay (but only oral sex, not anal) and smoke and have tattoos? What special protections do we need to emphasize so that insurance companies do not discriminate against people who are genetically smokers? Why don’t people understand that smokers want to be considered “fundamentally different ” when they claim to have the right to smoke in my kid’s classroom or my living room, but then they want to be considered “fundamentally the same” in regard to health insurance premiums? What if two smokers are legally married to each other in a gay marriage though?

And why are all these pregnant women claiming that they should have special protections and privileges in regard to the father of their children? Don’t they understand the different political rights of pregnant lacto-ovo vegetarians and pregnant vegans?Are bisexual pregnant women more or less pregnant than heterosexual pregnant women?

Cleavage of a pregnant woman (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• What do you mean you’re a vegetarian?! (foodlovefrenzy.wordpress.com)
• Report: Pregnant women to be ‘tested for smoking’ (itv.com)
• 10 Reasons to Become a Vegetarian (beyondvegetarian.wordpress.com)
• Elementary school offers an all-vegetarian menu (Video) (examiner.com)
• Balanced Diet Food for Pregnant Women (healthylifestylesliving.wordpress.com)
  

  English: A woman makes her support of her marriage, and not civil unions, known outside the Mormon temple at New York City’s Lincoln Center. Photographer’s blog post about this photo and the protest. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

• My View on Homosexuality (scumbagscarlett.wordpress.com)
• Why I am against gay marriage… (francoistremblay.wordpress.com)
• Opposing Gay Marriage (miltday.wordpress.com)
  

  English: Protesters for gay marriage at the 2009 Marcha Gay in Mexico City (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

• QUOTE TO NOTE: Vatican Official on Civil Unions (newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com)
• Australian Priest Publicly Endorses the Goodness of Same-Gender Relationships (newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com)

the best way to play clueless mind games

I wrote this in facebook in agroup called “Mooji Sangha,” tagging Daniel in a post of the video below:

 

 

 Daniel Fritschler, I love this. Always remember that Advaita should be very intriguing to 4 year-olds and anyone who does not like Advaita must not be a true 4 year-old.

 

 

 

• Today
• 

  6:19am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Ok fire away why am I tagged in this video? Arrogant facebook posts? Please explain if you don’t mind.
• 

  6:28am

  Daniel Fritschler

  I understand now with some thanks to you and others that there is nothing to share and nobody to share it with. The only thing worth sharing is the beauty of the 4 year old’s kingdom which is not passing words or concepts along to others.
• 

  6:39am

  Daniel Fritschler

  So everything is a concept…even if that is true or right so what? All the words are medicine to come to the understanding that there is nothing to get hung about, once the beginner’s mind sets in and you are 4…be 4 and full of wonder and not full of concept killing.
• 

  8:04am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  I shared it with you because you are beginning to get the irony of worshipping confusion. To say “the only thing worth sharing” is totally arbitrary. What is worth sharing depends on who you ask. It is just an arbitrary concept.
• 

  8:04am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes

  So the way there is relation to nature becomes irrelevant once nature becomes what it is?
• 

  8:06am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  You still worship concepts. You believe there is some true inherent “only one way.” You are still learning moderation. You are agonizing like the “advaita enthusiast” in the cartoon.

  Instead of enjoying the video, you want to know why you are tagged.
• 

  8:07am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes I do find that still happening but if it means anything it is not happening very often at all…at least in comparison to how often it was
• 

  8:09am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  “Why me? Why this? Tell me more?” I tell you that your agonizing is as beautiful as a tree. You say “why is MY agonizing as beautiful as a tree?”
• 

  8:09am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Well of course it is one representation of a tree of which there is an unlimited number?

  So it is as beautiful

  Acceptance?

  I am just clueless. Let’s just chalk it up to that
• 

  8:12am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Clueless is just a safe concept for you.

  It is your favorite excuse.

  You say it like you should be more “clued.”

  You crave clues and understanding, then you relax, then you dismiss, then you relax, then you crave again, and so on.
• 

  8:15am

  Daniel Fritschler

  The crazing is dying whatever that means

  Crazing

  Craving

  Wtf?
• 

  8:16am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Dismiss is like “it is just because I am clueless.” Craving is “tell me, sensei, is it just because I am clueless?”
• 

  8:17am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes well it is my understanding until we dismiss desire and craving it will only cause anguish. But maybe not

  Dismiss in the sense of seeing it for what it is

  Nothing right or wrong about any of it

  So I don’t crave materialism but craving anything is the same thing right?
• 

  8:19am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Until you recognize that dismissal is the same swinging pendulum as craving, then you will keep pushing the pendulum while claiming that you are pushing it to make it stop swinging.

  Craving anything is craving, yes.
• 

  8:20am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Karma

  You just defined karma
• 

  8:20am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  If you dismiss materialism because you crave something else, then craving is dismissing.

   

  

  Artist Roger Dean designed much of the band’s album artwork, as pictured on Close to the Edge. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
• 

  8:22am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Right but the pushing of the pendulum is the introduction of karma…yes or no? I mean one way or the other be it dismissal or craving
• 

  8:22am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  I just defined clueless agonizing.
• 

  8:22am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Ahhh

  So that would put me in the same boat as billions of others then

  Seems to be happening yes
• 

  8:25am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Forget karma. It is some foreign word. I am not fluent in foreign words. I am clueless. What does it mean? What does “satchitananda” mean? What does “craving concepts” mean? What is the best flavor of ice cream to eat, sensei, if I am about to wear a blue t-shirt on a Tuesday?
• 

  8:26am

  Daniel Fritschler

  There is no answer to that

  Ok fine so forget all foreign concepts which would mean all concept because I can assure you there is being born and then being born into concept…two separate things alltogether
• 

  8:27am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  “Sensei, why don’t I understand what it does not matter whether I understand?”

  By the way, that is karma!

  When you watch the play of presumptions, that is not adding karmic momentum by craving or dismissing.
• 

  8:29am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes that is starting to become clear
• 

  8:30am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  You just notice the irony. You notice yourself chasing your own tail (like a cat) in a tangle of ironic presumptions about yourself and how you should be.
• 

  8:30am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes and how that cycle can be broken…

  I notice that but it is not being broken
• 

  8:31am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Yes, and “but how can it be broken” is more chasing. “I should break it” is dismissing it.
• 

  8:32am

  Daniel Fritschler

  So moderation is allowing flow to flow and not trying to interupt or control anything?
• 

  8:33am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Trying to control is trying to control. Just noticing is just noticing.
• 

  8:34am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Right so notice that there is control issues that is all.

  Once that is noticed there doesn’t have to be a controller then there doesn’t have to be anything controlled?

  That there*
• 

  8:36am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Let the control issues be. Try to control the control issues. Answer the question about the right kind of ice cream. Figure out the best method to stop focusing on a particular method.
• 

  8:37am

  Daniel Fritschler

  There is no method or answer about the ice cream…why do you keep asking questions that there is no answers for unless there is presumption first?
• 

  8:37am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Remove the controller and then you can get in to heaven.
• 

  8:37am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Heaven is just a concept
• 

  8:38am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Removing the controller is just a presumption.
• 

  8:38am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes..
• 

  8:38am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  The right kind of ice cream is just a concept.
• 

  8:39am

  Daniel Fritschler

  I am starting to think my “problem” is that I have the intellect oof a 4 year old not just the mindset
• 

  8:39am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  What is the right way to just notice karma?
• 

  8:40am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Umm there is no right way…just to notice would be enough which ever way it occurs
• 

  8:40am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  What is my real problem?
• 

  8:40am

  Daniel Fritschler

  I am not sure if you have one or any

  Talking to me probably
• 

  8:41am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Sensei, is my problem my mindset or my intellect or my choice of ice cream flavor?
• 

  8:41am

  Daniel Fritschler

  There is no problem.

  Problems are created just to be destroyed. Mind games
• 

  8:42am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  I am clueless about what the real problem is and there must be, so therefore being clueless must be a serious problem, right?

  There must be a real problem, right?
• 

  8:43am

  Daniel Fritschler

  No it seems to be no problem at all.

  Why does there have to be a problem?
• 

  8:43am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  But I am am clueless about what my real problem is. Can you help me or not?!?!

  Is it my punctuation?

  Is it my karma?
• 

  8:44am

  Daniel Fritschler

  No I would think the one that creates the problem is the one that could see they are creating the problem and stop.

  It is no thing
• 

  8:45am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  If you cannot tell me my real problem, then how I am going to fix it?!?!
• 

  8:45am

  Daniel Fritschler

  There is nothing to fix?
• 

  8:46am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  It MUST BE that I am clueless. I do not know whether there is nothing to fix or not. Do you?
• 

  8:47am

  Daniel Fritschler

  No I don’t.
• 

  8:47am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Tell me, sensei, do I have a real problem or a fake problem or no problem or more than one? Why can’t you just give me a straight answer for once?

  You are clueless. You are not a real butt gin sensei.
• 

  8:48am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Because there are no straight answers without presumption

  I am sorry I will TRY harder next time. Sorry to disappoint you oh master please forgive me
• 

  8:49am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  But are there gay answers? What about those? What about curved answers? Tell me now! I need to know now!
• 

  8:49am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Why do you care about answers so much. Live in the question and you too could be in heaven.
• 

  8:50am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Which question?

  How do I know if it is a real question?
• 

  8:50am

  Daniel Fritschler

  I don’t know? What is there to even question? No idea…clueless here

  Without a clue there can be no questions and answers based on presumption
• 

  8:51am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  I do not know whether or not you are clueless, but I know that I must be clueless and that it is a problem.
• 

  8:52am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Wow you KNOW a lot more than me no wonder I am not a real butt gin sensei….damn

  So close
• 

  8:52am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Why don’t I have any presumptions? Can you help me fix this or not?
• 

  8:52am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Because there was a noticing of what presumptions can do or actually do.

  Presumptions keep the mind game going which is also a concept of presumption
• 

  8:54am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Tell me, are presumptions karmic or is karma presumptuous?

  But how do I stop playing the mind game? How can I finally win it?

  You know, once and for all!

  Is it knowing the right flavor of ice cream? I am clueless about which presumptions are the most important and holy and sacred.
• 

  8:56am

  Daniel Fritschler

  There are no winners or losers there is only a game and it seems presumptions must be karmic but you again didn’t really want an answer which is why you asked the question to point out foolishness in giving an answer on my part
• 

  8:58am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  My problem is that I am a fool. Noticing that I have been being foolish is the solution (the answer). But What is the right way to just notice that I am just noticing? How will I really know if I am just noticing the right way?

  How do I go beyond presumptions and karma ?
• 

  8:59am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Well there is only one way to notice so how could it be right or wrong…there are an unlimited number of ways to be foolish and presume.
• 

  8:59am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  How can I take my presumptions with me in to heaven?
• 

  8:59am

  Daniel Fritschler

  There is no going beyond just recognize

  You can’t no man can even see the kingdom unless he is born again

  Born again being presumption free
• 

  9:00am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Well I am not like that at all. I presume that I am clueless.

  I am going to stay here in hell if you don’t mind. Is that okay with you, master? Will you be alright without me?
• 

  9:01am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Still going with the sarcasm bit…you reverse psychologist you

  Yes you can stay in hell if you want

  The question is why choose?

  For the record how does one distinguish between heaven and hell without presumption….tell me master right now damn it?
• 

  9:04am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Okay. Now I get it. The question is why choose! I will get back to you when I win the mind game. Give me a few hours or at least a few years and then when i figure out the way to make eternity start, I will get back to you.
• 

  9:04am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Haha…nice one
• 

  9:05am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Oh… One more thing: what is the difference between agonizing and ice cream?

  (Obviously, I mean chocolate)
• 

  9:06am

  Daniel Fritschler

  There isn’t one…is there?

  One is enjoyed and one isn’t generally speaking.
• 

  9:07am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  I am talking about real ice cream here, not that crap that I do not enjoy.
• 

  9:07am

  Daniel Fritschler

  But I could hate ice cream and enjoy agonizing if I wanted to be arrogant about it
• 

  9:07am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  I do not enjoy agonizing and I am not arrogant! Why do you say such things to me?
• 

  9:08am

  Daniel Fritschler

  What is real ice cream and what is fake?
• 

  9:08am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  And how can I taste the difference?
• 

  9:09am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Ahh the I couldn’t taste the difference. The noticing couldn’t see a difference

  It is what happens after the noticing that differentiates
• 

  9:10am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  What good is just noticing? I do not get how it could ever help me with any of my problems.
• 

  9:11am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Again to notice is never a problem…mind games present problems that have no basis in truth(concept). So what good is having problems? If you can just notice?
• 

  9:15am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  What good is it to be clueless if I can just not have a clue whether or not I am clueless?
• 

  9:16am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes clueless being a presumption it would be impossible for YOU to be clueless only presumption can be

  Noticing alone cannot be clueless, can it?
• 

  9:18am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  What is the best way to insist that I am clueless and that I need you to answer the questions that I really need someone to answer for me?
• 

  9:19am

  Daniel Fritschler

  To take on an identity as a helpless clueless butt gin sensei on facebook perhaps?
• 

  9:21am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Is that the mind game that will end all mind games?
• 

  9:26am

  Daniel Fritschler

  It wouldn’t seem so. Then again there is no mind game that will end mind games.

  Mind games will always be happening

  It isn’t about ending them
• 

  9:30am

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  I give up. I thought you could help me fix my problem of agonizing about being clueless about the right way to just notice the how ice cream punctuates, but I am beginning to questions whether or not you have a clue about that or if you are just playing mind games against me. Ttyl
• 

  9:32am

  Daniel Fritschler

  Ok  I am sorry to disappoint you. Ttyl

   

   

 

Related articles

• When even the most clueless get a clue. (althouse.blogspot.com)
• Vedanta-advaita (schoolsofthoughtofindia.wordpress.com)
• When I Think I Am One (theyearofprayer.wordpress.com)
• 786… 7 principles of Self Realization (786sufiwisdom.wordpress.com)
• The illusory world (thehindu.com)
• The Last Thing We Would Ever Question (vanishingnarrative.wordpress.com)

 

Was Lauryn Hill convicted for a conspiracy theory?

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/lauryn-hill-ordered-by-the-court-to-undergo-counseling-due-t-her-conspiracy-theories/

Lauryn Hill was sentenced for non-compliance with a tax extortion racket as well as for her resentment and contempt and arrogance and shame, not for inaccurate theories of conspiracy. Of course her ancestors were oppressed. What is unusual about that?

Chief Sitting Bull (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Should Native Americans be exempt from income taxes because the US stole their ancestral lands and nearly decimated their tribes? Should the Japanese and German people have the “legal right” to evict the US military from the bases in the various US colonies throughout the planet? What kind of precedent would that set for Iraq and Diego Garcia and the Native American tribes? Should anyone in North America with any portion of European ancestry go back to Europe and give their real estate back to the full-blooded natives? Most people in North America are so steeped in the fanatical idealisms of National Socialism that they would not know a Nazional Socialist empire if they had been living in one their entire life.

Consider that belief systems are cultivated by authoritative institutions, such as the core institution of modern socialist imperialism: public schooling. As for the idea that force and coercion only work “for a limited amount of time,” the last several thousand years have included a “notable” amount of organized coercion, including by a very popular form of social institution called “courts” (as established by kings and pharaohs and popes and other ruling classes of governing the masses). Courts dictate liabilities that the masses owe to them, called taxes (AKA extortion), and then dictate what form of payment is accepted (which is called legal tender or currency), and then set exchange rates, like the money changers at the government temple may give you a single metal coin at a rate of 2 healthy sheep per ounce of coin.

Why did the court systems pick (for use in currency tokens) rare or “precious” metals that only they had access to mining? Perhaps because only they had access to mining the metals made in to the “legal tender” coins- so they could trade a few dozen sheep to soldiers and miners in exchange for exclusive access to some rare metal that they could force the masses to “buy” (for use in paying invented tax liabilities and tithes and so on) at a rate of thousands of sheep… for the same amount of metal that only cost them a few dozen sheep to access. That’s been an extremely lucrative business… though it can be “a bit bloody” at times.

 

 

Related articles

• Lauryn Hill, Girl, Stop It! (theroot.com)
• Artist Lauryn Hill Ordered by the Court to Undergo “Counseling” Due to her “Conspiracy Theories” (deadlinelive.info)
• The Mis-Education Of Lauryn Hill. (passioniseverything11.wordpress.com)
• Lauryn Hill Describes Capitalism, Is Told It’s a Conspiracy Theory (ladyeconomist.com)
• Lauryn Hill Ordered by the Court to Undergo “Counseling” Due to her “Conspiracy Theories” (vigilantcitizen.com)
• Judge Orders Conspiracy Re-Education For Lauryn Hill (sgtreport.com)
• Judge Orders Lauryn Hill To Counseling Over Claims Of Music Industry Exploitation (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
• BEST OF THE WEB: American political refugee: Musician Lauryn Hill imprisoned for not paying taxes to corrupt Feds, ordered to undergo therapy for ‘conspiracy thinking’ (sott.net)
• ‘Re-Education’ Counseling Ordered For Pop Singer Lauryn Hill Over ‘Conspiracy Theories’ By Judge Following IRS Trial (theinternetpost.net)
• Lauryn Hill Ordered by the Court to Undergo “Counseling” Due to her “Conspiracy Theories” (pakalertpress.com)

The wrong way to be right

The wrong way to be right

Using language, we can isolate two categorical groupings consisting of different formations in language. We can call one category “accurate” and the other category “inaccurate.” For instance, we could list a few statements and sort them for logical “accuracy:”

 

 

Representation of high precision and low accuracy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“The letters of these words are black.”

 

“The letters of these words are green.”

 

“These words are in the specific pattern of language called the English language.” 

 

“These words are in the specific pattern of language called the Northwestern European language.”

So, we can check for consistently between the symbolic representations (the meanings) of a sequence of words and then familiar, expected definitions of the individual word labels. Does the meaning of the grouping of words fit logically with the meanings of the individual words? Is there total logical consistency, or is there some obvious contradiction of logic (or, is that not clear, such as if you are only literate in the Chinese language and then you try to read these strange shapes, then you would not be able to identify whether these words are logically accurate or not).

We can say “either accurate or inaccurate,” “either true or false,” and “either right or wrong.” Those are each “binary” pairs or two exclusive contrasting categorical labels. Logically, wrong simply means “not totally right.” Like on a test in school, an answer that is partially right may receive no credit. It is not right. Something is wrong- maybe 100% inaccurate and maybe only some tiny detail, but if it is not 100% right, then it is not right, not correct, not accurate.

Representation of high accuracy and low precision. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In some tests, we also recognize distinctions in precision. If I say that the temperature is 0 degrees fahrenheit, that is distinct from 0.214 or -0.08.

Further, we can categorize something as “too precise.” If I want a haircut, 3 minutes may not be enough time for a reasonably precise cutting of hairs, but 30 minutes of haircutting may be “more then enough precision.”

So, what does “wrong” really mean? It could simply mean unexpected or unrecognized. If I ask you what 2 plus 4 equals, and you say “half a dozen,” I may say “wrong!” Why? Because I expected the answer to be “6.” Maybe I do not know what a dozen is (or a half). If someone does not answer as I expect them to (or something I recognize as being accurate), then that is what I call “wrong.”

Now, if I think that I know the answer to a question but I actually do not, that can be even more intriguing. I may sincerely insist that what I expect is right and anything else is wrong.

English: “Space” in the Chinese language (as in definition 5 at Wiktionary. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, two people with slightly different perspectives can sit together and list out 100 issues, like 100 political controversies. They might find 97 issues in which they both agree that they are both “right.” They might also find 3 issues on which they both agree that “the other one is wrong, but I am right of course.”

What do they do about the 3 disagreements? They could ignore those 3 items and perhaps talk about the other 97. They could get in to an argument or a physical conflict about one or more of the 3 issues. They could discuss how they reached their different conclusions (and risk learning something new). Finally, they could notice the differences of opinion as mere differences of opinion and do nothing at all further.

A thumbnail produced for usage in some template about articles having grammatical errors and/or wrong words. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But what is the right way for people to handle a disagreement? That may depend on who you ask.

Is someone afraid of disagreements, afraid of arguing, afraid of the risk of learning something new? Is someone eager to learn new things, either to argue, eager to debate and start a yelling match or a war? Are people looking for excuses to cultivate a conflict or looking for excuses to start a conversation or discussion?

Is it wrong for people to ever cultivate a conflict? Is it right for people to always generously offer themselves to a conversation about anything at all with anyone at all?

Realistically, right and wrong are just two categories in language. They may be very useful, as well as categorical pairs like “either familiar or unfamiliar” or “either exactly as expected or not exactly as expected.”

The idea that “right and wrong” exist independently of language may be entirely imprecise, completely inaccurate, absolutely ridiculous… and yet quite familiar and even exactly what is expected. Is there a wrong way to be right? Is it wrong to use any discrepancy between the perspectives of two people or two groups to create a conflict and drama and tantrum? To be precise, that is just one alternative. It is not inherently wrong to cultivate conflict. The only thing that cultivating conflict is inherently is cultivating conflict.

How can anything be wrong without someone labeling it as wrong? Is there something inherently wrong with “2 +4 = 5?”

What about when two highways intersect: one with four lanes and one with two lanes, and then they merge in to five lanes? Didn’t think of that, did you!?!?

Montage of languages. Prototype header for the language portal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

All of those shapes are symbolic codes. Symbolic codes are inherently codes that symbolize something else.

There is no inherently right way to spell the words color and colour (the British variation) because words do not inherently have any independent existence. Words only exist within the context of a language. Spelling only exists within the context of an alphabet.

Familiar spellings are just familiar. Familiar alphabets are just familiar. There is no font that is more inherently a font than any other font. There is no inherently right font and no inherently wrong font.

Fonts are all made up. Words are all made up. Languages are all made up.

Within language, we can create two isolated, contrasting categories such as right and wrong. Those categories, like all of the others in language are inherently just a bunch of made up categories in language. All categories are made up.

Other people may disagree with what I just stated. They may say “that is wrong.” They may find it unfamiliar. They may seek to argue with anyone who says such things. They may say “that is the wrong way to be right.” I might even say that I agree with them.

Stating agreement has a social function. Claiming disagreement (and focusing on that) also has a social function.

 

I may go out of my way to tell people when I disagree with them (but generally ignore it if they agree). Or, I may go out of my way to tell people when I agree with them.

 

 

Then again, if “my way” is to ignore disagreements and focus on agreements, then to behave that way is not “going out of my way.” That is claiming a particular way as mine and sticking with it.

 

If you want to have a lot of conversations with people, then claim a particular way as yours and tell everyone every chance you get. If you want to have fewer conversations, then do not claim a particular way as yours or at least do not make a point of telling people that your way is “not to claim any particular way as mine.” That is clearly the wrong way to be right!

 

When will people know to disagree or agree with you? When will people know to invest a lot of energy in creating a huge momentum of interaction with you? Don’t you owe it to people to clearly in advance let them know how you FEEL and what you think and so on? Exactly how much warning should you give to other people when are you about to eventually feel something new soon? Shouldn’t you always feel something and think something and need to tell everyone about all of that?

 

 

Well, look here and listen up… if that’s the best you can do as far as claiming to know the right way, then you might as well not even bother. Everyone should know the right way. Everyone should agree. 

 

That is what is inherently right. That is what I expect. Maybe it is not familiar, but it simply should be that everyone already has the same subjective opinion as to some exclusive, inherent set of things that are inherently right (in contrast to another very specific set of things that are inherently wrong). Specifically, people should always agree with me.

 

People basically should be more like I expect them to be. All other people should be much more like me- in fact exactly like me. All of these other people that are different from me in at least one way are ruining my life!

 

 

They are causing me tremendous frustration and confusion. Day after day, someone eventually does something that is not precisely what I presumptively expected. When are these people going to stop this? It’s so annoying!

 

I need to know what to expect. I need to know what I think. I need to know who I agree with passionately and who I disagree with completely (in regard to at least one detail). I need to know when to argue and have a tantrum or glorify any people who are inherently right because of their total agreement with my way, which not only should never change, but cannot. If I ever say anything inconsistent with something that I ever said in the past, that would be horrible. 

 

Learning is one of the very worst things that can happen to someone. Trust me because I say that from experience. You don’t want to have to learn that lesson for yourself like I did. It was truly horrible. Once I found out that learning new things was ruining my life, I simply stopped.

 

 

If you want to do what is inherently right and avoid learning new things, the key is to avoid interacting with other people, especially strangers. In particular, please do not have casual conversations with people who have not been carefully screened by a registered personality profiling agency as being so similar to you that your conversations will be refreshingly dull- kind of like the familiar conversations that you used to have, you know, back before you were ashamed of being so shy. 

 

Be proud that you are ashamed of being shy. Be ashamed that you are proud of being shy. Be shy about how you are ashamed of being proud. Be shy about how you are proud of being ashamed. 

 

But please, for God’s sake, do not over-do it. If there is one thing that throws me directly in to a jealous rage, it is those pests who are too undramatic and pretend that they do not know it. You know who I am talking about: dead people. They are ruining my life. 

 

 

Also, I cannot conclude without passionately condemning very small children who have not learned language yet and thus are unable to agree with me about how my point of view is inherently superior to all other points of view. They totally suck… nipples. They should be applauding me for my intelligence, which does not require talking- they could just clap, like while they are sucking out mother’s milk from the breasts of human mammary glands.

 

Why aren’t they clapping? Why aren’t they worshiping my inherently right way of being a narcissistic perfectionist? Why do they just keep laying there and totally suck at sucking? 

 

What the hell is wrong with young people nowadays? Back when I was a youngster, we had morals. We had values. We had sincerity. We had arrogance. We knew what was inherently right. We were superior to everyone else who did not do what we had learned to expect as what is familiar to us. 

 

 

And then something horrible happened. I kept learning so long that eventually I discovered that my way of being right was neither inherently right not inherently wrong. It was just one way of being right among many. 

 

Furthermore, “my way” was not even really mine. Dozens- perhaps even hundreds of young people in my midst had more or less the exact same set of familiar expectations as I did (in contrast to the unfamiliar expectations of people who did not expect what I expected them to expect). 

 

Who is going to fix this terribly terrifying terror? How can I make everyone else agree with me like I need them to? How can I prevent anyone from ever doing anything unexpected? How I can I figure out the right way to agonize so that once I have it mastered, then I can stop practicing the behavior of agonizing?

 

 

I’m about to give up here, folks. I am about to resign myself to always being resigned. I am about to accept that one way of relating to reality is to simply accept it as it is. 

 

But I just FEEL like I shouldn’t be so accepting (so resigned!). Shouldn’t I condemn anything that is inherently wrong- to prevent it from ever frightening me in the future? Shouldn’t I glorify everything that is inherently right because it is what I personally prefer and expect? 

 

Like I said, this is horrible. I am so depressed about me being totally okay with everything however it is. I really need something to reject (or else I simply will not able to live with myself). I need an excuse to reject myself, to condemn myself for being inherently not what I expected, or else… I might break down and openly accept how I already am. If I ever did that, then, well, then what would I struggle to become instead of what I am already?

 

Here I am, tormented by my complete freedom from ideals and idolatries. Who can rescue me from this humble, innocent dignity? What ritual can save me from heaven? What can I condemn? What can I reject? What can I protest as insulting to what is inherently decent? 

 

First of all, infants should not suck. We need to properly raise them so that they realize that breast milk is extremely dangerous. Once, I was walking down a street and I slipped in a puddle of breast milk and fell hopelessly in love, drowning in my own words, and then suddenly died. My life was totally ruined. 

I only wish that my life had not been ruined by what ruined my life. Please, if you learn nothing else for the rest of your life, I insist that you learn from my mistakes, well, unless you are being a jerk again like you used to always do. Stop doing things that are inherently wrong. Stop totally sucking. Only suck in moderation. 

 

Be more like I expect you to be, like for instance stop acting like I somehow owe it to you to inform you in advance of what I expect. The arrogance of some people never ceases to amaze me. Stop that. Stop that right now. Thank you. Do not make me come over there and repeat myself and come over there, you worthless sack of sucking sucks (not to be confused with sacking sacks, which by the way are NOT worthless).

 

 

Accuracy and precision example (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• Making up a Language for Fun and Profit from Autotard ” RPGs (autotard.net)
• Why I Define Faith Philosophically As Inherently Irrational and Immoral (patheos.com)
• The Limits of Language: Does Language Shape The Way We See The World? (profesorbaker.com)
• Let’s Communicate (acceptanceandlove.wordpress.com)
• When Wrong is Right: Antisemitic (texthistory.wordpress.com)
• Study Sheds Light on How You Decode ‘Noisy’ Language in Daily Life (medindia.net)
• Languages & Thought (gmbcblog.wordpress.com)
• Logic does not have a metaphysical intention (musteryou.wordpress.com)
• Too Much, Too Wrong (caxton1485.wordpress.com)
• 7. Tower of Babel – Problem for Evolutionists (biblescienceguy.wordpress.com)

“The greatest taboo” (lyrics)

The greatest taboo

 

 

Day 124/365- JUMP! (Photo credit: thekellyscope)

 

I’ve been a liar

 

scared of the truth

 

trying to hide

 

myself from you

 

 

 

I’ve been so scared

 

so terrified

 

that you could find out

 

what I hid inside

 

 

 

I’ve played the fool 

 

followed some rules

 

jumped through hoops in school

 

fit in to be cool

 

(among the rebels)

 

 

 

I learned some lies

 

people paid to hear

 

I learned some truths

 

people hated in fear

 

 

 

I learned some secrets

 

that everyone sees

 

but no one admits

 

at least not to me

 

 

 

I shouldn’t be

 

what I am 

 

or that’s the myth

 

I’ve been pretending

 

to believe

 

 

 

 

 

I am so sorry

 

my guilt was all fake

 

my only regret is…

 

apologizing for my rage

 

 

but now it’s okay

 

that I’ve been so mad

 

I’m even grateful

 

that I was so sad

 

 

that courage is shameful

 

on this island of fools

 

to feel scared, yet be bold

 

is the greatest taboo

 

 

I’ve been so shy

 

I’ve been so quiet

 

I’ve been in hiding

 

to stay alive

 

 

but it’s time

 

to be brave

 

once again

 

 

I shouldn’t have

 

done what I did

 

or that’s the myth

 

I’ve been pretending

 

to believe

 

 

God the Father 16 (Photo credit: Waiting For The Word)

 

 

God please forgive us

 

for being ashamed

 

of our past

 

 

 

God please forgive us

 

for being less brave

 

than we can

 

 

 

God please forgive us

 

for being afraid

 

 

 

God please forgive us

 

for being afraid

 

of fear

 

 

god (Photo credit: the|G|™)

 

Related articles

 

• Spirituality and the 80′s (heavenlyguidance.wordpress.com)
• Let’s talk about “Taboo” Lifestyles { Dom & Subs } (loves2bspanked.wordpress.com)
• Taboo Tuesday: Domestic Violence (blogs.abc.net.au)
• overcoming fear. (aphotoandsomewords.wordpress.com)
• Fears (mythoughtsmyansh.wordpress.com)
• the Importance of Fear(and of breaking Taboos) (wastelandking273.wordpress.com)
• the true source of all fear (justdharmaquotes.wordpress.com)
• But Fear Surrounds Me Like A Fence. (buitifulconfessions.com)
• Tree of Fear (undergrounddiary.wordpress.com)
• Day 7: Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself? (bkwrm513.wordpress.com)

 

Seek ye first the top priority (and then all else shall be added unto you)

Self-evident truths:

the farmer in love – il contadino innamorato (Photo credit: Uberto)

Different patterns of behavior produce different patterns of results. Possible results include clarity or confusion, goodwill or ill will, prosperity or poverty, and agony or salvation.

Now, imagine that there are two farmers and one is confused, distracted, agonizing, panicking, and terrified of failing, then that farmer may be quite ineffective and unproductive. Another farmer may be clear, experienced, mature, resourceful, and insightful and may even take actions to impair the clarity and productivity of a competitor (to contribute to the confusion and ineffectiveness and poverty and agony of the other farmer).

 

In regard to agony, agony (or “hell”) is one possible result. Agony results from the behavior of agonizing. Because agonizing is optional, agony is optional. Agony only results when the behavior of agonizing persists. There is a way to live that does not include agonizing or agony. We can label that way of living salvation or heaven or the extinction of agony (“nirvana”). That result has always been available and is available now. In the language of the Buddhist tradition, the principles regarding the arising of agony and the extinction of agony are called the four noble truths. However, these same principles are found in every language and every culture and every religious tradition- though there are many translators and interpreters of these principles and so many different levels of clarity or confusion can be recognized as obvious to one who knows these principles as self-evident.

Pattern (Photo credit: digikuva)

 

 

In regard to confusion, confusion (or “purgatory”) is one possible result. Confusion results from the behavior in language of confusing one thing for something else. Confusion involves mislabeling, misclassifying, misperceiving, misinterpreting, or mistaking one thing for something else. Confusion only results from a conflict between a pre-existing expectation and later experience. When a new actual experience is so startling or shocking that there is a panic of clinging to an old expectation and rejecting of the recent experience, that process can be labeled as denial or trauma. The panic of confusing one thing for another may be very brief (only momentary) or can last for decades. Such a panic of confusing one thing for another is the only way to produce ill will (whether brief or enduring). After the relaxing of a panic of confusion, ill will dissolves and clarity arises (along with humility, maturity, and goodwill).

Fentress County Jail entrance (Photo credit: SeeMidTN.com (aka Brent))

 

In regard to ill will, first, let us be clear that ill will is distinct from aggression and violence and coercion.  For instance, a predator has no ill will for prey, like a bully or law enforcement officer may have no ill will for a specific target of bullying or law enforcement. Aggression may or may not include ill will and ill will may or may not include passive aggression or any other form of direct interaction. Ill will is a specific form of fear or panic which involves language and labeling. The labeling of someone or some group as a threat, an adversary, an enemy, a devil, or a villain is called vilifying or demonizing (which is similar but distinct from labeling someone a criminal by prosecuting an indictment and sentencing someone). In contrast to the impersonal aggression of warfare as well as systems of criminalizing certain behaviors, personal ill will is only the result of hysterical vilifying, which only results from a panic of confusing one thing for something else, which only results from agonizing over how to cling to a false expectation in denying some prior experience that was extremely frightening.

Georgia Guidestones (Photo credit: The Rocketeer)

 

We can label some experience as “what should not be” or “what should not have been.” That is called denial. It is very common- even essential to the maturing of an individual. When we deny something based on a false expectation of what should be (or what should have been), we are rejecting it in favor of clinging to some false expectation (some idolatry).  Some experience may have been so terrifying for us that we remove our attention from it by distracting ourselves with some ideal that it “should not have been.” In our confused panic of clinging to a false expectation and rejecting some actual experience, we may then agonize over how to prevent “what should not have been.” We may blame some particular group or individual (or activity) as the isolated source of “what should not have been.” We may vilify them (or some behavior). We may resent them or harbor ill will or a grudge or a jealousy or a grievance. A grievance is a psychological coping mechanism for dealing with grief by blaming some vilified enemy as the isolated source of our grief, rather than fully recognizing how our own behavior was influential in producing an experience of vulnerability so terrifying that we may go around with a grievance (ill will) as we search for someone who is mature enough to accept our grievances as functional and healthy.

We may be receptive to someone who does not condemn us for our condemnation of others. We may be receptive someone who is not threatened by our experience of others as a threat. We may be receptive to someone who does not vilify us for our past behavior patterns of vilification. We may seek clarity, salvation, humility, goodwill, and even new concentrations of prosperity.

Prosperity varies in regard to how much wealth and power is concentrated around different groups and different individuals. Resources alone are not wealth. Wealth involves the way that we organize our resources. Wealth involves our patterns of behavior and speech. For instance, two adjacent plots of land that are nearly identical can produce very different yields of harvest depending on what methods of agriculture are used (if any).

English: An old farmer woman, Eastern Europe. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Again, if there are two farmers and one is confused, distracted, agonizing, panicking, and terrified of failing, then that farmer may be quite ineffective and unproductive. Another farmer may be clear, experienced, mature, resourceful, and insightful and may even take actions to impair the clarity and productivity of a competitor (to contribute to the confusion and ineffectiveness and poverty and agony of the other farmer).

Again, different patterns of behavior produce different patterns of results. Possible results include clarity or confusion, goodwill or ill will, prosperity or poverty, and agony or salvation, as well as rewards and punishments.

Young’s Literal Translation
“but seek ye first the reign of God and His righteousness, and all these shall be added to you.”

http://bible.cc/matthew/6-33.htm

In the tradition of bribing children in to conforming to desired behavior through the story of Santa Claus, we can recognize a deceptive method of influencing the behavior of others (those who are relatively naive or unperceptive) through indoctrinating the children with mythical language that obscures the outright bribery which we also may practice quite openly in other cases. In other cases, indoctrination in regard to promoting false expectations takes the form of other religious programming, public school programming, and mass media programming (including marketing). Programs in language influence attention, which influences perception, which influences behavior.

 

The Ten Commandments are displayed outside the Wallace Courthouse (Photo credit: Ríona)

Behavior change (James) (Photo credit: James BonTempo)

We are trained (programmed) to respect the systems of coercion known as governments. We are trained to be obedient to mandatory systems of redistributing wealth, whether in order to save ourselves from eternal torture in hell (called tithing), or the more openly coercive forms of wealth redistribution called taxation or extortion. When a particular form of payment is the only accepted form of payment for invented liability claims (of extortion AKA taxation), we can call that a court-enforced currency. The impersonal threat of violence from the operators of court systems (with no personal ill will toward the targets of the wealth redistribution program) results in public demand for a particular currency. The public will value that currency simply because that currency unit is dictated to be valuable for the payment of invented tax extortion claims.

Bill of Rights (Photo credit: david__jones)

To the extent that the public is intimidated by a particular court system of organized coercion, that system’s currency will be popular and valuable. When the public no longer deem a particular currency as holy or sacred, a court system may raise or lower tax rates in an effort to increase public compliance with their system of organized extortion. When a population no longer perceives a particular government or their myths and founding documents as holy or sacred, then a new system of organized coercion may develop to promote a new form of law and order (“justice system”) within that population. That new development may take the form or revolution or civil war or invasion by external opportunists, or the more moderate adjustments of treaties and constitutional amendments (even to revoke prior amendments).

Bill of Rights, Durban South Africa (Photo credit: bistandsaktuelt)

Each distinct system of religious justice cultivates distinct expectations in their target population. One universal element of all systems of ideology promote the worship of each particular system for governing and regulating human populations as “the best, the most holy, the most just, the most righteous, etc….” Again, programming of expectations through language influence attention, which influences perception, which influences behavior.

Related articles

• Patterns of behavior and why I am so mad. (christiepage808.wordpress.com)
• ~ Laughter, Bad Behavior, Detox ~ (mysterycoachdsi.wordpress.com)
• What behaviors are considered abnormal in most cultures? (psyntax.wordpress.com)
• “Ten Commandments” judge loses Alabama gubernatorial primary (mikecho40.wordpress.com)
• The favored race, “perverted transgressors” and foolish infidels (patrioticallycorrectwithtanya.wordpress.com)
• The Ten Commandments, Moral Anarchy, and the Secular State (godfatherpolitics.com)
• Savoring the Gospel (sethsoasis.wordpress.com)
• J is for Jesus H. Christ (or lack thereof) (d20darkages.blogspot.com)
• National Day of ̶P̶r̶a̶y̶e̶r̶ Reason (musasha.wordpress.com)
• Barack Hussein Obama Will Be The Last United States President (vineoflife.net)