About WORDS

September 13, 2012

 

 

 

about words

 

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

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

My Google Profile

song: scared and brave

July 29, 2015

He dreamed that he would be the savior
of all the people who thought that they were not worthy of love
He would convince them, or maybe trick them
if only he could just find the right ones
then he would say
It could be good for you to take some time to be afraid
you learned that fear was not o kay you learned shame
and shame is fine for hiding tears until you’re safe
but then you can just check for threats be scared and brave

I know you might have shut down certain emotions because you learned they were not safe to display
don’t show your anger, don’t show your fear, don’t show your grief, don’t show your tears
Or we will shame you or we will hate you or we will tease you all night and all day
you’ll need to earn love you won’t deserve love you have to do certain things in exchange

But how’d it all start? Who is deserving? Did Santa say you’re better than the rest?
Is it just karma? Who is at fault? Weren’t you born an expert on social finesse?

then he would say
It could be good for you to take some time to be afraid
you learned that it was not o kay you learned shame
and shame is fine for hiding tears until you’re safe
but then you can just check for threats be scared and brave

The discount advantage: compounding safe profits

July 26, 2015

For people interested in how to produce consistent, safe profits, what issue is the simplest to explain and demonstrate? Perhaps it is the issue of only buying markets that are the most discounted.

Sample investment results (shown below):

Using cash trading of stocks: two double digit gains and two single digit gains (total profit of over 30% in 3 months)

Using leveraged trading of ETFs (over 100% profit from the same opportunities in the same 3 months)

Using select insurance policies (several hundred percent gains from the same opportunities in the same 3 months)

What is “discounting?”

People are familiar with the term “discounted,” as in “disregarded” or “dismissed as not being worth much.” In a retail business, discounting simply means reducing the price of something temporarily. When discounting an item, reducing the price (to a discounted sale price) does not lower the quality of the discount items. The discounts are just temporarily cheaper, right?

For investors, the target is buying things at a lower price than they can be sold in the near future. Temporary discounts are absolutely ideal.

There can be a few methods to measure which markets are most discounted (and how much they are discounted). In the example below, for simplicity, I review a single method of measuring discounting.

Again, my interest here is just to briefly present a few simple examples of the advantage of investing in discounts. By measuring how discounted a market is, we get objective data about the future profit potential of that market as well as an indication of how much risk there is of further discounting.

When a market is currently being discounted (disregarded) by 50% of interested investors, then there are still a lot of investors that could further discount that market (as in withdraw from buying and shift toward selling). The more enthusiasm there is for a particular market, the more risk there is of a decrease in enthusiasm.

However, if a market has already been discounted by more than 90% of the investors who are interested in that market, then there are a lot investors who may change their sentiment and begin to buy in to that market (which drives up prices). The more that a market is already discounted, then the less is the risk of further discounting. When a market is most discounted, that tends to be the time with the most potential for the prices in that market to rise far and fast, plus with the highest probability.

The data showing the logic of only buying discounts:

In summary, I used a quick glance across 12 markets to identify the most favorable sentiment levels. I selected the only two markets that both had periods of extreme discounting (twice for each market, for a total of 4 excellent discounts). 

Next, I show the prices for those two markets across 3 months. I highlight the best times to buy those two markets within those 3 months. Finally, I show that the correlation between the periods of extreme discounting and the most profitable times to buy that market.

The charts:

12 bp charts colored

Above are 12 “sentiment” charts to measure which markets (groups of similar stocks) are most discounted. This was for a 12 month period.

Note that I have no interest in the specific companies or even in the various stock sectors. I simply quickly sorting to identify sentiment extremes. For reference, sentiment fluctuations are shown for 11 groups of stocks in the US, plus sentiment for Canada’s stock market (the Toronto Stock Exchange/TSEX).

Note that in green I highlighted the only two charts that went to single digit “sentiment ratings.” Two other charts got down to “almost interesting levels” (below 30… highlighted in orange).

The other 8 markets had sentiment levels that are “far above extreme discounting.” 3 of them had sentiment above 50% for the entire 12 months. Those are the markets that are “least discounted.” That indicates a long period of high risk for sudden, sharp, lasting declines in price (eventually). The other 5 market had sentiment above 50% for the vast majority of the 12 months and sentiment levels never fell far below 50% (elevated risk with no significant discounting).

The above screenshot was obtained from the following link, which you can click to see updated data (for current sentiment levels): http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/candleglance.html?$BPENER,$BPGDM,$BPFINA,$BPTRAN,$BPNDX,$BPSPX,$BPINDU,$BPINFO,$BPMATE,$BPTSE,$BPHEAL,$BPSTAP|D|0

Here the sentiment lows can be identified and then used to test for a correspondence to rising prices:

sentiment

Do you see the red line and the blue line each have two “lows?”

sentiment4
What happens to prices when discounting is at extreme levels?

Here is the price data:

2 price charts

Can you see when would have been the best times to purchase those markets for a quick profit?

2 price charts w green

Notice the green highlights above of lows (circled) that were followed by sharp and persisting increases in price.

2 price charts w green+

In addition to the sudden gains from those circled lows, there are often price rallies lasting several weeks afterwards.

Now, let’s combine the price data with the sentiment data to assess whether the times of extreme discounting were the best times to buy:

combined

That is the chart without any notations. In the chart, I show that the two lows in the green sentiment line correspond to the two lows  in the red price line. Also, the two lows in the pink sentiment line correspond to the two lows in the blue price lines.

combined1

In other words, the best times to buy those markets were when enthusiasm for those markets was lowest (the most discounting).

combined2

How big were the gains (across 3 months of time but only a few weeks of actual trading)?

Using cash trading of stocks (available in most brokerage accounts): two double digit gains and two single digit gains (total profit of over 30% in 2 months)

Using leveraged trading of ETFs (available in many IRAs even without any new permission forms): over 60% profit from the same opportunities in the same 2 months

Using the buying and selling of select insurance policies (accessible through most IRAs after signing one extra permission form):gains of hundreds of percent from the same opportunities in the same 2 months

When using an investing method that is extremely reliable, it may be interesting to consider a few ways of profiting from those opportunities. First, the three periods of discounting could each be traded for quick gains of close to 10% each (totaling over 30%):

combinedA

combinedB

combinedC

However, those same opportunities could be traded with “two-to-one leverage.” If starting with $100,000, then the first profit (8% times two) would bring the balance to about $116,000. The second trade (at 2:1 leverage) would increase the $116,ooo balance by about 25% to about $145,000 (less than a month after opening the first trade). The third trade (still at 2:1 leverage) would raise the $145,000 by over 10% to about $160,000 (less than 2 months after opening the first trade).

Note again, that this 60% gain in under 2 months was not available in these markets most of the year. This strategy focuses on ONLY buying markets that at extremely discounted according to a particular measure.

There are other measures of sentiment besides the ones shown here. There are also many other markets ( besides the 12 shown here) that have easily accessible sentiment data, such as bond markets, currency forex markets, and commodity markets (gold, crude oil, etc…).

So, if using this method in just those 12 markets, there would have been 10 months of no risk (like just collecting interest in a money market account). However, the same logic can be used to buy discounts in other markets, as well as to profit from markets that have extremes of positive sentiment.

Or, other trading methods could be used so that the same select few opportunities (in those 2 months of extreme discounting) could be used to make much higher profits than 60%. For reference, I will display a quick example of a gain of about 70% (which happened overnight, though I made the purchase two days prior to selling):

options

When three quick gains as large as 70% each are compounded in only a few weeks, the total gains can quickly become quite large. Even though this trading strategy of buying only extreme discounts is highly reliable, most investors who use this last method will use it in combination with one of the other two methods, which mot people find to be much easier to execute (though the compounded profits may be smaller).

I personally use all of the above three trading methods, often at the same time. The three methods are again cash trading of unleveraged markets, ETF trading (usually of markets leveraged 2:1 or 3:1), and trading of option contracts. Further, I do use other forecasting strategies besides the one identified here regarding buying only extreme discounts.

However, the forecasting strategy of targeting sentiment extremes is the best strategy that I know, but there are periods of time when none of the dozens of markets that I track are at such an extreme of sentiment that I would use this strategy alone. Buying discounts is the easiest strategy to explain and also relatively easy to implement.

Interested in having a highly-skilled trader manage some or all of your investment accounts? If so, contact me!

Expectation, presumption, disappointment, and learning

July 24, 2015

As long as one knows that expectations are merely expectations, there is actually no disappointment when an expectation is violated. There is just the recognition that the expectation did not fit reality. Or, even if there is disappointment, it is momentary and of no lasting importance.

What is actually the bigger issue is presumptions that we do not recognize as presumptuous. If we presume that something WILL BE or that it ALREADY IS, that is not the same as expecting it and watching for it to eventually develop (probably). Presumptions lead not only to disappointment, but to terror that if one unrecognized presumption is wrong, we may have others.


So, the presumptions lead to confusion, shame (about the confusion), panic (about the shame), and frustration (about the results that come from the behavior of panicking). Unmet expectations do not lead to confusion and so on. Expectations do not lead to suffering.

In fact, disappointment is not even a form of suffering. Disappointment is just the relaxing of a prior hope: “aha, oh well, no!”


However, with presumptions, especially programmed presumptions, we can “take a position against reality.” We can be so terrified of social punishments that we display loyalty to programmed ideals of “what should be” and “what should not be”… such that we speak of presumptions as if they are actually expectations.

We may participate in public school linguistic rituals of “confusing words with objective reality.” We are trained to complain if expectations are not met. “I expected my wife to cook me EGGS, so now based on that so-called expectation, I will throw a tantrum.”

The cooking of eggs was never an actual expectation. It was purely a set-up to justify a display of rage.

The confusion was not a result of whatever the wife cooked instead. The confusion was pre-existing (and was programmed through the curriculum of “ritual abuse” at the public school).


Perceptive, willing, able, & ready

July 22, 2015
Are you ready?
To be ready for something requires understanding it. Knowing a few details is not enough. For us to know that we are ready, we have to “know ourselves” and also know what is present. By discovering what is present, we can quickly identify what is relevant.

What is relevant?
To be ready means to know what skills and resources would be relevant and then also to know that those resources and skills are present. First, we must precisely perceive what is emerging and then what is relevant. What risks and opportunities are present? What outcome or interest is our priority?

The more precisely that we know what is relevant, the better we can plan. To know if we are able to produce an outcome, we must know the target outcome and then know what is relevant to produce it.

Are you willing?

How do we develop the ability to produce a favored outcome? We experience will (as in motivation or focus or desire).

When we experience a particular outcome or issue as a priority, then we are willing to focus on it (and unwilling to focus on other distractions). We experience the priority as uniquely relevant, so then other things seem relevant only when identified as contributing to fulfilling that priority. Anything else is currently irrelevant… unless a “higher priority” emerges.

How do we get to be willing?

Either we are willing to fulfill a certain priority or not. If we are willing, then being unable is a temporary condition.

When an outcome is motivating, then we are willing to increase whatever ability we consider relevant. If we are willing, we can develop new abilities that are relevant (or ally with others who are able). If we are not willing, then any diversion or excuse can be used to distract away from an outcome that we consider irrelevant. However, being willing does not instantly make us able or ready.

So, how do we get to be willing? Perceptiveness is the source of willingness.

People can be socially intimidated in to certain actions, but that is an external discipline, not self-discipline. The most powerful motivation is a direct perception of an opportunity or risk. When a motivation is internal, then it can be shared. In other words, when will is direct, then we do not need external discipline to produce a cultivating of ability.

In the absence of resistance or distractions, a motivating outcome will be explored. In fact, in the presence of resistance or distractions, a motivating outcome will still be explored, right?

PART TWO


Are you ready for perceptiveness?
This may seem like an easy question. It is a simple question, but is it easy?

Consider that perceptiveness is so important that institutions have been formed for the purpose of carefully directing attention to notice only certain things, then directing interpretation of what is noticed, and then directing the behavioral response to the programmed interpretations. In other words, the governing of perceptiveness is attractive to some special interest groups.

Do certain groups want to reduce perceptiveness about certain issues? Are there programs of curriculum to reward people for focusing only on certain issues, then memorizing certain details and repeating them back (without reflecting on them)?

When people have been trained that they will be rewarded for loyally repeating a slogan, what happens when there is no reward (or even a questioning of the slogan)? People who were expecting a reward can be disappointed or even distressed.Imagine that a child has been told that Santa Claus is a magic observer who is tracking their behavior. The child is reminded how long it will be until they will find out what rewards they will get for their behavior.

Then, someone else tells them that there is no need to be anxious about Santa. They are told that the people in whom they have the most dependence and the most trust (their parents) have been intentionally deceiving them.

How should we expect them to relate to that assertion? Will they say “perceptiveness is very valuable, so please tell me more?!?!”

Or, will they panic in outrage and then argue hysterically in defense of their familiar presumption? Will they ridicule and condemn those who display skepticism about their familiar presumption?

One of the big issues with developing perceptiveness is that the perceiving of risk may have been ritually shamed. People may be ridiculed as paranoid or hysterical.

In the case of vaccinations, there is a widely-publicized alertness and alarm directing people to perceive a tremendous threat or terror, then to take an action (get vaccinated) that is presented as cautious.  In other words, paranoia is promoted along with hysteria.Who says “let’s take some time to calmly review a wide variety of studies on the subject and then reach our own conclusions?” Who says “let’s carefully review all the different vaccine formulas to find the specific formulas that are most appealing?”

Is perceptiveness valued? Or is it ritually interrupted? Is perceptiveness specifically targeted and attacked?

Imagine that someone lives in a country in which they are told that cancer is a living demon that can possess them and then eat them away from the inside (and kill them). Then, they are told that there is an injection that will give them a small dose of cancer so that they will build an immunity to it that will last for around 5 years.

Consider that some people hearing all of this will have a sense of complete dependence on that government. They may want desperately to maintain a particular perception (without regard for the accuracy of the perception). They may want to believe that the government cares about them personally and would never deceive them. They may want to avoid the emotions that would correspond to recognizing the reality of the massive concentration of power in that government.

In other words, they may want to confirm their pre-existing bias. They have been programmed with certain ideas about science and they refer to those ideas as “scientific.” However, their experience involves strong emotions like paranoia and hysteria.

If a government threatens severe punishment against those who do not receive mandatory vaccinations, how would that effect most people’s interest in the safety of those vaccines? Would the people rather avoid the topic of anything that causes them distress? Are they paranoid about distress? Or, do they value a clear perception of risks? (How high of a priority for them is their health?)

Some people question the effectiveness of vaccines. For simplicity here, we can focus on the opposite question of the safety of vaccines.

What does the U.S. government say about the safety of vaccines? In the 1980s, the government started a program “that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines.”

That quotation is from this website: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

Over $3 billion has been awarded to over 4,000 people. That is an indirect subsidy of the pharmaceutical industry. Note that the public was the source of the awarded funds, not the drug companies.That is a rather unusual program. It is not well-publicized. With other medical interventions, is there a government program to take money from the public in order to compensate people injured by the medical intervention? Do other industries receive this kind of protection from liability?

Imagine if the auto industry was able to lobby for a government program so that when there was a defect in the building of a car, then the taxpayers would pay for injuries to purchasers of the defective car. What effect might that have on the attention to safety of those car makers?

Or imagine that the makers of wheelchairs were protected from liability for injuries caused to people because of defective wheelchairs. What about people who build stairways? What if taxpayers paid for all injuries caused by negligent construction of stairways?

However, what we have in the case of vaccines and drug companies is not just about occasional defects. No one questions the fact that stairways are useful because it can easily be observed.

What happens though if someone questions the central teachings of a particular religion? What if a religion teaches that, in every organism on the planet, there is an organ that makes a substance in order to poison and kill the organism?

Is cholesterol a poison made by the liver to cause paranoia and hysteria in the general public? If scientists measure that a placebo (an intervention that has no biochemical relevance) promotes health better than a certain drug designed to attack the liver, would that be surprising? Why would attacking the liver promote health?

Lots of studies document the variety of injuries produced by drugs designed to injure the liver (such as causing the effects called diabetes). Should the government use taxpayer money to protect the drug companies (and physicians) from legal penalties relating to injuries sustained from the use of a substance specifically designed to injure an essential organ?

Do we think that a particular program should or should not exist? Do we argue that a particular government exists for the sole purpose of promoting our individual well-being (without regard to the special interests of the most wealthy dealers)?

We actually do not need to concern ourselves with those questions. We could consider them irrelevant.

Instead, we can notice that when someone sincerely believes in Santa Claus, some people may be more or less willing to develop perceptiveness regarding unfamiliar observations. Maybe those that we depend on and trust have intentionally deceived us through carefully-constructed programming curriculums. Or maybe they sincerely believe in Santa, yet display hysteria and paranoia in regard to anyone who questions the accuracy of their sincere presumption.

Few are open to perceptiveness. Few are open to the powerful emotions and motivations that perceptiveness will produce. Few are open to developing the relevant abilities and alliances. Few are open to getting ready for victory.

Their “defeatism” has been carefully programmed. Their hysteria and paranoia benefit the few.

We can be among those who benefit from what is emerging. Or, we can be among the sources of those benefits.

TO ACCESS PART THREE, LEAVE A COMMENT OR SEND A PRIVATE MESSAGE.

The programming of social anxiety and perfectionism

July 18, 2015

A child is programmed with ideals of behavior, including how they should speak. This programming is basically universal (just a matter of modeling others, really).

Sometimes the ideals (or patterns of behavior) are recognized as just being ideals (or patterns). Other times the presentation is more like this: “Today, class we will worship a list about how people should be and next will be a list of how people should not be.”


Sometimes, there is a complex context of intimidation and bribery and shame, like with the typical deceptions used regarding Santa Claus. Obedience is rewarded. Disobedience is punished. That is universal, too, but the deception / programming of confusion is not universal.

A simpler context would be overt bribery and intimidation with no deception and no social shaming (like just physical confinement or inflicting of pain, similar to how people typically train dogs). There is no confusing guilt-tripping of “you deserve this because you are a ___ person.” With “straight-forward” conditioning, the focus instead is on behavior: certain behaviors are rewarded and others are punished.

With “the cultivating of criminals,” there is a lot of reverse psychology and programming of identifying with a persona / label, like a huge billboard that says “only losers USE DRUGS.” Which drugs? All drugs? Prescription drugs, too?

Social anxiety is cultivated. Mental illness is cultivated. Criminal activity is cultivated. Political revolutionaries are cultivated.

It is black magic/ government witchcraft / cursing the victims of the oppressive system. Political correctness is programmed. Coercion is the central religion of the global empire declared by the Prophet Noah. However, shame is the key to the efficiency of the warfare (as psychological warfare).

So, in the case of inconsistent methods of conditioning, where punishments and rewards are inconsistently delivered, that can lead to confusion and distress. This was established by the researcher Pavlov who trained dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell (whether or not food was provided along with the ringing of the bell). The dogs eventually confuse the sound of the bell with the possibility of a “reward” (food). They are programmed with what we might call an “associative disorder” (as distinct from proper associations or no associations at all, called “disassociative” disorders).

Next, back to the human child, if there is a background of distress to the programming, then the ideals are not just ideals, but develop in to dogma or idealism. The child might be jealous of others who get rewards without adhering to the child’s own programmed ideals. The envy is natural, but that can lead to grieving grievances like “Those people are not playing by my rules, so they should not ___!!!” (That is an example of hysteria.)

Instead of just noticing that familiar, learned rules are not universal rules, there is a distress of repressed frustration surging out. “I am disappointed by my own results, but quietly disappointed because I am too intimidated to be vocal about it, and so now to see those people do well while I am playing by the rules brings me to envy, then frustration, resentment, and contempt.”

To have envy and then curiosity would be adaptive. However, social programming typically shames the youth for displaying envy or curiosity (which is the biggest threat to dogma and thus must be most severely repressed). So, the youthful rule-follower complains that their own perfect actions are not satisfying them.

Their obedient perfectionism is not getting rewarded as advertised. Not only is the Santa story a deception used by the socially-mature to manipulate the gullible, but it is the only deception ever used by any culture.


Ok, I was kidding there of course. I got distracted while I was typing.

The perfectionist eventually witnesses the elite getting massive corporate subsidies and says “we need to reform the system so that it either is not a massive redistribution from the taxpaying human resources to the elite… or it is a MORE PERFECT system of inequitable redistribution based on coercion / extortion.” The point is that “they need to follow THESE rules.” Then, the different groups of perfectionists oppose each other, just like they have been programmed.

That is hysteria. The hypocritical form of that hysteria would be “the only rule is that all rules are wrong.”


Learning would be “I realize that my sacred rules are no longer relevant (if they ever were). I observe a contrast between my presumptions and my observations and I humbly refine my presumptions (or discard them) and I open myself to new presumptions with greater precision.”

Language and social programming

July 15, 2015

Language is a tool for directing attention. One person can direct the attention of millions of people.

In many cases, people direct each other’s attention in one-to-one interactions or in groups (like in a classroom). Or, imagine that an author of a book creates a curriculum used by thousands or millions or even billions of people (across thousands of years).

One of the most famous leaders in human history is Moses. Stories attributed to Moses were repeated in the oral tradition of the Hebrews, then later written down and included in the scriptures used by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. I will give a few examples later.

First, consider how important language is as a tool for social programming. Complex information can be transmitted rapidly and precisely using language.

However, we can observe many kinds of animals and notice that even without language many species still form complex social organizations, right? What are some examples of animal species with complex social organization? Examples include bee hives, wolf packs, and even the inter-species collaboration between humans and domesticated creatures like horses or sheep.

So, before we explore how language is used by humans to socially program other humans, let’s consider other important tools in governing social groups, like the fences erected to keep sheep confined or the metal rings placed in the nose of a bull. Can a ring in the nose of a bull be used to direct the attention of the bull?

A tug on that ring can certainly wake a sleeping bull. The bull can be inflicted with sudden, intense pain. If the bull voluntarily moves in the direction that the nose ring is getting pulled, then the intense pain is relieved. The direction that the bull is facing can be led by the nose (by pulling the nose ring so that the bull will turn it’s head to reduce the pressure on the nose).

Now, let’s review a few details of the popular stories of Moses. While the stories below are not the most popular ones, they are plainly documented in the Book of Numbers (in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

A threat was issued to Moses and his companions in regard to their lack of attention to the one issuing the threat. The specific threat was a plague that would kill some of the Israelites. After about 24,000 had been killed, an Israelite named Phinehas plunged a spear through an Israelite man and a Midianite woman who were having sex. Based on that act by Phinehas, he was rewarded with entry in to the Israelite priesthood and the plague was ended.

bull-being-led-by-ring-in-nose

So, back to the example of the ring in the nose of a bull, when the ring gets pulled, then the bull experiences pain and faces where it is directed to face, right? Now imagine that you are the leader at the head of a few tribes. Would it get your attention if someone threatened to unleash a plague on your neighbors in the tribes that you rule, and soon after that 24,000 of them died in a plague?

The one who claimed to be responsible for all of those deaths then issued an order for Moses to gather an army of Israelites and then go slaughter the Midianites and take their livestock as plunder. All of the Midianite males were massacred as well as all of the females except for the ones that the “shot-caller” spared (32,000 virgin girls to be distributed to the victors as war brides).

Again, those are examples of stories distributed by people who admire Moses. If we read a version of the same story written by one of the surviving Midianites, we might not be surprised if there were a few different adjectives than the ones printed in the Bible, right?

However, Moses was on the winning side. So the winners promote their version of the story, then print that version in million of Bibles (and then maybe dozens of people will actually read those verses).

Were there deaths? Sure, maybe a few thousand Israelite soldiers died sacrificing themselves for the conquest. Maybe a few Egyptian soldiers died. Maybe a few civilians were slaughtered.

Keep in mind that they were all going to die eventually, right? Plus, the Israelites had just been punished for their lack of compliance. 24,000 of them were “sacrificed” by the one that the Israelites refer to by titles like the Lord of the Celestial Armies. According to the story, more Israelites would have been killed in a continuing plague if they did not comply with the demand to invade the Midianites.

695262_1280x720

Maybe you are aware that certain creatures can be trained to think that they are tied down. A tamed horse with a rope around it’s face will apparently stay still if the horse thinks that the rope has been tied. Maybe the rope is loose, but the horse gave up trying to get a away a long time ago, so the horse presumes that the loosely draped rope still restricts them. An untamed horse would not believe it is tied down though, right?

Trained elephants are also programmed to believe that they cannot move when they could. The young animals are too weak to pull the stake out of the ground, so they try pulling but give up. Then, when the elephants grows up, it still believes that it is not strong enough to pull out the little stake in the dirt.

Even Santa Claus has been trained that someone is constantly watching his every move and so if he is not a good boy (according to the adult’s standards of good behavior), then all that he will get for Christmas is a big, colorful box filled with naive deceptions, anxiety, and guilt. Of course, what he gets is what he deserves, right?


Anyway, back to the subject of intimidating the masses with stories of genocide, how important is it whether a specific version of a specific story is exactly true? The effect on the masses is what matters, right?

For instance, if the horses stand next to the water, but they think that they are tied up there and cannot go anywhere else, then eventually they must drink some of the water, right? Or, if you throw pearls before swine, but the swine do not recognize the pearls as pearls, then they might accidentally pay attention to the pearls occasionally, right?

So as I was saying, a long time ago, I was in a classroom when the teacher said “memorize this story and then repeat it back on the test.” Those who did as instructed received social validation. Those who did not perform as directed were generally ignored.

However, there was a third group as well. Among millions of students in that particular classroom, three of them questioned the accuracy of the story. One of them even asked “why is this story even relevant to us?”

For that third group, the teacher had a special response planned. They were given special nose rings and punished for their disruptive behavior of respectfully showing curiosity in a classroom. This obviously could not be tolerated.

Was I one of the students? Or, was I the teacher? Or, is that story completely fictitious?


Next, if I was designing a holy empire to regulate the entire human population on the whole planet, would it be important to me to create a central curriculum that promoted anxiety in the youth so that they would be intimidated in to modeling their behavior after the bloody guy on the cross? After all, if you just do whatever he would have done, then consider the kind of tortures that you could receive as a consequence?

By the way, the only people who should be terrified of eternal punishment in hell are people who have violated any of the rules that we modeled after the normal innate urges of a human. In other words, be ashamed of what is your natural inclination for your entire life.

Say things like “I do not deserve to be in this hell. It is the fault of the villain(s) that I am suffering like this. It’s just not fair. Why did God make reality the wrong way like this without consulting me first and then conforming to my preferences? And why are all of these people around me so arrogant and always saying things like about how their lives are hell. No, they do not even know what hell is. My life is hell and since only one person can be the person most deserving of sympathy and special favors, I am obviously the one. So they should just shut up with all of their whining.”


Next, compensate for the guilt that we programmed you to have by donating a lot of money to our charity. Or at least pay taxes or else we will garnish your wages, foreclose your property, and then throw you in jail.

Actually if you are Marc Rich, then massive tax fraud and tax evasion is fine because any convictions were probably misinformed and all is forgiven when the high priest issues a Presidental Pardon. Let’s be real though for a minute. You are not Marc Rich. So pay you taxes because the penalties for non-compliance are much worse than a sharp tug to the nose ring.

Also, since you know that you broke the social rules more often than you got caught by anyone, you should be terrified of dying because then right after you die you will have to face Santa Claus and find out what he is going ot give you for Christmas. Will you get an already opened Pandora’s box? Will you be ashamed of opening the box because you might find out that inside is just a big pile of guilt and terror and deception?

Did I mention that Phinehas drove a spear through two people a they were having sex? Keep in mind that for that act of heroism, he was made in to a priest. Plus, the plague was ended.

For those of you who are wondering, “why did the Lord of Israel let so many of them die,” the official answer is “for the greater good.” Put that down on the test and then you can get a box of heaven when you die.

In conclusion, there is no social programming and that is a good thing because there should not be. If there ever was, then we would need to send anyone who thought there was to a correctional facility to correct their facilities. They must be delusional.

Language is never used to deceive the masses for the greater good or for any other reason. Language cannot be used deceptively because small children are too intelligent to believe whatever Santa Claus tells them in a classroom when they are young and innocent.

Horses and elephants cannot be trained to believe they are tied down when they are not. Bulls cannot have rings put in their nose to direct their attention through physical pain.

After all, that is not what Jesus would do, right? He was a carpenter, not a cattle rancher. So, he would have cut some wood to build a fence or maybe a huge cross (to nail someone to as a sacrifice for the greater good).

Get what you value easily.

July 12, 2015

stepfinal2
The courage network

Get what you value easily.

bear overa bull

Competition is a reality. For instance, sometimes a bear can outlast a bull and bring it down, but will the victorious bear still have enough capacity to keep a pack of wolves away?

bear over bull

One lone wolf would probably never even get close to the prize. Just being courageous would not increase the physical capacity of a wolf, right?

cool-wolf-bear-food-fighting

However, what if a group of wolves cooperated to compete against a single bear (especially a bear that has just used a lot of resources to take down a bull)? How much easier would it be for a network of well-organized wolves (compared to an individual wolf) to get consistent favorable results?

bear against wolves

The parable of the bulls, bears, & wolves

bear

Maybe the wolves will drive off the bear quickly (so the bear will only get a few “leftovers”). Or, maybe the wolves will bully the bear in to sharing some “taxes” (10%? 25%? 50%?).

Bear_fighting_off_Wolves

Rather than risk directly attacking big, dangerous creatures like bulls or bears, the wisest wolves will network together to get a big percentage of every single killing. They will train the bears and the bulls to obediently offer a share of every killing to the pack of wolves. They may even encourage the bears and bulls to attack each other, making it even easier and safer for the wolves to be successful hunters (of bears and bulls, etc…).

bull looking at a bear

Of course, the wolves may also attack vulnerable targets such as “criminals” who operate *unauthorized* extortion rackets. For instance, what if some bulls get together and plan some investments even though they have no money? Maybe those bullies can intimidate some nearby bears in to perceiving that it is in the best interest of the bears to pay taxes to cover the “government debts” that the bulls just agreed for the bears to owe.

800px-Alfred_Jacob_Miller_-_Hunting_Buffalo_-_Walters_371940190

So, what if the wolves say “that specific extortion system is not authorized by our holy empire?” In that case, the wolves can vilify the bulls for creating an evil, unjust extortion racket. The wolves can present their condemnation as justification to invade the ancestral homeland of the “criminal bullies.” When the wolves arrive, they will declare that the bulls are trespassing in the new colony owned by the wolves.

bull-being-led-by-ring-in-nose

However, if the bulls want to continue to live in the colony, then they will need to do two things. First, the bulls will need to get a “ring of citizenship” inserted in to their nose to show that they are loyal citizens of the holy empire. Second, they will need trade valuable resources like food in exchange for the sacred objects of the wolves. (The only way for the bulls to avoid incarceration and seizure of assets will be to collect those sacred objects and give them to the wolves as “tax payments.”)

wooden nickel

What will the wolves declare as a sacred object? It will be something that they have in abundance, plus something that is hard for the bulls to get except from the wolves (a monopoly).

concho-1-antique-silver-1-pkg-buffalo-nickel_1317555
Then, the wolves can “sell” the bulls little useless chunks of gold or silver (which cost the wolves very little to mine) in exchange for a large number of bearskins (that it can take a bull several months of risky activities to accumulate). By efficiently bullying the bulls, the wolves can make enormous profits with very little danger or risk.

Mollie's wolf pack surronding bison in Pelican Valley; Doug Smith; February 2005

A wolf pack surrounding a bison;
Taken by Doug Smith;
February 2005

Obviously, the above paragraphs were using bears, bulls, and wolves as an analogy to human activities. Some of the ideas presented above may seem a bit complex (or even confusing). You do not need to understand them to benefit from The Courage Network. You do not even need to know what the word “courage” means to us, although understanding that could help to crystallize your motivation to take courageous action and get the results only available when you take those courageous actions.

running with bulls

To learn more about courage, click the top link on the left. Or, you can skip directly to one of the other options further below.

(These links are not active, but when you scroll down, you can read the content for the top 6 items.)

About Courage
– Why is it important
– How valuable is it
– What exactly is courage

About the Network
– Browse the results you can get
– Share your own unique expertise
– Learn the secrets of breakthrough methods

Contact Us
– Send a question or request
– Comment on specific content
– Subscribe to more free content
About Courage

– Why is it important?

Courage is important because it can lead to both the increasing of rewards and the reducing of losses. To consistently get above average results, above average methods must be used. To stop using average methods and start using above average methods can be labeled “courage.”

– How valuable is it?

Note that a lack of respect for risk can be disastrous. Courage is respecting risk. Recognizing risks and then avoiding them is already a huge advantage, plus courage also reveals opportunities that most people do not perceive.
Courage is a specific and rare type of openness. Habits and routines are never courageous. Courage is about alertness as distinct from presumptiveness or inattentiveness. The more popular that a presumption is, the more valuable it can be to courageously question that presumption and actually measure realities.

When fear is welcome, then the first consequences will be unusual levels of alertness, caution, and bold investigation.Through bold investigations, then insights will result. From insights, highly efficient methods can be developed and perfected. Those methods allow us to get what we value and to get it easily. (To skip ahead to examples of actual results CLICK HERE.)
– What exactly is courage?

Courage is a specific type of relationship to risk. Courage is accepting the reality of risk and still taking bold action. (By “bold,” I mean without regard for social validation.)

When accepting risk and taking action, the potential risks can be presumed, quickly estimated, or precisely measured. To act when there is just a presumption about risk is only boldness, not caution. When risks could be measured, but are not, then bold action involves desperation or panic. We could still call that bold action courageous, but we could also call it reckless presumptiveness.

Only when significant risk is clearly recognized, then courage is most relevant. The one with faith is open to fear, which leads to alertness , caution, and bold action. The one ashamed of fear (suppressing the display of it and avoiding triggers of it) is exhausted, not courageous.

>Continue>

Anyone can use words like courage and faith and fearlessness, but that may be from a perfectionist paranoia about how other people perceive them. By discounting the importance of fear as a signal to assess risk, people will be vulnerable to naive action and the catastrophic results of naive action. Far worse than occasional acts of reckless presumptiveness is an anxious obsession with celebrating blind optimism or enthusiasm as a “magic formula” for safety or prudence. That is naive self-sabotage.

One can recognize the inherent risks of habitual, naive presumptiveness. That is the awakening of alert caution.

Since many social institutions program people to presume that certain things are safe (or beneficial), one of the most distinctive forms of courage is the willingness to question programmed presumptions (in favor of direct observation). When observations and presumptions do not match, how do people react?

The person with faith will alter their presumptions to match their observations. The person terrified about other people’s perceptions will condemn any reality that reveals the inaccuracy of their naive presumption. They will even justify their condemnations as based on “faith” or on “science.” Actual science would require discarding imprecise presumptions in favor of observations. People who claim to have faith in presumptions actually lack faith in observation. They are terrified.

In addition to condemning certain actions, they condemn certain people. They often blame some new target for undermining or betraying whatever they believed to have been present before. Often, their prior beliefs were just programmed delusions. There was no isolated betrayal, but a history of deception. However, they resist the idea that they have been constantly deceived. They are terrified of the idea that adults deceiving them (like about Santa Claus) was not an isolated case. They anxiously resist the idea that even adults can be naive. “Of course certain other adults are naive, but not anyone who agrees with ME, right?”

As the deceptions are recognized one by one, the shame of having been deceived can result in outbursts of rage over the next betrayal. Also, many in shame are anxiously looking for an honest politician to be their savior by fixing the system to make it from how it is now in to how they were programmed by the system to perceive it as being.
About the Network

– Browse the results you can get

personal: breakthroughs in health, communication, & personal development
business: safe, profitable investments, debt relief, & business marketing

> FOR MORE, CLICK HERE

– Share your own unique expertise

Do you have great results to report? If so, would you be willing to help others get those results in exchange for appropriate compensation?

It is useful to have images (including charts) to visually display results, though you can also share testimonials (vidoe, audio, or text) as well as individual case studies. You can also list the search terms that relate to your experience, as well as brief introductions to who would value your expertise, why they would, and how they can obtain your help.

> FOR MORE, CLICK HERE
– Learn the secrets of breakthrough methods

You can benefit from a method without understanding how it works. However, a competent expert can teach you simple relationships that most people find perplexing or even “impossible.”

You know that every time you use a device that runs on electricity, you are benefiting from the innovations of someone even though you might not understand anything about electrical circuits. What if you could quickly learn simple principles of electromagnetism and then use them to improve your health easily and at almost no cost to you? You don’t need to understand exotic and cryptic secrets. You can focus on secrets that are simple and practical, but that most people are too distracted or anxious to notice.

> FOR MORE, CLICK HERE

Contact Us

– Send a question or request
– Comment on specific content
– Subscribe to more free content

An elitist definition of elitism

July 11, 2015

Jealousy is often the source of condemnation and contempt. People shame other people to balance the attraction that they feel. The contempt is a secondary repulsion to balance (to negate or suppress) the primary magnetism of attraction.

“Why should those people get that result instead of me? Now, for my next trick, I will hysterically condemn the success of their methods based on some factor other than the actual effectiveness of their methods!”
 

Notice that we pick specific targets for contempt. We do not usually focus on behavior in general. (If we did focus just on a pattern of behavior with respect for the results produced by the behavior, that would be respect for the behavior and its potential consequences, not condemnation and contempt).

So, we may focus on specific instances of a pattern of behavior in order to justify rage toward a particular target. Sometimes we pick the target first (like a particular celebrity or former romantic partner) and then find a long list of things about them to condemn. Or perhaps we are obsessed with a particular behavior (probably because someone that we want to hate has done it) and then we might generate a long list of villains to accuse of that behavior. Whether we make a list of people that did one behavior or a list of behaviors by one person, either pattern of behavior can arise in a panic of outrage.

We might criticize Joseph Smith for having several wives or the King of Saudi Arabia for having over 100 children, but we generally do not care how many children or wives someone has. We don’t ask because we don’t care. We tend to be very selective in our condemnations and shaming.

Clint Eastwood has had 8 children with 6 women, including two women that were his wives. Why do people care if he had two wives at once or divorced one first before marrying the other? Most of us do not care at all.

We do not start protest marches outside of movies that he directed. We do not boycott theatres that show films in which he is an actor. We care so little that we generally do not research the issue of how many women he has impregnated so far (or the details of the various cases). We usually do not even think of the issue.

But if someone accuses US President Bill Clinton of having sex with a few dozen women, that could start an argument. Someone will say “this proves what I have been telling you for so long… that he is evil!” Someone else will say “I know he did not have any extramarital sexual activities because I voted for him and I would not vote or anyone who betrays his wife by disregarding the traditional restrictions on a married man’s activities.” Someone else will say “Will all of you shut up because why should I even care?”

But what if you find out that your brother-in-law has been having sex with lots of women besides your sister (his wife)? Do you have different standards suddenly when it involves someone you know?

Maybe you do and maybe not. Unless it has happened to you, consider that you actually do not know what you would do. You might only have some cherished ideals about what people (such as you) should do or should not do.

So, what exactly is an elitist?

An elitist is someone who does not complain about other people’s complaints. They do not say “those idiots are complaining about trivia.” They do not even notice what most people are complaining about.

They are too interested in their own interests. They are interested in what results are disappointing to them or attractive to them. They are interested in what frustrates them or provides relief.

They do not mind that many people are going on and on about “how people should be.” They respect that there are different ideas about how people should be. They respect others… which does not imply interest in everyone or loyalty to “everyone.” They just respect that people can change and that different people have different patterns.

So, they are not obsessed about “everyone” or about particular other people (even past romantic partners). They are what is generally called snobs. In other words, they openly admit that they are more interested in their own life than anyone else’s life (or “everyone’s lives”).

Of course, double standards are standard. If two people generally do the same behavior, it is possible that both will get similar reactions. However, keep in mind that most people do not care about what others do. They may say they care, but what if they primarily just care about what other people think of them, so they habitually display “outrage” over whatever issues they hope will attract social validation of them as “morally superior?”


When athletes or rock stars admit to having affairs while married, do we have different reactions to different cases? Why outrage over Tiger Woods but not over Gene Simmons?

One factor is that Gene Simmons does not display shame and regret about having thousands of sexual partners. Wilt Chamberlain did not either, but Tiger Woods and Bill Cosby were shamed for much less shocking things than whats get covered up when it involves British Royalty or Roman Catholic Bishops.

Why is that? Because the British Royal family and the Bishops are well-connected. The mainstream media protects them while making scandals out of other relatively minor incidents. Plus, we do not want to condemn the powerful too publicly. We know that it is dangerous to criticize certain people, so we focus on safely criticizing distant villains (even villains that are safely dead).

But that could never happen in the US, right? We pursue every single criminal accusation equally right?

Plus, we would never pardon a convicted sex criminal, right? What about a famous musician who was also a political activist who confessed to having sex with a 14 year-old? The maximum penalty for the crime was 10 years. He served a few months (his full sentence), and then about ten years later, President Carter pardoned him. But most people did not care.

Or there was the famous rapist named Miranda. He confessed, then was convicted and sent to prison. However, he was released from prison (and his conviction was overturned) after his lawyers raised the issue of whether he had been notified of his right to remain silent. So, how would the rape victim feel when he gets released on a technicality? Eh, no one really cares.

Why do we care so much about Tiger Woods or his wife? The reality is that we don’t care about them either.

A year after we trash-talked about them for hours, eventually we don’t care about Gene Simmons or Clint Eastwood or even Bill Cosby or famous child molester Jimmy Saville, a British celebrity and close associate of the Royal Family (and, allegedly, their top supplier of children to molest). We might feel scared of also being “victimized” so we sympathize and grieve with the victims, but that is not out of actual personal concern for the victims. It’s not like we write them letters, right? We are just concerned about our own safety. Their victimization reminds us of our vulnerability.

We just get addicted to condemnation (and arguing). It helps distract us from shame. It helps distract us from our terror of facing the reality that there are networks of people who can get away with murder and who regularly do.

Marc Rich might have been convicted of massive tax fraud, but if the US President pardons him, well, then maybe no one really cared about tax fraud in the first place. We don’t really care that the government creates bail-out programs to send trillions of taxpayer dollars to the least responsible banks.

We don’t really care that the government has had a bail-out program for decades to use billions of taxpayer dollars to protect pharmaceutical companies from personal injury lawsuits from vaccinations. But we might love to argue, so we can pick a few “infuriating” topics for socializing.

But what if the Governor of California has kids with two women? Is that upsetting because we are concerned that these actors who then become politicians might be paid to perform a role for us and read a script designed to promote specific results in the audience?

Doesn’t that young man look a lot like his father? Sure, but would you boycott a movie to protest his dad’s marital infidelity? Is that going to make you feel like you did a favor for the bastard son or his mom?

Then some angry women on TV can get paid to model rage. They can argue with each other and feel personal antagonism toward each other about the personal lives of political celebrities.

Please be aware that some of the pictures show nipples that you might find incredibly sexually arousing. Therefore, please go ahead and plan your criticisms of the man pictured below for exposing in public his very sexy nipples.
Schwarzenegger bodybuilding pictures

Do elitist snobs ever make fun of the general public and their worship of hysteria? If they do, they most certainly should not. That would be shameful and elitist and uncommon and distinctive but not even slightly hilarious.

Harry accuses above average people of being above average

July 10, 2015
  • Harry Lieberwirth
    3:22am

    Harry Lieberwirth

    READ ALL OF THIS AT YOUR LEISURE, respond only to what stands out. I am just grateful to have someone that doesnt check out when I check in.. thanks JR.

    That was Harry’s last comment. I will present all of my replies and then his full writing.

    • Today
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn
      11:08am

      J R Fibonacci Hunn

      In regard to “why lethal force is used,” I will raise the historical story of Moses and the massacre of the Midianites. The goats of the Midianites were not slain. They were captured. All the humans were killed except for the 32,000 virgin girls taken as war brides / child brides /sex slaves by the Israelite army.

      Why were all Midianite males killed (even young) ones? Because male children have a record of growing up to retaliate on those who slaughter their family. Males are more physically dangerous, so empires must dominate them with special care (or kill them).

      See: 

      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+31     &

      http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

      It is the same with cattle. The females make milk, so they are likely to be sent to the dairy. The males (other than those few used for breeding) will be slaughtered for food.

      If it seems best to invade Iraq and colonize them and let them continue to operate their oil wells, so be it. If it seems best to kill them and then send in Chinese laborers to operate the machinery, plus some African slave masters to supervise the Chinese laborers, so be it. Maybe the Saudis will supervise the slave masters and the Swiss Jesuits will “keep the Saudis in line.”

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn
      11:10am

      J R Fibonacci Hunn

      As for monopolizing the use of threats and force and coercion, yes that is what governments do… at least up to a point. Of course when a mafia is the interest that forms an army, then the army only keeps the civilians in line. The army protects the mafia from competition, but does not compete with the mafia.

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn
      11:12am

      J R Fibonacci Hunn

      The glorification of “the thug life” is an important part of zionist / jesuit / communist /fabian propaganda. Law enforcement priesthoods need crime in order to justify the extortion of money from the civilians. The public must be kept in terror. Preventing all crime would be horrible for business.

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn
      11:15am

      J R Fibonacci Hunn

      Systems of property ownership are systems of oppression. The idea is that the Europeans arrive in Arizona or South Africa and inform the natives that “you no longer live here.” Property ownership is how the elite enforce their privileges and put the Native Americans in their “internment camps.”

       
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn
      11:19am

      J R Fibonacci Hunn

      I do not get trapped in the issue of arguing over which system of organized coercion is most justified: the zulus or the boers, the black gang or the mexican gang. When there is one dominant system, that corresponds to stability. When there are three or five groups all competing, that is a civil war or gang wars. That is generally unfavorable (in terms of safety and stability), though it may seem like a great opportunity for the Natives to take back some land or for the Irish to take more land from the Natives.

       
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn
      11:26am

      J R Fibonacci Hunn

      As for intentionally killing a living creature, I would NEVER do that. Once in my naive youth, I dug up a potato, which killed the plant completely. I had nightmares for several centuries after that. In my dreams, my hands were dirty with MUD. It was nauseating. That is why i never talk about it and I cannot stand to even use the word potatoes, which is why you may have noticed that I never use the word potatoes.

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn
      11:29am

      To be clear, I want to disarm the masses so as to better intimidate and/or slaughter them.

      That was interesting point you make that lengthy comments immediately repulse the most hysterical.

    •  Anyway, I read it all and you’re welcome. Here is my broad comment….

      We may develop a habit of apologizing for our intelligence. We know it is unusual to be so intelligent. We are disappointed that other people are not more intelligent. We are thrilled to find an intelligent conversation.

      We might get a bit inefficient in our methods of testing other people’s responses to displays of intelligence, but that is out of well-learned caution. We opt for a bit of inefficiency until we get better at “sorting the pearls from the swines.”

      • Harry Lieberwirth
        2:17am

        Harry Lieberwirth

        Hey JR the following became too long to reasonably expect anyone but yourself to respond but it was a comment originally so it may sound like I am adressing more than one person here but I am quite sure you could explain, you’re pretty into your right to bear arms or at least like me happy for would be rape victims that have a real means to defend themselves from physically being overpowered.

        I was raised with gun control, being from Europe. But then I grew up and realized how the very laws outlawing guns for civilians are only held in place by coercion of armed enforcers using… guns.. and I dont believe people no matter what they want me to call them are magically more responsible by nature. Their training may be better funded than civilian one though. It seems stranger the more I think of it. I am not against deadly force absolutely speaking.. sometimes it is that, or be raped by physically stronger assailant. Personally I would go with rubber or beanbag because I prefer not to kill someone if I am given a choice. I wouldnt personally want to kill someone just for say robbing a store in my presence or even do more to a would be rapist than stop him using nonlethal force, and get him arrested. Even if he disgusts me I just dont feel like its a mess worth the trouble, entirely aside from how I might feel about it which is probably sick because I think bleeding to death looks gross.

        Anyway my point; Is playing dirty Harry, just wanting to kill someone legally, because the idea excites someone, all there is to it? I guess that might actually be true for some but ofcourse I dont believe thats always true. I’d like someone to take a minute to explain without saying ”because its my right, because I can” -what is the idea behind using potentially deadly force on someone that isn’t himself likely to be a lethal threat? What makes it considered necessary or adequate, when rubber and beanbags have as far as I am told sufficient and equally disarming and incapacitating stopping power?

        Or is it more about the socially propagated threat of lethal force with the purpose of that threat alone discouraging armed criminals from being criminal? I see how that might work for some wannabe gangsters but it might end up killing more of them than it scares off. I dont think ”crime leads to death” is really that scary to people that deal with lethal violence on the daily like someone from a rough neighborhood.. and no one wonders whether there are hp or rubber bullets when they stare down a barrel in person.

        Also, someone truly willing to kill a store owner for being a hassle, I wager they can’t be scared by telling them maybe someone will kill them.. MAYBE. Someone that crazy, wild, or stupid, I doubt they care. I don’t necessarily oppose trying fear as discouragement, I just doubt its effectiveness on the actually dangerous trigger happy ones. And yeah maybe I dont really have that much of a problem with the world losing someone like that. I still wonder what the main idea behind it all is. If it wasn’t already obvious just to clarify, I am not asking the questions I am asking to attack gun rights or right to use hollowpoints or even be subversive, I am sincerely curious.

        I expect it to be likely to fall under scary threat for discouragement, I just think people dont quite understand the mess they are getting into with what I expect to be a visceral psychological effect of shooting someone and watching them bleed to death. It can’t be that great unless well, someone is themselves not far off from being the same murdering madman they want to legally kill.. someone with a lust for the idea of killing a ”bad man”. I never quite followed how murdering murderers out of sincere condemnation and not as an example to others, made much sense. Just doesn’t seem like something that just blows over. I can’t say for sure I just think humans killing humans isnt psychologically healthy for the killer and often unwarranted when someone isnt even making threats but is ”ignoring” loud demands because they have earbuds in and cant hear the man saying stop or I will shoot. I dont like the cops are good cops are bad debate.. cops are people.. people sometimes are justified and sometimes they make mistakes. Shooting someone before they make a move and actually attack, or in that earlier case is just someone seeming to disobey when they just cannot hear the warnings. Does a deaf man even get a chance?

        Where does it stop being something that can be explained by reasoning and start being about lust for blood or being so unreasonably and unprofessionally caught by the horror of an unarmed man for not ceasing to walk. Why is no one training these people, no matter civilian or not, to aim for the legs? Its a common thing for dutch fire arms training, cops tend to aim for the legs, only use rubber bullets, catch the bad guy, cannot recall a cop having to use deadly force to arrest gun toting underworld gangsters. We have mobsters or something of the like, still. Maybe the situations are far to different to compare, in the end I am ignorant of the reality so I figured I would inquire. So yes I may reason against it but I dont seek to outlaw anything, can’t really stop the type inclined to extreme means justified by the idea that otherwise it would have been deadly for the civilian or cop. In some cases that is probably true, but I prefer not.. taking a life out of fear. What is your personal take on it and what do you gather others’ reasons are? I might just not know that rubber bullets fail to properly incapacitate, I dont know, I just know dutch cops use them and if one of them gets shot it would be first time in like a decade.

        N like I said those mafiosis are packing and there are sometimes reports of hits happening, underworld people ”disappearing”, so they are not shy of murder.. just doesn’t happen on cops (the only ones here allowed to use guns on other humans) as far as I can recall. All that said I think self regulating and having guns around daily life isnt a bad call.. saves rape victims and makes it hard to rob anyone when the other people in the store might just put a gun to the back of a robber’s head. I am all for the threat and use of guns.. including training that makes one adept at shooting someone in the leg or shoulder as second nature. The concept of necessary is a lot different from what I think would suffice as necessary.

        Greenleaf to post gun warning signs
        ktvb.com
      • Harry Lieberwirth
        2:27am

        Harry Lieberwirth

        Someone shot in the chest by rubber or a beanbag is far more fit to be taken into custody than one full of lead and holes, plus since all that stopping power is saved for a slamming impact with no penetration I would wager a rubber bullet is likely to create inability to breathe when hit in the chest let alone be a danger to anyone. I’m not into thinking I can change whether gun rights exist over there or prohibition of guns exists here.. I just think being free to have the option would be preferable if I thought there was a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening. I can’t get one because Ive been with the good doctors and their crazy pills too long to be given a second look, and like I said, they are useless, shooting humans even in self defense is punishable by law unless one is a cop or making war in the army.

      • Harry Lieberwirth
        3:06am

        Harry Lieberwirth

        However you read this, I am mostly curious, so tired of being accused of wanting to take someone’s rights because I asked a sincere question exposing my ignorance like I was being facetious. I have seen people not notice sarcasm, but I was surprised to see people not notice my lack of sarcasm. I ended up just saying I was really just curious but ofcourse they didnt care and went right on ranting like.. anyone else was there doing what they accused me of, while no one else was. Not the intensity of it that bothers me, but the sheer amount of people that are locked into ”u wanna take my rights don’t you” even after explaining with a disclaimer of no sarcasm. Not just that.. I’m always bothering or looking to oppress someone apparently. Asking questions makes me the enemy they would not hesitate to kill to defend the goddamn rights I don’t care one way or the other for. They’re not mine, I dont stand to win anything by meddling, not even my country. And that said I would if it was support gun rights.. and a lot of things.. my lack of concern translates into being against most bans or prohibition approaches. Let people be people.. no one being actually abused or molested or done more than have their feelings hurt? Well then let them.. screw legislating hurt feelings as the reason to ban things.. only if you’re not an actual minority group of society though.. like lets see asians try to ask for a ban of something that hurts their feelings.. I doubt anyone would care half as much as when the black power types demanded to ban a flag but forget about the KKK outfits we actually all know stand for racial supremacy and racist intent. Personally that still is just an outfit no one is being hurt so even the KKK can have their cooky little ritual cult.. no lynching tho that is all.

      • Harry Lieberwirth
        3:19am

        Harry Lieberwirth

        I really dislike some cultural stereotypes like the hoodrat thug or the white trash methhead.. and the way they congregate.. chaff does tend to sit with chaff doesn’t it. I don’t see them as speaking for their race. I dont find race a denotation worth really making. We’re all people, some among all colours are highly intelligent, some are incredibly stupid, can’t say I find a generalized idea leading to racial distinctions I think matter. Maybe some black people have nice athletic builds other white people can only dream of getting after 1 year of 12 hours a week hitting the gym.. maybe the subcultures are often annoying the shit out of me.. I refuse to be called a racist over that though. I love REAL black people, I’ve met african natives – I like to say as I troll some black dude with an attitude. Maybe thats not allowed either though, to think that a subculture and its way of life is stupid and ridiculous.. ethnic discrimination.. not even true in that way.. it is the behaviour.. they could all stop acting like ”niggas” and maybe then I wouldnt find them annoying. I have the same thing with the proud naive white lower class. Proud to propagate some dead man’s values because daddy said so. I actually do think the american south is charming. Beautiful place from what I can see too. No problem with the majority of people.. can hardly help being annoyed by certain behaviours.. but everything is racism nowadays. One moment I am the white guilting self hater because I dont agree with mr KKK and the next I am the epitome of all bad white slavers.. like I feel as though I am being credited with a debt I dont have. No matter how much I am stereotyped. I feel like mostly not talking anymore.. except to you and Dan or anyone else that isnt so fucking stupid. I dont find swine turning on me to rend me a pleasant experience. But I do have enough courage to see whether someone is smart enough.. easy enough to check.. just be as long winded as I always am.. makes the dummies like OMG I cannot even read comprehensively when someone uses more than’s common, they just stop even responding, lose all interest. Ok no worries dumdums it is entirely mutual tongue emoticon

Song: “the real man (of my dreams)”

July 9, 2015

 

Lyrics: the real man (of my dreams)

She said, “he should respect me.” I said, “you wish he would.” She said, “he won’t respect me.” I said, “you don’t feel good….
about the ways things are and then you think of him and think something is wrong and it must be his fault
but what if nothing’s wrong, what if no one’s to blame, what if you got scared… and then froze in shame?”
she said, “but he should change.” I said, “you wish he would.” She said, “I wish he did… what I [said / say] he should.”
I said, “you spilled some milk and then started to cry you tripped him once with guilt got him to swallow pride
so then you withdrew but still resented him as you kept spilling milk and calling him the villain.”

she said, “I wish he would …respect himself!” I said, “I hear you talking about somebody else.”
she said, “okay, I got scared and found someone to blame I stirred up resentment to push a threat away.”

I said, “was he a threat?” she said, “I felt unsafe. So I spilled some milk to justify rage.”
I said, “you knew he’d melt, he’d panic and retreat, maybe spill more milk maybe start to weep.”
she said, “he’s immature just an old boy not the real man of my dreams

I want to wake up and feel safe to see a man I trust every single day
a man who earns my trust who loves my rage who loves my fear who loves my shame


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 299 other followers

%d bloggers like this: