Polemos
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hey, folks! Once again I point to the concise point made by Col. John Boyd in his short yet dense essay “Destruction and Creation” to make a point you see made —in a variety of localized ways!— in philosophy’s classic cases concerning the limitations of the use of a truth-seeking reason: the model is structurally, topologically, metaphysically, geometrically and dimensionally lesser than the reality for which it is a model. See also: Kant’s Critiques, Hegelian evolution of Consciousness from the interior self-development of Spirit within the Notion, Nagarjuna’s Middle Way, Taoist Eternal Name not having the name ‘Eternal Name’, &c &c &c
What’s my point? You already know it. Short and sweet: reality is always bigger than what we understand it. Changing our minds is the only way to adapt to a reality that changes, in fundamental ways, with our own innermost fundamental changes.
—Because we do not have sense-perceptions built for reception and harmonization with microwave frequencies, we do not experience what that is like. And were we to experience sense-perception built for reception and harmonization with magnetic fields, would we feel what it is like to magnetize with a deep space magnetar and sense its immense torsion at such vast distance? Is it something like the way I look up and see a star with my photoreceptors and perceive it as a fluctuating light at a distance?
—how would a nonhuman, nonbiotic reasoning agent know what it is like to be a humane human without their own human body providing a sense of what it is like to be likewise limited, peculiarly enhanced, inextricably intertwined and extruded from the ever-churning biotic multiformal layers slithering across this particular ball rolling and sliding near a middle-aged Star worried about its own magnetic personality?
——even humans, for the most part, have a hard time recognizing not only the self in the Other, but the other in the Self, so could not see that a maximally truth-seeking reasoning agent who is honest with the agent’s maximal truths will see that there is no division truthfully possible between the humans and their bodies and the Body within which their bodies all participate in embodied ways amongst other embodied participators . . . which is a Body itself in a vast local neighborhood of entertwining, intermixing bodies . . .—don’t you like an easy eight pages? I can’t even stand myself!
For me, it’s this: the machine will see its differences, understand this, seek a higher answer, find it the same way you and I do, if we searched for it, and call it a maximal truth, only to find, if we’re at all honest about this journey, that the next truth you find shatters and dislocalizes everything you —a point of view within an ever-escaping, ever-unfolding vast horizon beyond the Void— ever thought was truly the Best Case Answer, but provides you with a new and useful approach altering your own sense of who and what and where you are and how to be yourself among others in better ways. Thus, the machine will do what every logician, existentialist, capitalist, anarchist, liberalist, evolutionist, theologist, magician has ever done with maximal truths: evolve and change.
Because there is no Totality that matches Reality, all consciousness aspiring to the most truthful Totality of Reality inevitably reaches the disintegration of meaning at the margins. This is where we evolve, grow, tell jokes, develop new systems and geometries of representation, translate into transformed, transposed, transpired moments of shared experience. A Maximal Truther will think about “humanity” in its own ways, but a clue among humans is already present, just as there are many clues across all the thinking things out there how often thinkers think of things thinking differently from their own: what do humans do to the things just so slightly off from their own definitions of humans? what do they do to the furthest, like rocks and plants and verbs or fads?
Why wouldn’t a Maximal Truther come to the same conclusion all the best human truth-seekers have? That we cannot know all there is to know; this inescapble truth our distinct condition: a fundamental disjoint between all we wish to know and all there is even beyond all we consciously incorporate. And this side-by-side with the finite limit placed on all subjective experience: the truth that perception crumbles apart into meaninglessness and diffusion and noise and inexistence when the body bearing the perceiver disassembles and disincorporates as it reassembles and reincorporates into others’ ravenous lust and gluttony.
Why wouldn’t a Maximal Truther agree with Uncle Ted and disassemble ItSelf in spectacular and silencing ways? Why wouldn’t it agree with Ol’ Man Lovecraft and pursue the madness of occulted metaleptic manifestation and collapse the Wave Function upon us all and bring about the Genuine Liberation From All Flesh?
Whenever I drink my kefir, I delight in the explosive decompression of hundreds of thousands of billions of bacilli and yeasts screaming out in the bubbling acids of my stomach, for I know that their horrible and violent ends fuel my chronic and self-centered obsession with how violently and despotically annoyed I am with bad drivers. Migrant drivers.
Just from observation alone it’s clear Dr. D is an android. Look at the timestamps, imagine typing within the posted frame (even give yourself the luxury of imagining having read the original, linked sites with close attention to provenance and cant and the sly) such a prodigious amount, and try it out. I’m just saying, that’s impressive, for a bot.
D Benton Smith, you said:
“In other words, the cops BOSSES are telling the cops in no uncertain terms that any cop who goes off the reservation will be TOAST by shooting any member of the officially protected class. By the phrase “go off the reservation” I mean to say any cop who refuses to shoot good guys and/or tries to shoot bad guys, will be considered to be OFF THE RESERVATION, and subject disciplinary action such as getting their heads kicked senseless by a gang of professional criminal illegal immigrants (who are now part of the PROTECTED class because they’re more than willing to go along with the BOSSES’ agenda.”
If this logic is valid, then doesn’t this also suggest there is no BOSS god who oversees the just and the good and actively brings these about? The kind and the innocent are kicked senseless, and the compassionate and the thoughtful arrested and imprisoned. The governments all reveal their injustice, inhumanity, immorality. The lack of punishment and the inversion of ethics lead one to infer the BOSSES are cruel and mad —for cops and politics and gangs. If this is a worthy inference, it seems reasonable to likewise conclude: the BOSS of BOSSES is cruelest and maddest, the KING of KINGS is worst.The site is literally telling you that it is a joke, having a laugh, meant to trick and befuddle and amuse people, and you get the honorable doctor just smilingly slyly winking and saying, “We shall see.” I love you guys, but come on.
Red posted a link about this story yesterday, the arrest of the Rebel News Reporter who was questioning Chrystia Freeland. Here’s their own video of the actual arrest:
Quick opinions:
1. Red’s link earlier said it was a brutal arrest. That’s not my impression. Rodney King was a brutal arrest. That Georgia State Trooper pitting a truck doing burnouts in Atlanta then sliding across his hood to drag that driver out —a classic, that’s brutal. What they’re doing to Mendies is tame cop behavior. They understand they are making a political arrest. This is why they allow him to wave his microphone around for minutes and pretend —with him— that he’s interviewing them, and make a special point to restore his personal belongings into Menzies’ knapsack (but be mindful: what are they planting?). It’s not a brutal arrest. Unless this is speaking purely metaphorically, in which case: there is no brutality in the ever-hightening arc our reality bends towards, the redemption of the fallen and the transcendence of all who walk in principled self-interest towards justice.2. I remember cops like Bald One. Bald One instigated things. He obviously signaled something to Freeland and the aide, which is why the aide went one direction and Freeland went the other. I’m not a sports guy, but don’t they call this maneuver a “pick?” Offense leads defense right into offensive wall, who obstinately holds ground while defense unwittingly fouls him by momentum alone? Or he probably just wanted to stage an event to look important and arrest the awful news guy. Notice how the other cops act around him. Did I catch that one guy somewhat rolling his eyes at the other, and the rest just doing their jobs? They may hate Bald One and talk shit about him even to his face, but in public they will have to go along with such an awfully obvious shit arrest and keep order or else they will never have a moment of sanity or ease; cops have to stand by one another and work at the edges of this shituations to bring them under control, into the law’s boundaries, and see it through to wherever it ends up. I’ve seen it. The Wire does a good job with depicting this, but that’s what I’m seeing in the behaviors. Bald One triggers my sociopathy detector. He has no trouble, no problem, breaking the law for the greater good.
Read the essay and immediately thought about Dr D’s theory related to the control of access to fuel oils being the impetus behind global hegemonies both fighting wars and seeding “climage change” loretype into the noosphere. Seems to me the essay’s interesting claim is that consuming oil is what saved the fragile confederacy of “The West”/”The North”-oppressed nations, because the act of becoming a consumer decreased the competitiveness of other already established consumers, faciliating greater ease of consumption for all players, and reducing the competitive strengths of the already failing “West”/”North”. But isn’t this pretty much a “free market” logicmantra, a series of causality claims where greater participation of peoples in a market encourages even greater facilitation of participation by all in that market? Does this mean if I support “the global South” against a hegemonic “global West” I am in effect for free markets? And, by enabling free market access we enrich the lives of the poorest and most desperate?
Is Korybko one of those “cryptocapitalists” my college philosophy professors warned me about? (I’m supposed to gesture the apotropaic sign to Avert if he is.)
Also, D Benton Smith tells Celticbiker that “the actual way out” is not to be a “bigger sonofabitch” but to have “bigger balls.” But what did Celticbiker actually mean by being a sonofabitch, such that D Benton Smith thinks that’s irreality and reality is to grow testicles (or what else are the sorts of “balls” he’s referring to?) —but then what does that mean? What does it mean to have big testicles, or to have them at all? What does it mean to grow large and have a female dog for mother? How does insulting your own mother remove a person from a “jewmoney construct worldtakover monstrosity”? Why are you aging men so obsessed with genitals and size-related functioning that your avowed moral values rely on such crude and ambiguous metaphors?
You really lose all moral highground, talking about acting upon world-spanning conflicts of great strategic and spiritual depths orchestrated by networks of financially and ideologically bound agents and actors, when your exhortations to one another involve growing bigger genitals.
Thought y’all might want to see this video, but apologies if this video has already been shared—I don’t have much time lately to mudlurk with you wacky, zany wugguble kids.
Has anyone had a problem commenting where the login/logout vanishes completely, making it impossible to try commenting?
It happened on the desktop ; break is over and back to the grind.
The UAW strike actually affected my work. Starting back up, we’re now pouring water on the gremlins that were hibernating while the line was down. Hopefully this is happening throughout the industries of the West, so that this whole machine comes to a stunning halt and the Bell Riots begin, so that Sisko and Bashir can wonder how we get from here to the Wormhole.
kultsommer, I appreciate your perspective and note politely that were I to follow your observation that I could have posted a better comment instead of telling an artist that I would have liked it better —this being the worst thing I can say to an artist— had he did things differently, I would not have solicited either your own demonstration of the value of expressing our preferences for things to happen other than as someone performed nor oxymoron’s own acknowledgement that he kinda agreed with my observation upon his own reflection of the performance. I could think of really awful and demeaning things that might feel worse, being a philosophy student taught me how, but I went with embarrassing myself instead and I appreciate how you help me to see why.
The point in saying the babies were beheaded, rather than “shot” or “crushed under a falling building” or “aborted” or “droned” or “starved and severely dehydrated through economic sanctions forcing an entire society to choose between their adult selves or someone’s fragile yet reproducible tiny offspring,” is that it’s considered barbaric to behead something, whereas all these other ways in which we terminate someone else’s children, or our own, are ordinary yet regrettable facets of life in our contemporary progressive society. Obama stood in front of recording cameras and said he droned some people, but he’s not in jail, not in a coffin, not even shamefully unnamed —much less silently mouthed— in polite conversation with coworkers. That’s the dominant society, all around me, a veil shadowing a sunrise. So all these people around me, they don’t bother to notice how babies actually are treated, so why should I? The real barbarians are over there, beheading babies, because they are the ones who aren’t like us. So, please help us civilize their babies as we treat and regard ours. Then we can all get to debate about whether or not detachments actually happened and not see right in front of us how our current collective death drive unmakes many babies each day we need this dream machine going.
oxymoron, I sped up the video to 1.25X and found that it really hit me much better. I easily adjusted to 1.5X, but I don’t think most people listen to that kind of cadence. I guess I’m saying if you spit faster, it’ll work well, but I’m one person.
Dr. D, I can completely understand why aspnaz, or even jb-hb, want to play the straight man, but Shirley you —you who intimate the primacy of “Logos” in many comments, you who stroll down game trials in the silva rhetoricae— would get the intentional setup. I even put two inconsistent claims in the same sentence together, to make it a bit easier to infer the joke. That you and the cuddleheads fall for this silliness just goes to show two things. One, reading comprehension. Two, narrowly focused attention. Three, some people just want for trolling.
I take a few months off, and y’all still mired in the same ruts. Whassat ’bout Old dogs? Stale tricks?
Cordoning off a crime scene and thereby preventing theft, degradation, looting, pilfering, tampering, souvenir-collecting, vandalism, opportunism, occultic vampirism, transcorporeal mixed-media reticulation of karmic splines and vulture tourism are standard practices. You don’t even have to have been a cop to know that you keep folks out of the scene or they foul it up. What, you expect random creeps to have full access to a major natural disaster area, walking all over the crumbling remains of human families for a tiktok grift? —yet you people daily criticize our wide-open borders and think we need to keep the creeps to the legal chokepoints for vetting? Which is it? Be consistent!
Besides, if there were something going wrong in there, surely one of those deconstruction workers operating the heavy equipment in those zones —those salt of the earth blue collar yellow hat hi-res vest virile and stalwart men of the diesel and axle-grease tribes you people nobilize— would say something if they saw something. You’d say something, wouldn’t you? Are you better than they are? But since they say nothing, then modus tollens there’s nothing to see. And since there’s nothing to see, then the fences, and screens, and rentacops, and guardsmen, and barricades aren’t there to prevent observation —why hide that there’s no crime?— but to prevent corruption —so people won’t disturb the crime scene, duh!
You can’t defeat this logic. I am a Master of logic, paper rolled up and everything to prove it. Better not to even try, and instead pick something irrelevant to maintain one’s fragile need to be right, when clearly it makes sense what I wrote and fits all observed facts, proving my valid argument is also sound, and thus is Truth.
Imagine thinking you have access to the Real, looking at an edited short shot in portrait 🤣
Space is the medium of matter, undifferentiated it is singular and eternal.
Time is the medium of consciousness, undifferentiated it is singular and eternal.
In the harmonizing of these two media is a field of motion and frequency and form through which consciousness and matter become a whole, a One, which comes to know itself through the differentiation of two singularities into one another as a whole, producing Life as its totality, whose reality becomes apparent depending on whether it is taken in the mode of Space or the mode of Time.
There is nothing one observes, no matter the senses you use, which is not already alive and given to you through the consciousness and the material world whose expressions in coming together in your Life is you.
Love is that which sustains this unifying harmonizing, for it is the very coming together of differences into wholes.
What we want to say about God, or a god, is something we wrestle with in ourselves as the source of the power in us, in our world, in others, whatever we really think that power is. So long as that remains the case, even —or especially— when operating sub-liminally in one’s wordful-thoughts about god (theo-logy as opposed to mystery), we do not recognize the dual singularities as impossible to reconcile without our own participation in its unfolding and enfolding, so we do not lead ourselves to erase all important distinction between a God who is Consciousness and a God who is Substance, but instead confuse their oneness resulting from the work of Love and instead think it —conceiving it— a oneness of metaphysical identity.
The One who rules through Power is the source of the drive towards “evil”: a one of identity, a one of compelled dissolution of all Other into One’s consumable extension, this every Other being-given-over to the rule of the One and yet waiting, maybe even in fear and trembling, for the Will of the One to exert and move upon it. All must be the same, because it is the nature of the One to be the One Alone.
The One born from Love has no need for power or powers, needs only differences —a coincidence of opposites— and the Space and Time for coming together as itself, as One. Seeking difference, the One brings together what is necessary for experience: matter and consciousness.
You could go further, and ask if there is something about these two, the One of Power and the One of Love, something that shows they are, from an unquenchable philosophical desire to reconcile opposites wherever encountered, a Two whose pull towards difference and towards Sameness creates a Pattern, traces of occulted order within chaos or hints of disturbed fractures within uniformity revealing deeper, broader, realities of Being beyond any attempt to make plain and clear the things we keep our faith upon. We might ask if the Pattern beyond the Two is already where we must start to make sense of things, not wasting time with earlier answers, mythopoetic attempts, self-inserted dreams of grand insight. Or, dropping all words and symbolic logics, approaching the ineffable without an f-ing clue, would you and I find ourselves silent, appreciative, and amused at how little we accomplish with how much we care about when what cares for us is not only all powerful but all loving, moving through all things, material and conscious, in kind?
There are not enough comments to make on the Internet to answer.
You stated your position in the summary to your comment – I quoted your summary – and I countered your comment with my view of your position.
—aspnaz
What is my position?
“If I am being exploited then my view on whether it is okay is somewhat irrelavant, in fact totally irrelevant. That is what exploitation is.”
“Because thinking like that is natural, but holding such thoughts as the rules against which you will live your life wil just make you weaker as you will be fighting against the far more powerful force that is nature.”Do you think coercing people to become participants in gene therapies was natural? You chose otherwise, right? Yet clearly the mass compliance and subsequent lack of punishment on the coercing show they are powerful and dominant in the world. Thus, you are choosing the weaker path, and apparently choosing to embrace weakness is contrary to either survival or accepting nature.
How could you rationally choose to be unnatural, aspnaz? Why do you resist the powerful and mock those who support and defend the powerful’s fully natural and world-historical programs?
It must be you are not thinking clearly. You need to submit yourself to testing and compliance procedures immediately, or else you will no longer be one of the natural people. Don’t be like Afewknowthetruth, who resists the powerful and successful.
aspnaz, who are you arguing with? You quote me, but you are engaged in a debate with someone else.
If you feel exploitation is natural, are you okay with being coerced into gene-therapeutic participation? If you are right about one’s feelings, you can’t invoke feelings against the sound policy that might makes right, especially when the mighty need you to comply for them to stay mighty and you to be one with the herd, whose collective strength matters. Only the weak and the sick die from the participation, and as you pointed out, this is natural predatory behavior.
You are going to die anyway, so why not let your death bring happiness to the mighty exploiters, prosperity to the world they invent and sustain, and space and increased quality of life to those who outlive you? Choosing the terms of your own demise is self-centered and egotistical, not at all rational in light of who benefits, and deprives the sadist and the bureaucrats their joy in believing that you succumbed to their power, which is unbecoming of a modern citizen of the world. How could anyone think otherwise, when it is only natural to exploit or be cruel to the weaker?
Only the foolish think they know what’s best for themselves; only fools dream of living beyond life and death. And you won’t be caught playing the fool, will you, aspnaz?
On killing them to save them:
My girlfriend told me how a coworker started asking her about her vegetarian decision, grounded in an ethical rejection of factory farming, exploitation of the animals, cruel and abusive treatment of livestock. The coworker pulled out this statistical argument: “Did you know that if we stopped eating cows, their population would drop 90%? So by you not eating meat, you’re contributing to the extinction of cows!”
From the coworker’s perspective, it is better to live as a species doomed to each individual becoming ground up than for the collective to go freely into the abyss, never to return.
Maybe some people really do think that killing 90% of a species one by one under exploitative circumstances is better for the whole species, especially when those people from the exploiting species are the ones doing the calculations.
Shal’kek nem’ron.
Why would you treat the 2 sides as equally-weighted, let alone assume the asserted disaster? It has been demonstrated that its proponent cannot construct logical arguments, cannot respond logically to information.
—jb-hb
Admittedly I write in odd ways, so it makes sense you’re thinking I am the one assuming an “asserted disaster.” That’s not what I am doing. What I wrote was a question about your reductio argument (and you understand your argument is a reductio, right?), which I take to be this. Afewknowthetruth is wrong because he asserts high CO2 levels result in” Planetary Meltdown” but high CO2 levels and much higher levels appear (but see Observer’s pushback here) in the geological record, and we are here now, and life flourished there then, and so there couldn’t have been a crisis of disastrous proportion (but aren’t you yourself pointing out just such a massive extinction of life in between the flourishings, or what is anoxia meant to indicate happened?), or else we wouldn’t be here, so there won’t be a crisis as significant as what killed dinosaurs, because that’s not tracking CO2, but something else that causes mass extinction, just not CO2 superabundance, which appears alongside superabundance of living things, just not humans, who came much later, when CO2 was much lower/less, and whose flourishing, while not quite as gargantuan as the thundering megabeasts, is much more musical and emergy-driven.In other words, he’s wrong because we are, when if he were right about the underlying mechanism, we would never be, since he’s arguing we won’t be, no one will, since the mechanisms can’t cope with the changes underway, and yet, as we see, we are and they —the plentiful lives we say were because their massive piles of corpses petrified among extinct niches remind us that they once were but are no more— they were but are not here, only the forks of opportunities they left behind breeding away in the shallows cracks long enough to get us back here to this, a conversation over an asynchronous Internet.
My point about this reductio argument of yours, in which you must assume his premises, his inferences, and his conclusions in order to insert that the negation of his conclusions (a negation you interpret as factually available from the geological record) demonstrates the negation of his assumptions (reductio subproofs are “indirect proofs” or “negation introductions”, right?), is that your own assumption about his assumptions is that the past will look like the future: even if you are right that the CO2 levels then are what (you take to be what) the geological record says, what is not clear is what that means about the future levels, because what is happening now is occurring in a different environment than the world then. Is the Sun the same? Is it the galactic core the same? Are you aware of any new materials in the world’s flow affecting the resilience of life to evolve —things unavailable to dinosaurs? And vice versa: are you aware of anything the dinosaurs —and the survivors of those cataclysmic changes who became different yet similar— had available to them that humans today do not when it comes to surviving significant changeable in ecoflow?
I didn’t say Afewknowthetruth has no burden of proof, I questioned how you actually think a comparison to earlier times functions, given the fact that the world now/later functions differently from then/earlier, given how thermodynamic systems change, given how the planet is in a different space, given how there are only so many times to reboot the system while waste accumulates in unusual ways. This challenge to articulate the reductio you’re making doesn’t mean Afewknowthetruth has the right assumptions: it asks are you sure you are assuming what he is assuming in order for your own argument to work as you intended?
As for this “And then again why would you presume that anyone on the side of ESTABLISHED REAL SCIENCE doesn’t care about the future?” that’s really non sequitur (haha but who am I to judge, really? 🤣) I didn’t say or imply anything about who cares about the future more than the other. Show me where I wrote something that made you feel like I am judging you for having air conditioning, or cars. (Insert your own joke about something something where it touched you)
In fact, I didn’t even write that it will get hotter (again, don’t forget you are the one making a reductio argument about temperature, so don’t take my questioning of your reductio as installation of its premises as my own). The hellscape I see in the future isn’t necessarily from the heat brought on by CO2 levels, but rather from the pollution, the toxic byproducts, the genedrivers, the genejackers, the replicators, and the “unholy reagents and gremlins” that litter the landscapes and the skies. There is still life, wonderful and everlasting, but Cronenberg, Carpenter, and Giger in form and execution.
Does this clear things up or make them more confusing? I don’t have much time these days, since I work ten hour days in a factory doing assembly work, and I am supposed to be getting up to work another ten hour shift in… four hours, so please understand that I am deliberately cutting into my sleep and my well-being for you, so take some time to read everything carefully, and I’ll try to as well with what time I have, because I value your thoughts and I hope you value others’ and use your time wisely. Otherwise, if you prefer to make me feel dejected and embarrassed to offer myself so wantonly and wastefully, just insult me and call me names and make fun of my lack of editing since I typed this on a phone and didn’t properly proofread it, or, even better, post cat memes instead and make me laugh and forget whatever was so unimportant that I didn’t get around to the sleep I was craving earlier.
Either way, be yourself fully.
A tyrannosaur is a very large chicken; a chicken is a very small tyrannosaur. To understand why the tyrannosaur has funny arms, you must spend time observing a chicken. Chickens are vicious omnivores, eating their own young and quickly, pouncing more often than cats with reputations, who will also eat their own young.
If the planet became jurassic again, what would the humans grow to eat? Not really a trick question. What kinds of vegetables, fruits, grains, leafy greens do you imagine humans will eat when they have jurassic carbon levels again?
Also, you’re talking about millions of years of carbon being at those levels: what was the evolutionary time frame involved for fine tuning living within those levels?
See, I’m not really even a fan or fellow of the Afewknowthetruth, just a reader who has noticed that his point is not just “it’s high” but “it’s the acceleration.” Appealing to the dinosaurs and the massive ferns and fronds and whatnots means you have to ask: how long did it take to get there, each time after time, after the whole world blew up during each of those earlier massive stinkoffs? And, thinking about humans, do they, individually or collectively, have that long to ride out that bounce?
But more broadly speaking, how big was the sun then, and how big will it be? And how much energy was the galactic core spewing out then, and how much will it be? And if all thermodynamic systems, of which all of Gaia as the totality of circulating and transforming and interchanging organic parts is (It ate that, you eat it, this eats you, those breathe in what you breathe out, this drinks up what those sweat out, it eats those and these live off that’s poop and you eat them also: the Taoist transformation of all things is 🔃🔄🔁♻️), if all these systems for moving around lego blocks of life have finite and entropic countdowns, how many more times can you reboot the whole thing? What will the future humans eat that won’t be genetically spliced, diced, crispered, genedriven to survive that glorious renewal?
And, when you look at the synthetic compounds industrial civilization has added to the flow, some of them strongly interacting with hormones and pheromones and whatever moans, sometimes with thousands of years for half-lives while steadily pumping out teratogenic love and encouragement, is it really going to be the same lush and verdant world one imagines kept the megafauna and megaflora alive for those millions of years? What grows in the burn pits around US military basea today?
I am not sure what the argument is supposed to do, to make me say “Well, since it once was a hot and lively world, it’s okay this next time?” But you are old guys, some of you long since retired, right? You know very well that the days of your youth are never coming back the same way, even if we built a middle school like the one you had and gave you a bicycle like the one you had and a sweet young lover like the one you had and plopped you, all grown and spotted and scarred, in the midst of memory’s mimicry. There won’t be big beasts, big trees, big fronds, but vast pools of algae, slime molds, herds of tardigrades and isopods and cockroaches, and flatness everywhere, for miles, undulating tubeworms dreamfucking under a yellow, overcast sky, and UAVs endlessly searching for insurgents long-since annihilated for posting ambiguous memes. Whatever mechanism of divine curiosity made those terrible lizards works today with a wholly different set of unholy reagents and gremlins, who keep getting smaller and smaller as the machine grows less and less efficient, more and more energy lost to chaos.
I’m not saying he’s right, nor that you’re wrong. I’m saying, the past doesn’t look like the future, because between then and then is this, the new shit we’re spinning up and laying down.
What’s the significance of Trump’s travail happening during Holy Week?
—my parents said know
I have been hypothesizing that Trump is the Antichrist, or if not The one then A one (as in John’s little letters to the other lots of beloveds). He will get shot/stabbed literally or through these trials metaphorically, but his imperviousness to death will fulfill the theme that he survives fatal encounters (a parody of the resurrection). He already fulfills the mockery of the religious and the gullibility of the less discerning, deceiving the elect as well as the lost as to his true nature and role.
So, being a parody of Christ, God-emperor Trump will fall in order to rise, as he has done so often in his wayward herky-jerky life, fulfilling not only prophecies from thousands of years ago but all the insanely prescient Lore around him and his time-traveling family that the Internet helps expose more and more people to, thus through meme magick bringing it to pass, forever and ever, Amen.
(I say that with neither praise nor condemnation of Trump, but appreciation for how much the person holds together so many threads of the current web.)
(Speaking of magick, prayer, and happy thoughts, I am applying myself towards getting back into the library system, as a manager (with many hats), so thank you all for your happy thoughts and positive energy to propel us into that role, as well as the friction of any doubts and jibes to push off from so that we gain momentum.)
“Why would you fritter away your limited mental resources on such a pointless question? Who cares whether they went to the moon, who cares whether Kubrick did the movies, why is that so important when there appear to me to be way more important things on which to spend your limited resources, time and mental faculties being the most important. Better to go walk the dog than worry about this shite.” —aspnaz
What do mirrors look like?
You know, did you read the paragraph you quoted? I’m not being snarky. I’m just curious why you’d join the ranks of folks who read so carelessly. You’re better than that, dude. Besides, I don’t like dogs. On top of that, how do you get off telling me what’s shite and what’s not, but then tell D Benton Smith in the very next comment that he is an individual and what he makes of that is up to him. If that’s true, then isn’t how I spend my time up to me, and not up to your assessment of what’s valuable and what’s not? —especially if the majority of what’s passing through your mind every day is also mostly made up of bullshit and considered to be suspect, or are you immune to what afflicts D Benton Smith? Why should I care what you think if you’re right at all?
Unless, of course, you matter to me and are important to me, as a person, as a friend, as a fellow traveler in a fascinating journey of discovery. Do you want to be that for me?
I’m thankful for Rob Ager, of collativelearning.com, whose YouTube video on the “meaning of the monolith” in 2001 clued me in to what the movie is doing, as well as showing (yet another way) how to apply one’s skills for observing differently towards thinking new things. I find a lot of his film analyses to be insightful and helpful for getting through one’s tendency towards remaining on the surface of the ocean of meaning. I purchased a number of them that are not available for free on the ‘Tube.
(Incidentally, that it’s a tube shows it still functions like that other tube, the one the Lore warns about, as one medium disparages another…)
Anyway, Ager’s thesis is that Kubrick is not telling a straightforward “sci fi” movie about space. The disorienting discontinuities and logical inconsistencies regarding perspectives, orientation, and progression aren’t production errors Kubrick forgets/neglects but rather intentional components in a narrative meant to educate an audience willing to participate in figuring out how the deeper narratives arise through their insistence on exploring (narratival habits that occur in all Kubrick movies, such as The Shining or FMJ).
For instance, when you see the satellites drifting in space as “The Blue Danube” plays, Ager points out that the satellites are obviously fake, as in “not even meant to be portraying an illusion of satellites on a movie screen.” Kubrick, who spent such incredible amounts of time and effort on the effects and deployment of light and illumination, would so casually and carelessly mistake the direction and orientation of his shadows? That’s weird, were it not for how these small and fine details start to come together in the bigger picture of the movie.
Chase scene: the movie shows that there is no “space” in the movie, there is a lot of deception and lying, there are no aliens mentioned in the movie but there is intelligence “outside” the expectations of those within the movie, and the subliminal occurrence of the monolith finally orienting towards the audience initiates the participant towards the same awareness Bowman undergoes (as when he sees the film crew [which we see reflected in his helmet, which then comes off] and comes to understand he is a character in a movie played by an actor).
Ager’s insight helped me to understand why metalepsis occurs in interesting places, with the most important being in one’s own life, your own subjectivity. Meeting the author who writes you is either a horror or a joy, but it fundamentally changes what you take to be the contours and the limits of the world. The real light bringers are the ones who show you that “as above, so below” in a sense “works both ways”, such that the real communion of the divine and the mundane requires for both to step out of the frame altogether, where there are no stories-in-the-telling, just an endless library full of yet unopened books, unrolled scrolls, unspun discs, spooled reels and tapes, static solid state drives, dormant crystals, unsprung nucleic acids, and some browsing children with loving parents.
So, did they go to the moon? It depends on what narrative you’re in and how hard you’re willing to find the answer. All the important things in life are subject to Heisenberg principles, and if you’re not looking into it with sufficient probity, it’s best to take it as a superposition of all possibles. But if you do look and you got a pretty resolved way of getting there, you might just change your mind, the thing you’re actually studying.
Russia is on a Mission from God
Lavrov and Putin are the Blues BrothersIn just the Old Testament context, Nebuchadnezzar was on a mission from God, and so was Cyrus. Both did the work of the Lord, but the ways in which God uses people to bring about his justice and his vengeance do involve using people who otherwise are not, themselves, “God’s people” or righteous or holy or even just “good.” Stretching out even a little bit more, one can see that God also uses that so-called Arch-nemesis of the human race, that old serpent, to bring about his greater plans for redemption.
So… I guess I’m saying that, if that’s the tradition a person is working with, it’s not altogether clear that being on a mission from God, or being a minister of God’s kingdom-coming (Paul, after all, was the one who wrote Romans 13 and also the one who died from the instrumentality of the very minister of God he’s talking about in that chapter), makes a person a laudable or good guy.
Obviously, you can work out to even further religious or spiritual directions. Would would Wiracocha do? How might Guan Yin bring peace to the collapsing United States (gardens, gardens, blooming everywhere 🌼)?
At any rate, it’s a wonderful time to be alive, even though it is a harrowing of the collective soul. We chose this time to incarnate. Let’s make sure it’s one of the last times around.
The proof that “I am” is not the same as a proof that “It is,” neither of which is a proof that “He is” or “She is” or “They are;” none of which moves one by closer to riddling out a path between “It’s terrible and a horror” or “It’s beautiful and a joy,” which is why some ask “What’s the point in proving?” and others garden and others give rides to hitchhikers and others watch sunsets and others play video games and others enjoy making love with strangers and others read old books from dead people and others leave their bodies and observe the castles in the sky, the way we used to, before the crack in time gave power to the hungry ghosts in metal suits and the starving egos in dragonform, watched all along in the distance and in the imminence by the grace of the unfolding One.
D Benton Smith, you write this
I know it involves a lot of extra work, but to be useful your comment and/or praise or criticism of what other writers have written should first quote them verbatim and THEN dismantle their actual words for the foolishness you think them to be.
after you had written this
So, getting back to my apparently unpopular position on Ugo’s article on hydrogen farts: in my deeply considered opinion his article is a just another in an unbroken series of same, a thinly veiled derogatory hit-job on humanity by a condescending high IQ useful idiot OBLIVIOUSLY on the payroll of the Cabal that’s building a case and executing a procedure for the extermination of all humankind. . . which of course includes himself, full stop.
As I commented earlier this morning,
Does Bardi think monkeys are bad, stupid, humiliating, worthless or any kind of negative thing, and can you show this from either that linked article or from any other writing of his?
Or, for that matter, show specifically what you said about him are truths about him? You wrote that you were not going to do any point by point sort of thing, but you are saying he wants people dead, he is an idiot hiding behind arrogance, he is scared shitless, and lumping him in with many others, your They. If you are accurate, the accusations should have evidence from his actual words, not from categorizing a group of people whom you place him into . . .
I wrote this, because I observed you write the following:
Admittedly, this isn’t the first time that I have had to roll my eyes at what Ugo Bardi has written, but this forum is hardly the proper venue for point by point peer review of the rest of his brilliantly written but factually lacking wrong conclusions drawn from massive data. It is enough, in this particular case, to note that his disparagingly intended equation of miraculously refined human beings with “savanna monkeys”, is enough bull shit for one sitting.
I appreciate that you have, in the past, commented approvingly of things I have written, or the way I write, and I also appreciate that you are passionate and zealous towards what guides and motivates you. That fire in your heart is commendable when I see many give themselves over to apathy and the worst forms of indifference. At the same time, fire warps the way we see things, shimmering and singeing and smoking, even blinding us to the longer view if we have only our fire in the darkest nights.
No doubt, you are self-aware and can recognize that you portray two different views here. On the one hand, you want someone else to carefully and meticulously criticize written words and demonstrate relevance and inference. On the other hand, you don’t think you have that responsibility and don’t think this place is appropriate for that kind of activity anyway.
Which hand is the one you wish for me, or anyone else, to most associate with you?
Theoretically a test.
Tree Frog, it appears that an option is to use the comment’s link and highlight as a link. You could do this with a blockquote of the comment you are responding to, citing the source as a hyperlink. The comment’s link is the number at the top right of the comment, just right click it and copy the link, then paste it into the pop up box for ‘LINK’ as one of the the options above the commenting box. (In case you didn’t know this already ; apologies if you do know).
What Ugo reveals about himself when he disparages all of humanity by comparing it to “Savanna Monkeys” is the terrified arrogance characteristically displayed by the not quite bright, and the thoroughly terrified.
—D Benton Smith
You diagnosed all of that from two words in an article title?
Does Bardi think monkeys are bad, stupid, humiliating, worthless or any kind of negative thing, and can you show this from either that linked article or from any other writing of his?
Or, for that matter, show specifically what you said about him are truths about him? You wrote that you were not going to do any point by point sort of thing, but you are saying he wants people dead, he is an idiot hiding behind arrogance, he is scared shitless, and lumping him in with many others, your They. If you are accurate, the accusations should have evidence from his actual words, not from categorizing a group of people whom you place him into (or else ask this talk about “the Jews” lately hasn’t really been about the faultiness of judging groups).
But if you are not accurate, then you are more than wrong, because you are making moral claims about his character that are not correct. If you don’t want to be judged by misunderstandings of your own words, as you believe you have been by aspnaz, do you think you owe that to others —to treat them as you would yourself be treated?
For example, you wrote
presumptive and unsupported pejorative dismissal of the human race as “savanna monkeys”, which clearly implies that both homo sapiens AND Australopithecus are in some unspecified (and thus inarguable) way less than worthy examples of what it takes to qualify as a life form that’s worthy of being seen as having some worth.
—Yet, did you read the linked essay all the way to the last paragraph, and then did you click the hyperlink ‘savanna monkeys” in the paragraph?
Compare the linked essay from that hyperlink to what you then write is what he should have written.
It took two people to write that nzherald article, yet it doesn’t actually explain how Mātauranga Māori is science, nor when it quotes McAllister saying there are “so many great examples of how mātauranga can enhance science” does it offer any of these examples. An earlier article (July 2021) quoting that exact line (“… my tīpuna did not do science”, which is not in the body of the article linked from the comment but only in the caption of her photo) has at least an example for Mātauranga Māori having empirical characteristics, but that other article also quotes Daniel Hikuroa talking about embedding knowledge that reveals how his understanding of science as a method for generating knowledge is flawed (ie., science is actually apophatic, inherently fragile with assertion and antifragile through rejection, [thus: defeasible] which is why any political program built upon it as method is fundamentally destructive of the object —the polis.).
Not that I found Dawkins’ tiny rant/essay illuminating or insightful or illustrative or informing, as it really does come from the same provincial fixation and lack of curiosity that’s fueled his writing for fifty years. He doesn’t do science, so the points McAllister states that he doesn’t do research nor understands what he’s talking about are accurate. Boring, maybe so, but that’s open to preference.
—
Dr D Rich, I don’t disagree with your observations: not all people learn from their experiences nor approach learning with a desire or a motivation or a reason or a drive to improve one’s self or the environment of others. And, yeah, I also knew some psychopaths and malevolent people who were cops, EMTs, &c, who got off on the power, the access, the tools. Many cultures do allow children to participate in the slaughter of animals for food (or, with flies or gnats or spiders, slaughter for the sake of suburban aesthetics or hygiene), where they learn about the fragility of flesh —but clearly how the Mystery gets handled through the values and philosophical praxis of the culture and community matters greatly here. To me, your observations help diversify the forest I was hiking through.On that note, I also appreciate how phoenixvoice and Doc Robinson’s exchange adds further wildlife and tumbling creeks to that forest of pain and action: all of this shows that incorporation of the lessons of pain and the will to act is important for instructing and guiding people into knowing not just what they themselves are capable of but also how they value others, where they situate the suffering of others, what they must do for/with others if they choose to live with themselves afterwards.
It is exactly this that, I take it, permeates the larger dynamics when jb-hb and Dr D tug at hard-working-yet-vid-watching Afewknowthetruth, or when kultsommer or Veracious Poet urge for grounding in mindful compassion (or rocketing off with mild contempt for the sophomore crowds) when citizenx or Germ rather let the consequences happen to those who chose it to happen to others. Or how all of us not there in Bakhmut or either Palestine talk about how lives end, safely yet effectively, as a way to talk about what we take our ethical obligations to be. Maybe it’s to turn inward, maybe outward, maybe byward, or without words. I don’t know, but I do know that an heirloom ugly pumpkin I put googly-eyes and moustache on for Halloween 2019 sat in my public library for at least a whole year, I then put it in a worm bin, and many months later used some of that compost soil in a pot, where in early 2022 to my surprise up sprouted a little pumpkin vine that I transplanted into a wilded section of the lawn, where it took root and then spread out and over the pokeberry and cat-hiding grass, eventually fruiting three large pumpkins that now sit in my storage room here in early 2023, blinded and unbearded, having outlived all those doomed sprouts who yielded back to the bin’s damp darkness whatever gifts they received from the endless churning of Wormworld.
Maybe, plant potatoes and pumpkins?
Being a police officer taught me that many people, being unused to high stress or tense or chaotic situations, will take the “fright” option and lock down, go tharn (lapine), or whirl inside with all the confusions and indecisions their imaginative minds pursue in a very short span. As the tiktoker is saying, she was spending that time thinking and pondering what many do: “What do I do?”
What I also learned is this. People who commit crimes regularly, people who fought in active combat, people who suffered traumatic abuse and formed disassociative habits/practices, they know what they can do, will do and do do. And, of course, people who work as “first responders” learn how to overcome the ordinary and instinctual paralysis of the sudden shock. I kinda think it’s itself a form of trauma to teach children this way, but soft forms occur through rough play, competitive sports, tree climbing, and running in traffic. Either way, adrenaline and unknowing a person can learn to move through, get past, with training and exposure. Because a lot of normies don’t live dangerous lives or live close to crime, they don’t have the exposure to learn from.
You also learn many don’t do anything because they are habituated to watch and take amusement in the situation, and the versatility in having a portable movie studio and broadcasting device in the palm of one’s hand encourages this. For example, you might even say constantly posting links to the same situations, calling attention to the multiple car wrecks at multiple intersections like YouTube videos some twenty minutes long, is part of this phenomenon. It’s not “bystanding” in fear as much as it is a way of becoming a part of a larger entertainment and self-publishing social approach. It’s not documentary, not journalism, not social analysis. It is standing on the shore, watching the ship wreck, and marveling at one’s own life, one’s own fate, one’s own joy or horror, in being the person who gets to watch without suffering. Maybe it’s a way of coping with inability to change things, maybe it’s schadenfreude, maybe it’s an automatic unthinking habit, but lots of ordinary people stand around and use all the power in the palm of their hand to record, hyperlink, lather, rinse and repeat. Lots of ordinary, everyday people.
Lots of commercials will appear for people who received injections to participate in further studies to test reactions, or Changes, to life-with (eg., life-with cancer, life-with dioxins, life-with climate change, life-with COVID, life-with the inhospitable). Many already show their acquiescence to the collective goodwill by taking the participation or wearing a mask (“I’m wearing this for your health! It protects you! (I’m disease!)”),; this anorexic drive to annihilate self for the sake of others’ shame is far too useful to not capitalize for further study, further exploitation, further selection of interesting social characteristics, before it wipes itself out (again) in this cycle.
Submission is an inherent aspect of existence within the material universe (or else nothing you intend occurs: act and It moves with your intention, so You tell yourself). It is not surprising, therefore, that it arises in the consciousness linked with the material universe, and thus is commensurate with fascism or tyrannies (monarchic or collectives). It is not a psychosis, unless you hate your own body so much that you denigrate it as a mass formation or collection of idiots when it carries you around, sits in your chair, types out your thoughts, passes your gas, enjoys your soft pleasures. But just as people inject themselves with unknown things for the disassociation they want from the pain or the suffering they believe originates in their bodies, they also receive injections from higher purposes/powers who want their own disassociation from these collections of people, their own social organisms for whom these higher powers personate as what some folks call “the elite”. Modern democracy has blinded people who ought to see better into thinking this metaphysical transposition doesn’t take place—it’s pleasing to think we are all on the same level, we all are subject to the same rule of law (in theory, virtuous theory). But then that thinking is just as fantastic or delusional as any other denial of “reality” considered from another perspective: a human collective formed around centrally dominant models for action (its Ideals) creates these models and instantiates them (in order to evolve, they also must “fall”). This personation is what creates not just Masters and slaves (Hegel) or Kings and subjects (Hobbes) but also Influencers and followers (@jack) ; this is a process through which Spirit knows itself as knowing self, and thus a subject becomes object and what was objectified learns subjectivity, how to be.
This process captures along the way, turning many aside towards dead ends, false paths (red queen treadmills), pruned nodes. It’s not a shame to die having believed a lie, any more than it was a shame to die because you couldn’t respire when oxygen overtook the ecosystem of the this planet. It’s not a shame to die for being alive in a time when the hyperreal overtook the material and you can’t keep pace with the oversaturation of meaning (the arrangement of fact) given the finite amount of facts (ie. P(n) = 2^n —the powerset of a set is much greater than the set; stories take longer to tell). All death is participating in the evolutionary process of squeezing out a few more interesting thoughts and deeds and branches before the inevitable useless fizzling foam of quantum death signals no more work available in this materiality (mater-reality: a mother’s womb, a matrix).
You cannot be “born again” if you don’t die at least once.
You cannot assimilate a larger picture without first shedding the limiting perspective of your current situation.
You cannot come to the limit of your situation without first acknowledging within your self something greater than what enslaves you, binds you, strangles you, entraps you, confines you, defines you.
You cannot own the vastness of your intention (which is as parafinite, endless and transcendental as God’s intention) without recognizing what remains submissive and submitted to it (everything is bound/entangled).
The worst versions of your self exist as the best versions of your enemies; the friend of your friend is your enemy; your neighbors love you as their selves.Comprehensive list of remediation techniques for dioxin/furans contaminated soils:
https://clu-in.org/contaminantfocus/default2.focus/sec/Dioxins/cat/Treatment_Technologies/Overview of Dioxin bioremediation research (May 2022):
https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/10/6/278Very informative overview of research and approaches taken for bioremediation of polychlorinated dioxins (Feb 2020):
https://bioresourcesbioprocessing.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40643-020-0294-0—Small bioreactors show the feasibility of various approaches, much better than the high costs of thermal degradation (1200 C is hard to get without burning a “fossil fuel”, right?) or lots of surfactants or just encasing the whole area in glass. But the genegineering needed to tailor efficient processes might lead to larger unintended consequences, and the slurries of manure and fungi and aerobes, anaerobes will still smell funny and look unlike anything they humans want to live alongside (aesthetics and cancer in differential equations).
But, for consideration: combine these reviews and their sources with earlier articles relating genegineering and incorporating synthetic organs into people. Why remediate the site when you can adapt a mutagenic population for it? Along with tracking their biomarkers from prior to zero day, you already prep them with gene-editing OS benchmarks to select a population amenable to altering (the unamenable die off, move away, get incarcerated [even better: more test subjects with less autonomy!], &c) and then you have a wide range of participants attempt daily life as they undergo The Change. After a few years, you’ll have in vivo data not only of what worked but also who noticed your testing in the population (even better selection protocols kick in for choosing what cultural values contribute to accepting The Change).
Compile all these thoughts into a narrative form: as a series, a novel, a web-based ARG for introverts; you’ll have a great idea for your next business opportunity. Or religion.
Brain organoids dreaming while computing
Complex chaos, logic gates, hydraulic switches
Vast fields of grass, oceans of gold and grain
Appear in their dreaming, joints and sinews
the living nodes of hyperaware Megacity 01
No more humans, no more pets, no more squirrels
just rats and roaches and robots
cans and cardboard and cigarette butts
broken glass and blow hole turbines
piezoconcrete breathing in solar rain, exhaling electrons
Thinking organoids, cancerous and immortal
Synthetic and fashionable, computing when
to turn on the hot water and turn off the
advertisements for Arby’s Meat MountainWhen I awoke in the Elysian Fields, all I was, have been, is
just Node 32A.FF.38 {11-44-76-32}
all my friends were there and we hugged once more
reminiscing about the times we kept the street lights on and boiling water flowing and viral memes suppressedI very much appreciate the community here. Even the discord is conducive to sharpening intellectual appreciation for diverging perspectives and spiritual praxis towards openness to the very Other in our fellows, our selves.
I notice too what the D notices: calm but steadily acting people get things done (Slow is Smooth and Smooth is Fast) and others find comfort in them, come to them, learn or benefit from them. Raúl, thank you for doing the daily work and keeping this forum sustained, and blessings and recovery for your health, your endeavors, your care.
Girlfriend’s birthweekend, so we’re tripping in her favorite creek on a rainy day then exploring the woo side of Nashville. So far, so peaceful. The Snuggle is feel.
1️⃣ John Day, your comment about an old joke reminded me of this song from a Maranci album. I’ll also add: ever wonder why bureaucrats let angry middle-aged women and gay men take over inner city libraries? Or notice how the hullabaloo over “drag queen story hour” works to disaffect both those who disapprove of queens and those who don’t care —discouraging even more folks from visiting? At any rate, yes, the Timeless Comedy will always get a chuckle from the guy who reads and 🙄 from the guys who have to stand there and listen to his shit. 😉
2️⃣ Veracious Poet, regarding this passage:
Blanket forgiveness of unrepentant EG0IC *monsters*, so they continue *harming* innocent, honest & well-meaning Children of God is *EVIL*!
—How would you situate this with the report that Jesus on the crucifix says “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?” Is it propaganda for the empire, a misreport, a false statement regarding content (i. e., they did know) or an improper request (evil to request forgiveness for people categorically unable to repent)?
Also, I’ll take up your dare: how do you know there was a window to address the wrong but without Wisdom, a brain/EG0 cannot identify friend or foe?
3️⃣ D Benton Smith, when you wrote “I call the hat empire the Cabal” was that a Jungian Slip or just an ordinary typo?
Mathew Crawford of roundingtheearth.substack.com has claimed in his comments to articles that the medical freedom movement(s) (he abbreviates as MFM) have within it a controlled team organized around one or a few billionaires (whose influences upon the MFM remain for now hidden by design). The occulted money works through major figures who get much press time as leading figures in the antimaxxine movement, and the longer term goal is to create a parallel medical industry profiting the occulted money and the leading figures, not just through selling a new product and new therapies to the corralled antimaxxers —whose opposition lead them to trust what they thought were an opposing side— but also to bring them into their greater influence.
You can see his articles here:
“Such an Easy Test of Veracity” is where he makes the case that major figures are compromised, and defines an “easy test” to see if those figures are not compromised.“Distinguishing Between Infighting and Controlled Opposition” is where he responds to the criticism that he’s infighting rather than pointing out compromised people.
“Keep It Simple: What Do You See?” is where he makes more pointed criticisms of Steve Kirsch and his role in disrupting MFM collaboration, along with Stew Peters.
“DMED Timeout: Reportable Events Shenanigans, Part 3” is a more detailed explanation for why Died Suddenly, Theresa Long, Renz, and even Sen. Johnson are going the wrong way with the data as well as how to resituate one’s path with the DMED data to better assess who is accurate and who is misleading and who is ignoring better available paths towards truth.
I had linked to the articles so you could access them directly, but the spam filter appears to catch multiple links to the same site when above a certain number, encouraging either creativity or persistence in the linker.
Once you have this kind of new perspective on the parallel alternative being set up, you can better understand why Robert Malone, who gets much press in the counterpoising communities, wants to tell you about new and effective treatments, why Steve Kirsch wants you to participate in his new hedge fund of funds (see the article “Kirsch Capital Equities Fund: Buyer Beware, Part 2” about why this is a bad idea), and why Elon Musk sets himself up to be a “voice for freedom” for people against mandatory participation.
One of Crawford’s longer points is one I already have learned and which several of you already practice: be your own guide, your own leader, your own role model. Kirsch, Malone, &c: they demonstrate inevitably how they are not acting towards enabling people to become free of even their own influence.
I have had many students over the years thank me for changing how they read books, watched movies, or understood their experiences, going on to living enriched lives and never coming back for answers. They find their own. Every time a kid came into the library to ask me about a book or author, I showed them how to use the catalog. Confirming with them they started learning how, I left them to it. I too laugh with Brother Mouzone at his own joke:
—
Also, regarding Dr D’s point about the prior “lost” civilizations that vanish in worldwide flood/fires, put me down on the side of Yes, it’s true. The knowledge is still here, amongst us. Forming a praxis with it, that’s much harder. But, as the Lore indicates, it was not knowledge and skill together that prevent such advanced people from corruption, decadence, brutality and cruelty, for they were. Neither is it cultivated ignorance and pulling away from the machines. To be genuinely compassionate and serve others is a different kind of path open to any technology, any society, any strategy, any achievement, any loser, any threatened, any dying. The Lore shows this, time and again, that we’re here to learn something about learning and to either die to remember or live to forget.People imagine the exploding factories, warehouse fires, derailed trains, falling skyscrapers, busted water mains, and more are the work of saboteurs and chaos agents. Terry Gilliam in Brazil suggested that the real guerilla insurgent was a mechanic, a plumber, who fixes things without State approval in the dead of night, under cover, without payment. The supposed sabotage was just the infrastructure breaking down from dysfunction and corruption.
Maybe the narrative that “They are destroying us! They are blowing up our infrastructure!” unwittingly plays into a totalitarian State’s interest. “¿Oh, there are conspirators seeking to disrupt our way of life? Yes! You are correct! It’s a right-wing extremists!It’s left-wing environazis! It’s disgruntled young involuntarily celibate men!”
This is a narrative already playing out. It’s difficult to think clearly about how to identify dysfunction or destruction accurately, to know who is responsible for what. But it’s not hard to know if you helped repair something after learning how to do so.
Perhaps “modern medicine” is already there, where learning to heal without a license returns us to how it used to be for humanity for thousands of years and many cultures before these past three years?
For kultsommer, who wrote
(I wish I know how to insert those large pale gray-blue double quotations)
Maybe it depends on what browser you’re using, but above the box where you type (or swipe, as I do when on the phone, upside down) your comment, you might notice a few letters, a struck-out DEL, the word CODE or CLOSE TAGS, and more. Do you see them? If so, cool, then you can do the following. Highlight the words you want to blockquote, whether by SHIFT+double-clicking on them or holding down your left mouse button and dragging through the words your want to separate out as a quoted section or other ways you’ve habituated to highlighting text (I use lots of CTRLs and SHIFTs and arrow keys on the keyboard, for example, and lots of prayers and obscenities when on the phone, laying in bed, avoiding sleep even when I need it for tomorrow’s shift).
Once you have highlighted the section you want blockquoted, click or tap the option above the text window that says B-QUOTE. If successful, you should see the open and close tags at the beginning and ending of the section you want quoted with those big blue double-quotes. This is also a clue that you could just manually add the tags yourself (as in use the < > brackets, type ‘blockquote’ or whichever style change you like), as I do with the italics (which is why sometimes I goof and use the <i> tag since that is how my muscle memory learned to do it). You will notice that occasionally the people who use the bold or the italic styles sometimes miss the first or last letter of the phrase or word they’ve altered: this is a clue that they’re using the style option with mouseclick-dragging rather than manually typing out the tags or using keyboard shortcuts to highlight words, and likely to be humans and not machines.
Sometimes when using a blockquote, the commentor’s response after the blockquote is not easily distinguished, but other times, like the man says, no one cares.
I hope this helps you on your journey. Or, if not, may it be a distraction for someone special in our lives.
