About WORDS

September 13, 2012

 

 

 

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?

My Google Profile

Why do Libertarians and Austrian-School Economists worship the gold standard?

August 12, 2016

The below quotation is either an imprecise translation from German, or an imprecise statement, or both. In fact, it is at best only partly true as well as fundamentally wrong.

 

The fundamental source of demand for government-approved currencies are the debts invented by a government. A government invents various debts and then dictates what form of payment will be accepted to pay the debts (tax debts and fines and fees and so on).

The more debts (costs) that a government imposes on their source of wealth, the more demand there will be for the government approved Currency. For example, if a government raised sales tax rate from 5% to 15%, that would produce no change in the amount of currency in circulation and a massive increase in demand for that fixed amount of currency.

Likewise, if a government had a payroll tax that swallowed 15% of all wages and salaries paid within their jurisdiction, then reduced that payroll tax rate to only 5%, that would immediately produce an increase in the take-home pay of all employees (and reduce the costs of the business as well, since businesses draw from their cash reserves to pay payroll taxes).

there would be no change in the actual total amount of currency in circulation, yet a significant increase in the cash reserves of every business and every employee within the jurisdiction of that government. In other words, the coerced demand for currency would decline. When demand for something Falls, the purchasing Power of that thing falls. When purchasing power for a currency falls, prices rise. (Prices are just exchange rates.)

So, if we review the history of the United States, we can find periods in which there was a gold standard for currency, a bimetallic standard of both gold and silver, and a silver standard. Whenever a government implements a metallic standard or backing for a currency, that by default create an increase in the natural demand for that substance.

For instance, in the 1950s, the US treasury was minting pennies with a certain percentage of copper in the coin. Later, the government reduced the amount of copper in that coin.

that policy change had virtually no effect on the purchasing power of the penny, which was not DERIVED from the amount of copper in the coin. The purchasing power of the penny was derived from the debts invented by the government and imposed on the public (which could be discharged in government currency, such as nickels and dimes and pennies).

However, total market demand for copper did decline (slightly) when the US government reduced the percentage of copper used in a penny. The government stopped buying so much copper to mint in to pennies (plus they eventually reduced the total volume of pennies in circulation relative to dimes and quarters).

Whether a coin contains copper or gold or silver, the face value SET by the government determines purchasing power, not the metal in the coin. If a paper currency contains paper fibers, it is the magic shapes of ink on the paper that alter purchasing power.

What is the basis of those magic shapes of ink on THAT paper having social influence? I cannot just add a few zeroes to a $1 bill and make it a $100 bill, right?

The military capacity of the government is the foundation. The reason that people pay taxes is because of the threat of government soldiers (deputies, cops, etc) coming to arrest or evict or garnish based on non-payment of debts invented by governments.

Why does a confederate dollar bill no longer accepted at the grocery store (or even a farmer’s market)? because there is no military regime forcing people to pay taxes in that currency.

 

 

 

On governments as systems to alter economic demand (addendum)

August 7, 2016

BP wrote: I am not sure I see your point. Government policies affect the behavior of its citizens, but it also creates black markets. Wealth is only increased by production. And every rule and regulation have unintended consequences. Again, government cannot run an economy as efficiently as a free market (making decisions everyday based on wants and needs, supply and demand).

 

JR replies:

Governments influence demand, just like every enterprise influences demand. Governments happen to use coercion and propaganda to influence demand, from mandatory purchases to subsidized or favored markets to penalized markets or criminalized markets.

That is the entire point of government, right? The powerful will form governments to influence the economic activity of the humans nearby….

As for wealth being increased by production, sure. However, when the Israelites invaded the Midianites and massacred almost all of them (except for the 24,000 virgin girls they captured), what did the Israelites do with the wealth of the Midianites? Did they destroy it (like setting their fields and homes on fire)? Or, did they POSSESS that wealth?

Governments do not increase wealth, they redistribute it… and sometimes destroy it. The Israelites might have just killed one million head of livestock that the Midianite herders had accumulated. However, they seemed to favor the outcome of killing the Midianites instead and then capturing all of those livestock (plus the 24,000 virgin girls that they enslaved, plus a few thousands shekels of gold that they gathered from the Midianite nation).

Governments redistribute inventory. They destroy inventory (like when the officials of the state of Pennsylvania dumped out thousands of gallons of perfectly good milk because it was a crime to sell unpasteurized milk). Why didn’t the officials just pasteurize the milk and THEN sell it? They are not producers or sellers. They are a military operation of governing the human resources!

Governments also raise demand for various things and suppress demand for other things (like by criminalizing them or threatening to destroy all supply of that thing). When governments set prices on things (like unnaturally low prices for a grain), they are not seeking “an efficient method for resolving economic competitors.” They are imposing prices! They are putting small farmers out of business to favor the interests of the giant corporations of industrial agriculture.

121103-sandy-ap520357326601

In 2008, when there were major gasoline shortages in the northeast due to storms, the governments that imposed penalties on “profiteering” interfered with market forces. They removed the incentive for the private market to bring fuel to the areas. They greatly increased the severity of the crisis in those areas. Of course!

Of course they also put people on TV to make statements about how they were helping to resolve the crisis smoothly. That is just the normal lying of PR spokespeople. They are actors reading a script written by a fiction author.

 

 

As for efficiency, I do not know if a pirate ship is “more efficient” than a government naval battleship. The reality is that inequality and alliances exist.

Small kids are not as powerful as big kids. However, it is the relative lack of power that can lead to alliances and even governing institutions.

As for black markets, when I look at wolves or bees, I see only black markets. What is remarkable and strange about governments is that they create “white markets.”


As for unintended consequences, I do not mind if that is true or not. Lobbyists plan government interventions and then create propaganda campaigns to justify and promote those interventions. The alleged “intended consequences” may be entirely bullshit from the beginning.

Like Thomas Jefferson writing some inspiring words about liberty and universal human rights, then going home and f***ing his slave mistresses at gunpoint. Beware of what government-regulated professionals tell you about the governments that regulate them.

BP replied: But we do not need government. You appear to be contorting to justify government actions. You have not said one thing that changes my mind on the evil of government.

 

JR responded: Whether you label government evil or justified is irrelevant to me. Governments are just a group of people advancing their economic interests predictably.

 

I don’t care if you say that when hyenas bully a lion and steal a fresh carcass from him, that is evil and unjustified and “not needed.” The whole framework of “moral shaming” is just an exercise in the propaganda ideals that governing institutions have programmed in the masses. It is reactive denial.

Is the conspiracy to deceive children about Santa Claus effective? That is my first question. Whether you have been programmed to vilify it or glorify it could be trivia to me.

 

The Santa deception is once again purely economic. It advances the interests of those who indoctrinate the targeted population.

 

It governs the attention and behavior of the targeted population effectively. It is VERY efficient (relative to things s like only issuing bribes of compensation or threats of spanking- the Santa deception creates a huge reward pay-off plus a threat of humiliation… if Santa only fills the stocking with chunks of coal). That is why in the “open market” of parents disciplining children, the parents consistently resort to the fraud of Santa Claus (or of Saint Peter / Osiris waiting to weigh your soul at the gates of heaven).

 

Or, if it is not a fraud, that is still irrelevant from the perspective of predicting what the parents will do. Once they start talking to the children about how Osiris is a psychic voyeur who can keep score of how pure the thoughts of the children are, then that is a distinct economic activity from the parents thinking of Osiris privately or ending their prayers by invoking the name of the god Amun.

 

Once they start speaking to the children and deliberately influencing the attention of the children, then they are engaged in governing.

When they say that there is a shameful kind of behavior called lying, they are attempting to influence and dominate the children.

Anyone fluent in the Hebrew language can see the actual regulation was a prohibition against perjury under oath. The Levite caste rules over The other 11 genetic lines of the Israelites and conducts court rituals in which witnesses are called to the temple and commanded to bear witness in regard to particular matters of controversy.

 

There are specific penalties for “bearing false witness.” At first, these regulations were only applied by the Levites to their nation of the 12 tribes of Israelites. However, as of the time of Noah and the great flood, there was a seventh commandment added to the prior six given to Adam. The seventh commandment was to impose courts of justice (social domination) over all of humanity, whether those people were genetic Israelites or not. It was the declaration of a global government that claimed universal authority.

Also, when they say that murder is prohibited, that is not the same as prohibiting killing. Perjury and murder are invented legal categories which the Levites used to regulate and punish select individuals who had been accused of a criminalized behavior.

 

Of course, killing itself was not prohibited. It was merely regulated and ritualized.

 

When the Levites conducted a public ritual of human sacrifice, of course they killed the criminal convict. When the Israelites invaded and massacred the Midianites, that was an instance of government-endorsed killing.

 

 

Also, when children are brainwashed with moral anxieties about lying and killing, that is still an economic activity. The rulers are ruling the ruled.

 

When the high priest grants a pardon to Lt. Col. Oliver North for committing perjury, that is still legally valid within the rules of the system of social domination. The rulers issue a military threat to the masses that the rulers are claiming the right to penalize perjury. However, whether or not the ruling class exercises that right in a particular case is a matter of their own discretion and priorities.

 

So, I am not contorting to justify the behavior of governing nor contorting to vilify the behavior of governing. I am telling you that it seems quite predictable to me that hyenas will “extort tax debts” from a solitary lion who is unable to adequately fend off the hyenas. Further, all of the activities of humans governing humans are economic and predictable. In general, many governments even publish very clear declarations of the methods that they intend to use to extort wealth from and otherwise govern their targeted populations.

 

 

 

When the church of Scientology was able to get the IRS to back down, their “non-violent” warfare was also economic and predictable.

 

I presume that when the FBI’s most wanted fugitive, Marc Rich, wanted to get a pardon for his tax crimes, he strategically took action. Did his ex-wife Denise have sex with Bill Clinton and then document those activities for use as blackmail? Did Mr. Rich make massive donations to the Clinton foundation before the pardon or after the pardon or both?

 

Those are generally matters of trivia. Marc Rich was legally pardoned. That is the important detail practically.

 

The “Church” of Scientology got the IRS to back down. How they did it might be intriguing or not.

 

When the US department of Justice went after the diamond cartel DeBeers, either the leaders of DeBeers complied with the threats or politely told the DOJ agents that “it is in the best interests of you, your career, and your family that you lose the paperwork on this case and focus on other cases.”

Either that response was effective or not. (It was.)

 

 

So, do I justify governments? I respect the social influence of the US government… as well as organizations that routinely get the US government to back down, such as DeBeers. I also respect hurricanes and volcanoes.

I could justify my own actions and inactions. Or I might not.

But if I am not threatened by someone harassing me and trying to bully or intimidate me with threats of imprisonment or fines or torture or execution, then why would I take the time to justify anything at all? To an employer or a client, I discuss which actions are most justified, inviting their input.


When relevant, then I may consider justifications. Otherwise, I do not agonize over justification like I did when operating according to the programming of my youth.

Yet I still respect that programming. Sometimes it still may be very relevant and useful. I am not ashamed that I have been programmed to vilify certain things and glorify others.

I am not ashamed that I have been deceived through programming to prejudice me with confirmation bias. I have been programmed with biases so that I hysterically defend “familiar doctrines” and hysterically reject “potential threats to my crumbling justifications for my worship of familiar doctrines.”

 

On governments as systems to alter economic demand (pt 2 of 2)

August 6, 2016
The prior commentary was actually an introduction to this dialogue.

BP wrote: “I think a real estate, banking and monetary collapse is around the corner.”

JR replied: Starting in 2003, I published analysis of the global and national transitions that I have observed and forecast. Economics (supply and demand) always rules finance (price trends, lending trends, borrowing trends).

 
BP responded: Except when government interferes. Printing money and keeping interest rates artificially low create huge bubbles.

By 2004, global fuel markets were my main economics focus. Those global fuel markets explained the trends in war and politics.

I also consider fuel markets to be a big target for propaganda and “perception management.” An actual crisis in supplies of fuel is not essential. A perceived crisis is just as useful to people managing empires.

And, to BP, note that my model does not begin by saying “governments fundamentally distort economics.” That is propaganda.

Governments are instruments of economics. They demonstrate it.

Invasions are economic actions, as are taxes and everything else that governments do. Governments exist for the sole purpose of promoting economic benefits for the planners of that government.

The British monarchy in the 1830s had thousands of naval soldiers fighting to force China to let the British Royals sell opium to the Chinese. It was not just the British navy, but also France and the US.

But even there, it was not just about promoting the drug cartel of the British monarchy. Pushing opium addictions was itself a strategy within a bigger plan of colonialism.

BP wrote: Yet they create bubbles and prolong recessions

JR replied: There will always be periods of accumulating debts and periods of fleeing from debt. That pattern is more basic than government.

Printing money is simply a different issue. The debts could be accounted in bushels of wheat or barrels of oil.

So money is just part of “finance” … Which is RULED by economics.

Like economics is when the US invaded the North of Mexico and replaced the monetary system and tax system that had been present in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Demand for pesos plunged and demand for dollars soared. Or recall the 1860s when the union army rendered the confederate dollar worthless.

BP wrote: But the free market is a better predictor of when to take on debt and when to save. The market better determines the price of money. Governments create moral hazard.

 

To me, governments are predictable developments within natural open markets. Of course governments tend to promote delusional borrowing. That is key to their purpose.

Then, when a natural deflating of credit market happens, the purchasing power of currency SOARS.

The delusional discounting of the value of money that the government has helped promote can end VERY suddenly.

Why the discounting? Because currently people relate to credit as EQUAL to cash. They think “I have a 700 credit score so I can get $400k for a mortgage if I want.”

But that $400k is not $400k of cash reserve. Their delusion is massive and it crashes with intensity.

Which creates a “cash crunch” (a release of the delusional discounting of cash as “everyone” panics and chases cash, selling inflated assets for cash, avoiding new borrowing, etc).

BP wrote: Since many politicians are puppets of bankers, the system is rigged to make both the politicians and bankers wealthier.

 

JR answered: All governments are instruments of the powerful. The powerful form governments as economic tools.

Why did Moses and the Israelites invade and slaughter the Midianites? It was not just to kill every male of any age and almost all of the females.

It was to take thousands of shekels of gold which the Midianites had accumulated, plus about one million head of livestock. The Israelities certainly could have killed the livestock and the 24,000 Midianites that they spared and enslaved.

However, if the whole point of the military enterprise was to “liberate” all of that wealth from the Midianities, then it would make no sense to simply abandon the livestock or set it free. So, the Israelites captured all of that livestock, plus all of that gold, plus the 24,000 virgin girls that they then distributed throughout the military and to the ruling caste of Levite priests.

Why form a military of 12,000 Israelite soldiers? Because they can pursue large-scale operations of piracy, pillaging, and enslavement.

Same as the Israelites did at the command of Moses… And same as the Brits, French, and Americans did when expanding the British drug cartel in to China.

Why did JP Morgan fund Trotsky and the Soviet “nationalization of private wealth?” It was the most profitable pillaging enterprise in Morgan’s career.

The creation of the USSR was a massive success from the perspective of the federal reserve and the US military-industrial complex. After a few decades of supporting our communist ally, we then changed policy.

When the Soviets had invaded Poland and then Germany responded by coming to the aid of Austria to meet the advancing soviet tanks, the German action was “spun” as an act of aggression. That justified the second US invasion of Europe.

The US and USSR split Berlin and Germany between them. Soon, the US and USSR were talked about as competitors (suddenly no longer allies)!

The USSR would invade somewhere that the US wanted to invade, so then the US would respond to “defend the innocent from the Soviet invaders.” Soon, the Soviets and Americans had colonized and split Korea, sections of Africa, Afghanistan, and so on.

If the Soviets set up a military base in one of their colonies, maybe they said “we are just going to keep these troops here briefly and then we will withdraw them as soon as the Iraqis can manage the situation on their own.” Or was that Japan? Or was that Chile? Or was that Panama? Or was that Nigeria or Libya or Syria or Ethiopia?

The partnership between the US and the USSR as “enemies” was a huge success. For whom? For oil companies. For international bankers. (Who own the oil cartel.)

For the Rockefellers and their collaborators, including Woodrow Wilson and FDR and Nixon and Bill Clinton and so on.

The amount of oil consumed by the US-USSR “colonial arms race” was massive.

And the amount of debt entered by governments across the planet was also massive. Power was further concentrated in the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements. The top leaders among the Zionists and the Catholic Militia orders and the free masons were all very enriched by the enterprise.

What Catholic militias and mafias do I mean? I could mean the Soveriegn Military Order of the Knights of Malta.


Note that what in the US is called the Post Master could be called in some other places the Post Magistrate or the Post Major or the Post Magi or the Postal Majesty or even just the Prime Minister of the Postal Ministry.

What organization is so powerful that it is part of the UN and has passports, but yet has no physical territory?

Mussolini: was he the one in charge or was he just a puppet? He is shown here wearing the medal of the Knights of Malta, indicating his submission to their collective operations, right?

That is not G.H.W. Bush in the left middle pic, but his son, G.W. Bush. However, the basic idea is still sound.

On governments as systems to alter economic demand (pt 1 of 2)

August 6, 2016

Briefly, what I mean by altering demand would include both policies that increase demand for something as well as policies that decrease demand. I will give examples.

I like to mention the 1933 criminalization of the possession of gold by US citizens. Most people today are not aware of this policy, which was not fully relaxed until 1975. It is an extreme case, which makes it very useful as a simple example.

Notice at the very bottom of the above document the penalties: 10 years imprisonment or a fine or both. In current 2016 dollars, the amount of the 1933 fine is equivalent to approximately $180,000.

What happened for demand for gold by the public when the US government criminalized the possession of gold? The demand for gold plunged.

Governments regularly reduce demand for certain markets by criminalizing involvement in that market, such as marijuana or the brief prohibition of alcohol or even possession of a gun. In countries where it is illegal for civilians to own guns, not only will the government take any guns found, but imprison and/or fine people for breaking the laws prohibiting the possession of guns.

So, governments may attempt to reduce or even eliminate public demand for a particular product or service. How can a government merely reduce demand for effective, scientifically-sound health promotion practices? Why not subsidize (or even mandate) other practices? In extreme cases, a government could even fine or imprison people who do not buy a mandatory health insurance plan or get a mandatory vaccination.

Governments can generate demand where none would otherwise exist, increase demand where some exists, plus reduce or eliminate competing demand. Governments can also launch publicity campaigns to drive up demand for their programs (like for mandatory vaccine programs or for launching an invasion of a far away continent).

Different industries and products can be taxed at different levels. Some markets can be favored with tax breaks (like tax deductions for health care spending) or even with tax credits (like for installing solar energy panels) that might result in a tax “refund” – perhaps even for someone who did not pay any taxes.

 

On the subject of taxes, those penalize economic productivity. Some tax plans penalize productivity a lot, some a little, and some none at all. Further, some tax codes are simple and some are a bit complex and some seem to be designed to be intricate and confusing.

Overall, the amount of economic productivity that governments confiscate through taxes and fines can be measured. Obviously, there is also a “disincentive” to discourage people from even being productive (and that can be compounded by subsidizing their economic dependency).

Of all the wealth taken by governments from the public, some of it will be spent for the operations of that government system of wealth extraction. Some of the wealth will be delivered to external parties, like Canada as a colony will send wealth to the British royalty or like after an invader bombs and occupies a nation, then they may impose “reparations” to create a flow of wealth from the nation that has been defeated and occupied to the victor.

Also, some of the extracted wealth will be spent locally by the government. Governments may pay certain companies billions of dollars to build special equipment for warfare. Without governments, how much demand would the average person have for a tank or a nuclear bomber or an assault rifle?

Governments order massive amounts of military equipment. Governments extract enormous amounts of wealth from the public and then pour a fraction of those confiscated resources in to the manufacturing of military weapons of mass destruction.

Who favors such policies? Those who run businesses that rely on government purchases pour resources in to lobbying for policies which keep the government sending huge amounts of wealth to their business, right?

Further, if someone can sell the US military a toilet seat for $300 and a hammer for $500, then why not sell them a submarine that costs $900,000 to build for the modest price of 12,000,000? In fact, why not sell them a thousand units of those submarines per year for the next 5 years? Maybe cut them a deal and only charge $11,000,000 per submarine based on a “volume discount.”

While many people may presume that there is some criticism or condemnation by this author of those patterns of behavior, I have made no criticism (nor glorification). I merely present the point that, fundamentally, governments alter economic demand.

If a government creates tax favoritism for people who borrow money on real estate, that increases the demand for real estate. If there is a new program that gives tax favoritism to dumping money in to special types of investment accounts, then that increases the demand for the kinds of purchases that are allowed in those accounts (such as stocks of ownership of a huge business ), which by default reduces demand for other possible investments (such as starting a small business).

I started by mentioning gold. What if a government invades a place and then invents a debt owed by the invaded population to the invading government? Those debts could be called reparations or tithes or taxes or fines or anything else. How does the ruling government select what forms of wealth can be used to repay the debts that they just invented?

If the government itself has hoarded a lot of silver, then they may want to increase public demand for silver. So, they accept payments of silver for the debts that they invent, which increases overall demand for silver.

Or, maybe they have hoarded a lot of diamonds, so then they may want to increase public demand for diamonds. If they only allow one form of wealth to be used to repay their invented debts, then that can massively increase demand for that form of wealth (if the size of the debts that they invent is enormous… and they have the military capacity to successfully extract all that wealth).

 

 

The hilarious demon worship of medical “scientists”

August 4, 2016

 

Perhaps the most problematic from of commitment is to ideologies that are given the sacred label of “scientific.” Once a “scientist” treats their familiar presumptions and models as “the one and only possible reality,” then they cease to be involved in scientific inquiry (assuming that they previously were inquiring scientifically).

At some point, “scientists” may just be worshiping doctrines about science. Some of the most hilarious ones to me are the ideas of “medical science” in regard to the diagnostic labels for effects being referenced as causal. For example, there is an effect called cancer which some “medical scientists” claim to be caused by “cancer.” It is like saying that sunburn causes sunburn. It is absolutely nonsense.

However, to make a diagnostic label in to a demon that possesses organisms and then eats them away from the inside like a parasitic infestation… well, that can be very good for business. It sells a lot of drugs and so on to “fight the demon of cancer which possesses you.” While I am not really opposed to demon worship in general, (having never even thought about it much) I do find it remarkable to witness the hysterical demon worship of various members of the local priesthood of “medical science.”

One century, they fight the demon of scurvy which they assert “possesses people and might even be contagious.” Later, they relax from their hysterical panic and respect the scientific insights of the natives.

The science of shaming skeptics

July 25, 2016

Is it possible for the mass media and education systems to accidentally bias our receptivity to various ideas (and our value systems about what is important or what is trivia)? I say that it is possible for there to be accidental cases of biasing, but that the vast majority of the biasing could be the core purpose of their programming operations.

Do movie producers and movie directors “accidentally” conceive fictional stories and then publicize them to attempt to make $100 million from a movie? If so, then why not at least accept the possibility that there is for-profit deception in the systems of mainstream programming (media programming and school programming)?

I will resort to math to lay out 5 possible amounts of intentional deception in the media and school system: 0%, 1-33%, 34-66%, 67-99%, or 100%. Of those 5 choices, how much of the programming content do you personally think is INTENTIONALLY constructed to deceive the masses?

The more I learn about NASA, the more I understand its true purpose. This…
WORLDTRUTH.TV|BY EDDIE LEVIN
Comments
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn I personally think that the rather obvious answer is 1-33%. To do deception well, it must be inserted within a fair amount of clearly accurate info. That sets up the presumption of accuracy and credibility.

Is the temperature that is reported on the news really accurate? Of course! The vast majority of info is totally accurate (whether or not relevant).

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn As for which info gets selected for publicizing, again, there must be some amount of “pandering.” There must be a few “feel good” stories about some local kid that the media can glorify, plus the actual weather forecast (to keep people tuned in), and then the content that is really important to the sponsors can be introduced once the audience is established “because I knew that they would be giving a weather forecast every 10 minutes or so, so I just tuned in long enough to listen to the weather, and then I heard that Rush Limbaugh said something really shocking to Alex Jones about Howard Stern, so I got really pissed off and kept listening for the next 40 minutes.”

Travis Eggen
Travis Eggen weather you take a drop of poison directly, or drop it into perfectly clean water. All you have to do is take a sip of the clean water that was just mixed with the poison …. your body will not discern the % of poison … it will simply react as though it has been poisoned, and if you are force fed the rest of the glass of water there will be no good that comes from that water …. just the effects of the poison.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Now I already know that Debb is going to insist to Bob that she has personal first-hand evidence to prove that the 1 guy in the intro photo that has a question mark next to his 1986 publicity photo is me. I’m not even going to argue about that. Debb once voted for a Democrat, so we can dismiss everything she says.

Like · Reply · 1 · 44 mins
Debb Godshall
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Furthermore, Debb does not like sushi, so therefore Bob and I can dismiss everything that I say that she says.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
Write a reply…
 
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn My first point is that most of the programming is filled with drivel (trivia). Yes, a lot of it happens to be true. But even those truths are presented because that info is relevant in producing a specific bias that the sponsors of the programming wish to produce.

Like · Reply · 1 · 43 mins · Edited
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn The issue is creating bias. Lots of truth is selected to set up the bias. Then, some outrageous lies can be included to trigger the activating of the programmed biases.

Travis Eggen
Travis Eggen yes, so that we can discuss how that programing bias affects the rest of what can, and does happen in that environment. And I just jumped to …. no matter how little or how much is intentional. It all ends up poisoned because of the littlest amount.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
Write a reply…
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn I personally have no plans to further explore these specific claims, although I respect that some people may value exploring the depths of one case of possible deception (or several: 9/11, the Lusitania, the Titanic, etc etc etc). Here is a video (that I did not watch) with more info on this specific instance for those who might be interested:

https://youtu.be/PxqhU6nEy6c

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Travis jumped to the metaphor of poisoning water. His point about intentionality being irrelevant is of course logically solid.

But what if there were intentional programs not just to “poison our minds,” but to poison our actual water supplies and food supplies? Is that a paranoid question to ask? Given the fact that there are cases in which one militant group has actually poisoned the water supplies of an enemy, is it ALWAYS paranoid to test the quality of drinking water?

Like · Reply · 1 · 31 mins · Edited
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn My dad conducted tests on drinking water for about 40 years in his career with the US government. That was his job. Was that paranoid?

Like · Reply · 1 · 36 mins
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn The reality is that most people are “poisoned” intellectually and emotionally and so they are hysterical about skepticism. They consider most skepticism “shamefully paranoid.”

Like · Reply · 1 · 36 mins
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn However, it is not paranoid to test drinking water or to buy special gallons of purified/filtered water from a store (or to install a filter for your pipes at home). It is not even paranoid to say that “maybe some chemicals have been added to this water for the specific intention of impairing health.”

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Skepticism is not paranoia. Skepticism is not hysteria.

Anti-paranoia hysteria is actual paranoia, though. Anti-hysteria paranoia is also hysterical.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Am I “against” hysteria or paranoia? Or do I think that it is absolutely essential to the efficient operation of a holy empire?

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn In the name of all that is holy (such as “preserving law and order”), we MUST promote a hysterical bias against skepticism in the masses. Those who are skeptical of the programmed biases of the media or the schools must be vilified because when they were children they used to believe that Sanders Claus was going to crawl down through their chimney and bring them a kinder, gentler form of DEMOCRATIC statism.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Questioning the holy doctrines of the mainstream is heresy, apostasy, and just plain unscientific. When people are displaying skepticism about popular theories about science, that skepticism is the complete rejection of science. We need to promote in the children of our world a better form of scientific inquiry (one which has no inquisitiveness and no scientific experimentation).

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Science is the idea that if something is familiar to you (like because massive amounts of money have been spent to bias you in favor of that idea), then it must be true and there is no sane reason to examine it or question it. Skepticism is anti-science and must be thoroughly eliminated, which is why our saviors at the US military have developed a new vaccine to protect you from skepticism. Fortunately for you, we have already distributed it by spraying it out in chemtrails.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Anyone who was a Nazi can be dismissed because they are just trying to deceive you. Aldous Huxley not only funded Debb to vote for Sanders Claus in the primary, but according to the PBS show “Deceptive Poltiical Theatre,” Huxley was sympathetic to the Nazi party, which is wrong and evil and shameful and hysterical and downright skeptical.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Those who accuse the US government of intentionally bringing high-ranking Nazis in to the US and then placing them in top positions at NASA are clearly suffering from skepticism theories. I understand that people like Debb may occasionally try to use smear tactics to influence whether people hate Trump or Clinton the most, but she is just trying to distract you from the actual history of some very shocking and fascinating subjects that will be on this Friday’s midterm exam, so you better study them hard because it is very important to you that you compete against each other to attempt to be validated by the instructor as the most deserving of social validation.

more on claims of universal morality etc

July 23, 2016
Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Rights is not a culture it is universal. Injustice happened thru out history, but do not mean that they are not wrong.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn The English word right has the same origin as the words regulation, reign, royal, rule, rex (latin), and raj (hindi / sanskrit). Ultimately, it has the same root as the words “might” and “magistrate” and “magi.”

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun For sometime i was very into that esoteric etymology stuff. Until I got my mental stimulant from hard core Liberty. Which I fiercely pursue. It was actually what I started out to pursue in the before anything else.

Pablo Aldunate
Pablo AldunateNot every culture even have the concept of “rights”… Anyway…I feel I have nothing to say in this conversation. Enjoy your discussion guys! 😉
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn I do not consider my comments esoteric. Rights are created by asserting them. They are social claims.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn When the British in the 1830s or so invaded China and said “we have the right to sell opium to the Chinese,” they were “staking a claim.” That is what imperialist regimes do.

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun I watched, Bill Thornton. I know exactly what you are talking about when you say assert rights.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Why did the British “rights” eventually supersede the Chinese government’s claim to set the rules of what is legal to import and what is contraband and the crime of smuggling? Because they had the assistance of their navy and the French navy and the US navy to “silence” (intimidate or kill) the rulers of China who were protesting “free trade.”

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun No, it is not a social claim. You do not lose it when other people disagrees that you do not have it.

More crudely, will you lose your rights, if a majority of people aggress upon you? The answer is no. The robber, no matter how much people they have, comes back to rob you a thousand times. You are still in the right, Justice still on ur side.

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Stuff goes very wrong in imperialism and feudalism in the past. The common attribute of such violence over the course of history is that it had been carried out thru a state and its apparatus.

The state can be said to be intrinsically evil.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn You can say (claim) absolutely anything that you choose. Some statements will be socially validated, some ridiculed, and some punished, like penalized as criminal.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn You can define things as wrong or as problems. Or, social programming can brainwash and train the masses to define specific things as shameful.

When someone relates to a particular kind of thing as shameful, that is like a chronic tension or preoccupation for them. If they have suppressed aggression and then witness something hat they have been programmed to relate to as shameful, they will explode in contempt: “THAT politician is EVIIIIILLLL!”

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Yes I know how mindlessness sheeps reacts to media stimulant and propaganda programming. Hello! I Live in political apathetic Singapore.

Also, I have a discipline of knowledge, which I earned thru research and reading, and discussion. It is called negative rights. Do not reduced it to mere claims.

I do understand, this rights are infringed and defeated against the treat of brute force of the state.
I am an absolutist, but how to strategically and prudently get us to freedom is a totally another discussion.
One way, i think is by talking to people about what it is.

There are no virtues and good outcomes by adopting defeatist attitudes in in the face of what is dire.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Language involves patterns of behavior that I call “claims.” You can complicate that simple reality with ideas about “absolutism” and so on.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn However much power or freedom or capacity that I currently have, I may be attracted to protecting it and increasing it. The idea that “we” should get together to oppose “them” is very popular and is certainly a common way of exercising power.

I might recommend skepticism in regard to organizing one’s interactions around a narrative of “let’s all join together as victims against our common oppressor.” Maybe that is favorable at times. Maybe something else would be more favorable….


Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Claims are positive. Rights are negative

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Perhaps. My “claim” is that “positive” and “negative” are just claims in language. In fact, everything involving language is a claim, a proposal, a “position” (which is related to the word “positive” as in a pose, as in an instance of pro-posing).

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn This is still just a proposition in language: “You cannot LEGALLY ____ because I have a RIGHT to ____.”

Like · Reply · 43 mins

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Yes. I am overly skeptic to power.

I opposed rule by majority. I Stand for nobody should rule. It is call Anarchism.

Please i am no Social justice warrior to pander for support, to overthrow power to gain my own power.

U are pre-judging me by a far margin. Please clarify with me, what do i think of something. I do not think i used words loosely. But, u seem to have another set of linguistics interpretation.

J R Fibonacci Hunn Power deserves respect. If I use my own power without respect for the consequences that I influence, then I may have the luxury of learning a hard lesson in regard to respecting power. Or, in some cases, I may not get “another second chance.”

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Ok so you have vast knowledge in language. I yield.
How about-
You cannot tax me because I did not voluntarily want your services.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn I give close attention and respect to language. To me, that is “nothing special,” even if quite rare among adults.

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun “You cannot tax me because I do not voluntary want and exchange for your services, hence you are not entitled to any part of my property, that I have earned”

From a ur expertise is this positive or negative. I humbly consults u.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Any denial an be labeled as a negation or a statement “in the negative.” That is just basic grammar: “You cannot ______.”

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun It is negative, but it is a proposition?
Meaning it has nothing without the force, it is nothing without the aggressors’ agreement ??

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn If language is being used, that is an instance of social assertion.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Shapes of ink on paper, like a real estate contact, are just shapes of ink on paper. It is the military capacity of the court system which is used in the enforcing of contractual claims. Without that military force, contractual documents are just records of a “conversation.”

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun So you believe in force. Does force means justice.

Please do not digress to “what is justice”. I Am dealing in concepts not the many wondrous interpretation of any words.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Force exists. Winds blow. Predators hunt. Bombs explode.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Justice: “the administration of law.”http://www.dictionary.com/browse/justice

Justice definition, the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral…
DICTIONARY.COM

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn law: A body of rules of conduct… prescribed, recognized, and enforced by controlling authority.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/law

Definition of law in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary
LEGAL-DICTIONARY.THEFREEDICTIONARY.COM

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun You got no notion of Justice. You only pander to force.

Only to derive all concepts of ethics and morality thru status quo.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn I am simply providing you with the standard definitions, with sources shown. If you find it upsetting to read what I copied and pasted here, you can focus on other, more appealing / rewarding explorations.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
Write a reply…
 
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Taxes are, by definition, not voluntary. The warlord sends his thugs in to the local business and says “we demand 5% sales tax” or “we demand 30% income tax.”

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Tax systems are basically extortion rackets that create a monopoly (or near monopoly) on extortion. In 1696, there was a new tax on windows created. The tax rates were so burdensome to many people that the response by the public included a lot of people boarding up windows or filling in the window area with bricks.

http://www.historyhouse.co.uk/articles/window_tax.html

A look at when the windows in your home were the subject of a government tax and how it bacame known…
HISTORYHOUSE.CO.UK

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Oh yea. I can agree, tax is not voluntary. Can you agree that which is not voluntary is evil?

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn What is the origin of the English word “evil?” Further, isn’t it obvious that many people use the adjective “evil” in a wide variety of ways? There is no consensus on what is evil.

Davin Chee
Davin Chee Are you of the belief that morality is a merely subjective and nominal concept?

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Okay… This is getting annoying, when you question every concept and noun.

Skepticism ended the enlightenment age by convincing us “knowledge is ignorance, and confusion is enlightenment”. We can only trust and use reasons.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Davin Chee, I accept that in different cultures and subcultures, there are variations in what would be called moral or immoral (as in socially favored or discouraged).

i.e. Many people can relate to the right to vote as a DUTY, like it is “wrong or shameful” to fail to exercise the right to vote. Others relate to voting with much less stress or distress, like simply as an option or opportunity.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn I also wondered if your name was a pun based on “Da Vinci” (as in Leonardo, one of the most famous Italians in history)

Davin Chee
Davin Chee No, that’s my actual name.

Davin Chee
Davin Chee Regardless of that digression, if it were true that morality was merely something arbitrary that changed from time to time, then it surely is something that one can do away with – much like some form of social etiquette. Would you say you subscribe to that belief?

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn I am not clear on your interest. I am not especially interested in what I think you mean.

Pablo Aldunate
Pablo Aldunate Can I please be “untagged” from this conversation?

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn At the very top right of the post, look for a “down arrow.” That is how I untag myself.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
Write a reply…
 
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn This is simple enough for me: There will always be socially influence. People will always attempt to encourage or promote things. People will always attempts to discourage or prevent things.

Davin Chee
Davin Chee When one talks about rights – one refers to MORAL rights; meaning to say that in an objective morality that pertains to all men. Rights, in this instance then, refer to the standard as in “right” v.s. “wrong”, not as a form of edict that one foists upon other people.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Those who claim that there is such a thing as “objective morality.” tend to be operating in a mode of barely-contained fury, looking for some target to vilify (to label as evil). Predictably, they often find what they are looking for. Ironically, two opposing groups tend to erupt in to crusades against each other’s “wrong” version of “universal morality.”

Like · Reply · 1 min · Edited

Davin Chee
Davin Chee There IS an objective morality. A morality that pertains to all men, past, present and future. Morality is a code of values that applies to all men – the fundamental question here is “what are values and what do they sustain?” Certainly there is a value that all men seek to sustain – might you hazard a guess what it is?

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun I can identified evil, but am I gonna start a crusade and will i start violence? U have to stop putting words into our mouths

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn I do not recall putting any words in YOUR mouth. However, could I do so?

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn “I did NOT say this quote, which is entirely fictional.” – Davin Chee

Davin Chee
Davin Chee What has any of that got to with me?

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Nothing. I was being silly.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
Write a reply…
 
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn If we label all moralities as “universal,” then perhaps all of them are universally **projected. (asserted)

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Being sure, and having a set of ethics code, having conviction in it. Does it automatically means violence is my logical course or conclusion ?
Does it automatically means that I am intolerant to others peoples reasons and/believes?
Does it even mean that I have to imposed my set of morality on to others that might not share it?

Davin Chee
Davin Chee Not all moralities are universal. Some of them are outright arbitrary. The point here is this – which morality is rooted in reality and not in accordance with someone’s whim? Which morality is directly correlated with a fact of nature i.e. someone’s life, and not rooted in complete subjective notion?

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn The reality is that my beliefs (or perceptions) are more significant in my life than those of anyone else. If some “random” human came on to my property or broke the window of my home and crawled in, their beliefs would probably not be of great interest to me.

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Well, yes. Infringement of ur property.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Davin, you raise an issue that I do find interesting. Many people talk about objectivity and subjectivity (two contrasting categories in language).

I can follow a recipe and measure a particular amount of water to pour in to a bowl. The numerical measurement could be “half a gallon” or “eight ounces.”

Those are discrete “units.” Those are “objective.”

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn However, physical objects are “objective” and language itself is “subjective.” So, even though “eight ounces of water” is “objective,” I immediately involve subjectivity once I start talking about those eight ounces of water.

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Ok yes. You are in agreement that the perception of reality is subjective. But reality is truly absolute

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn People can get very confused about language because it involves categorical labels. There is nothing fundamentally objective about an “either/or” categorization like “either hot or cold” or “either objective or subjective.”

There are “binary” linguistic categories (dualities), but there are also spectrums.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Reality is absolute and the reality of language is also absolute, but many are quite delusional in their relation to language….

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn So, imagine I have a container with a label that says “1 gallon of distilled water.” The label is on a half gallon container. Then I put eight ounces of non-distilled “water” in to it.

Then, someone reads the label and says “bring me that gallon of distilled water.” They might be sincere, but they are not accurate. That is still only eight ounces. The water is still not distilled.

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Ok. The details and fine prints of language i might need you to help me out here.

But all along I was commenting on concepts. I do not think the concepts i give out is elastic, and ambiguous.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Adding a “subjective” label to an objective reality may change people’s perceptions about the objective reality, but the reality remains exactly as it was.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn So, Henry, I am presenting the possibility that rights and justice are just symbols used in the magic rituals at the temples of the ancient goddess Justitia.

Is it important that she carries a sword? Perhaps….

http://www.vergelijk-autoverzekeringen.be/…/rechtsbijst…

VERGELIJK-AUTOVERZEKERINGEN.BE

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun When we mention subjectivity we meant the subjectivity as a philosophy, which relies on whimps. We agree that different individuals derive the same reality differently. We are saying this should not be law. How warlock of the past make law and country lines thru force we disagree that.

But all we are saying, they are certain objective code all humans can agree. And it can be said to be objective. And this should be the basis of law.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Henry, if you introduce the word “should,” that is a supposition or speculation or hypothetical proposition. That is the anti-thesis of objectivity.

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Told you I am moved pass those stuff.

Liberty is much more interesting, and more essential to get the word out.

Like · Reply · Just now

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun ” Should ” is a normative. It is a human concept. It is not automatically subjective.

Should do not exist in a vacuum. It exist when there is the first reasoning human. All human can share the same “should ” .

Davin Chee
Davin Chee Now, certainly using a different standard does not make your observation any less objective – it just means that you measure it differently. 10kg is exactly the same as 22lbs, both refer to the same attribute and are hence objective. The standards might differ, but the metaphysical elements nonetheless remain the same.

In that same regard, all men need a code of values to guide them in their lives to pursue a specific value. What universal value is this? Once again, I invite you to hazard a guess?

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Language is interpretative (creative). Subjectivity is inherit to all uses of language… but to varying degrees.

Davin Chee
Davin Chee The word “should” actually implies a normative concept (See: David Hume’s is/ought dichotomy). The question here hence is whether morality is tied to any metaphysical fact (which I have invited you to guess in my previous post)

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn 100kg might be objective, but the statement “I weigh 100kg” will not add or remove a single gram from my weight.

Henry Chew Zi Cun
Henry Chew Zi Cun Yes. Reality is absolute.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Language is creative and social. It is socially creative. If you fully understand that, then lots of “mysticism” and “metaphysics” will be very simple.

Davin Chee
Davin Chee So you see that objective reality is beyond the whims of men. That’s an accurate observation. Once again, can you see a value that all men seek to attain if they wish to live?

Davin Chee
Davin Chee Indeed, the perceptual (sound) elements of language can be creative and social, but would you say that the concepts are? Observe the word “cat” as stretched across different cultures and countries. Do they mean the same thing? How about the word “2”?

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Words are inherently symbolic. Is this a cat?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/…/e3b6c241e80945f1…

S-MEDIA-CACHE-AK0.PINIMG.COM

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn One is a sketch and one is a photo. Neither are a cat. Both depict cats.

Davin Chee
Davin Chee It’s an image of a cat, but it’s certainly not a cat. Words refer to concepts, not merely to percepts.

Davin Chee
Davin Chee So when one talks about the notion of “2”, one does not refer to a existent known as 2, but rather a conceptual entity. In that same regard, the CONCEPT of the cat remains universal – a cat may lack all of its four legs (accidental attributes) and still remain a cat.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Cats is just a category in language. It contains subcategories, like “big cats” and “kittens.”

It is within categories, like mammal and animal. Here is something close to a cat, but not a cat:

http://media.galaxant.com/000/019/190/04-The-Fossa.jpg

MEDIA.GALAXANT.COM

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Back to “2,” it is universal as a concept, but it means nothing by itself. 2 kg are not 2 ounces. 2 is a universal abstraction in language.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn In fact, a “pole cat” is called a cat, but is not a cat at all:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/…/f/fa/Polecat_(PSF).png

UPLOAD.WIKIMEDIA.ORG

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Where is “objective reality?” It is everywhere. You are it.

Further “objective reality” is symbol in language that means “everything except for language.” Language is the realm of subjectivity. No matter how hard you look for subjectivity “out there,” it is simply does not exist without some commentary being made on what is ***fundamentally non-linguistic.***

Like · Reply · Just now

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Is that a “deep” teaching from Zen / Dhyana? Some people might label it as such. To me, it is unremarkable and “self-evident.”


“Thou shalt not judge ME!” – an ashamed, hysterical hypocrite

July 23, 2016

SB wrote:

When someone kills
Is he a killer
When someone steals
Would you call them a thief
“You are a thief”
“You are a killer”
“You are a rapist”
On one level this is true
.. Our feeds, my feed, my page, your page, really is just a hall of mirrors.
What are your reactions
Responses
Judgements
Biasness/ ignorance to close your EYE 👁 when it is not “perfect and pretty”
Notice what you Notice

 

JR replies:

We have the capacity to socially interact using language. We can make claims and accusations and labels.

So, When the warlords conduct rituals to formally label someone a rapist, they may exercise the power of punishing the convicted rapist. However, the warlords are always selective in who they accuse and who they punish. The warlords even define and redefine what they classify as rape (and different subcategories of rape, like “statutory rape”).

so, if Bill Clinton or bill Cosby is accused of rape, that might not be pursued by the warlords (or not far). However, a man named Miranda confessed to rape and yet was convicted and then still released (because the rituals of the warlords eventually resulted in a canceling of his conviction… not because there was doubt regarding his guilt, but because he was not informed prior to confessing of his “right to remain silent.”)

On the other extreme, merely accusing Bill Clinton or other high ranking people of rape can be very dangerous. People can lose their jobs over a politically unpopular accusation. Accusers can be blackmailed or “found dead after committing suicide with 3 shots to the back of their head.”

How does someone fire those last 2 shots? They do not.

The media and other powerful groups present labels like “suicide” which may be slightly imprecise… Kind of like the popular fables about Santa Claus might be slightly imprecise.

Consider the common reference “THOUS SHALT NOT KILL.” That was translated to English from another language. The translation “kill” is grossly inaccurate.

The prohibition is on murder, not killing. In the Old Testament, there are reports of a supernatural being who repeatedly kills huge numbers of people, such as through the great flood and the plagues used to enslave the Israelites. Then the being directs Moses and an army of 12,000 Israelites to invade and massacre the neighboring Midianites.

Within the same tradition, we see “proverbs and poetry” indicating that there is “both a time to kill and a time to heal, a time for war and for peace, for hate and for love.”

 

 

However, contempt can be a very popular “program.” So, some hysterical people will be terrified and ashamed by the great holy empire and so they will look around in a competitive mode for people to vilify.

From contempt, there is a Desire to present one’s own glory. For me to seem the most glorious, I may protest the activities of others with contempt.

“That tax collector is taking someone else’s property!”

“That movie actor is pretending to be someone he is not and that is deceptive!”

“That politician is reading from a script!”

“Theta athlete faked left but then went right with the specific intention to DECEIVE the opponent, which is EVIL and WRONG. They even intentionally foul the other team to prevent obvious scores!”

so, the masses are programmed with religions of hysteria and contempt. This is very valuable to the empire, so massive amounts of resources are invested in that outcome.

 

 

As for the common comments on the holy ideal of Justice, we might not know the origin of that word. Whatever the warlord dictates as “official policy” is justice.

Warlords invent crimes by criminalizing certain patterns of action (at least when involving certain people). Thomas Jefferson might have supported the right to this or that, but did he defend the right of his slaves to carry guns? Nope.

Human history shows that there are no universally-enforced standards. Rulers always oppress.

In the rituals of the US, it is valid for presidents to pardon convicts and suspects. So, when the accomplices in the assassination of Abe Lincoln were pardoned by the man who became president through that assassination (Andrew Johnson), that was legal.

killing Abe was a crime, but pardoning those involved in the killing was also totally valid within the holy rituals of that imperial system.

Governments are systems by which one group systematically rules over another. The prophet Noah declared his dominion over all of humanity.

 

 

That sentiment has been echoed by other people in the position of “king of kings” for a long time, such as pope Nicholas V in the 15th century. The claim for political superiority over all of mankind is probably even much older than the prophet Noah…..

The story of Osiris arriving to the gates of heaven

July 12, 2016

Have you noticed that most children can easily be deceived? For instance, they can be deceived by conspiring adults who promote delusions about Santa Claus. He is a magical being with psychic powers that is constantly monitoring their behaviors (for obedience or disobedience to the directives of the social authority).

A child may presume that certain people in particular will be sincere and precise in their communications with the child. Further, lots of people who are all presumed by the children to be sincere and experienced can all repeat the same ideas or doctrines about Santa Claus with so much apparent confidence that the children never examine the logic of the assertions.

So, what if people of all ages are told that an eternal celestial being named Saint Peter is monitoring their every thought from heaven and keeping an account of their behavioral conformity to determine whether they will earn eternal torment or eternal reward? In that case, isn’t it possible that some adults will actually experience anxiety about being allegedly monitored by the all-seeing “eye in the sky?”

What if some adults also wear a cross on a necklace or put up a painting of The Holy Shepherd who is always watching over them from inside the frame on the wall? If people are programmed to associate that painting or that necklace with a particular story, then they could be reminded of that story every time they see that magic shape of that cross.

It is the shape that symbolizes a gruesome case of torture and a public ritual of human sacrifice. In fact, there have been many crucifixions, although one specific crucifixion is extremely famous. In fact, even Saint Peter was crucified, but that one is only moderately famous. (Saint Peter apparently requested to be crucified upside down because “he was not worthy of being crucified in the standard position of head up and feet down, because that was the position in which Jesus was crucified.”)

After Saint Peter was crucified and died, some legends indicate that he would have met Osiris, who had been monitoring him from the North Pole and keeping an account of his conformity to the behavioral ideals of the local cult. As for who met Osiris (after Osiris died) to let him know whether he would be assigned to heaven or hell, apparently Osiris is credited as having first told that story, so he was the first “holy scorekeeper” and there were no others prior to him.

Eventually, there were some ridiculous accusations (by someone claiming to pretend to be Santa Claus) that Osiris simply made up the story about being able to know everyone’s every thought. Perhaps he was just trying to promote anxiety and distress in the naive.

Others have suggested that it is reasonably easy to notice when a dog looks guilty as well as to manipulate a human in to revealing whether or not they have a guilty conscience. Therefore, Osiris did not really need to be constantly watching in order to assess someone’s sense of self-worth. He just needed to be perceptive.

So, an organism’s health can be compromised by curses, such as the programming of intense distress about conformity to a set of behavioral ideals (with some behaviors being glorified and some being vilified). The logical premise for glorifying certain actions is because they would not otherwise be performed as often without being glorified. The logical premise for vilifying certain actions is because they otherwise would be performed more often unless vilified.

Some social conditioning is mild (producing alertness and caution and perhaps an eventual understanding of the logic behind various behavioral guidelines). Some social conditioning is intense (producing hysteria and paranoia and shame and agony).

The result of some of the more extreme forms of social conditioning is that the targeted organisms will be indirectly programmed to agonize. They will agonize over what is the best thing to do and what is the best way to do it. Their agonizing will not result in taking objective measurements, but always by comparing their experience to an external authority (with favoritism given to the external authority as a means to invalidate or obscure their direct experience).

They will agonize over avoiding the social recognition of their shame. They continuously invalidate certain types of experience as shameful (as well as invalidating various past incidents as shameful). When they invalidate certain types of experience as shameful, we may notice it more as they show contempt and animosity toward some villain or traitor. However, they may also have had that same kind of experience in the past (or even currently).

Next, we will explore the topics of fear and faith. That will bring us to a new respect for the experience of shame.

Briefly, what I mean by faith is simply an openness to reality. In contrast to how I am using the word faith, I notice that many people seem to relate to the word faith as a possible solution to fear.

Instead, I do not relate to fear as a terrifying problem to be solved. I do not relate to fear as a shameful problem that ideally I would totally prevent (for myself and others).

That kind of hysterical fear of fear is extremely ironic. It is also a chronic state of mental instability with constant paranoia about the most shameful thing ever: fear.

However, all that distress might be rather delusional. Fear, when it reaches sufficient intensity, naturally produces alertness and caution and even courage. All of that can be very valuable.

Generally speaking, I even have faith in fear. I am open to fear being relevant and valuable. Precisely perceiving risk or danger is a useful ability that is worth developing.

Certainly, it is possible to sincerely perceive something to be dangerous or threatening when it is not. However, which is worse: to be extremely cautious and drive very slowly… Or for a driver to close their eyes and step hard on the gas pedal and race in to an intersection without looking to see if the traffic light is red or yellow or green (or if there is a stream of huge trucks speeding in from the left and the right)?

Many people have been socially programmed to experience a rather delusional shame about fear. They may relate to faith as a possible method for overcoming fear (or for pretending not to still be afraid and to hide their anxieties socially from others). But they may be talking about a very desperate hope, not faith.

Their “faith” is anxious and easily threatened. It is extremely vulnerable so they defend it furiously.

I know it because I have experience with “having” that type of “faith.” It was a coping mechanism for distracting myself from certain stressful realities and even for entertaining some comforting fantasies.

There can be value to that kind of faith. That is a terrified kind of faith in which people may even attempt to withdraw from all possible sources of fear. If mere comfort is the goal, then to rehearse comforting fantasies would be a relevant strategy, right?

But with “real faith,” there is no constant distress about avoiding all possible threats. From real faith, I am open to possible threats and assessing them precisely.

If I have any presumption which does not fit with what I observe, I am open to altering my presumptions. I am not desperately defending my presumptions as if they are not presumptive.

Faith is inherently about presumptions. If I know something with absolutely certainty, that is not called faith. Faith is when I operate as if something is true even without any clear evidence that it is true.

I am open to increased precision. I am open to correcting inaccuracy.

I am not insisting that my presumptions are not presumptions. I am not rejecting contrary evidence and ridiculing the threat posed by logic and skepticism and critical thinking.

so, when I say faith, I do not mean a fixation on a particular word or sequence of words as “the most important of all words.” I do not just mean “a faith,” like a set of concepts or doctrines to worship as the only ideas worthy of attention or respect. I also do not mean a statement made as an affirmation or claim.

I do not mean “faith in words.” I mean something quite relaxed.

This faith does not require anyone else’s validation. It does not correspond to panic over the possibility that others might be skeptical of it or even reject it.

My faith does not rely on words. However, my faith can include a variety of practices that involve words. I can use a particular sequence of words in a ritualistic way, including things as simple as consistently saying “I love you” to particular people when we are departing from each other.

Why is this kind of faith so rare? Why didn’t I have it for so long?

more related topics:

On rituals for promoting social anxiety….

Obsession with approval

Expectation of consensus

Discomfort with scientific inquiry

(Especially of the most popular dogmas of popular pseudo-science)

On the worship of diagnostic labels as demonic pathogens

Social inequality: is it something shameful that must be gloriously reformed?

July 12, 2016

REA wrote: 

Could someone please explain to me the differences between :: capitolism, Imperialism, and slavery… (yes I understand they all exist in their own categories, but humor me anyway… please)

Lorenzo Saraullo:

If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism, we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.” Vladimir Lenin

“But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.” Josiah Stamp.

 

 

JR wrote:

When Moses directed the Israelite army to slaughter all of the Midianites except for 24,000 virgin girls, who were captured and then distributed among the victors, that could be called slavery / enslavement.

However, if they had allowed even a portion of the Midianite adults to remain alive and maintain a social order in which the Midianites had official power (even as puppets), that would be colonization / colonialism / imperialism.

As for capitalism, that is a system in which a select group exerts military dominance over the rest of the governed population and allows formal ownership privileges to at least a large fraction of the population. Those who have wealth that is backed by the military force of the government can be recognized as having “property rights.” Those people who at last have the legal capacity to directly own property (like in contrast to people who are legally “minors”) can be said to “own themselves,” although there may also be a legal category of slaves.

There is always some inequality in terms of military dominance by some people over others, although capitalism allows for private individuals to have property rights, while in communism, the small centralized group of formal decision-makers do not allow individuals to make any claim of private wealth. In that case, the governing system formally owns everyone and everything. The “wealthy” within communism are the “trustees” who direct the massive concentrations of “the common wealth.” They command the armies and live in the 8,000 square foot palaces and have servants and security guards.

Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs
Lorenzo Saraullo
Lorenzo Saraullo yeah ELITISM sucks! “When it comes to elitism and everyman, we have a complicated, ambivalent, and often nonsensical relationship to both.”
The Tricky Traveling Wardrobe
Robin Givhan
July 18, 2011

Unlike · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs · Edited
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn The lower class is programmed to experience contempt toward their supervisors. Elitism only sucks for the masses. It is very valuable to the rulers, which is why they go to great measures to monopolize social dominance, like in communist systems.

 

As for Lorenzo’s quotation of Josiah Stamp, that is a more poetic use of the word “slavery.” As for the possibility to “create money and control credit,” I am aware of no fundamental difference between bankers doing that and a group of congressional high priests doing that. My comment there may offend many libertarians (or others), but that is no concern to me.

Like · Reply · 2 · 22 hrs · Edited
J R Fibonacci Hunn

J R Fibonacci Hunn So, taxpayers are not slaves. The ruling extortion network is simply claiming 20% or 60% or whatever portion of the income of the taxpayers. Further, the taxpayers may be allowed to do many things that slaves cannot, such as to leave the country and never come back.

Think of military personnel. In history, many soldiers have been “drafted.” They would also be legally penalized for failing to report to an assigned deployment, so they are more like slaves. They are not legally free to simply leave the region, which most taxpayers are.

Like · Reply · 2 · 22 hrs · Edited
J R Fibonacci Hunn

J R Fibonacci HunnAny nation that imposes a military draft can be presumed to be either fully communist or pseudo-communist, since mercenaries will actually consent to be hired as soldiers (or law enforcement officers), while drafted soldiers are only becoming soldiers under threat of force.

Even a typical police officer can quit with a standard 2-week notice. Soldiers either are forced in to years of servitude or agree to a specific number of years of servitude.

Leaving early is possible, like by medical discharge, but uncommon. It can be requested and if the ruling warlords approve it, so be it. Otherwise, “going AWOL” can result in the “fugitive /escaped slave” being pursued, kidnapped, and confined.

….

Realistically, enslavement is something that we might relate to as frightening. When the King of Denmark knows that the Swedish troops are invading and approaching the castle, the King may be concerned about being enslaved.

Caution is rational and intelligent. The hysterical shaming of caution (and the invalidating or negating of fear as “inherently negative”) is of course a manifesting of extreme distress / anxiety / panic.

 

Lorenzo Saraullo: I didn’t even know who Robin Givhan was when I quoted her, I just thought it was poignant, then I found out she’s a “elite” fashion critic, whatever! Why should anyone be offended by your pointedly phrased observations is far beyond my understanding. To me any form of servitude is slavery, notwithstanding the concession of certain rights (even Roman slaves were allowed to marry and have children), it all depends on how broad or how restricted one’s definition of the term is.

 

JR wrote:

Many are ashamed of social inequality. They have been programmed to think of servitude or slavery as embarrassing or shameful.

Obviously, when worker bees sacrifice themselves for the queen bee, there is a social contrast between the various roles. When puppies compete with each other for a limited number of teats, that is because they value their mother more than their sibling. It’s natural.

Humans, however, have developed a type of behavior called language. Delusions can be programmed in to the “socially inferior” so that they view their own social inferiority with shame, saying things like “social inequality is just WRONG.”

So, they are programmed or cursed with shame. From shame, hysterical contempt often manifests, which is just an externalizing of the inner shame with which they have been programmed.

Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs · Edited
Lorenzo Saraullo

Lorenzo SaraulloI wonder what Noam Chomsky would have to say about your theory of language! So according to you hierarchy is natural and we should go along with it? And I have been programmed by the use of this wonderful technology, language, to feel socially inferior?

J R Fibonacci Hunn

J R Fibonacci HunnI do not know what you mean by “feel socially inferior.”

Lorenzo Saraullo

Lorenzo Saraullo“So, they are programmed or cursed with contempt, which is just an externalizing of the inner shame with which they have been programmed.”

J R Fibonacci Hunn

J R Fibonacci HunnIf I have $100,000 cash, I can go buy a few cars or hire a hitman or this or that. That cash is one type of social power. Relative to someone with $100,000,000 cash, having only $100,000 is socially inferior.

Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs · Edited
J R Fibonacci Hunn

J R Fibonacci HunnLanguage is a type of social behavior, You can call that a theory if you like.

Creatures that have been socially isolated for their entire lives may invent symbols, but we inherit language socially and we use it socially. I am not aware of anything especially controversial about most of what I have shared here.

Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs · Edited
J R Fibonacci Hunn

J R Fibonacci HunnAny self-aware creature can make assessment of their own social influence, then of the social influence of others. There will be contrasting amount of social influence, whether small contrasts or huge contrasts.

I was referencing a hysterical way of relating to one’s own social influence. Those who are ashamed will likely avoid contact with those of lesser influence, because they are terrified of being around people who are jealous of their greater social influence. There will also be contempt for those of greater social influence.

Basically, shame involves programs to demoralize a targeted population and cripple them socially. In many cases, it works great for that purpose.

The whole point of socialist schooling (and communist indoctrination rituals) is to stabilize the system of extreme social inequality. There are some privileged “servants” who are groomed to be military officers in ROTC and so on, but for the most part, the core issue is demoralizing the masses and intimidating them in to worship of “the holy state.” As long as they are almost all compliant, then placing them in to jobs is a secondary issue.

Service to the greater good (the elitists) is glorified, like glorifying soldiers for massacring civilians (especially in far away places). Self-interest is systematically shamed. Again, on the whole, the system to demoralize the masses and promote hysteria and chronic hyperventilation is rather effective. That is why it has been growing for thousands of years, right?

The children in the photo above were the employees of a seafood-packing plant in Baltimore, Maryland (USA) in 1900.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,026 other followers

%d bloggers like this: