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?
Murder is not murder until a sequence of government rituals results in the charging of suspect with murder. Until, the ruling is complete, there is only a murder charge, not an official ruling of murder.
The rituals of investigation, indictment, and criminal prosecution may result in the creation of a ruling of murder. Of course, the TV news broadcast may say “President Lincoln was murdered yesterday,” and, within the context of how they are using the word, that is fine.
If a government passes a law to create a new rule on whether or not it is “murder” to kill a slave or a Native American or an unborn fetus, that involves another set of rituals. Where do all of these modern government rituals come from? Most come from the Hebrew prophet Noah with the 7th commandment (to supplement the prior 6), which was the commandment to “establish courts of justice” (to quote the popular translation in to English).
designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.’.
Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;
Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;”
Even in the case of OJ Simpson, there was no real doubt that the people were murdered. In that sense, “anyone can say that it was a murder.” So, I agree with you in part.
However, what if a police officer, who was legally performing his duties, killed both OJ’s ex-wife and the innocent bystander, and then that police officer died (so as not to be able to report the lawful killings)? Then, they were actually not “murdered.”
Writing your ridicules down would not change the words. It is not the speaking of the word “Washington” that made a certain northwestern state in to the state of Washington. What created that tradition (of calling the state “Washington”) was a ritual of a government that was backed by a huge concentration of military capacity.
The current warlords said “we are naming this state after a prior warlord.” Various tribes may have called the same area by other names. But if you want to send mail through the USPS to that region of the world, it could be useful to identify the state as Washington by the code “WA.”
The following content is intended to identify people who are unusually stable emotionally. The process will involve a short sequence of ideas. Those who experience shame or other emotional instability upon exposure to those ideas can stop reading at that point. Of course, once they calm down again, they would have the option to continue. After the brief presentation of provocative ideas, then I welcome comments and inquires from those who are either already emotionally stable or are motivated to further develop toward emotional stability.
Review each of the following statements and then indicate whether you agree or disagree with that statement.
“I found some of these statements to be very familiar (as in similar to things that I have said or that I have witnessed other people saying). I consider all of those statements to be hysterical as in hilarious. I am not terrified of logic or intelligence. I respect them. I value them. I am very interested in further developing my intelligence and my capacity for logic and discernment.”
The current political and economic systems may continue more or less as they already are. The military superiority of government troops trained in organized violence may continue to intimidate and dominate the general public. A variety of very popular hysterias may continue to be promoted by the mainstream media and even by mainstream schools.
Right below the photo is my introductory comment and then quite an exchange on the nature of currency systems.
This is kind of an odd question (in the image). If I sign a 12 month lease to rent a place to live, that is the creation of a legal debt. If a government invents a fine for driving above a certain speed limit and then says that I owe them $100,000 for speeding, that is also the creation of a legal debt.
Generally speaking, governments are systems of inventing legal debts (“out of thin air”) and then extorting / coercing the human resources to seek out a government-approved currency in order to pay the government enough wealth to cover the debts invented by the government and thus avoid arrest, imprisonment, confiscation of property, and of course public rituals of human sacrifice.
Some people (such as myself) become curious at some point about historical trends and forecasting future trends. Since 2002, forecasting changes in prices has been a major investment of my time. On occasion, my forecasts have produced quite large gains in short periods of time. October 23rd was such a time.
Jesus repeated the teachings of Isaiah by saying “in vain they worship me, presenting the traditions of man as the principles of God.” There is a similar passage in regard to the adoration of money being the root of many forms of social disorder. Is money itself the root of social disorder? That is not what the Scriptures say in any language or in any translation.
A presumptive adoration of money is not innocent curiosity and mindfulness in regard to wealth. A presumptive adoration corresponds to negligence. Negligence can produce a variety of socially unfavorable outcomes.
For reference, I have repeatedly forecast the recent weakness in US stock prices (and global stock prices). I will show you detail of that below. (If you not understand any of the following or would like for me to repeat any of it to you by phone or skype, then let me know.)
While US stocks were unusually flat most of this year, I profited from other markets. I also profited from the predictable plunge in US stock prices on 8/24.
Why I said that is because the trend in stocks worldwide and in the US are currently even weaker than in 2007 or 2000 (the risk levels are higher). I can show anyone my publications prior to and during the 2007-2009 stock market decline indicating advance expectation of the beginning of the plunge, the acceleration of the plunge, and the exact timing of the rebound (within a week of the exact low).
Not only did my forecasts allow for avoiding the huge losses during that time, but allowed for enormous gains during the same time. Historic profits were made from large price movements in US bond markets and in commodities as well as from declining prices in US stock prices. Again, I have made easy profits from declining prices in every major market. Almost anyone can do it but most people do not know how it is done.
Next, let’s briefly review my recent forecasts regarding the US stock market. On Jan. 30th, 2015, I published the article which you can read here: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/global-stock-markets-are-at-a-precipice-a-potential-cliff/
The title was rather clear:
“The last seven months have been quite weak [for the global stock market] relative to most of the last 10 years (shown below). The risk levels in current stock markets globally are currently exceeding the risk levels at the peak in 2007….”
Here is an updated chart of that global stock index of the stock prices of 5,000 companies. Note the unusual flatness of early 2015 (the orange section at the top right):
Even prior to January 2015, I was aware that the trend in global stocks was “maturing” (losing momentum / plateauing). Risks were increasing to such an extreme level that, at the end of last January, I published the alert linked above.
Note the date and highlighted portions of this next email (from August 19, 2015), especially that stocks are “subject to a sudden, massive, and lasting decline.”The subject line of that email is shown below: FYI, US stocks are notably weak again. Click the image to see a larger version.
My predictions were correct. After 8/19/2015, US stock prices began a steep decline. On Saturday 8/22 in an email, I wrote:
“…yesterday’s 3.2% drop was the biggest in [the last 3 years]. For the last few months, I have been writing about the likelihood of such a sharp drop (and what I expect to follow). I did very well from yesterday’s decline in US stocks, but not as well as I had hoped. Fortunately for me, there is much more coming.”
There was an ever bigger plunge in stock prices on Monday 8/24 (starting in Asia when it was still Sunday evening in the US). The next day, I published this report, which shows the actual trading data from the brokerage account:
Reported in that link are the actual investment results (from “day trading” of stock options) on Monday. I made a profit of about $1900 in a few hours off of about $3500 of capital (gains of over 50%).
I know that trends form, accelerate, then mature. I also know that one type of trend is a “selling panic” which also may slowly form (as a prior trend destabilizes), then suddenly can accelerate, then eventually will re-stabilize.
Market conditions can be unusually “ripe” for a selling panic. I have been interested in learning how to identify that “ripeness” for a panic, then calmly watching for those conditions to develop.
Some selling panics are brief dips, recovering as fast as they happen. However, so far, the rebound after 8/24 has been “modest,” with a few weeks of partial recovery and then more than a week of slowly returning toward the prior low. Each new development is to me just another phase within a larger cycle: trends form, mature, and then de-stabilize.
Have you ever noticed that what people say and what people do may not match? For instance, people may say that they value intelligence, yet seem to be quite terrified of the subject. They may harshly insist that whatever behaviors that they display are the ultimate height of intelligence.
Why are some people so anxious about whether other people agree that they are so intelligent? Why do they invest so much energy in to ridiculing other interpretations for a so-called lack of intelligence? Why do other perspectives trigger so much distress for them? Why are they so desperately anxious for consensus (for silencing alternate opinions… or at least withdrawing from them)?
I can tell you how it was for me when I acted in those ways. I presented a pretense of having crossed a bridge beyond all naivete. My intelligence was perfect, at least according to me.
Why was I so hysterically tense about other people’s perceptions of my intelligence? I did not want them to know that I knew I still had much to learn. I did not want them to know that I was still curious. I did not want them to know that I still wanted to develop my intelligence further.
I pretended to avoid their ridicule and harassment. I abandoned the cultivating of my intelligence in order to display ideas in conformity with what I perceived to be a consensus of opinion.
Where did I get my ideas of consensus? It was the same for me as for anyone else. In addition to several hours every day of mainstream media, I went to schools that programmed the students to set aside their own innate curiosity and then memorize specific content from the curriculum, then blindly repeat it to receive social validation. We even had classes about science in which we memorized and blindly repeated ideas, and then claimed to be certified experts in science.
Did we conduct any experiments? Did we review and thoroughly critique the experiments that other people had conducted?
No, that is not the kind of science we were learning. In most cases, we were learning that memorizing and repeating an unexamined idea was science.
What did we do if someone challenged our competence in science? We hysterically defended our presumptions. We were outraged at their insulting skepticism. In other words, we panicked.
After all, everyone knows that every liver on this planet makes a compound in order to poison the rest of the organism, right? Everyone knows that eating that compound (which everyone makes whether they eat any of it or not) is also deadly, right?
We did not need to review any research on the obvious dangers of cholesterol. We had memorized what we were told and then repeated what we memorized to receive social approval for memorizing and repeating our “science” lessons. Plus, the mainstream media constantly pumped hysteria and paranoia about eating cholesterol, so that must mean that if a chicken egg has a lot of cholesterol, then that is going to explain why all of the chicks that hatch out of chicken eggs are dead, right?
We did not need to look at evidence. We did not need to conduct experiments. We were experts and we had government certifications on the wall to prove it.
My level of intelligence was already rated by the government as “perfect.” Naturally, I did not really know much about the government’s system for rating intelligence, but if they said that my intelligence was perfect (and if I was ashamed about my actual level of intelligence at the time), well then you can understand my panic and distress if anyone questioned the precision of our holy government’s system for rating intelligence. “I do not mind you insulting me,” I would say, “but do not dare insult our holy government!”
To be clear, I was not jealous about the results they were obtaining through their so-called scientific models. I was not jealous because I refused to pay attention to their heretical ideas and would discard any claim that they made because they were making claims that were unfamiliar to me, that were contrary to my holy science lessons, and that must be wrong because my intelligence was already perfect and I had a government certificate to prove it. My anxious panic was not an anxious panic because my anxious panic was passionately defending the honor of our holy government.
Of course, if there ever was an imprecision in the science lessons of our holy government, then that must have been an innocent error. To consider any other alternative would be too shameful, so let’s just move on.
If there is ever any controversy about the precision of an old scientific “consensus,” then we must show our loyalty to the system by campaigning for reforms. We need to reform the educational rituals that program students to memorize and blindly repeat ideas and then call that science. How should we reform those rituals? We will remove a few items from the curriculum and then replace them with new content to memorize and blindly repeat, then call “consensus science.”
Why did I stop pretending to have perfect intelligence? Or, if I did not have a government certificate on the wall, then why did I stop pretending to have less intelligence than the powerful priesthood with government certificates on their wall?
Why I began to stop the pretenses is that eventually I was thoroughly disappointed by the results of the pretense. Of course there was chronic physical tension from hiding my curiosity (blocking the physical expressions that display curiosity, as in “holding my tongue”). But beyond the physical toll of suppressing my physical expression, I just was not getting the prosperity and health and happiness that I desired. Of course, I had pretended that I was getting all of those things for a while, but then I withdrew from those who seemed to lack the emotional stability for me to actually relax my pretenses in their presence without them panicking. I began to relax all of the pretending that I had learned in order to fit in at school and at government jobs.
I was exhausted from all of the pretending. I gave up the façade because it was sabotaging me instead of raising me up through the ranks of the government priesthood.
At first, I resisted the surrender. However, even as I layered new pretenses on top of the old ones, my inner anxiety only increased.
Even though I was a government-certified expert in a few specialties, I had not actually developed a functional amount of competence. I might have loudly proclaimed my competence and confidence, but that was a cover for my shame and lack of confidence.
By then, I knew that I was naïve. I was still terrified, though, if anyone mentioned it.
I knew that humility would be required for me to cultivate curiosity and intelligence. I would need to stop pretending to already know everything.
I knew that courage was required for me to be humble. I would need to start admitting to other people that I do not already know everything. I might even begin to relate to others as having valuable expertise even though their expertise was not the same as mine. I might respect their expertise and their experience.
But that would mean assessing on my own their competence. I would not have the convenient method of simply finding out if they were certified by the holy government as an expert. I would have to accept my own naivete and then select topics that appealed to me, then make my own observations and logically assess the observations made by others.
Yes, I would have to actually develop logic and rational discernment. I would no longer rely on holy consensus by government certification as the only valid standard of credibility and expertise.
Even if an idea was ridiculed in science classrooms or in mainstream media, it might be true. In fact, the more that an idea is threatening to the consensus, it may be that it is more likely to have some truth to it.
I would have to withdraw from passionate debates about which hysterias and heresies were most important to reform (or to protest against or prevent). I would have to decline to enter those debates and even stop actively seeking them out (starting them). It would be quite a change for me!
[In the video, I made an extensive ad lib somewhere around here.]
I could even stop gleefully pointing out the errors of mainstream media and schools. Perhaps, they are systematically biased to focus on certain subjects and not others, plus to focus on those subjects only in certain ways.
I am no longer ashamed of my prior shame. So, I do not need to shame others for whatever I might call shameful.
I respect shame. There is even an intelligence to shame. However, there is an intelligence in absolutely everything.
When I perceive something as a possible threat, I may ridicule it. That might work well for me. If I am jealous of someone and I want to discourage them from competing with me or exposing my shame, then it can be effective to ridicule them or shame them. To protect me from the threat that I perceive, shaming them might work, right?
However, intimidating one possible threat will never resolve the vulnerability to that threat. If I am interested in resolving my vulnerability to the exposure of my naivete or incompetence, the ultimate solution is to develop competence and expertise.
What benefits can we cultivate?
Through my experimentation and research, I found some unfamiliar methods that produced appealing results. I would like to share them with you. Perhaps you will even have some results to share that are even more attractive. Also, for those who simply wish to release their own suppression of their own intelligence, you can benefit from programs that provide exactly what you value most. To continue, click here: results.
How do you guys get your news? Do you listen to news TV? Radio? Read online? Newspaper?
Do you think staying on top of news is important or do you think the news is just same shit, different year?
Harry Lieberwirth I get my news from people that think I care about the news. Someone’s always sharing something. Other than that I don’t actively follow any news outlets. Nor do I actively avoid them for that matter. My response to a lot of things, like news, whatever its nature, is quiet indifference. I’ll start paying attention, when something *actually* starts affecting me or mine. smile emoticon
J R Fibonacci Hunn That was in a mass media course. In the last week, I have been reading a short book called the Rockefeller files from the mid-70s. It details how john Rockefeller created a monopoly on the oil industry within the US and then spread that monopoly to develop oilfields in Russia, Arabia, etc.
With that money, he purchased many major newspapers in the US such as the New York Times and Washington Post. He also purchased the ap News wire and many radio stations. The TV industry and the major networks were all started by the same existing media syndicates.
How did he use all that influence? He used it to direct public attention. By the 1930s during the presidency of FDR, Rockefeller’s agent was the top adviser to the president and lived in the White House full-time. Through the media, The Rockefellers controlled politics. They owned both parties and every candidate for many decades was a member of the Rockefellers CFR. The UN is a Rockefeller project for world government just as the League of Nations before it.
The Rockefellers started communism in Russia and China with the help of J.P. Morgan. They brought socialism to the US in the 1930s. They started The ecology movement in the early 1970s in order to control competition in the energy industry and drive up oil prices by causing a fuel shortage. The EPA kept out competition and resulted in a dramatic reduction in oil extraction and increased prices. At the start of the decade gasoline in the US was about $.30 a gallon and about $.10 of that went to the Rockefellers and their oil companies. By the end of the decade the price was up to around one dollar andaround $.80 per gallon went to the Rockefellers.
J R Fibonacci Hunn I could go on and on about that single case. The Rockefellers revolutionized education in the US by dominating all of the colleges that train teachers and then making a monopoly on the textbook industry so that they can control what text books were published and used. They were the ones who sponsored the communist John Dewey in the massive reforms to education in the early 20th century.
They started the Rockefeller Institute for medical research which is how natural medicine became criminalized and pharmaceutical medicine that attacks the immune system of the patient became standard. What are pharmaceutical drugs made out of? They are petroleum byproducts. They are made from oil and they keep prices of fuel high by redirecting so much petroleum into medicines and alsopesticides of course.
J R Fibonacci Hunn I also studied the writings of Edward Bernays who is the founder of the PR industry. He was hired by the US government to reverse the resistance to the US public of an invasion of Europe in the 1910s. He invented stories which were constantly repeated throughout the media owned by the Rockefellers and other Zionists. His stories might dominate front-page headlines for many weeks and then, a year or decade later, a retraction might be published on page 15.
His methods work so well that they became standard not only for the US government and other governments, but he was hired by lucky strike cigarettes to promote cigarettes to women. Cigarettes were presented as having medicinal value and contributing to health kind of like vaccines today. Also, Bernays created a kind of feminist revolution as the emotional context of the “great act of anti-sexist rebellion” that he programmed women to take (the smoking of cigarettes in public). He also made a point to have cigarette smoking be featured in hundreds of Hollywood productions.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Next he was hired by the diamond cartel Debeers. His plan with them was also incredibly successful. Diamond rings went from a small marketshare to being the standard for engagement rings.
How did he do it? He used 90 minute commercials called romance movies. The entire script was centered around an emotional climax when the handsome leading man would present the leading actress with a diamond ring and ask her to marry him. She would say yes and audiences would cheer and demand for diamond rings Would soar. The same rings that could be sold for $20 in one decade would be selling for 200 or 2000 within a few decades.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Honestly, I can remember learning relatively little in class that was interesting or practical.
I did have an elective as an undergrad in which I learned about how the US and UK used Soviet propaganda to demonize the Nazis and blame the Nazis for atrocities committed by the Soviets. Most of that class was unmemorable, but that incident was very explicit and clear and unexpected.
J R Fibonacci Hunn In grad school, I saw the film “manufacturing consent” by Noam Chomsky, which was well-done. Chomsky basically “just scratched the surface” without getting in to the actual history (as far as I recall).
On my own, I eventually learned about how the Federal Reserve was created and the influence of Colonel House as the individual who controlled President Woodrow Wilson. I actually studied the Fed from the perspective of astrological “signatures.” I read one report on the actual sequence of events in the formation of the Fed (by an astrologer who was commenting on the specific timing of different things). The timing and the astrological analysis was moderately interesting, but the actual historical sequence was fascinating.
The sinking of the Titanic was a strategic move in which hundreds of opponents of the Fed were given free tickets for a wildly-celebrated “privilege,” then it was intentionally sunk, killing the opponents and paving the way for an easy revolution. All sorts of conspiracies have been incredibly successful.
J R Fibonacci Hunn In my youth, the only conspiracy that was familiar to me was probably the use of the Trojan Horse to deceive the Trojans (and slaughter them), ending that war in favor of the Greeks. Later, I read “war is a racket” by USMC Major General Smedley Butler.
J R Fibonacci Hunn This is an updated version of the article that I read in 2002: http://www.billmeridian.com/articles-files/fed-new.htm
J R Fibonacci Hunn Chomsky seems to be condemning propaganda. Butler also seemed to be troubled by guilt (unless that was just part of his act).
Bernays did not write with any apologies. He just detailed exactly how he used deception and even intimidation to profit his clients.
J R Fibonacci Hunn On the History channel, my wife was just watching something on how the ruthless pirate Captain Morgan was accused of piracy by the British crown and then made in to the Vice Governor of Jamaica. I do not know if JP Morgan is a descendant, but that would make sense.
Maybe in 2007 or so, I read a book on how the european monarchies hired pirates and called them “privateers,” giving them licenses to attack the ships of opposing european powers and then the pirates (“privateers”) and monarchs would split the plunder.
I also read a biography about the founder of Time-Life, Henry Luce, whose family was also deep in to US politics and he grew up in a family of zealous Christian missionaries in China.
In the “fed” article, you can ignore the first few paragraphs about astrology.
Start reading from here:
“The Fed’s Origin
On the evening of November 22, 1910, a group of distinguished men met at a railway station in New Jersey to board a private train for Jekyll Island, Georgia. The group included Senator Nelson Aldrich, the presidents and senior partners of the largest New York banking and financial houses, a German banker named Paul Warburg, and J.P. Morgan’s personal assistant, Benjamin Strong. So secret was the journey, that the travelers addressed each other by first name only, and Jekyll Island’s regular staff of servants was sent on holiday lest the exclusive gathering attract attention. Jekyll Island was owned as a private sporting lodge and retreat by some of the country’s most influential industrialists and financiers. At the time, the members estimated that they controlled one-sixth of the world’s wealth (membership by inheritance only).
Why did the group seek such a remote location to formulate a new monetary bill for the country? The reason lies in the events surrounding the Panic of 1907. Demand for monetary reform soared following the Panic. The average citizen was very opposed to …”
Now a comparison to the Fed’s currency:
The top coupon was redeemable for an actual ounce of silver (a “Dollar”). The bottom coupon is “non-redeemable.” There is nothing backing the currency except for the military power of the US government (which is basically the agent /collection agency of the private Federal Reserve Bank).
Here is another private currency issued by the Asian bank, HSBC:
J R Fibonacci Hunn Between 1913 and the 1933 revolution in which the Fed basically took over the US Treasury, there were these private bank notes that clearly say (across the top) that they are NATIONAL CURRENCY that is “secured” (backed up) by deposits of US government bonds (a debt obligation owed to their private bank by the US government as in the US taxpayers):
J R Fibonacci Hunn As for news, I am moderately interested in the companies that create the news as part of their commercial operations. The actual content of the news promotes their interests, not mine. I am only very rarely interested in most of the news content that they publicize.
I use the internet to research health and science, plus to correct the indoctrinated presumptions about science that I was fed in mainstream schools and through mainstream news and even through “the alternative press.” I used to go to astrology websites frequently to learn about the news that was going to be happening before it happened.
I am more interested in studying trends, including the way that cultural trends are intentionally directed by special interest groups. I mean the Rockefellers and their agents in private foundations, plus the KGB, CIA, Mossad etc.
J R Fibonacci Hunn This is a 5 minute video from 1984 which I saw maybe 10 years ago for the first time. This “ex” KGB agent (who had fled to Canada and lived there) details his own activities and the overall plan:
This much more recent video is from a KGB-run TV station based in New York City. The featured author is a former participant in the activities of intimidation and assassination by private corporations.
Why is he (and Yuri above) allowed to live while making such explicit statements? Because these “whistle-blowers” serve a valuable purpose to the interest of the leading imperialists.
back to the Fed article:
The Congressional Record was filled the remarks of Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Speaker of the House. He spoke against the Fed, exposing it, “Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States government institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private monopolies.”
He was fired upon while exiting a cab in the Capitol. He then became very ill after food at a Washington banquet….
His protests ended on October 3,1936 because of “sudden death by heart failure.”
The Committee on Banking Currency, and Housing (of the House of Representatives, 94th Congress, second session, August 1976) issued the following report titled
FEDERAL RESERVE DIRECTORS: A STUDY OF CORPORATE AND BANKING INFLUENCE
The report concluded: “In summary, the Federal Reserve directors are apparently representative of a small group which dominates much of the economic life of this nation.”
Here is part of a public facebook thread. I presented some comments that I think are worth archiving, so here is the record:
If we are going to hate pot, we might as well hate caffeine, and alcohol which are legal but do more damage than pot. And why not throw sugar in the pot (no pun intended). And GMOs too. And fluoride that’s in our water and toothpaste which makes sheeple out of people. Some drugs, like caffeine,flouride and antidepressants and ritalin serve the powers that be to keep the masses enslaved in jobs and educations they hate, that don’t serve a man’s spirit but keep him in line. There are other drugs that do not harm the body but EXPAND CONSCIOUSNESS and destroy the Dominator culture we live in
“I hate pot. I hate it even more than hard drugs. I’ve taught high school for 25 years and I hate what marijuana does to my students. It goes beyond missing homework assignments. My students become less curious when they start smoking pot. I’ve seen it time and time again. People say pot makes you more creative, but from what I’ve seen, it narrows my students’ minds until they only reference the world in relation to the drug. They’ll say things like: “I went to the beach and got so high,” or “I went to a concert and got so high.” They start choosing their friends based on the drug. I hate when people say that it’s just experimenting. Because from what I’ve seen, it’s when my students stop experimenting.”
Ritalin is a STIMULANT, just like caffeine and amphetamine.
How are you going to “drug a child into submission” with Ritalin? It’s like putting out a fire with gasoline!
DOZENS OF MORE COMMENTS WERE SHOWING BELOW THIS ONE BEFORE I ENTERED THE THREAD. (I READ ALMOST NONE OF THEM.)
Mainstream schools program students to memorize and repeat whatever they are told. In other words, natural curiosity and intelligence are redirected (compromised). Many Science classes program the students with ideas about science (rather than promote actual scientific investigation and discovery). When students learn ideas about cholesterol and then are socially rewarded for blindly repeating those ideas, they tend to form prejudices in favor of whatever ideas have been promoted to them and reinforced socially. That is basically the opposite of scientific inquiry.
Then, when confronted with simple observations about the manufacturing of cholesterol by the livers of so many species, the hysteria of the mainstream student says hilarious things like “eating cholesterol is bad.” However, it is not a toxin. It is a nutrient so essential that we make lots of it and then convert it in to things like testosterone, estrogen, and Vitamin D.
Those points are not in controversy. However, science indoctrination rituals in mainstream classrooms tend to result in hysterical attachment to the curriculum. When faced with actual science, former students sincerely may think that they already know (because of the social programming about science). Their curiosity has been stifled along with their intelligence. They are ashamed of the idea that a presumption they hold may be imprecise or completely inaccurate. So they throw tantrums.
Confronted with these comments about the predictable results of “science classroom instruction,” some hysterically cry for reform. However, just as classrooms are not democratic, neither is the education system. Most Parents do not have the political influence to create lasting reform. In other words, they do not have the money or the connections to counter the Rockefellers and similar rich donors.
schools promote obedience to the government and the generation of future tax revenues for the government. Students leave school expecting consensus in the rest of life and so they tend to be so unstable emotionally that when confronted with a variety of opinions about most any subject, they panic and then argue for the familiar.
If someone understands the basics of physics as it relates to brain chemistry, that can simplify lots of issues. When people talk about pain orinflammation, they are talking about basic issues of physics. Many MDs seem not to understand the simplicity of how to stop producing inflammation and pain, so they focus on interfering with the nerve signals and “numbing” the brain with anesthetic intoxication. Temporary relief can lead to profitable addictions.
My university training also involved lots of classes about social psychology, but I was a rather confused young fellow when I left graduate school. My first encounter with the Department of Justice (working for them) destroyed quite a few illusions that I had “adopted” in schools.
How much of the rest of the thread is “a competition for validation?” How much of my comments here are competitive?
I do not mind the specifics. If we are casual in our “competitiveness,” then we can observe who is competing against us and who is competing along with us (in collaboration).
From aliveness (even AS aliveness), is there any issue of “enlivening my life?” Nope. Some form addictions to excitement as a coping mechanism to distract themselves from shame. I might have even done that myself. Maybe I was even attached to “enlivening” other people.
Hysteria can be very popular, and yet still be entirely hysterical. What cannot be typical is “above average results.” Typical results are always average, never above average.
One branch is even labeled “non-being.” To some that is hysterical. To others it is hilarious.
You don’t want me to play with you like a half broken Atari?
Igor, please bring in my favorite DumbToy, Collin!
Collin, I can play you like a cheap video game, but YOU’RE easier. (Don’t your boyfriends say that, too?)
Oh, you SIMPLE little boy! Like he said in A Few Good men, you picked the wrong Marine to F with.
I could break you, without breaking a sweat!
But, you’re not playing anymore.
To the rest of you, I was called, in posts that have since been deleted (for, I’m assuming, the FOUL language used) less than an amoeba, by one of Carl’s “children.”
I responded. But, since the initial posts have been erased, Collin (Carl’s “child”) looks like an angel here, and I look like Satan’s main helper.
I was chastised, by someone who couldn’t spell “O,” but his verbal sewage is no longer here.
Hope you understand, and can we get back to a “rational” discussion? (It may be irrational, because I like dividing by zero!)
All of it has made sense to me. As for a rational discussion, there must first be some common interest. Otherwise, it can just be a bunch of reactions going off like popcorn popping… plus with the emotion of one POP triggering more POPS.
Maybe there is a group of people, even within a family or household, that have all been repressing their emotions of frustration because of their social situation. The people might all be interested in the subject of frustration, whether or not any one of them recognizes that. So, once they start talking, that can start a cascade of frustrated complaints (kind of like in a flock of birds that are on the ground and when a few birds start to fly away in distress, then the whole pack panics and flies away).
However, the people may not actually disperse. They may just keep throwing around their favorite complaints at each other, then complain about other people who are not validating their complaint. “Other people are complaining about something else, so they are frustrating me even more!!!”
All the people may have already been frustrated. The complaint that “they are frustrating me EVEN MORE” implies pre-existing frustration, right?
We could call the frustration an “upset.” The terminology is not important to me.
So, when there is an unfulfilled desire, the frustrated person may not even be attentive to what the desire is that is unfulfilled. They may be ashamed of that desire and pretend that the frustrated desire is not that shameful one, but some other one that is socially encouraged. Some desires are shamed socially. Some are encouraged.
The reality is that having a frustrated desire is essentially the same as having an unfulfilled desire. Has it been fulfilled? Not yet. Will it be? Maybe.
With frustration, we might presume that there may be some social resistance to admitting to or pursuing the desire. Should every desire be welcomed or encouraged? Should certain desires be repressed (or should certain methods of pursuing a desire be regulated or punished)?
Desires (or “motivations”) are just what they are. Social conditioning about desire is just what it is.
When the desire of a powerful group (or institution) is to direct and regulate the desires of the local youth, then curriculum gets created for redirecting the natural motivations of the youth. Obedience gets promoted. Some institutions want to create loyal taxpayers who are generally dependent on the governing institutions (UN, NATO, EU, USSR, USA, etc).
Natural curiosity may get funneled in to specific approved subjects. Kids may get bored. Some may smoke pot or drink alcohol or find some other coping mechanism to endure their boredom during the educational rituals that they are forced to attend.
Teachers complain about the kids who are smoking pot. Carl complains about the teacher. Steve complains about Carl. Ramona complains about Steve. I complain about Ramona.
Popcorn pops. Marijuana plants grow.
Flocks of bird land and then start looking for worms to eat. If a few fly off all at once, the whole flock is likely to burst in to the air. Eventually, they may all come back to the ground to search for more worms.
(Paraphrased from Titus 1:15)
Maybe because we all value privacy and safety. Maybe we do not want to be crammed up in a classroom with a bunch of other kids / people. Maybe it is too much stimulation. So, we may try to focus in on “the assignment” as an escape from all the social stimulation.
why do people attack each other’s ideas so ferociously? Because when people are crammed together too densely, they want to push each other away. Any excuse to push someone will do. If someone states a “stupid” idea, then the harassment and bullying begins. Any justification for targeting someone can be invented.
We want time to relax. We want time to process all that emotional stimulation from social pressure. However, if we retreat to a household where there is “no space” for decompressing, then one way to retreat socially without retreating physically is the use of substances that numb us out.
We may say “I like the numbness.” Perhaps we dislike the social pressures and are escaping them through self-medication or other coping mechanisms.
What happens when someone is suddenly in a natural disaster (rodeo-chediski wildfire) and they do not have their favorite legal or illegal drugs (Xanax, panax, etc)? In some cases, they are fine. The normal social competition is absent, so they do not need to escape from it.
What happens if they go on vacation by them self for a week to a remote place? Again, they may lose interest in numbing out. The social pressure and social competition is absent, so they have no attraction to escapism.
RQR wrote: I believe it was Churchill that said something like, “A five-minute conversation with the average voter is enough to convince you of why democracy is one of the worst forms of government.”
But he added, “it’s still better than all the others”.
Anyway, I’m amazed that people who have no responsibility for outcomes, no authority, and no details that are critical to decisions are so eager to pontificate on the rightness or wrongness of those that are at the center of the action.
There is an epidemic of paranoia relating to consensus. People may be so emotionally challenged by the existence of a variety of perspectives that they display surprise at the existence of perspectives other than their own. There is a distress in the background, right?
“How can infants be so ignorant? How can the people who have been programmed by public schools and mainstream media be so loyal to the ideas that they have been trained to memorize and then repeat in exchange for social rewards? How can the average voter be so distressed that they react in outrage and hysteria when confronted with the reality that there is a diversity of opinions?”
People tend to want to be liked. We may want to be perceived as “experts on everything.” We are “wired” through schooling rituals to be adapted to the social context of school: we crave the familiar validation of the government authority who will maintain consensus through their “near absolute concentration” of social power.
So, when I go in to science class, how do I relate to what the teacher says? “You all need to be attentive to the scientific fact that every liver on this planet makes a dangerous substance in order to harm the rest of the organism (specifically, by converting it in to things like estrogen, testosterone, and Vitamin D). Also, you will die if you eat that substance which you also manufacture constantly. So, we will now use a single specific test to see if your levels of that substance in your blood are so high that we need to attack your liver to impair it’s ability to manufacture the demon which has been possessing you (called cholesterol).”
The typical student thinks that they are now an expert on cholesterol. They think that they are an expert on science.
They are in a class called “science class” and they repeat some mainstream quackery on a “science test” in order to get social approval from the teacher. So, they really think yes they actually think that they are an expert.
Is it amazing? Absolutely. The profits that are collected through creating demand for statin medications is also amazing. Anticipating that profit, the manufacturers hired some researchers and lobbyists to alter the curriculum of schools and create a hysteria about cholesterol, then presented their “one and only solution.”
The teachers (who also may think that they are experts on science) present cholesterol as a toxin. What if cholesterol is part of the body’s healing response to repair damaged tissue? Well that simply cannot be true because that would mean that what schools programmed me to believe might be slightly inaccurate!
When the windshield wipers turn on in my car, does that cause it to rain? Correlation does not prove causality, right?
Well what if there is a $200 million budget? In that case then the correlation between movement in windshield wipers and rainfall is labeled as “absolute proof” that the wiping is not a response to the rainfall and no further research is needed because the government experts all agree with their corporate sponsors.
JR, it’s a type of laziness and the ease of knee-jerk reactions. In order to get closer to the truth, one has to do the work of thinking.
“It” is distress. In order to get closer to the truth, one might need the physiological and social conditions to discover it. By the way, can you guess what happens to the brain’s capacity for logic and learning when the levels of certain nutrients (such as cholesterol) are “too low?”
I am going to share a series of interactions that share a single theme. First, I will start at the end. I will share my own post that Carl recently shared and asked me about. The background was a set of interactions involving a fellow with the initials TD, whom I find generally quite intelligent and open (but with some exceptions). I will share the background last. I plan to remove all other names except for the 3 participants already noted (including me, JR).
VP Andrew Johnson: “anyone who questions my political values is irrational and arrogant.”
President Abraham Lincoln: “and what exactly are your political values?”
The VP: “your question only proves that you are irrational and arrogant, so that justifies completely ignoring your question. I have been mad all day long and just waiting until I could bait someone in to volunteering to be the target of my contempt. Thank you!”
The President: “very interesting.
By the way, if someone ever assassinates me with the help of several accomplices, automatically making you the new President, would you then use your presidential powers to pardon them, protecting them from criminal prosecution?”
VP: “Hey, I did not make up these rules. I just use them in the advancement of my political values.”
I’m not getting the VPs logic, J R. Is this what it looks like when one is irresponsible?
In the US, we have the social nationalists (the republicans, who are nationalists with a heavy dose of socialism). We also have the national socialists (the democrats, who are socialists with a heavy dose of nationalism).
because of the shame about the basic foundation of the U.S. As a national socialist republic (not a democracy!), there is a background of paranoia and anxiety. People want to distract themselves from whatever is shameful to them.
so, they Pick something to condemn. The fans of socialist Bernie sanders may hysterically ridicule those who note that socialism and communism are similar in several ways.
“They are irrational! It is offensive that they do not agree with us. Our group has a monopoly on intelligence. How can all of those other people be so irrational? I do not understand it and so in my own hysteria I ridicule them for confronting me with the reality that there are a variety of political preferences. The existence of variety disturbs me. I need consensus like in the 6th grade class in which the teacher provided the official truth and then regulated us by censoring any controversy (or only on approved issues, like abortion -either pro-abortion or anti-abortion).”
the hysteria is epidemic. Plus, it is programmed.
Here is the specific exchange on facebook that led to the above content (and I put some portions in bold or italics):
Please win, Please win, Please win
J R Fibonacci Hunn KRB, if you talk with Eastern Europeans who fled the soviet bloc to come to a LESS socialist System in the U.S., then you might have a different perspective. If you ridicule someone whose opinion differs from yours, that justifies avoiding the details of their opinion.
if you want to know what the KGB had to say about the connection between socialism and communism, search “yuri KGB demoralization and destabilization.” Of course, I expect you to ignore or ridicule the idea of researching the issue. If you think that you already know, then why open a closed mind?
J R Fibonacci Hunn TD, I agree that many Americans are embarrassed about politics. Democrats are embarrassed by trump (a republican). Republicans are embarrassed by Obama (democrat).
Why are the masses demoralized by the *opposing* party’s candidates? Because of the great success of the subversion programs to demoralize and divide the population in the U.S.
J R Fibonacci Hunn (To SN:) That is what I mean by “a strawman.” You attack an assertion that I did not make. I am used to that. I consider it hysteria.
TD experiences shame [& embarrassment] about political trends in the U.S. That is also common, even for people who are not here.
shame and hysteria are the desired effects of demoralization. Then the new hope for salvation is the next politician to the rescue, right? If he loses, there is a small instant demoralization. If he wins, then there is euphoria then a much longer period before the shame sets in.
J R Fibonacci Hunn So you appreciate my intellect except when your self-righteousness and my self-righteousness distract you? Show me self-righteousness. Show me arrogance.
I model it like this, as an example: “I am so glad that our country is not shameful like yours.” I do not mind people criticizing the U.S.
Almost everyone wants social validation. They want to preserve what they already believe. So be it.
J R Fibonacci Hunn I laugh when I read that “America is collapsing” (written by SC). Really? That is funny.
I had a girlfriend who lived through the “collapse” of Yugoslavia in to the different countries that now cover that portion of the globe (Serbia, Croatia, etc). There was a civil war. There was an actual collapse of social infrastructure.
(By the way, some of the immigrants to the US that I mentioned earlier in this thread were from that part of Eastern Europe and are relatives of that ex-girlfriend of mine. They lived under communism and they have “very strong opinions” about socialism and candidates like Bernie Sanders.)
Some other related content from TD’s facebook wall:
Bernie Sanders and economics.
If someone says “Bernie doesn’t understand economics.”
Ask them if they are Austrian or Keynesian.
If they say Austrian, which they probably will, tell them they are being intellectually dishonest.
Austrians consider economics to be based on certain value judgements.
So when those people say that Bernie “doesn’t understand” they are really saying that they don’t agree with Bernie’s values.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Just instruct students to memorize an idea and then Reward them for repeating it back on a test. You do not even have to tell them that scientists discovered it. Just call it a science class.
Cholesterol: a substance that is manufactured by every liver on this planet in order to harm the rest of the organism. Therefore, do not eat it.
What matters more?
Sometimes, people are influenced to focus away from what matters most to them and instead to focus their attention on issues that have been selected by a particular special interest group. In moderation, it might be beneficial to individuals for them to focus on a few extra issues that may give them a long-term advantage eventually. Maybe those new issues will matter soon, even if they do not seem to matter much yet.
First, back to the original question, when people organize their lives around what matters most to them, what results are predictable? We could observe that some people seem unusually clear, focused, and committed to producing specific results through their own personal experimentation. They could be extremely interested in precisely measuring the results of the methods that they select. If they do not produce the results that motivate them, then they can openly express their disappointment and then shift right to exploring other methods that might be more effective.
In contrast, have you ever noticed an instance of people who seem to be competing with each other for social validation? Maybe they argue intensely over an issue that has no long-term personal relevance to any of them. Maybe they even display hysterical outrage that there are other perspectives or perceptions besides their own. They are like infants throwing a tantrum, screaming something like “I totally lack respect for the obvious reality that there are a variety of points of view!”
We could label their experience as distress. How is it that such distress could develop?
If they are attempting to organize their lives around something other than their own core interests and motivations, what would be the predictable results? That can lead to internal conflict, compromise, inefficiency, disorder, chaos, self-sabotage, exhaustion, frustration, and despair. Despair is an intense form of grief. They are despairing or desperate.
In many cases, asking for help would be the expected behavior for someone who is desperate. However, when there is also shame about the desperation, then that can produce an intense distress.
So, what is left for them to do if there is an intense repulsion to asking for help directly, but also intense desperation? They could invent an excuse for other people to offer them help. They may even construct an excuse to ask for help in a specific, limited way (without directly admitting to their desperation and distress). They may practice negligent or risky behavior to create personal breakdowns (medical, financial, social, etc) and then publicize that they have been victimized by whoever they vilify.
To summarize what we have covered so far, we just reviewed two basic contrasting patterns of how people can relate to what matters most to them. They can respect what matters most or they can neglect what matters most to them (typically, to focus instead on competing for social validation of any kind). Of course, attracting a specific form of social validation might occasionally be the most important outcome to someone. However, for people who have been programmed by special interest groups to neglect their self-interests and agonize over constant social validation, how much frustration would we expect for those people to experience? How much distress would we expect for them to experience? How much shame?
Realistically, there is a broad spectrum between the two extremes of intensely focusing one’s own attention on one’s self-interests and intense concentration on competing with others for social validation. Which extreme would we call “inner peace” and which would we call “distressed hysteria?” Which would we call “being self-aware” and which would we call “being self-conscious?”
Next, we will consider the importance of some different kinds of social nets. By social net, I mean a network of people who are connected to each other in some measurable way (even if they people do not recognize or understand the social net).
With the following ideas, we can consider what are the distinct benefits and risks of social nets as well as when they are most beneficial or most dangerous. Further, we will set a clear framework for us to later explore the actual social nets in which we may be operating. For instance, special interest groups may promote the formation of specific kinds of social nets, such as taxpayers. The metaphors below will ease us in to precisely recognizing the purposes of the social programs that special interest groups may use to organize their human resources.
There is a unique danger when very large groups of people link themselves together. First, it becomes very difficult to change the momentum of the group.
If the group is moving at a very slow pace, individuals cannot stop easily and they also cannot go much faster then the rest of the group. If they are all bound together to each other with strong ropes, then the range of motion is limited to the length of the rope (relative to the position of others in their “social net”).
Also, can they disconnect? Do they even think of doing that? Do they know how? Is it a simple latch that everyone regularly uses to disconnect or reconnect, such as every time they stop at a safe place to rest? Or are they trapped for years in a chain gang or by their very own chain to a heavy ball?
In general, the use of social nets or networks can be very beneficial (at least to the specific interest groups that promote them). However, in particular cases, using specific social nets may be less effective then individual activity (or even uniquely dangerous). If there are different forms of social nets that are available, then only one of them will be the most appropriate in a particular case, right?
As an individual becomes a better mountain climber, they may wish to disconnect from a familiar social net and either climb on their own or find a network that is smaller and only includes climbers that are experienced and cautious. Maybe someone even senses that the social net to which they are currently connected is unraveling or could be spilling down the side of the mountain at a fast pace. Sometimes, there is an urgent priority to disconnect from one or more social nets.
What kind of social net is most attractive to you? In order for people to participate in a selective group, which qualifications would be relevant (and how would those qualifications be reviewed)?
At a later time, we can explore the issue of what social nets may already bind you . We can also explore completely releasing or slightly altering our attachment to specific nets or networks. Finally, once free of any tangles that might compromise our ability to focus clearly, we could even explore the issue of what social nets would we like to participate in (by forming new ones, joining old ones that we like just like they are, or reforming ones in which we are already linked).
For instance, we could also consider how we can use measurements of the herding behavior of humans to inform decisions about investing. As a quick example, note the correlation shown in the below chart pertaining to stocks of a group of mining companies in the US. The last 4 years are shown.
In other words, the most popular ideas tend to be consistently wrong among the herds of investors. When optimism is highest, that is when there tends to be the greatest risk of a decline in price. When optimism is least (when prices are the most discounted by the masses), then that tends to be the best opportunity for making a quick, safe profit.