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?
I don’t think anyone’s primary reason for doing anything is to hurt an other or others, corporations either. They want success fo themselves, protection for their family, or other things along those lines. Unfortunately the way they go about it, an other or others may get hurt, and possibly they know, and continue. Sometimes perhaps they don’t know or care ever. Point? Anyone can be understood, if they want to be, i hope! Lol
For the same simple reason of (perceived) military superiority, the British monarchy arranged for their own navy plus the navy of France and of the United States to attack China in the early 19th century. Why? Because they could.
why else? Because the Chinese government was trying to stop the British government from selling opium to the people of China.
When the Israelite army led by Moses massacred the neighboring midianites, they captured 16,000 young virgin girls as slaves. Why not just kill them too? Because they were productive (for bearing children).
plus there are the elephants that run through field and kill thousands of innocent insects…..
The ego is a conceptual model of “who I am ( as distinct from how I am not).” It is a coping mechanism for social pressure. It is based on socially imposed categories about “how people should be.” That is why hypocrisy is so popular… People literally filter their own observations to maintain a particular narrative about themselves.
Plus, if I am operating from a narrative of powerless victim, then I am going to go around and construct a narrative of how there are however many villains.
The “victim” will find a way vilify someone else. They need to preserve their identity as the victim.
“I focus my wishes on the future, not the past. I am grateful to have lived in Tibet for so long, then to have been received as a refugee in to Nepal and India, and right now to be here with you. Do you wish to be here right now with all of us in this auditorium? It is very safe socially and we have air conditioning too!”
Q: “Sir, don’t you support the people who want to fight the Chinese and drive them out of Tibet?”
A: “Well, Tibet is a very nice place with many resources. I can sympathize with all the people who want to live there and with the people who want to govern that region.
Also, I think that California is a very nice place.”
Laugh with us. We are just refugees. We are not dead. I am not even 80 years old yet! This is probably my last trip to the US… And I am so glad to have spent this afternoon with all of you. I just wish you would have come to my talk yesterday in California so we did not have to drive all the way to Tucson. No, I am only joking.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn Your original post was in regard to “hurting people just to hurt them.” The nuns were assaulted and the attacks were apparently so brutal that some did not survive. The monks were forced to watch because the soldiers apparently were trying to traumatized and “break” the monks, many of whom also did not survive the torture rituals.
J R Fibonacci Hunn The soldiers were ordered to perform the torture (under threat from their supervisors). However, there are cases in which torturers simply “toy with” their victims and whether the victims live or die is rather unimportant to the torturer… Like my cat just “toying” with a lizard “for fun.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn That was around 1978. An interesting detail is that the death of the dog gave me a socially acceptable reason to grieve (an outlet for ALL of my disappointment). However, my mom was apparently pretty annoyed by my emotions, so she bought me another dog the next day.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Saying “it is alright” can promote calm in a child, which is often attractive to the adult. There is also the message to “be quiet” that can be conveyed through the words “that is pretty minor and you are such a big boy. Only little babies would cry about minor stuff like that. You are a big boy, right?”
J R Fibonacci Hunn Take the example of Vlad the impaler (aka Count Dracula, the local warlord in Transylvania operating under the supervision of the Vatican). Why did he torture and kill so many people and then leave them to rot on the poles in public? It was to intimidate and terrify. It is the same reason that the US bombed civilians in japan.
These folks are not especially sincere or benign. Neither were most of the folks who came before them. I like to tease libertarians who rant about Thomas Jefferson and gun rights. I say that TJ supported the right of everyone to carry weapons, except for his slaves. He supported the right of his slaves to be whipped… And am I supposed to condemn him for that? What is so odd about that?
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.
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).
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.
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.”
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.”
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.)
What Catholic militias and mafias do I mean? I could mean the Soveriegn Military Order of the Knights of Malta.
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?
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).
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.
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?
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).
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?
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.
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!”
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.
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….
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.
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.
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.”
There are “binary” linguistic categories (dualities), but there are also spectrums.
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.
Is it important that she carries a sword? Perhaps….
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.
Liberty is much more interesting, and more essential to get the word out.
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?
It is within categories, like mammal and animal. Here is something close to a cat, but not a cat:
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.***
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
Biasness/ ignorance to close your EYE ✨👁 when it is not “perfect and pretty”
Notice what you Notice
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…..
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