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


Does “mainstream culture” teach “naive distrust”… or “naive trust?”

February 18, 2018
MH (whom I understand to be a legal immigrant from the UK to the US) wrote:
Which one describes America:
1) an indoctrinated distrust of “others”
2) [several other options that JR is omitting]
JR replied:
Ultimately, America is just a label (a linguistic “identity”). People can argue over that label if they like.
More important (to me) than labels is experience. Someone can attempt to argue with me about my experience, though that may just be them attempting to suppress it (like in order for them to “hold it together” – to abruptly silence any commentary that they fear would trigger explosions of terror or shame for them).
In our midst, there is a culture that programs massive amounts of insecurity and peer pressure (which sets up cognitive dissonance and many other “problems”). There is pressure toward blind obedience and trust.

That pressure includes pressure about conceptual ideals of what should be or what should not be, plus a rigidity that “our (mass-programmed) ideals are the only valid ideals.” Thus, our “meta-ideal” about our other ideals is that “our ideals are holy and sacred and should NEVER be questioned or explored or modified.” (But any other ideals besides “ours” should blindly submit to / evolve to ours- instantly).

Along with the “flight *toward blind trust of authorities” is a flight *from a contrasting potential. Why flight/ fleeing? Again, the foundation is peer pressure, intimidation, programmed social anxiety, or terror / panic. So, there is constant stress plus “fleeing” as the only socially-approved response.

And while it is more obvious what we are programmed to flee toward (blind trust in some external authority), it may be more important what we are programmed to flee from, which is accountability. However, the topic of accountability is so taboo that most people may have rather little familiarity with what I mean by that.

To clarify, I do not mean guilt. Guilt is hugely promoted- individual guilt for a country’s practices or history, guilt for some genetic or racial ancestry, guilt for being male or female etc…. For example, (deceptive) guilt-tripping was used to pressure (harass / bully) the US in to invading Europe (multiple times).
Also, guilt about what I personally did or did not do is NOT the same as regret or accountability. Guilt is about the future more than about the past.

Guilt is a type of fear or distress or hysteria about potential future social punishments for past actions. Regret is much less terrifying- just disappointment about the results that have already been produced.

Disappointment plus motivation equals motivation. In other words, disappointment about the past is just part of the learning process. It just triggers slowing down and exploring new courses of action. It does NOT trigger despair- which guilt often does.
In contrast, guilt cripples people. It leads to despair or depression- which are intense states of anxiety. Mere regret does not involve anxiety or hysteria.
So, Accountability is related to intelligence. Accountability includes being aware of preferences and values, then awareness of patterns of action related to cultivating what is valued (and avoiding or reducing contrasting potentials). Ultimately, accountability might just be “speaking intelligently about values and actions.”
I mention speaking because accountability is definitely related to what we say, like promises to produce a result, to take certain actions or not to take others, and so on. It is about communication.
But communicating responsibly, accountably, and intelligently is a massive taboo. Why? Because communicating like that can bring to light the context of social pressure, the fanaticism(s) of the mainstream herd, the roots of that fanaticism, and the “lives of quiet desperation (suppressed insecurity)” that we have led and witnessed in our midst, plus the massive GRIEF that we have been programmed and intimidated in to suppressing and denying (as well as fury or rage etc).
Last, the taboo on accountability is evident in the culture of blame (and resentment, animosity, hatred, anti-hatred hatred, etc). Fleeing from accountability, we may blame “the authorities” (that we blindly and naively trusted). What benefit does that provide us?
Or, we blame “that one group that is ruining everything and preventing paradise on earth.” Or, we blame that one person- ooo yes one of everyone’s favorite resentment: “the one who betrayed / abandoned / ruined me.”
Of course, we may frequently replace the last “one big traitor” with the latest. Then we can say things like “all women cannot be trusted” or “all men cannot be trusted.”
What is under all of that? “Mountains” Of Grief. Terror about displaying or releasing that grief. Why? Expectation of a massive concentration of social animosity / hatred / ridicule as “punishment”.
There is Suppression of aggression (through intimidation/ threats of aggression/ organized government coercion). It is the classic “dense plantation” of the serfs all crammed together in cities.
The rulers take 40% (or whatever) of the earnings of the serfs. The serfs – in many cases – fight amongst themselves over the crumbs that the rulers scatter amongst them occasionally.
Could we resent the rulers for such actions? Sure, but there is no benefit (or accountability / integrity) in such “glorious resentments.” There is only vanity (as in a coping mechanism for the distress that might be consistently ineffective / frustrating).


MH replied: 

I love the way your mind works, man!


JR added:
As a side note, almost all of what I wrote above in regard to “culture” is really about the indoctrination rituals of mainstream public education. While mass media and video games etc are not insignificant, they are not enforced with legal coercion like government-regulated schools are.
MH added:

On an “isolated case” of organized dishonesty in the NFL

February 16, 2018


DB asked: 

“Isn’t conspiracy theoryism just another form of deity (god) worship? [Is it] yet another way for us to put the blame for the state of the world on some secret hidden thing….”

(DB is a member of “my” private group on facebook and that is where the above comment was posted.)


JR replies:

The foundation of “blame” begins with a concept of how something should be or should not be (and the “something” can be “the world” or a group or a person). Such linguistic categorizations are common and familiar, though they are ultimately entirely linguistic.

To me, it is a simple historical fact that many well-publicized “memes” include the “worship” of ideals not just as linguistic ideals (as in preferences or speculations), but as idols (as in unquestionable justifications to argue, ridicule, censor, etc). Ironically, a meme could say “that other meme should not be like that” or even “memes should not exist and also this meme is not a meme.”

Further, there are people with 200 Facebook friends or 2000, plus sponsored posts and so on. Why do I mention that? Because the “reach” of people (or groups) varies. Some have more reach than others, right?

That is not a theory. That is a claim, yes, though one that is rather plain and simple to assess for accuracy.

And if I say that, in a certain football game, the Eagles conspired among themselves to secretly deceive the Patriots in order to execute a trick play, that is about a conspiracy, right? However, not all conspiracies are secret in the general sense. The secret is mostly important from when the deception is planned to when it is executed (from the huddle to the snap).

The fact of the conspiracy itself may or may not be secret. (Disinformation and distraction are related issues though I don’t focus on them much here). So, even conspiracies like the US government secretly testing biological weapons on soldiers and civilians is something openly admitted later by the involved agencies and bureaucrats.

(MUCH later- like not until long after the specific programs were completed… and perhaps after decades of direct denials.)

So, *should* conspiracies exist or not? They might exist. That is all.

Dec 13, 2015; Philadelphia, PA, USA; Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Sam Bradford (7) fakes a hand off to running back Darren Sproles (43) during the second half against the Buffalo Bills. The Eagles won 23-20. Mandatory Credit: Bill Streicher-USA TODAY Sports

Does the media KNOW that organized dishonesty (including as many as SEVEN fake handoffs last season alone) are a standard part of NFL games? There is a big controversy being stirred up by a few isolated people (who are all troubled white male teenagers who support Trump and yet are all fans of Jewish rap stars THE BEASTIE BOYS) who seek attention by making a bunch of hysterical accusations about an alleged “high frequency of FAKE handoffs.” Don’t fall for their slander strategy!

Here is the moral question at the root of it all. Should any football player plan to intentionally fake going one way but then go another (or plan to FAKE a handoff but then intentionally keep the ball)? NO! Obviously, it would be dishonest and immoral and evil and sinful. However, deception and secrecy might exist too.

What about INTENTIONAL illegal acts of “illegal holding” to stop another player that is expected to otherwise score a touchdown or very large gain? Would a player ever eagerly “give up a 10-yard penalty” to prevent a 30-yard gain? In fact, would their teammates and coach and fans be MAD at them for FAILING to intentionally commit an ILLEGAL foul in order to better advance the interests of the team?

Above, we see the owner of a USFL football team (on the right) next to the actor who pretended to be The Incredible Hulk in a 1970s TV show, but actually was not REALLY all that incredible.

While I am on the topic of a group in which organized deception is not only allowed but compulsory, how prevalent is it? Note that the above examples CANNOT apply to lawyers for the mafia or government officials or corporate accountants at Enron or GE, but ONLY to sports. For instance, to be part of the KGB, you must show that your DNA is angelic and you are a confirmed saint (certified by the Superior General of the Order of the Sovereign Knights of Malta, who are very honest people). Same thing for CNN. Same thing for the DNC and the LDS and the FBI.

The NFL is the only exception. Those people are NOT EVEN CERTIFIED AS ANGELIC SAINTS!?!?! It is truly an outrage, right?

Sure, maybe the teams that I do not like will occasionally use dishonesty. However, other teams are not like that. Clearly, whenever someone is on a team with a name like “The Saints” (or, in baseball, “The Angels”), then what other PROOF do you need?

Now that we are clear on how RARE deception is, let’s focus more on the example of that one isolated case of an NFL player that was deceptive and dishonest by faking a handoff while actually keeping the ball. First, how do I know that it is an isolated case?

Again, that kind of activity would be deceptive (and I do not like deception although I DO like the NFL), therefore that must be an isolated case. See how easy that was?

Allegations that some teams repeatedly plan and practice fake handoffs are offensive to me, proving that the accusers MUST be guilty of something- as in literally anything that allows me to reflexively dismiss their assertions. My favorite team would NEVER do that because I am terrified and anxious, so I rigidly present myself as an HONEST person (not that other kind of person, because obviously there are those two totally different kinds of people and no gray area in between and no switching sides or trading between any non-Saintly teams and my team: the New Orleans Angels of the Holy Inquisition).

After that one isolated case of a fake handoff  by that one team that one time in the 3rd quarter of game 6 of the 2014 season, how can his teammates ever again trust such a deceptive person? Further, after a person has clearly conspired with his team against the other team, how can that player’s spouse trust that player with ANYTHING? How can their kids respect or trust that person who is established as a FRAUD?

Why? Because conspiracy and deception are common, everyday realities.

They can be key features of highly effective strategies. In fact, if someone on a team was not good at keeping secrets or deceiving others, they might be benched or fired or traded. (Again, all of this ONLY applies to the NFC and not the AFC or the NBA or the KGB or the DNC or CNN.)

There may be psychological resistance to some “theories” – like because of an individual’s emotional distress in relation to a specific claim (hysteria). It is just like a spouse may be dismissive of the idea that their mate has a certain history or tendency (or like a parent who responds to a reported incident by saying “my child does not behave like that!?!?).

So, is there at least one ORGANIZED conspiracy to present certain ideas about how the world should be or should not be? There might be.

Is there at least one organized conspiracy to present certain ideas about “how the world is?” Absolutely not because of these two obvious reasons: first that would be impossible and third people are not that naive and ninth reverse psychology cannot exist because language is the almighty god and directly forbids it.

Anyway, this all reminds me of back when I was a pro wrestler. The Hulkster and I were debating a few things. We agreed that it was impossible for someone to get so mad that they turn green and start behaving in ways that are not normal for them. Obviously, right?

However, there was some controversy between us about conspiracies. Was it was possible that actors and producers and screenplay writers would get together to conspire to all pretend to be other people (like repeating lines from the same script and pretending to be opponents)?

Then the Hulkster said “listen up, Mean Gene, that is just wrong! People totally should not do that. The KGB and CIA did not ever cooperate. Both claimed to be the enemy of the other, right? So that’s proof right there! Anyway, if the Undertaker knows what is good for him, he will stop saying insulting things about the activities of my cousin’s government’s alleged program to use crisis actors to make the next Star Wars movie. If he does not shut his damn mouth, then I am going to shut it for him at next Sunday’s pay-per-view event!?!?”

DB replied:

Bonus points for references to the Eagles and pro wrestling (even though [my] elder child has moved on from actual interest in wrestling to personal fandom of particular people). She also now sees the Illuminati in most things…. Illuminati confirmation…..

On the recent plunge in stock prices (in Europe, then Asia, & soon the US)

February 9, 2018

Yesterday, someone asked me about my thoughts on the recent plunge in US stock market prices. First, I know a few forecasting systems that anticipated a sharp sell-off (like through applying very simple correlations as well as “technical analysis” of price trends, volume trends, etc). That was not just for US stocks either- since the data for stock markets across Asia and Europe tend to correlate very highly with the data for US stocks.

Second, as for global markets, my sense is that most people focusing on mainstream news in the US are not aware of the global nature of many trends. In fact, if we look at the last 3 months of price trends for the US vs Europe vs Asia, we find that it was in Europe (the black line below) that the first peak and decline happened.

The blue line (which is a stock index covering many parts of Asia) peaked the following day in January. Then, a few days later was when stock prices in the US peaked.

In other words, prices in the US did not start a trend that was followed in other parts of the planet. In this case, it is very clear that US price trends shifted a few days AFTER the trend had already changed in other parts of the world.


So, before I go in to my comments on the “very big picture” of a few basics of global economic conditions, I also want to note that what will be much more valuable for most people (than reading what is below) is simply to find a safe, lucrative investment strategy. Fortunately, I have been writing about several in recent weeks and my latest publication (showing steady gains not just of over 100% per year, but MUCH higher than that) can be accessed here:



Next, when I want to educate someone on the reality of global economic trends, there are a variety of approaches that I can take. I could talk about the simple demographics of aging baby boomers in places like the US, Europe, and Japan. As they retire and shift their assets from stocks to bonds (and then to cash), if the younger generations are not keeping pace by buying stocks as fast as the retirees are selling them, that produces declines in prices.

But when I do that, it is because I am using “kid gloves.” I am sticking with only the least controversial and simplest points. Frankly, I get bored of that within a few paragraphs. (Sure, my commentary might much more valuable to you than free TV news analysis or even very expensive college courses, but if that is your interest then you are welcome to offer me money for my time.)

Instead, what I wrote below is “not holding anything back.” Even though parts of it are uncontroversial, that is just me “setting up the good stuff.”

What do I mean by that? When people think very intelligently (like a detective, a lawyer, or a spy), they can avoid the unexamined presumptions and logical fallacies that confuse and distract “the mainstream herd” of uninformed investors.

For instance, lawyers are clear that when an accounting firm presents data, there could be errors in that data or even outright fraud. The reality of intentional systematic fraud is very familiar to certain lawyers. There is an automatic skepticism of all CLAIMS.

Legal cases are all about presenting claims and advancing them. The best lawyers recognize that all verbal claims are inherently just assertions or projections.

Lawyers know that there are published standards for accounting and in contrast there are the wide variety of practices actually used by accounting professionals worldwide. Some companies are widely known to frequently break accounting rules that result in million dollar fines but billion dollar profits. Some accounting firms (or law firms) are even known as the best ones for “navigating” such strategies.

For instance, it is widely known by historical scholars that the HSBC bank (HongKong-Shanghai Banking Corporation) was set up for the specific purpose of laundering the drug money of the British Crown. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, the UK repeatedly invaded China to keep the Chinese from effectively criminalizing the importation of British opium (which was trafficked from the British possession of India). HSBC emerged from all that.

So, if a branch of that bank (or a bank of another name that HSBC buys out and controls) is accused of being involved with laundering money for CIA drug trafficking (or selling black-market uranium or illegal weapons), some lawyers would know that every claim or denial made by anyone is literally just a claim. Maybe any particular claim is generally accurate, maybe sincere, maybe wildly deceptive, etc…..

Even if an HSBC official admits to one isolated case of “misconduct” (and then presents a specific scapegoat), some legal minds would ask “is that confession designed as a distraction from something else?” Some lawyers have read the court papers for a variety of class-action suits for widespread fraud by many major banks.

So, let’s back off of that kind of complexity for now. Let’s focus instead on a very basic issue of accounting: lenders have limits to the amount of loans that they can extend (or else they could approve every application for an unlimited credit line).


To me, when considering the present state of global economics, it is relevant to understand that there is a global “credit bubble.” Also, that bubble is more extreme in the US than in most places (with massive borrowing here by barely-solvent individuals, corporations, and of course the US government).

In other words, we can compare different regions in regard to debt levels, income levels (or GDP), and net worth approximations. Since massive amounts of transactions in the US are financed with borrowed funds (especially with real estate loans and car loans), the vast majority of people regularly dumping money in to mutual funds (or bitcoin) have negative net worths. There are contrasting historical periods when most investors were not borrowing to invest (and had positive net worths). Further, the extent to which any particular country’s stock market or real estate market is based on a bubble of credit will vary from place to place.

Modern credit markets are an unprecedented “experiment.” Things like “zero down mortgages” (or “cash back at closing”) simply are not available in much of the world- and they are a temporary phenomenon here in the US that can come and go.

When lenders face a cash crunch, they will not even be offering “ridiculous” financing terms to people with great credit and collateral. Just like I cannot lend you a million dollars that I do not have, the same basic issue applies to institutional lenders. They monitor creditworthiness because they want to prioritize their loans toward borrowers that they assess to be “the best risks.”

While the global banking system has many layers, a lot of the lending ultimately is at the discretion of very big players, like the Jesuit-controlled Vatican, the Rothschilds, and so on.  As long as they control lending markets and as long as most governments are operating on the edge of insolvency, then governments are “stuck” meeting the demands of the lenders in order to continue borrowing to cover prior debts.

That means that if the big lenders want the US military to invade Israel or Iran (etc), that is very likely to happen. When the European bankers wanted the US to invade Europe, what can they do? They could make it clear that the only way for the US government to borrow anything from them is if they also borrow money to mount an invasion of Europe.

The first time that happened was called the Great War, which was later called “World War One.” Why does the US keep invading places that seem to fit the interests of the UK, Israel, and the Vatican? Because the debtor is being directed or “employed” by the lender.

Sometimes there are “warning shots fired” to give a “slap on the wrist” to “disloyal governments.” However, the implicit bribery conducted by those big lenders still does have limits.

Whatever resources they use to bribe and influence the politicies of one nation, those finite resources can not be used at any other nation. Every time that the IMF bankrupts another country, then that country cannot make their installment payments and that can be very bad for the lender… or perhaps very good.

For instance, the US government has gone bankrupt a few times. One time was in 1933 when the possession of gold by US Citizens was criminalized. (That law was modified several times and then totally rescinded in the 1970s).

Why was gold criminalized and confiscated? Because the US had been borrowing from the Federal Reserve Bank using “the cumulative assets of all US Citizens” as part of the collateral of the lending contracts. Soon, the gold was collected and then a portion of what the US owed to The Fed was paid back in gold.

The Fed did not get back their entire investment, BUT that was probably never their plan anyway. They negotiated a major transfer of political sovereignty away from the US congress (and public) towards them. Within a few years, the US finally adopted the socialist programs that had been conceived by the rockefellers and other mega-capitalists who wanted to shift power and wealth away from the public (their competition) to their puppets/agents (central government bureaucracies).

Eventually, not only did the lenders “own” governments, but their governments also began lending programs like FHA and HUD that involved the US government lending out money that they had borrowed (or at least underwriting / “co-signing” ALL those loans). That transferred more control away from the general public to the central rulers.

When the mortgages do not get paid, then ownership goes to the US (as in the court system), who then can use those assets to pay some of their debts to the Fed. The board game “monopoly” includes a “total” concentration of wealth by the end.

So, if I borrow $300k from chase bank, what if they got all of those funds by borrowing it from “the real ruler?” What if it is the same at every other bank too?

Every bank in the US operates under the terms set by the Fed, which is a private institution. It is owned largely “by proxy” for the Vatican, the British Crown, the Rothschild Zionist “cartel,” etc etc etc…..

Anyway, when I started publishing forecasts in 2003 of the global downturn that developed a few years later, I also anticipated the kind of responses that politicians in the US and elsewhere eventually implemented. What if governments in many places basically transferred risk away from private banks toward taxpayers? What if they bailed out the banks by buying junk debt at face value (and billing the taxpayers)?


Court systems are operations for systematically extracting wealth from a population, whether by taxes or a direct confiscation like of gold in the US in 1933. Court systems generally have the coercive capacity to effectively dictate to the masses what form of payment can be used to cover the debts that governments invent and then impose on their populations.

In other words, courts inspire “demand” for particular currencies by inventing debts and then collecting them. A “pseudo-currency” like bitcoin can never displace a currency backed by the military power of a court system.

(Note that when a court system adopts something like silver or gold as a “standard” that can be used to pay the debts that they invent and impose, that does not change the fundamental nature of the coercive enterprise. With each nation that adds or removes gold as an accepted form of payment to cover debts, that increases or decreases demand for gold, “artificially” influencing market pricing.)

As for forecasting dips and long-term collapses like the last 28 years of stock market weakness in Japan, credit bubbles are a big part of that. There are also stats labeled as “leading indicators” (like “price to earnings ratio”).

Not only do those ratios indicate how “thin or solid” market prices are, but that is assuming that all the corporate accounting is accurate. Recently, GE’s systematic fraud for many years has been exposed as similar in severity to Enron.

Of course, some people can blame a particular politician for prosecuting corporate fraud “too harshly” (or too loosely), but an underlying issue is the almost total lack of “literacy” by the investing public. I could propose that they do not care if GE or Enron is conducting large-scale fraud because if they did care, then they would have explored that topic prior to investing- instead of being surprised at the latest indictment or bankruptcy filing.

Why did GE and Enron commit fraud so well for so long? Because those in control (including the global lenders) either did not care or encouraged it- directly or indirectly.

How many major banks and corporations across the world routinely commit fraud? Maybe 1%. Maybe 99%. Not 0% though.

However, we do expect that typically when they commit accounting fraud, they do it in a way that makes their finances look better than they are. In fact, I am not aware of any cases in which a corporation attempted to reduce their apparent creditworthiness. In the global competition to attract huge loans, the lenders are functionally in charge of how they assess credit of prospective borrowers and how they attempt to discourage or identify fraudulent accounting.

So, recent ratios show historic extremes of “weakness” in credit markets worldwide (an inflated bubble that is about to deflate and cause the purchasing powers of currencies to SOAR- similar to what has happened in Japan in the last 30 years or so). In other words, people that perceive that they will be able to borrow huge amounts of money for years or decades tend to “discount” how conservative they are with their cash reserves. The trend is that they hysterically discount cash further and further (while overvaluing credit/ borrowing), and then that trend reverses, sometimes suddenly.

Recent ratios also show historic extremes of stock valuation (clear evidence of an extreme “bubble”). Relative to historical norms, people are dismissing the value of saving cash (discounting the practical value of cash in order to pour it in to stocks, bitcoin, or real estate down payments).

When borrowers find that they can no longer obtain a bigger credit line, then suddenly they shift their focus from trying to get as much as credit possible to focusing exclusively on gathering cash- as in selling their time and assets to acquire cash. When enough borrowers are all “in a cash crunch,” then none of them are buying speculative assets (like all stocks and most real estate).

Suddenly there are more orders to sell than orders to buy. So, prices fall- sometimes sharply.

What exactly will they sell most aggressively? If there is recent publicity about a new court case against GE for ongoing systematic accounting fraud, plus GE is already down a few percent recently, then that may be the first asset that everyone all at once is trying to dump.

Below is a chart of nearly 2 decades of prices for GE. Note that for all of 2017, GE stock prices were falling. In fact, the only year shown above that GE’s stock price fell more than in 2017 was 2008.

Now, I do not expect many people to read this far. I expect most people to experience various levels of anxiety or terror or “kneejerk denial” as they read some of the content above. They may say in frustration “that idea just does not make sense to me!”

Maybe the actual realities are quite simple. Maybe their conceptual framework is flawed. Maybe it is a very big business to skew the conceptual frameworks of the masses of mainstream investors so as to deceive them in to presuming things like “it is safe to invest in AIG because they are an insurance company and insurance companies always keep their risks low (by legal decree).”

Dare to look at AIG’s prices for the last 10 years? They did recover a bit from the lowest price levels (which were after their “idiotic business practices” came in to public attention about 10 years ago), but the recovery has been rather modest.

So, not only are certain stock market ratios “screaming” that prices are far too high to indefinitely remain anywhere near current levels. Further, to me, we can assume that the reality is actually much worse than what is suggested in many of those ratios.

Why? Because I presume (consciously) that cases of corporate accounting fraud tend to exaggerate the financial stability (net worth) of the company. The fraud is not to make the company look less stable than it is.

Further, I am clear that the current ratios, even if never “enhanced” by fraud, still are based on “grossly-inflated assessments” of the market value of assets like real estate, “junk-grade” bonds, and of course stock market holdings. To me, if you can understand simple math, then the main issue with someone understanding the basics of current global economic conditions is their emotional resilience.

Those who are emotionally resilient VALUE directly facing relevant, simple truths. They will quickly be able to recognize favorable alternatives because they are not busy hiding from certain realities. For everyone else, they can argue over which politician should have done what (and congratulate each other for bravely condemning the  awful practices of those evil accountants at Enron… or GE… or HSBC… or AIG… or the IMF etc etc etc).


Stable investment gains not of 2 digit percentages per year, but 3 and even 4:

February 9, 2018

The image here shows actual results from 4 distinct trading systems (which have almost no correlation between them). Not only can I give you access to any 4 of these systems, but I can also combine them (which results in extremely low levels of risk).

So, if you are interested in accessing returns like this, contact me privately. For more of the actual statistics for these systems (plus more comments from me), see below.


To clarify, the image above is a quick “overlay” of 4 charts. The purpose of that chart is simply to show two things very clearly:

1) All 4 systems each independently offer an extremely favorable opportunity (especially relative to very moderate risk).

2) The 4 systems have very little correlation to each other.

That second detail might not be of great value to you yet, but it is to me. Why? I’ve made massive percentage gains several times (as in 300% in a single week in 2002 and then 300% in a month in 2006). However, many of the strategies that I used 10 or 15 years ago eventually proved to have high levels of risk (and tons of stress for me).

So, while I found it easy to forecast the global economic downturn about a decade ago, trading is a very different enterprise than long-term economic forecasting. I can show you year after year of my publications forecasting the long-term spike in global fuel prices, plus the collapse of global lending markets, real estate markets, and eventually stock markets. However, I have never consistently produced fantastic gains with minimal long-term risks.

Instead, I used strategies that simply were not as reliable as the ones shown here. Why? My excuses ultimately dissolve in to this simple admission: I was just not as committed to producing long-term results like these back then.

Below are the actual stats for these 4 systems. Note that the first two are both about 16 months old, while the latter two are 6 months old.

average gains per 12 month period (after all expenses): 79%
completed trades: 42
average trade duration: 12 days
Maximum peak-to-valley drawdown 12.80%

average gains per 12 month period (after all expenses): 128%
completed trades: 53
average trade duration: 8 days
Maximum peak-to-valley drawdown 13.45%

actual returns (after all expenses) : 76.5% (note that this system is only 6 months old as of publication)
gains annualized out to 12 full month period: 200%
completed trades: 7
average trade duration: 26 days
Maximum peak-to-valley drawdown 7.04%

#4: actual returns (after all expenses) : 556.7% (note that this system is only 6 months old as of publication)

gains annualized out to 12 full months: 24,633%
completed trades: 49
average trade duration: 3.5 days
Maximum peak-to-valley drawdown 17.71%

On combining all 4 to make a single system (with profits that rise in a much smoother line):

So, how did I get the figure of 6,542%? First, I simply took the amount of the annual gains for each system and added them together.


That totals 26,168%. Then I divided that by 4. That gives us the average annual gain of 6,542%.


My comments:

Obviously, the last one listed is by far the most profitable of the 4. If I could do only one of them, that one would naturally be my preference.

So, why am I more comfortable combining all 4 rather than just using 1? First, gains of over 6,000 percent per year would be massive if compounded for a few years. Second, with CONSISTENT GAINS of this size, I can easily AFFORD to chop the moderate levels of risk of any single system down to extremely low levels (by spreading out across four systems that feature totally distinct markets, signals, and timeframes).

So, in addition to the fact that any 1 of these 4 systems alone have shown MUCH less downside risk than something very volatile like bitcoin (which plunged by about 45% in 5 days in early January of 2018), I have even better news. By combining all 4 at once, we will significantly flatten the risk.

How much exactly would it flatten the risk? For comparison, the maximum downside risk (if simply projecting past performance) would be FAR LESS than a typical mutual fund or stock index.

So, would the balance ever go down by a few percent in a week or even for an entire month? Eventually, that is almost certainly inevitable. However, as long as the rallies remain large and long, everyone will quickly forget any brief, small dip.

Projecting this out for 2 years:

To clarify the first point about how fast this rate of profitability would increase the total account balance, let’s look at what would happen to a $100,000 investment that is compounding at 6,000 percent gains per year for just 2 years. (Here, I am using 6,000 instead of 6,542 to keep the math simpler.)

Starting balance: $100,000
1 year later: $6,000,000
2 years later: $36,000,000,000

Personally, I am sure that for my own funds I would not wait anywhere close to a full year before withdrawing a decent amount of the profits (like in order to spend a few thousand dollars here or there). Also, unless these investments are traded in a tax-exempt shelter, there would be some rather large chunks that would need to come out for income taxes. Plus, as an experienced trader, I am clear that none of these 4 systems would continue to work nearly as well if the actual positions traded involved millions of dollars at once.

S​o, what I am requesting of you? I’d like to know if you are interested in learning more about this opportunity. If you are, just contact me. (You can post a reply to this blog.)

Also, w​hatever precautions you can imagine, I am confident that we can make that work. Let me know. For instance, a lawyer or CPA of your choice could be hired to handle all money going in to or out of the brokerage accounts (as in the deposits and withdrawals). After all, there would be plenty of profits to cover some minimal fees for their services, right?

What I would need is just to be able to manage the actual orders for entering and exiting trades. I would not even need to directly execute a single trade myself (so there would be no stress for me from occasional surprises like my internet connection getting interrupted for 30 seconds).

Naturally, I am also interested in knowing the approximate amount of funds that you would be able to access in the near future to invest. (Just to be clear, you do know that 20% per year of interest on a credit card is significantly less than 6,000% percent, right?)

Finally, ​you and I will agree to me receiving​ a portion of the profits that will be generated. ​In other words, if you were thinking that I would help you turn $10k in to over $600k in ​just 12 months​ without any compensation at all, ​then ​you might be slightly ​unrealistic.

These systems are totally real though. The figure of 6,542% total profit per year would be when letting each of the 4 systems compound independently of each other for 12 entire months. In fact, I would definitely not do it that way if it was my own funds. I would re-distribute the profits at least monthly (like to re-equalize the balances of all 4 systems at least 12 times per year).

Wouldn’t that drop the total annual return to slightly below 1,000%? Yes, it would. So, maybe after one year of that, I would be willing to let all the 4 systems operate for much longer between re-allocations.

Can you participate even without fully understanding the terminology or ideas above? Definitely. Just tell me that you are interested.

Remodeling estimate websites: Ranking all of my sites

February 9, 2018

By far, my best single URL in terms of the most clicks (and inquiries) has been this one: http://TheGarageBuilders.net

As of 2/8/2018, the click totals for the last 28-30 days were 55 for Bing & 64 for Google. That is an all-time high for Bing (and the click frequency has been rising steadily for quite a while). The all-time high for Google was exactly 100 (a few months ago). Here is a chart of clicks on Google (covering a little over one full year):
geb on google
At the bottom of the image, you can two of the cities where this website has been doing well: Phoenix AZ & Houston TX.
In fact, a few months ago, I launched 3 “local” URLs for Texas, AZ, & Atlanta. Here are their totals so far:
http://azgaragebuilders.com : 49 on Bing & 16 on Google
http://texasgaragebuilders.com : 56 on Bing & 4 on Google
http://atlantagaragebuilders.com : 18 on Bing & 7 on Google
I also have a few other websites that do well for some garage-related searches. Those include carportconversion.net, garageconversion.net, hometeamaz.net, azproplus.com, & conversionsaz.com (among others).

http://www.RemodelingPlus.net (& local variations)

Another important set of sites feature the word “remodeling” in the URL. I will come back to those later.

flood remodel

November 23, 2017

(I am just saving these images for use on a webpage to promote remodeling services.)


lyrics: 6 ways 2 tame 1 dragon

November 13, 2017

6 ways 2 tame 1 dragon, eh?
(I believe this song is at least 9 years old)

I’ve been to the place of hope where things may go how I hope they won’t
and I get to stay sad and afraid as I list my reasons to explain

I’ve been to the place of anger where things still don’t go how I hope
and the more I push for change the more things stay the same

I’ve been to the place of greed where I lack what I believe I need
and the more I chase my envy the more it catches up with me

I learned six ways to tame a dragon; though I’m not quite sure if any of them work

I’ve been to the place of relief where things don’t go how I hope they won’t
now this may not seem like much but that depends on where I’m coming from

I’ve been to the place of pride where I have all I believe I need
so my life is just protecting all the things I was collecting… and then I die

I’ve even been to the place of angels where things finally go just how I hope
and then I find that being wise is not as much fun as just having fun

I learned six ways to tame a dragon; I’m not quite sure if any of them work
but I have time to give them a try it’s not like my life could just….

The wise home builder

August 30, 2017

First, if you are a person that is curious about how much you can benefit from ancient teachings, then this article is for you. Next, here is a short summary of a famous parable.

Imagine two builders who each built a home at a sandy beach. The more experienced builder valued building on a solid foundation, so that builder cleared away the sand to get down to the bedrock that was under the sand. Eventually, A storm arrived and soon only one of the two homes was still standing. The sand under the other home was washed away, so that home cracked and then eventually collapsed. The broken pieces of the home floated away. One of the homes was stable enough to endure through the same storm that demolished A home built by a different method.

So, that is the basic story. Many people Will already be familiar with the story, although they may not know the actual lesson of the story. While the author of that story May have had real-life expertise from being a Carpenter and Builder, The real lesson was not about the best way to build a home.

Do you know the purpose of the story? A contrast is emphasized between a person who hears a teaching and does not act on it and a person who hears the same teaching and does act on it.

To benefit from a teaching, there must be innovative action. However, the innovative action in the parable of the wise builder is not as simple as following a clear guideline.  The builder that built his house on sand did not get a guideline that was then dismissively ignored. There was no universal guidelines provided for how to build a home that can withstand storms and strong winds and flooding.

So what is it that leads to innovative action? In the parable, The experienced builder is apparently alert to the potential for a dangerous storm, while the novice builder is not.

Ultimately, what is being contrasted in the parable? Yes, there is the superficial contrast between the novice builder who is naïve or foolish and the experience builder who is prudent and conservative and cautious. However, the parable makes a very direct reference to going beneath the surface of what is easily visible.

So, again what is it exactly that leads to innovative action? A new perceptiveness naturally results in new perceptions and, very importantly, in new responses to the new perceptions.

Merely being exposed to a teaching does not automatically result in new perceptiveness, new values, or innovative actions (that produce new results). Only for those who accurately understand a teaching, then they will begin to apply it, then to learn from applying it.

When most people talk about the parable of the two builders, they typically emphasize obedience or even willingness. In both the books of Luke and Matthew, right after the parable of the two builders, there is another story about the power of willingness to lead to healing.

However, just prior to the parable of the two builders is also a warning about giving too much attention to miracles, to healings, and even to claiming to be a humble, obedient follower. So, What comes before that? There is An even more famous teaching of Jesus, which is about goodwill toward others and a willingness to forgive!

“Do not condemn,” he says. The teaching of to Withdraw past condemnations and even past antagonisms, and then further to forgive others of whatever bothered us about them. Rather than complain or vilify others about the speck of sand that slightly obscures their perceptiveness, first remove the many inches of sand that have piled up on top of your own foundation.

In other words, do not vilify anyone. Do not ridicule Christians for not fitting your ideals about a perfect Christian. Further, do not resent non-Christians for not even knowing your ideals (and probably not being at all interested in what they are).

Do not give your ideals more value than your observations. Keep using the many lessons to clear away the layers of presumptions that obscure your perceptiveness.

in particular, Do not get distracted by addictions to vilifying others. Whatever you have used to justify antagonism toward them, withdraw your past justifications. Forgive them of whatever you have condemned.

If we have condemned others for not condemning the right things in the right ways, forgive that. If we have condemned others for condemning the wrong things in the wrong ways, forgive that. In fact, we could even apologize to them for vilifying them!

Beware of building your life on the vanity of trying to put others down (to make yourself seem somehow superior). Do not obsess over justifying your own past. Withdraw your condemnation of your past and then you won’t be so quick to blame, to vilify, and to justify your antagonisms.

Now, obviously there are other ancient lessons that might be very beneficial for you to explore and apply. You can’t expect to know a whole book from reading one chapter, right? You also can’t expect to benefit from reading a book as much as you would benefit from interacting with someone who really understands what is below the surface of that book.

A lot of the lessons of Jesus are about noticing what most people do habitually, then questioning those habits. As for the parable of the two builders, it was not about a home that is designed in an unusual way or that has unusual features. What is unusual about that home (relative to the other home) may be almost completely invisible, as in hidden behind the siding and even below the surface of the ground.

In the lesson before that one (about removing what has been blinding your perception), it is not enough to stop condemning others. The point is first to completely stop avoiding your own blinders (by vilifying others) and then- even more importantly- to value clearing away what obscures your own perceptiveness.

How does that clearing away happen? There is no comprehensive answer given to that. There is merely a method for promoting that clearing away, which is to value the lessons of one who can be calm in the midst of challenges that cause most people to “fall apart” and then be “swept away” (like in a flood of antagonism and distress).

What is the behavior that goes with valuing lessons in perceptiveness, poise, and innovative methods? Explore those lessons. Interact with an authentic authority. Also, verify that you are getting the full benefit of those lessons by monitoring your actual results! Do you have the same results you have always had (and the same results as a enthusiastic novice)?

Dismiss the values of the crowd. Withdraw from the hysterias and controversies and antagonisms of the crowd.

I will conclude with another ancient parable. A king had several slaves. He gave each of them an equal amount of wealth to manage. After a time, one had the same amount as before, one five times the original amount, and one ten times the original amount.

The king assigned the last one to rule over ten cities (and the next to rule over five). Further, he reclaimed the entire portion back from the one who had not even put the wealth in to a bank to collect interest. To whom did he give that portion to invest?

Jesus concluded his parable by revealing that after all of that, the king finally ordered for his enemies to be brought before him and killed. Then, Jesus entered in to the city of Jerusalem, where he warned the current leaders there that their enemies would crush them.

Why? Because those leaders resisted the authority of Jesus and instead defended their own social rank and positions.

So, whatever happened to Jesus? Was he really killed? Was he defeated?

Many books say he was defeated (then later vindicated). However, how much do you really value what is written in a book? Even if a book repeatedly said “worship this book as holier than God” (and even if billions of people repeated that), is any of that evidence of relevance (or accuracy)? Is the authority of the book from the book itself… or is all the authority that is copied down in to the book completely independent of the book?

Don’t think of the book as the foundation on which to build your life. Think of the book as a shovel that is useful for clearing away the shaky foundations on which the crowd builds their lives (perhaps lives of naïveté, vanity, hysteria, distress, shame, and even vilification to distract from their shame and distress).

Once the sand has been cleared away down to the bedrock, do you set the shovel aside? Use the shovel whenever you need that tool. Set it down whenever you do not.

Who do you know that demonstrates unconventional insights, unusual poise, and intense ferocity without antagonism or contempt? If you don’t know anyone like that, find one (and then obey them).

Which book(s) they quote, if any, do not need to be your priority. Their authority is the authority from which the most valuable books are written.

That authority is within you. Once the sand that has covered it has been cleared away, then that authority stands on its own, even in the midst of storms that cause crowds to shake, to ridicule, to tremble, to cower, to scatter, and even to shout curses at that storm (and also at that authority).

If you condemn the authority that is your innate foundation, you might have a lot of company and even a lot of encouragement. However, popularity is quite distinct from accuracy (and also from relevance).

The “salvation” of demystifying shame

August 13, 2017

First, let us consider the word salvation in regard to how it is commonly used by members of some mainstream churches. After that, I will focus on the contrasting meaning that I will use.

People may use a phrase like “I have been saved.” In some cases, they may be using that phrase in reference to a social ritual in which someone uses some water to initiate them into membership within a particular group. Or, maybe they learned a traditional practice of saying a particular sequence of words, such as “I accept you as my savior and lord.” In the latter case, they may say a few words in private (perhaps somewhat like casting a magic spell), and then after conducting that private ritual they repeatedly present a social claim that they have been “saved.”

The paradigm they seem to be using is that they accept a fundamental concept that they are deserving of future punishment or torment, yet still have been granted a pardon or a suspension of their sentence / penalty. So, overall, they are basically expressing gratitude about relief that now they are not as terrified about the future as they were previously.

If they believe in an eternal hell as the destiny of the vast majority of people, then they may claim to have been somehow rescued from that default destiny. Instead, they have a presumed future of eternal pleasure or glory or at least peace and contentment.

Now, with full respect for the value that so many people have for what I just described, I propose that such a meaning for the word salvation is about a degree of relief only (but not complete relief). As an analogy, imagine a child that is in distress and is crying, but then falls asleep. When they wake up, the distress may have subsided or may even be forgotten. However, they are returning back to a state that was their experience prior to the distress. They are not reaching a new state that was previously unfamiliar to them.

So, they are talking about relief. They’re talking about hope. When there is desperation and panic and hysteria, then hope is a powerfully attractive alternative.

however, hope is certainly not a permanent state. Hope can be followed by disappointment, then more hope then frustration then joy (and so on back-and-forth).

So, what do I mean by salvation? To me, salvation is fundamentally connected to the issue of shame. However, Salvation is not just a brief reduction of shame. Salvation is not a distraction from shame, such as through participating in a group event where one feels socially accepted or by engaging in A celebration of joyful music or by listening to a calm relaxing recording or broadcast.

Salvation is an unraveling of the conceptual framework which produces the outcome of shame. Salvation is a process as well as an experience. Further, because salvation can only follow the experience of shame, there is an understanding of shame and even a respect for it or appreciation of it. So, in a broader sense, salvation means having gone through the experience of developing shame, maintaining shame, questioning shame, and finally releasing it.

When I refer to releasing it, that can be thought of as repeatedly releasing individual instances of shame. However, there’s also the possibility of a more comprehensive relaxing or unraveling of shame in general.

Consider what shame is (at least how I am using the word). Shame is a type of terror. The terror is in reference to future social rejection (and potential punishment.)

The terror corresponds to paranoia and hysteria. Appeals to logic may have limited influence on someone deep in the experience of hysteria or trauma.

We can also note the connection between shame and resistance to a particular idea. If it seems terrifying to question the accuracy of an idea or statement, that terror is shame. If an idea is disgusting or disturbing or infuriating, then again shame could be involved.

Also, a special case is when. people have been programmed to relate to an organization (whether a government or church) as a “savior.” Then, there can be resistance not only to contrary evidence… but repulsion toward skeptics or even people who are not fanatical enough or not fanatical in the “right” way.

Political ideologies like “Socialism” or “democracy” (or “security” or “equality”) can be worshipped as holy ideals. Further, when a politician talks about “security,” they are really talking about a specific political agenda, such as banning immigration for “security” or criminalizing the unlicensed possession of guns for “security.” The obvious issue with these agendas is that two politicians can both use the word “security” to refer to completely unrelated political agendas- or even directly conflicting political agendas.

To create the perception of some organization as a heroic savior (such as the government), then there must be victims and villains from whom to protect the villains. The holy savior is never to be presented as villainous.

So, if the common dogma is that a government is protecting the masses from tyranny, then there must be some targets labeled as tyrants. If there are any tyrants ever found within the “savior” government, then they must be characterized as “exceptions.”

Further, any allegations of tyranny (or “misconduct” in general) will be quickly filtered by a fanatic. If “their side” is accused of tyranny or misconduct, there will be immediate dismissal of the idea as “slander” or “politically motivated” or “ridiculously biased.” Evidence will not be independent reviewed or critically evaluated.

likewise, if “the other side” is accused of tyranny or misconduct, there will be an immediate presumption of accuracy. So, again there will be no independent review of evidence and no critical evaluation. The common outcome is that political ideologies are a refuge from the challenge of ever independently reviewing anything. Also, political ideologies can include doctrines about science, so there is an ironic animosity to diverse opinions and independent evaluation- yet all in the name of science, which literally refers to independent verification of a claim (especially any proposal of potential causality or efficacy).

All of the same psychological and emotional factors that we see in religious fanaticism and political fanaticism can also be witnessed in people’s personal lives. People can select one or more individuals as heroes or villains, then systematically seek out any possible evidence to support their narrative while dismissively rejecting any possible contrary evidence.

So, if monogamy is considered a sacred ideal and anything else is shameful, how much will someone resist clear evidence that is contrary to their ideal? In cases of chronic abuse, how much will someone excuse or justify or defend “occasional tragedies?”

Further, how much contempt will someone have for an accused “traitor?” Who is most likely to furiously condemn others for something: someone who is doing the same type of behavior themselves, someone having it repeatedly done to them, or someone who really has no personal experience or emotional charge in relation to the topic?

Imagine that an organization called the RSSU has a long history of exterminating tens of millions of its own citizens. Then, the RSSU sends troops to invade a distant country and on the way massacres huge numbers of Polish people, but then blames it on the country that they are approaching to invade.

Next, imagine that the RSSU has two major allies for the military invasion of their target. Those allies are the KU and the ASU.

The PR team of the RSSU not only blames the Katyn Forest Massacre on the country they are preparing to invade, but also claims that their target nation has exterminated millions of their own people. How does the media in the KU and the ASU relate to these claims by the PR team of the RSSU?

The other allies might just repeat the accusations made by the PR team of the RSSU. Even if there is clear evidence that the RSSU exterminated tens of millions of its own people, that might be completely ignored (by their own allies). Why? Because they may currently be allies!

Their ally will be vigorously glorified. Their target, once selected, will be vigorously vilified.

If the ASU puts an embargo on their enemy (Cuba) that results in massive starvation, is that starvation to be called a tragedy that is the fault of Cuba… or is it to be called a great military success? If the ASU and KU impose a blockade to starve their enemies in Iraq, is the resulting starvation a tragedy to be blamed on the leaders of Iraq which justifies promptly invading, bombing, looting, and installing an occupation military force that will remain there for at least 72 years after the end of the war in 1945?

Ah, but now I am mixing facts from different times and places! However, does that simply reveal the larger pattern?

If there is clear evidence that 4-500,000 people died in enemy camps, why not blame that on the Enemy rather than on the countries blocking food imports to The enemy? Further, why not blame the Katyn forest massacre on them as well? Further, why not inflate the number of deaths to 6 million, then concoct disturbing stories to incite and traumatize the civilians of the KU and the ASU?

Would it be shameful to ally with the actual perpetrators of the Katyn forest massacre and the exterminations of tens of millions of their own citizenry? If so, then that shame equates to naïveté.

the naive not only can be blinded to actual events, but can believe religiously in fictional events as if they were real. Further, the naive will not even consider the possibility that they might be uninformed.

What is key? Through intimidation (shaming), naïveté can be cultivated. The more socially distressed the students are, the more easily they can be programmed with political ideologies and anti-scientific dogmas (which they will loyally label as “science”). The more abused emotionally that a spouse is, the more easily they can be deceived…. or at least influenced to “stay on script” publicly.

The “Stockholm syndrome” is a label for what predictably happens in a situation of lasting social inequality / stratification. The lower-status caste or class of people will eventually compete to attract the most favors and privileges. They will display loyalty to their rulers.

The more economically and emotionally dependent the masses of national socialists are, the more devoted they will be to their drug dealer. Why not get large portions of the masses addicted to a handful of psychiatric drugs (like anti-anxiety meds for their brain, anti-stress Meds for their heart, and maybe anti-nausea drugs for suppression their immune system from detoxifying the other drugs)? Why not promise to have the holy government pay for ALL of those drugs?

Wow- any addict would be devoted to the only available supplier of the drugs, right? Further, what if the drugs are FREE to the addict?!?!

That government MUST be the holy savior and CANNOT be criticized because whatever flaws the drug dealer might have, the addict is CERTAIN that the drug dealer is not just good and not just great, but is their holy savior. Further, out of devotion to their drug supplier, the addict refuses to even consider the holiness of any competing drug suppliers. Their savior is THE savior. Further, their total dependency on their drugs is not an “addiction.”

Of course, a group of addicts can get together and harshly criticize other type of addicts. “Those people way over there are addicted to their political ideology, which is something that we JUST CANNOT UNDERSTAND.”

Really? Maybe “we” just cope by avoiding the possibility of understanding particular instances of fanaticism. Why? To avoid facing our own histories of fanaticism?

Maybe we do not understand fanaticism until we do. Maybe we do not understand social intimidation and shaming until we do.

So, do I condemn the RSSU for their role in the Katyn forest massacre or the killing of tens of millions of their own civilians? I do not recall making any condemnation here.

Do I condemn the RSSU for blaming their enemies for the Katyn forest massacre or for exterminating between 400,000 and 6,000,000 people? Do I condemn the KU and the ASU for repeating the propaganda of the RSSU?

If I was ashamed of having been misled by such propaganda, then I might hysterically condemn it. I might have contempt for some propagandists or for all propagandists or even for naive fanatics who seem so intimidated and traumatized that they do not thank me when I yell at them for being naive fanatics.

If I “just cannot understand” how someone could be so “blind” in their personal relationships, then I can either display curiosity or hysterical contempt for my inability to understand them (shame). How can people believe the mainstream commentaries about ww2 or 911 or anti-cholesterol hysteria? Either I understand systems of indoctrination and resulting hysterical fanaticisms or not.

If a child’s parents are psychologically dependent on the RSSU (and are also addicted to 9 different pills supplied at the expense of the RSSU), then the child might quickly learn to display loyalty to their parent’s “holy savior,” right? If one spouse is psychologically dependent on another, then “adopting their fanaticism” may be a natural adaption. In fact, the only way for people with deep fanaticisms to form a lasting relationship might be when they already share that fanaticism with someone as of when they first meet…. or perhaps they both develop it together.

What I know for sure is that the mass media operates not for its own interests, but out of charity. Their content is not biased by their pharmaceutical advertising revenues. Their content is not biased by government regulations that force them to conform to the basic message that “our government should be a BETTER holy savior, just like was intended by the holy founders of our government.”

Could the founders of our holy nation have been intentionally influencing the masses with expedient rationalizations for a new innovation in systemic inequality? Obviously, only nations that are currently our enemy would have such shameful histories. If any nation was previously our enemy (at which time they clearly had a shameful history), but are no longer our enemy but are now our holy ally, then suddenly the obvious insincerity of their villainous founders is the obvious sincerity of their glorious founders.

The RSSU is clearly either the second best government in human history or the second worst government in human history. Also, the KU is clearly the most holy monarchy in human history or the most despicable villain in the history of the ASU.

Shame is a condition that often involves being terrified of certain ideas. To cope with that terror, contrasting ideas can be glorified and hysterically justified.

One who is deeply ashamed of their own patterns of behavior can select (or invent) a traitor to target with shaming and ridicule and contempt. Further, being occasionally targeted in that way is not especially unusual.

There is no inherent shame in having been targeted for shaming or intimidation or indoctrination. Even when it seems very personal, it might not be personal at all.

There is also no inherent shame in having targeted others for shaming or intimidation or indoctrination. Everyone who has been a student in the schools of the RSSU (or similar schools) has been carefully trained to ridicule anyone who dares to display skepticism toward mainstream dogmas, like about cholesterol as the most dangerous of all the substances that your liver regularly manufactures in large volumes in order to slowly kill you with hysteria and anxiety and paranoia and naïveté.

911 was obviously an attack by the Japanese to bully the US in to imposing gun control legislation on all members of the Republican Party. Also, there is a list of precisely 9,264 things that are inherently shameful and that list is stored in a secret location at the bottom of the Vatican archives. Oops- forget what I said about the location of that location or else God will send Santa Claus to sneak in to your house through your chimney and kidnap all of your children while you are sleeping.

The most important thing for you to know is the position of the RSSU on the list of the best governments in the history of the world. The following piece of information will be on the test when you die and get to the gates of heaven and Saint Peter asks you if you know the answer to this one very important question.

Here is the answer: the RSSU was basically the same as all other governments. Also, there was no RSSU. That is just a reversal of the letters of the USSR. The USSR and the RSSU are exact opposites in every way, although the basic methods of both systems were essentially indistinguishable. Plus, the RSSU does not exist.

But if it did, Santa Claus would sneak down it’s chimney in the middle of the night and kill all of its children. Why? Because Santa Claus hates people who take advantage of the naïveté of young people by indoctrinating them with ridiculous ideas about Saint Peter being the gatekeeper at the end of your life who will either condemn you to eternal torment or eternal delight.

Also, all cholesterol really is very bad. In fact, it is horrible. It is a villain. So, take this pill to save yourself from it. This pill has been approved by the RSSU and is been funded by them.

You can trust the RSSU because everyone trusts them: the media, your parents, your doctor, your neighbors, Santa Claus, Saint Peter, and of course you. Further, your enemy accuses the RSSU of being occasionally imprecise in their comments about the horrors of cholesterol, which has single-handedly killed over 600 billion humans in the last few thousand years alone. In short, your enemy loves cholesterol. That, plus your enemy’s accusations against the RSSU, only go to prove that the RSSU obviously can be trusted in regard to the evils of cholesterol.

In conclusion, what is very important to know is that the word salvation is related to words like salve, saliva, salt, salsa, sauce, & saucy. It is also related to salad and salutations and health and whole and holy.

Also, one who has been “broken in to parts” and is then “reintegrated” will have an appreciation for integrity that might not have been possible prior to a period of personally experiencing the challenges of intimidation and hysteria and naïveté. What is one of the hallmarks of salvation? A lack of hysterical contempt for systems of shaming and indoctrination and deception.

Why respect them? Because they are dangerous (and dangerously effective). Also, it is important to be able to recognize the promotion of hysteria and paranoia as well as recognize the promotion of independent verification and intelligence.


Sympathy and empathy- how they are quite different experiences

August 11, 2017
Here are a few paragraphs on distinguishing sympathy from empathy (and people who are “extremely empathetic” from people who are actually just “extremely sympathetic”)….

Sympathy is highly passionate / impassioned. It typically involves taking one side (who is typically glorified) against some other side (who is typically vilified). In many cases, all of that involves shame, shaming others, preventing one’s own shame from surfacing. It also can involve a lot of vanity / false pride (a rigid, anxious paranoia about one’s existing view being the best in some objective way, with attachment to social validation and unanimity).

Sympathy can unintentionally alienate others. If those others are of no importance, then alienating them or not may be trivia. However, one problem with unintentionally alienating others is that someone may not notice the cultivation of that alienation, then, in the distress of denial, say something like “but I did not INTEND to alienate her. In other words, sympathy can be quite inattentive as in negligent.

I prefer the experience of empathy. Empathy involves feeling passions without favoring one passion over another. With no ideological preference of one passion over another (or very little preference), the ability to accurately understand the source of the passion is not filtered through a self-concept of “who is the good guy and who is the bad guy” and so forth.

Intentions are not seen as glorious or vile, but just as intentions. Some are quite simple and some are complicated or even conflicted. There is no filtering to “defend” one side’s “honor” and to demonize some other side. There is no projecting of heroism or of shame.

Cruelty is seen as cruel- and one can admit to one’s one moments of past cruelty. Naivete is seen as naive- and one can admit to one’s one moments of past naivete.

Everything is recognized for what it is. Envy (which involves simple admiration) is clearly not jealousy (which involves bitterness and animosity).

Gratitude, grief, and fury can all be “impassioned.” Rage and outrage and contempt are even more impassioned (energized).

Passion itself is both an important and useful experience, but also one vulnerable to outside manipulations. Most of the holy passions of the left wing are programmed from the same sources as the holy passions of the right wing. What if the “everyday passions” of a puppy are actually a refreshing contrast to the “holy passions” of a typical 10 year old human?

What if an SJW was given a job assignment to spend twenty minutes alone with a puppy? That alone might not be life-changing, but what if they got a job at a store that sells puppies and kittens and pet birds (etc)? Within only a few weeks, they might be entirely cured of their mental instabilities!

Jiddu Krishnamurti talked about the “psychological violence” of taking sides (or strongly identifying with a religion, nation, etc). That was all about the divisiveness of sympathy.

%d bloggers like this: