Posts Tagged ‘critical thinking’

my only regret

February 6, 2012

my only regret… is all that thinking about the past

and saying it should not have been the way that it was

I wish now that all of that time was spent some other way
than thinking back about the past and labeling it a shame
oh give me back my history
I’ve earned a second chance
to change the patterns of the words
I used to use to relate to my past
yeah, I used to have a past
but now it is over

yeah, I used to be my past

but now I’m just a future made of words
I just hope it’s not too late yet
to make up now for my only regret

boldly condemning politicians

December 28, 2011
(Note that the below comment to this blog, while not at all funny, is quite provocative and also quite a relief- balancing the clowning around in the video.)
Ok folks, I have a serious problem and I’d like your input.

Some parasites are eating my house, I think they are called termite politicians, which is a type of parasite. First, should start an anti-parasite blog and see if that scares them off? How about this: let’s picket around the sidewalk with megaphones and big signs condemning them as immoral parasites and see if that scares them off? Or how about we pass an amendment to the constitution that prohibits parasites from eating so fast or even completely prohibits them from being in the vicinity of the house?

That was not the serious problem, though. My serious problem is that I think that speculative demand for something like silver or gold is stable. Speculative demand is when people want silver or gold not for some immediate functional application, but just to hoard it based on the speculation that it might hold it’s value or even increase value relative to absolutely everything else. That is called a bubble of speculative demand, and the speculative demand for silver and gold may be even greater than for real estate.
Anyway, I just got an apology note from the termite parasite politicians congratulating me on buying my new megaphone with gold and silver coating. They said it would be a very good investment. The apology was for the fact that silver fell about 50% in value in the last several months since I bought it. Wow- this seems like- gosh- about the fifteenth time that I have taken the investment advice based on the PR announcements of the termite parasite politicians. I wonder what they are advising next?
Oh, here look: it says in the note. They advise me to send in cockroaches to handle the termite parasite politician problem in my house. I can tell though that it is just a trick. I know that cockroaches have no morals and are filthy and ugly and are shiny and black.
Instead, I will go on a crusade to fight against cockroaches because the termite parasite politicians claim to want me to send in cockroaches and I hate the termite parasite politicians and I must rebel against them. They probably are trying to take advantage of that old wive’s tale about cockroaches eating termites. I know what they are trying to do though. They are trying to trick me in to wasting my time with irrelevant endeavours.
I have caught on to them now, and I condemn the termite parasite politicians. That’s right: I sit here at my computer keyboard and fervently condemn the termite parasite politicians for taking advantage of my total negligence and ideological blindness. They should not do that! They should not be allowed to tell people what should not be allowed. They are using propaganda which, according to their own propaganda, is immoral and no one should do because it is so immoral.
I am going to tell it like it is and support a candidate who tells it like it is. Those termite parasite politicians are just a bunch of termite parasite politicians and I am shocked that they are eating my house. They are liars. Or at least they should have written me an email notifying me that they were going to go eat my house unless I took some precautions. They are impolite and unfair. They are morally despicable. They eat houses and damage infrastructure and they really should not. They told me that themselves in their anti-parasite political propaganda. That is why I am faithfully condemning them, because they told me to and I am very loyal to them.
Anyway, I have some antique telegraphs- still in the box, never been used- and as you all know these are really great hedges against hyperinflation. If you buy the whole group today, I will throw in this megaphone with gold and silver coating for no additional charge. Customer service agents are standing by. Call now while supplies last.
(Note again that the below comment to this blog, while not at all funny, is quite provocative and also quite a relief- balancing the clowning around in the video.)

on “what should be”

December 26, 2011

What is the effect of informing or indoctrinating others as to “what should be” and “what should not be?” Of course, these communications program attention toward the specific patterns referenced.

For instance, in religious programming, there may be an instruction such as “people should be honest.” This focuses attention on the issue of whether or not honesty is present, or at least is perceived or publicized, and so on. Of course, the word “honest” is not defined in the above instruction, so let’s use an even more revealing example:
“People should be flaggy.” (The point is that I just made up the word flaggy).

So, now even without knowing whether or not people are flaggy or not, we may be interested in learning what it is so that we can be that way (or at least do those things that would predictably result in us appearing flaggy to other people). We may also be interested in identifying when other people are not flaggy so that we can point out their lack of flagginess and establish ourselves as all the more flaggy relative to those extremely unflaggish folks.

If someone suggests that I am not flaggy, I may withdraw from them, accuse them of being even less flaggy than I am, or simply target silencing them, such as by killing them. Or, I may thank them for pointing out my unflagginess, apologize for the isolated incident of unflagginess, and then publicly do some things that are very flaggy.
So, by constructing models of how people should be, the rulers or propagandists inform groups as to how the recipients of the propaganda should be. The instruction “people should be flaggy” is actually not really about other people. The instruction is about the recipient of the propaganda and how that recipient should be.

If I tell you that “people should be flaggy,” and you know that you are one of those people who should be flaggy, then really all that just happened is that I told you to be flaggy without directly telling you that. We could call that an indirect or covert or unconscious instruction.

Obviously, you may then be suddenly concerned with learning what flaggy means and displaying any flaggy behaviors of yours and minimizing exposure of any unflaggish behaviors. The flaggishness of your behavior may or may not change, but a new behavior of emphasizing certain behaviors and minimizing attention to others will arise. In other words, you have been instructed to be attentive to other people’s perceptions of you. “People should be flaggy” means that you should present yourself as flaggy and show your conformity to the bias toward flaggishness by criticizing people who are unflaggy, unflaggish, and otherwise lacking in flagginess.
You may want to join campaigns for the promotion of flaggishness. You may insist that politicians be more flaggy in particular, as well as the media and also notable people in distant countries. They should be flaggy, too, because they are people and people should be flaggy.

In fact, you may eventually presume that all people, unless proven otherwise, are inherently flaggy because that after all is simply how people should be. Not only should you focus on the issue of whether other people perceive you to be flaggy, but you should perceive other people, at least those close or dear to you, to be flaggy. Anything less would be to invite conflict and guilt by association.

Not only do we focus attention on whether or not other people perceive us individually to be flaggy, but whether they perceive our friends and business associates to be flaggy, even our political party or our country. “Our political party is the most flaggy of all, and so is our government and our whole country, and so are my very flaggy friends!”
Since everyone should be flaggy, it becomes important to occasionally punish some folks for their lack of flagginess, or even just for their lack of loyalty to the idea that all people should be flaggy. People need to be reviewed for flagginess and rewarded or punished in accord with their flaggishness. It is only fair, right?

Flaggishness becomes the great moral issue of a culture. Our great triumph is our flaggishness and our pride is that some other people are not as flaggy as we are. As an individual, I emphasize how particular individuals are not as flaggy as me. In business, I emphasize how other businesses are not as flaggy as my business. In politics, I emphasize how other political systems are not as flaggy as mine. In religion, I emphasize how other religious groups are relatively less flaggy or even anti-flaggists.

All of this proves my loyalty to the idea that people should be flaggy. My loyalty proves that I am flaggy. After all, convincing everyone I encounter that a few other people in particular are “not flaggy enough” is the absolute pinnacle of flagginess. It is very flaggy of me to monitor the flagginess of other people and to condemn them for unflaggish behaviors. Our conversations may center on the breakdowns in flaggishness on the part of our spouses or co-workers or competitors.
Why? Because everyone wants to be perceived not just as somewhat flaggy, but the most flaggy. In a couple, only one of the two people can be the most flaggy. In a group of one hundred, the competition is to be the most flaggy, or at least in the top half of flaggishness.

In a business, only one of the co-workers can be the most flaggy, which means that I am constantly concerned with noting other people’s flaggishness and collecting evidence for a possible eventual witch hunt crusade inquisition against unflaggishness.

Obviously, the more that someone knows about any unflaggishness on my part, the less urgency I might have to publicizing any unflaggishness on their part, but of course I would if my own flaggishness was at issue. The best proof of my flaggishness, of course, is my willingness to condemn others for their lack of flaggishness. The better that I am at gathering evidence of flaggishness, and the more diplomatic in leveraging that knowledge, the more loyalty I can expect from others who may be aware of some minor unflagginess on my part- of course very minor and quite isolated incidents.

Also, if our business is competing with other businesses, I loyally point out how flaggy the competitors are not and how flaggy we are. Yes, the same people I just criticized for unflaggishness, I now suddenly champion for flaggishness if the comparison is no longer against me personally, but against the entire group of which I am a part.

Not only is my country by far the most flaggish, with the most flaggish history and the most flaggish current champions of flaggishness, but we are also very concerned about getting more flaggy and staying flaggy and so on. That is because we are so flaggy that we are so concerned about continuing to be (or at least appear to be) flaggy.

So, the definition of flaggishness is to rally around this flag as opposed to the other flag or flags. Those other people who are rallied around those other flags are not as flaggy as I am. They have the wrong flag, which is not just an innocent error on their part, but a moral failure for which we flaggy people should mercifully relieve them of the evil horrors of living with their moral failure… by efficiently killing them or at least conquering their social system under threat of extermination.

Flaggishness really means loyalty. Honesty really means loyalty, too, but it is impolite to say so.

Of all the things that people really should be, people should not be TOO loyal. They should be flaggy or honest or hard-working, but being loyal is a bit too direct. Be morally superior, not just loyal. Merely being loyal is what all those other businesses and countries are doing.

Be the most flaggy. Be morally superior. Encourage flaggishness by telling other people that they should be flaggy and then criticize or punish them for any display of unflaggishness, because controlling what people display is the point of indoctrinating your subject in how people should be. People should only display the qualities that they wish for other people to perceive.

Because I am so authentic about how inauthentic I am, I notice and admit how valuable it is for me to look good. This may be the most flaggy thing that someone could do.

I define how people should be. People should be direct, straight-forward, and honest, not manipulative or propagandist or concerned about appearances and results and methods that work.

People should be unselfish and moral and think for themselves. People should not just accept whatever propaganda has told them. People should definitely resist propaganda, or at least condemn it, or at least deny that it exists, such as by suggesting that it was recently invented, like just 14 seconds ago. Also, if you are going to rally around a flag, make sure that the flag that you are rallying around is the most flaggy flag of all, or at least appears flaggy.

Anyway, what is the difference really between the appearance of flagginess and actual flagginess? What specific behavior distinguishes between actual flagginess and the mere appearance of flagginess?

After all, people should not be concerned about appearances and other people’s perceptions. They should only be concerned about their own actual flagginess, like how much they condemn other people’s unflaggishness. People should condemn other people’s unflaggishness, by which I mean that people should condemn other people, like for being other than they should be.

People should be concerned about condemning other people, but not directly to those people. That could be a safety issue. Condemn others safely, like from a safe distance and among other people who can safely join in the condemnation against spouses like that (unflaggy spouses), bosses like that (unflaggy bosses), politicians like that (unflaggy politicians), and of course flags like that (unflaggy flags).

Thank you for your flaggishness. I wish you an absolutely flaggy day, and may God flag us all.

the creation of “reality”

December 18, 2011
o
Is a circle just a circle, or could it be the letter ‘o’ or the number zero? The circle itself does not have any inherent unique meaning. Instead, whatever response is produced, that response is the ultimate meaning of any sequence of some percerving followed by some response.

Perception is experience. Experiencing is perceiving.
We respond to our perceptions. Different responses arise from different perceptions.
Perceptions are subjective. Distinct ways of perceiving result in distinct perceptions.
Many perceivers can all witness a single event and yet all of them may perceive something slightly different. Each one will have different sensory capacities as well as different positions spatially. Each of them will relate to the event differently. Perception is relational. Perception is relative.
Perception is not external. Perception is a relationship between external developments and internal capacities for sensing and then the interpreting or organizing of sensations in to perceptions.
We do not perceive external events. We only perceive our internal, interpretative relationship to external events.
We do not respond to external events. We only respond to our perceptions of internal, interpretative relationship to external events.
Perception is relational. Prior to perception, interpretation is relational. Prior to interpretation, sensation is relational.
We are the capacity for attention. Attention is perception. Attention is relational. We are the capacity to relate.
Language is relational. We are the capacity to identify with or relate to through formations in language.
The capacity for language is the culmination of perception. Prior to the development of the capacity for language in an organism, there is only reflexive reacting, not responding. Language allows for the creation of symbolic meaning and for responding to symbolic meanings.
Further, once there is attention to the process of the creation of relationships of symbolic meaning (the process of interpreting), then conscious perception shifts attention from reflexive reactivity to responsive relating to relational interpretation and finally to the creation of varying responses through the informing of interpretation. In other words, attention shifts to the creating of perception and the creating of responses to distinct perceptions.
The mechanism by which we inform interpretation (and perception etc) includes language. The attention to language is the attention to the creating of interpretations, perceptions, and responses.
Historically, the focusing of attention toward the role of language in the process of creating interpretation perception, and response was part of the field of spirituality. Religious terminology like sin or corruption may simply refer to an erroneous or limited understanding of the process of interpretation and perception. However, many who use that terminology may not directly recognize the simplicity of the teachings, such as these, starting with an English translation of a teaching attributed to Jesus:
“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the words that come out of your mouth…. The words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you and disturbs you.” Matthew 15:11,18
“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and without faith, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.” Titus 1:15
“I am conscious of this, and am certain in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is corrupt in itself; but for the man in whose opinion it is unclean, for him it is corrupt.” Romans 14:14
“A wise person turns away from evil and is cautious, but a fool is hotheaded, careless and overconfident.” Proverbs 14:16
“but I — I say to you, not to resist the evil [the sin, the corruption]” Matthew 5:39
“Don’t be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the LORD and turn away from evil.” Proverbs 3:7
“…Turning from evil is disgusting to fools.” Proverbs 13:19
“My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.” James 1:19
“…Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.7All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10Out of the same mouth doth come forth blessing and cursing; it doth not need, my brethren, these things so to happen.”

James 3:5-10

“You have knowledge that it was said in old times, You may not put to death; and, Whoever puts to death will be in danger of being judged. But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.”

“No matter who you are, if you judge anyone , you have no excuse. When you judge another person, you condemn yourself,

Romans 2:1

“Condemn not.” (Luke 6:37)
“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” (Luke 6:42)
“And whoever hears my words and does not keep them, I am not judging him, for I have come, not to judge the world, but to give life to the world.” http://bible.cc/john/12-47.htm
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
John 1:29
How does Jesus take away the sin of the world? What is meant by what some have translated in to English as “the sin of the world?”
Remember, Jesus is said to cleanse sinners of impurity. Does Jesus cleanse them with water and soap or cleanse them spiritually? What does that mean to be spiritually clean? Again, let’s review a few verses:
“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the words that come out of your mouth….
The words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you and disturbs you.” Matthew 15:11,18
“I am conscious of this, and am certain in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is impure in itself; but for the man in whose opinion it is unclean, for him it is impure.” Romans 14:14
“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are impure and without faith, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are impure.” Titus 1:15

So for the one without faith, nothing is pure, while to the one with faith, all things are pure. What then is meant by that word “faith?”

Now, our comments on the first video right after we made it:

Ron Paul opposes corruption

December 17, 2011

Ron Paul threatens to end corruption (and the political complexity of the military-industrial complex)


Imagine the consequences of Ron Paul’s policies being implemented in the US. He would decrease the size of the Federal Government, ending foreign aid, reducing foreign military activity, and slashing taxes to invite investment back in to the US from other countries. (My acquaintance Carmen Alexa might complain that ending foreign aid and even reducing domestic welfare is not very compassionate, but that is exactly what he advocates, plus think about all the money that could be leaving other countries to come to the US for investment: how sad for them!)

Obviously, a President cannot legally implement any of those policies alone. A constitutional amendment or the support of the US Congress would even legally force whoever was President toward any of those outcomes that Ron Paul advocates.
So, with the logistical realities in mind, let’s consider the actual consequences of those policies. At the same time, we will be considering the actual consequences of current policies of increasing the influence of central governments.
As background, note that government is the influencing of behavior by force, particularly the systematic redistribution of affluence through organized coercion. In the case of foreign wars, it is quite clear that a government uses organized coercion (with bombs backing up the more seductive art of diplomatic negotiations) to advance political and economic interests.
So, Ron Paul is basically advocating that the US decrease it’s international and domestic operations of organized coercion. For instance, consider the consequences of legalizing (decriminalizing) marijuana. Huge numbers of jobs will be lost in the correctional system. Huge numbers of able-bodied people (mostly young men) will be available for employment. All of that could promote the capacity of those people to actually contribute some economic productivity that allows the US to better compete with the rest of the world.
What about the protections and favoritisms of the current economic system? For instance, without the FDA promoting the interests of huge corporations at the expense of small farming operations, would small farmers recover and grow? What if masses of people were not indoctrinated with propaganda for highly-refined foods (especially carbohydrates and modern vegetable oils) and against healthy traditional foods of the last several thousand years or more? What if the USDA stopped raiding health food stores and farms? What would happen to the current health care industry and food industry?
Consider the huge losses for MDs when the far superior effectiveness of inexpensive methods are not suppressed. Consider the civil lawsuits bankrupting multitudes of MDs for promoting the use of interventions with clear records of harm and pathetic records of little or no benefit (but at least they are expensive!).
What if organizations like FNMA and GNMA and FHA and HUD are discontinued or allowed to fail? If not for the propping up of the mortgage industry, consider the suddenness of the massive decline in housing prices (and rent prices). Sure, housing prices may plummet anyway, but consider how fast the decline would be if all of those federal government interventions (wealth redistribution programs) were quickly removed.
What if foreign wars were stopped totally? What would happen to all of the businesses that rely on huge defense spending- like missile manufacturers and all of the jobs related to that (from janitors to computer technicians)? What about all those soldiers and support personnel? What would they do?
What Ron Paul is advocating, in simplest terms, is a withdrawal of a massive infrastructure of the military industrial complex. Even mainstream health care would no longer be protected from open market competition. Massive food industries could collapse without protections and subsidies. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few favored corporations would suddenly decentralize.
How? Real estate prices would collapse. Stock prices of major corporations would collapse. The relative value of human labor might rocket (even though wages might also fall steeply).
What?!?! If human labor rose toward being a primary economic valuable, rather than the primary economic value being concentrations of hoarded resources and exclusive legal ownership, then there would be less inequality (less variation in affluence and influence). Hoarding private wealth is the American Dream. Speculating for unearned gains is the American way, especially when it involves borrowed funds for mortgages. What Ron Paul is advocating is having to work to earn money. Think of all the real estate flippers who retired early and who may have to get jobs again rather than live a privileged life of luxury as they pay meager wages for maids, public school nannies, and other domestic servants (landscaping crews, repair workers, etc).
What if all that diminished and, instead of valuing things like diamonds and massive estates so much, people valued their relationships more and their stuff less? What if people valued other people in general more (rather than other people in particular: like the well-connected politician or the wealthy, draconian boss)? What would happen to the death penalty, the correctional system, the global imperialist colonizing operations of organized coercion, and so on?
What about the tax system? What would all those bureaucrats and tax lawyers do if a simple tax system replaced the current system?
Ron Paul advocates simplifying complex systems of corruption and favoritism. He advocates an ending of (or dramatic reduction of) the massive system of coercive wealth redistribution of the US central government.
Above all, he threatens to reduce the influence of mainstream media. What if they did not have the commercial revenues from the massive corporate interests of the military-industrial complex? What if there were a sudden increase in local media, social media, and actual live interaction in person between people… while the trend toward a bigger and bigger audience for a more and more homogenous central apparatus of mind control propaganda indoctrination diminished?
Masses of people might start to think for themselves. Masses of people might stop obsessing about the US economy and US Constitution and be more interested in things like their own budgets, their own neighborhood and local community, and practical issues like physiology and health and how to sew or garden.
Instead of some professions and industries being protected and subsidized by the central government, the market would be free for open competition. The variations in the incomes of various professions could decline. Specialization of labor could decline. The near dictatorship of central government bureaucracy and corporate concentrations of wealth could decline or even collapse.
Ron Paul threatens to end corruption, or at least reduce centralized corruption. Rather than a centralized monopoly of corruption, corruption might decentralize as well. Rather than lobbyists being able to focus on centralized bureaucracies, instead, the legalized bribery and PR schemes would be less concentrated and also less distinctive.
The repression of small-scale corruption by central governments intent on monopolizing corruption would diminish. The naive would no longer be as protected and the clever would no longer be as thwarted.
Of course, if clever people also did not face as many taxes to punish productivity, than technological innovation might also flourish. Suppression of alternative technologies could collapse. Uniformity would decline. Instead of a handful of major auto manufacturers relying on sexy commercials during the super bowl, imagine three hundred regional auto manufacturing “franchises” competing based on actual performance. Again, advertising budgets for national TV networks might collapse. “Word of mouth” might be a driving force behind market growth.
Instead of the concentrated huge profit margins from people paying for name-brand “fashion,” imagine people buying clothes based on features such as comfort and functionality. The entire market for high-heeled shoes might crash.
Medical systems based on the suppressing of the immune system (combating symptoms) might crash as well. Or, people may be so desperate that they continue to favor suppressive medications and moderate levels of short-term functionality so as to avoid a day or week of unplanned interruption to their regular schedule. (Again, TV advertising budgets for pharmaceutical “miracles” are at issue here.)
Further, as the profit margins of suppressive medications falls, so might their manufacture. The masses may simply be forced to turn to nutrition and wellness rather than immune system suppressants and mass-produced addictions like cigarettes and beer. Imagine if people targeted increasing their overall health rather than targeting occasional numbness to relieve them from their sensation of biochemical toxicity or deficiency.
Well, the reality is that we can only speculate as to what would happen if Ron Paul’s proposals were implemented. It might even “open the door” to an influx of international corruption on the scale of a new macrocosm of centralization and corruption with NATO or the UN or the BIS.
Why do the masses have such favorable views of the UN? Mostly because the UN is so remote from the actual experience of the masses. The masses know almost nothing about the UN. (Consider that the vast majority of people have never even heard of the BIS!)
A few well-constructed PR pieces and the masses may presume that the UN is unlike other similar operations, like that their violence is less violent, or that their diplomatic negotiations are less “diplomatic,” or that their courts are less political, and so on.
If the centralizing of the influence of media was to decline, governments might have to resort to open activities rather than hiding behind propaganda and diversion tactics. This is why the media is so important to the modern military-industrial complex.
Is the mainstream media really censoring Ron Paul? No, not at all. They are just focusing on other things instead. 😉
Censoring Ron Paul may be a trivial issue though. People who get worked up about what the media focuses on are obviously relying on the mainstream media to be responsible to them, rather than just investing in whatever forms of media actually fulfill on their values.
Who taught us that the media should be reliable or accurate or serve the interests of the audience? Every media outlet is a business designed to serve the interests of the operators and funders of the business.
Imagine me complaining that a particular hardware store in Europe is not featuring the line of product that I personally think is the best to use. Why would I be concerned about that? Why would I obsess over it?
Maybe I am even the owner of that product line, but still why focus on that store in particular? Why not just market to some other stores?
If no other stores are retailing my product line either, then I might sell it myself. Or, I might try developing a new product line.
Of course the mainstream media is biased. So am I.
Why would the mainstream media give Ron Paul equal treatment? Equal treatment is not the job of the media. Promoting favoritism and influencing behavior is the job of the media.
They are economic operations directed by commercial interests (including of course editorial decisions that are influenced by the funding of commercial advertising). If the top ten commercial advertisers tell a media outlet that running a particular story or program (or not running a particular story or program) will result in a discontinuing of advertising revenues, could that make a difference of whether that story or program gets run?
The media indoctrinates us about what should be and what should not be, what we should do and what we should not be, what we should think about and what we should not think about. That is their function.
So, I do not complain that a particular hardware store in Europe sells whatever they sell. No one told me to complain about that. No one told me to focus on it.
In the US, the mainstream public has been trained to be attentive to the focus of the mainstream media, to be attentive to the controversies that the media publicizes, and even to be shocked that the media would ever be biased. We are trained to perceive the media as honorable and trustworthy and so on.
Again, we may know little about the UN or the BIS, but even with the mainstream media right in front of us, how much do we know about them? They are subject to the influence of lobbying, as in corruption by way of influence through offers of rewards. So am I. I work for pay. I do not work for the direct, immediate economic benefit to me of my own activity (except when I do). I work (like at a job) for pay (for the promise of future payment) whether as a public bureaucrat or a real estate salesperson or a hitman or what.
Maybe you are susceptible to believing that the mainstream media is really threatened by Ron Paul. Maybe they are.
What about you? Are you threatened by the mainstream media? Have you been trained to look to a political savior to protect you from the threats that you have been trained to perceive?
Maybe corruption, which I just defined as “subject to influence by offers of money,” is a pattern of human behavior that is in no way threatened by Ron Paul. Maybe centralized concentrations of corruption will diminish (such as those of mainstream media). Maybe particular policies will be a catalyst in those trends.
<continued below>
Consider that every politician SAYS they are against corruption. However, do any of them ever explore any alleged differences between corruption (responding to the influence of offers of compensation) and capitalism (responding to the influence of offers of compensation)?
Imagine a politician (or mainstream media outlet) that announces that it is the pro-corruption candidate or channel. That simply does not make sense, does it? All media outlets and all politicians are influenced by whatever has influenced and will influence them.
I do not complain that media outlets are biased (except if I ever do). I do not pretend that I am not biased (except if I ever do).
In conclusion, I might say that “mainstream media should not be subject to the influence of offers of compensation. Likewise, politicians should not be subject to the influence of offers of compensation.”
I value direct rewards as well as indirect rewards (like being paid with money that I can then go use to buy other things). Why wouldn’t everyone else, even politicians and other bureaucrats and the mainstream media?

Who can we trust?

December 14, 2011

Who can we REALLY trust?

Our elders?    Mine taught me to believe in Santa Claus
Churches?      Besides Santa, one church taught us that the sun goes around the earth
Doctors?        They taught us that scurvy was incurable (and that smoking was safe)
The Media?   They did not warn us about economic instabilities
Politicians?   Right, as if our politicians are more trustworthy than politicians in general!


Beware of trusting tradition. Traditions come and go. Respect them, but do not worship them.

Copernicus and Galileo both noted that the earth revolves around the sun, but only Galileo attracted the wrath of the ruling Empire of organized coercion by proudly challenging tradition. Nearly two thousand years before them, Aristarchus, Seleucus, and even Archimedes had also publicly referenced the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, though Archimedes simply acknowledged the model while rejecting it as false.

English: Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition,...

Galileo facing the Holy Roman Inquisition- Image via Wikipedia

So, it is one thing to merely reference something like Archimedes did, another to confirm it, and yet another to openly disrespect tradition by advocating a model contrary to popular superstition and even publicizing the error of egomaniacal dictators. Galileo was emphatically warned that aggressively publicizing his model (of an earth that revolves around the sun) would result in personal punishment and then he openly risked that punishment, resulting in his conviction as a heretic by the Inquisition. He was spared the typical death sentence of ritual human sacrifice of the Holy Roman Empire‘s Inquisition and was even spared imprisonment or torture, instead only being placed under “house arrest” for the rest of his life (9 years).

Two priests demand a heretic to repent as he i...

"Two priests torture a heretic and demand that he repent." Image via Wikipedia

Now, there are many popular beliefs which may be myths, from Santa Claus to geocentric models of astronomy to political intolerance, like the theatrical anti-communist purges headed by US Senator Joe McCarthy. Ironically, that anti-communist purge was rather similar to any other purge, including communist purges. The McCarthy purge was rather like it would be to organize a counter-Inquisition to purge all Catholics as punishment for the historic Inquisition by a few Catholics centuries before: a replication of the thing it is alleged to oppose or prevent, a mere hijacking of the prior tradition, a clear hypocrisy.

Some people shout and scream and rage each time that a politician is exposed as a hypocrite. Eventually, one may notice a pattern: a high proportion of the politicians in world history have condemned behavior patterns that they were practicing themselves at the time, especially deception (but also coercion).
But why condemn spies for practicing deception? Why condemn assassins for practicing violence and terrorism? Why condemn commercial advertising propagandists for cultivating distraction, disinformation, and confusion?

That is the clear function of mainstream media and education, and what would actually be really odd would be frequent disclaimers warning the masses that commercials are designed to influence perception and behavior. So, have we been trained to condemn certain practices primarily in order to discourage us from practicing them- or at least openly practicing them?
Historically, there have been many social institutions that have cultivated antagonism against their own institution and then punished the rebellion. Courts need crimes (and criminals). Armies need enemies, like in the US Civil War in which the Union Army invaded and occupied the people living in territories that wished to basically get a divorce from the USA.

However, could any individual or group in the governments of those states legitimately speak for all of the people of those territories? While several leaders of the Rebel Confederacy may have favored secession, which sectors of the population favored or opposed secession? How about Native Americans? (Oddly enough, various groups of Native Americans and even slaves may have fought on both sides of the Civil War.)

Some people may say that the sacred principles of property rights were being defended by the Confederate soldiers: the legal right to own another human being as property. Many of the “moral justification ideologies” of politicians that are popular within a particular group at some time are later relaxed or even reversed. Even the Roman Catholic Church officially reversed it’s position on Galileo’s heliocentrism in 1992 (which was 359 years after his trial, conviction and sentencing for the crime of heresy).

The government of the US has famously reversed it’s position on such issues as slavery, the right of women to vote, and the criminalization of alcohol. In fact, what was once a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment, speaking the Navajo language, was later a famous “secret weapon” of US Military in World War 2. Also, about two hundred years after the religious freedom at least of certain white males was protected in the US, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 was passed (yes, even protecting religious practices that included the use of the Navajo language).

Traditions come and go. Respect them, but do not worship them. Beware of trusting them.

Jesus apparently taught “cease condemnation and forgive.” Obviously, not everyone who may appreciate something about the story of Jesus is aware of that specific teaching, and further not all who are aware of it are equally developed in the practice of forgiveness or humble repentance from condemnation.

Shall we condemn them for even only a recent history of condemning? Shall we add to the already long history of religious hypocrisy? We could. We could even simply condemn all people who condemn people, or at least condemn some of the people who condemn people.

We could also condemn the media for doing what they have always done, or condemn the politicians for doing what they have always done, or condemn any of the traditionalists for resisting alternative theoretical models, like by condemning those models. So we could condemn some or all traditions and traditionalism.

We could even condemn being respectful of traditions and traditionalism rather than contemptuous. We could make contempt in to a new tradition to champion.

“Contempt is next to Godliness,” we could shout. We could write it on signs: “What we need is more contempt! Okay, maybe I don’t need more contempt, but obviously you do!”

how to be a patriotic hero

December 3, 2011

The thing about how to be a patriotic hero is in there, but please start at the beginning, simply because that is the actual order of the sequence of words….

I wrote this to my associate Petros B.:

The crown of the Holy Roman Empire in the Vien...

The crown of the Holy Roman Empire in the Vienna Schatzkammer (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here’s a video on the diamond cartel (DeBeers) & how it MONOPOLIZED extraction of diamonds, restricted supply, used Hollywood (starting in the 1930s) to create a demand by associating diamonds with stardom, beauty, sex, marriage, & engagement rings, and even influenced GE so that GE discontinued the production of synthetic diamonds that would challenge the prices set by the DeBeers diamond cartel on diamonds used for gemstones (as well as industrial diamonds used for cutting).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=i8A9JXLyRwc

Now, I mention this not just because of similar comments by you (and I) about oil (such as the PR campaigns of the American Petroleum Institute), but about GOLD. The monopolization of gold mines & use of that metal as a currency by government courts, requiring that people purchase gold coins from the government in order to pay taxes, is a historical dynamic that I have mentioned several times. Again, why not platinum or aluminum or cobalt? Why gold? Because kings and their armies could more easily monopolize access to gold.
I did recently mention the Hunt Brothers and what they did with silver in the late 1970s. That is the same issue, though in a small & brief instance.

Now, let’s consider the use of the term parasites or even patriotic hero. I have absolutely no moral objection to the existence of parasites or the use of that term to describe certain biological organisms or certain human institutions or anything else. You would be correct to conclude that I do not stop to think if parasites are right or wrong. I have no such anxieties or mental illnesses. I do not even stop to think if patriotic heroes are patriotic or heroic!

You may continue to refuse to live in the world as it is without condemning some aspect of it (some aspect of God‘s creation). However, consider that refusing to live in the world makes absolutely no difference in that you still live in the world even if you say that you refuse to do so.
So, try to change it. You are part of the world. Try to change yourself. Resist yourself. Fix yourself.

Do it fast. Do it right. Stop being how you should not be, according to you or whatever ideological indoctrinations you have championed as defining for you how you should or should not be. There are many providers of such ideologies who will promote your compliance with their standards of how you should or should not be, such as the Mormon Church or the Democratic Party.

As for me, I command you not to be a parasite and not to use that word. Also, be a parasite and use that word. That about covers how you should or should not focus on consciously avoiding or otherwise giving attention to the word parasite or not.

You either should or should not believe that the world is fundamentally flawed and that you are also fundamentally flawed. That is the ideology of a slave, by the way. Please continue to invest in shame and in correcting your past, or at least compensating for your original sinfulness like any good Catholic adherent to the Holy Inquisition of Protestant Counter-reformation.

Spanish Inquisition Necklace

Spanish Inquisition Necklace (Photo credit: cliff1066™)

You are responsible personally for immediately or sooner making the world a better place (in accord with the ideologies that the 1% elites have implanted in you as to what would be better and what would not be better). If you fail, you will or will not be doomed to an eternity of hell in which you will then come to define wherever you live as a hell that should not be how it is and is fundamentally flawed and must be corrected and changed and reformed by you personally in order for you to avoid eternal damnation in a hell of shame and mental illness and anxiety about how to change hell in to how it either should or should not be. It’s all your fault, but if you can just fix everything real quick, then as a reward you will get 77 vrigins and go directly to heaven “without passing go,” but also without collecting $200, which is a little bit of a bummer and thus I am very sad about all of this world being so much like God told me that it should be.

Now, before it is too late, which could be absolutely any time, fix the system. Define the system as broken and flawed and screwed up (in contrast to screwed down, which is morally preferable). Also keep in mind that the holiest color is seven, because that is what it says in the Holy Constitution of the state of Alaska, which is the best state in the entire history of the Holy Roman Empire. Also, remember that the color seven cannot be in a speculative bubble because the number red is inevitably hyperinflating because the number red is in fact just a linguistic construction created out of thick air, such as fog.

Also, I am a very smart person- perhaps even a true American hero- for having figured all of this out and knowing that the Fed is actually the root of all evil and if we could just remove the surface of the earth from the earth, than the earth would be a better place, except that whenever we remove the surface of the onion from the earth, another layer of surface mysteriously does not appear out of thick air. That really is the only problem with the unpredictable and chaotic world which does not make any sense. If we can just fix that one core problem then all of the other symptoms will turn in to pickles, which is the kind of world that I would want to live in… or maybe not live in but at least visit.

Enron, stock price manipulation, and organized piracy

November 20, 2011

Enron was sacrificed. The people who ran it used it for their own private gain and then sacrificed it.

That may not even be totally true, but to the best of my knowledge, it has been openly admitted that Enron was engaged in manipulating the prices of high-leverage investments simply to redistribute wealth toward particular recipients. They bought certain investments, then took actions to increase the value of those investments.

In that regard, the behavior of the leaders of Enron is not at all unusual. They were just trying to make their own investments be profitable, like the owners of most any business. It was just their methods that were distinctive.

Enron was involved in the electrical power business in California. Enron had the authority to turn off it’s own electrical plant operations in a sudden sequence that would create huge shifts in the supply of electricity to the region. By suddenly reducing the supply of electricity during a time of steadily high demand, Enron could start price spikes in electricity that could then escalate in to huge speculative frenzies.

Because they could trade those predictable price rises for great profit (through investments like leveraged futures and “call options”), they may have intentionally created those price spikes by cutting off supplies of electricity from their own power generating stations. The price spikes were predictable to them because they knew that they were about to reduce production at a bunch of their plants all at once (even if they blamed it on technical problems or whatever). Even if Enron was eventually bankrupted, if the leaders behind Enron made huge private profits by manipulating prices using their instrument (Enron), their instrument served it’s purpose and perhaps then was discarded rather like a piece of used toilet paper (with Enron’s filing for bankruptcy).

Now, it does not matter really to me if anything I just said is specifically true. It could be that Enron was not influencing the supply of electricity, but was more involved in influencing the supply of oil or toothpaste or silver (like the Hunt Brothers in the late 1970s). Controlling supply is the best way to control price.

“I could care less what puppet sits on the throne of this empire. The one who controls the money supply controls the empire and I control the money supply!”

– Mayer Von Rothschild, paraphrased from what he apparently said back in the late 1700s

There are two primary ways of influencing price: influencing supply of something and influencing demand for something. Demand involves PR and marketing and legal subsidies and things like that. Supply can simply be cut off (or suddenly increased, like when Walmart “floods a market” to drive a competitor out of business by selling something for less than what a competitor can sell it, even at a loss to Walmart, but then taking over the competitor when they are weak).

Economics is war. War is economics.

Many people do not understand the issues and risks involved in things like the real estate mortgage industry or the insurance industry. They will be “milked. They have been drawn in through advertisements and PR and hype shows and commission-earning salespeople (AKA realtors etc) who actually know very little about the core purposes of the industries in which they may be employees, just like the average person working for Enron had no idea how much money the leadership of Enron was privately collecting through the mechanism of Enron. Even when leaders simply embezzle money from a corporation, they are obviously doing that as a sacrifice of the corporation’s financial stability.

So, the masses are duped in to pouring their investments in to real estate and stocks (for instance) and then the masses are “milked” through the mechanisms of markets and legal systems and so on. The first stage is the PR or propaganda stage, with propaganda about a particular legal system being central to the entire scam, and then the concentrating of control of supply, then cutting off supply (like supply of oil or supply of credit/mortgage financing).

If the conspirators can convince people that the conspirators are trying to “rescue” the masses from some other conspirators, that is perfect. Blame “the foreigners.”

Or, perhaps there are no conspiracies and the leaders of Enron are just as innocent and ignorant as the masses. I doubt it, but again that does not really matter to me at all.

The point is that people may vastly underestimate the potential for a supply chain to collapse. It could be because of a technical oversight. It could be because a CEO at Enron called a few plant operators and gave a “mysterious” order to halt production, perhaps for an “unexpected safety test” that happened to be initiated at 50% of their electrical plants within 60 seconds of each other. It could be because a Central Banker like Rothschild manipulated public perception and public behavior for personal gain- kind of like an owner of a business might “manipulate” or organize the activities of their employees.

So, everyone knows that prices can come down faster than they can go up. The day that Enron announced that they were filing bankruptcy, how many years of rising prices vanished overnight?

I mention all of this, again, with no particular interest in Enron. I just know that some people are hysterical about stock price manipulation and other forms of corruption. I ask “why be hysterical?” Be realistic.

Stock markets are systems for the organized redistribution of affluence from certain parties (the masses) to certain other parties (the attentive). Be attentive. Why not?

Stock markets in the US (and beyond) may be about to plunge. Why do I say that? Well, I have been publishing that warning for many years (long before the 2007 peak in US stocks).

But why do I repeat it now? Because the US stock market has formed a series of what I call “shelves.” These shelves are also visible on several scales of time.

Consider the image below and the most notable features of the visual pattern in that image:

I made that image very small so that very little detail would stand out- only the most obvious things. I consider it obvious that there is a big sudden drop about 1/5th or 1/4th of the way from the far left, then a “shelf” after that. By shelf, I mean that prices kept coming down to a certain range “like a magnet was attracting them” (or like a bouncing ball after being dropped by gravity and then coming to stillness). Let’s look now at the same image, but larger:

That is the last two days (Thursday 11/17/2011 and Friday 11/18/2011) of prices in the US SPX (S & P 500) broad stock market index. Late Thursday, prices formed a “shelf” at about 1210, with 1215 or so being the upper range of prices. Friday, prices moved very little, mostly forming a shelf a little higher over 1215, with a brief dip around mid-day in to test the level around 1210.

There was a “shelf” or (support level) at 1210 on Thursday and a bit higher then next day. Now let’s look at the SPX chart for a longer period of time (the last 6 months):

Again, we see a big drop, then a “shelf,” then a slightly higher shelf. Here it is bigger:

In the middle two months shown, prices mostly stayed between 1100 and 1200. In the last several weeks (since mid-October), prices formed a shelf around the 1200 level. Let’s look at an even larger time period now (4 years):

There is a steep drop on the left of the stock price chart, then in the middle of the chart a shelf above the 1000 level, and then the same shelf around 1100 on the right. That is the same shelf that is shown closer-up above.

So, what does all of this mean? Does it mean that prices for the US SPX must do any particular thing next? Does it mean that stock prices are inherently steady and that economic trends are inherently permanent?

Or, does it mean that it is a good time to own cash rather than stocks or- perhaps even better than cash- to own put options and positions in inverse ETFs? This is a good time to be attentive, like any other time. This is just an ESPECIALLY good time to be attentive to the potential for predictable and sudden drops in prices which produce huge transfers or redistributions of affluence to a certain few participants relative to the vast majority of participants.

Why not be one of the receivers of the transfer? Why not be one of the attentive?

the language of creating

November 20, 2011

(See also my blog post “an introduction to language” which was two prior to this one.)

keywords: zen, advaita, transformation, language, nlp, jnana, mooji, jnana yoga,dhyana, dhyana yoga, meditative inquiry, toni packer, jiddu krishnamurti, lawrence platt, werner erhard, redemption, ACIM, disappearance of the universe, moral paralysis, analysis paralysis

An introduction to language

November 11, 2011

This is language. Language is an activity of human consciousness.

Universal consciousness has formed human consciousness. Universal consciousness, through it’s form as human consciousness, has formed language. Through language, consciousness constructs complex patterns of human interaction.
Language emerged through the distinct capacities of the human brain. Neurological studies have produced ideas in language about the evolution of the human brain distinct from the brains of other creatures (as well as creatures without brains).
Human language is distinct from the signal sounds used by most animals on this planet. Human language involves syntax or sequential meanings. In other words, the words “a girl” and “a boy” and “kissed” can be arranged sequentially to present distinct meanings: “a girl kissed a boy” or “a boy kissed a girl” or “a boy and a girl kissed.”
The signal sounds of other species of animal besides humans do not present varying meaning depending on the sequence of the signal sounds. Each signal is distinct and associated with a particular action, like “stop” or “danger” or “speed up.”
How did the human brain evolve syntax? Neurologists have suggested that the neurological networks for the physical act of throwing were used for sequencing words in to complex ideas.
Throwing is most important for humans for one specific purpose: hunting. The capacity of humans to effectively hunt (by accurate throwing) is what allowed for humans to access large quantities of nourishing animal fat, especially the Omega 3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. The large intake of those fatty acids, over time, allowed for human brains to develop capacities far beyond the brain capacities of any other species on this planet.
Back to throwing, the neurological process of throwing is extremely complex. The sequence of muscular contractions and electrical signals for accurate throwing is quite intricate, especially to hit moving targets. Other animals are not nearly as accurate at throwing as humans. The only system comparable to the intricacy of throwing a knife or a spear is the guidance systems for missile rockets, which are even named after the word used for weapons that are thrown: missile.
So, human biological selection favored the ability to throw. Humans that could throw well survived and thrived.
Then, humans also developed the capacity for language, which allowed for them to be much more effective in group hunting than they could be individually, even as rather accurate throwers. The human brain grew even faster as a result of the increased success of the humans who not only could throw much more accurately than any other creature, but could work together to hunt their prey.
Then, through their large brains and their use of language, humans worked together with each other and developed the capacity to build bombs, then eventually to fly them with great precision through the air across miles and even oceans on the tips of a type of rocket called a guided missile. Humans created these flying rocket bombs not for hunting, but for thinning out the competition from other humans who could also throw and talk and hunt and perhaps even build bombs and guided missiles.
Bombs are for killing humans. Killing humans could be relevant whenever there are so many humans around that resources like wild game or fossil fuels are getting scarce.
The first tribal wars were for competing over hunting territories. Modern wars are similar, but distinct. Modern war is for killing humans but also for intimidation as in diplomatic control of other humans, for governing, for empire.
Why is it valuable to control other humans? They can be discouraged from hunting scarce remaining wild game, from using scarce fossil fuels, or from eating animal fats like the Omega 3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. Also, language is one of the most dangerous of all technologies. Weapons of mass destruction can be important for influencing the language of other humans, since language is part of the process that directs behavior such as hunting and dieting and warring and so on. In other words, killing and intimidation are also important in controlling the language of other people.
If other humans are to be most easily conquered or controlled, then using language and all other means to discourage them from warfare is important. They should be trained to be ashamed of things like hunting and warring. They should also be indoctrinated to consume unhealthy food and avoid healthy food. They should kept desperate, distracted, and confused.
The effective use of violence and also of language is essential for a lasting system of government. People should be taught that churches and the media and corporations and governments are all isolated and competing against one another, rather than branches of a single metaphorical tree. Drama and contentiousness and antagonism are essential in keeping a target population divided and conquered (controlled or governed or ruled or organized).

%d bloggers like this: