Sustainability
A conservative dictum co-opted by ideologues who imagine it as a progressive novelty. They do not seem to notice their conspicuous change of political lanes, likely because their fragile partisan identity could not manage the blow.
Highly desired by supply management firms and lobbyists, who use it as a means for control.
Sustainability is not inherently a political issue, which is why we should challenge those who insist party lines are the most appropriate way to manage conscientiousness. If the politicization of sustainability is legitimate, then it is up to the speaker to justify this framing.
Everyone cares about the sustainability of systems that generate prosperity, retiring those that have outlived their utility, and the creation of a promising few that appear to have potential. The contention is not the topic itself, rather it pertains to how we identify which systems fall into which category. The pressure comes not from the pretention, but from the parsimony.
There are enough arguments and evidence to justify most positions in their own respect, which means that this parsing is best decided first by articulating or establishing moderate values, and then using them to assess the quality of each system. This is a delicate process not only due to the temporal sensitivity of such assessments, but it demands that we are capable of identifying our values.
Human values exist, and while we may disagree on their respective validity due to how prolific they are in any given moment, pretending that we share nothing in common excuses you from the conversation. Making sustainability political implies that third parties who benefit from dividing us know what is best for us while insisting we have nothing in common. This is a bad game.
Our duty as ordinary citizens are therefore twofold: to establish common values at regular intervals so we remain agile when confronted by the problems of an unpredictable world, and to safeguard our minds from the tendency to conclude that our preferred system is pristine or wholly generative.
Every system has trade offs, and things can change quickly in very dramatic ways. It is the sustainability of human ingenuity and cooperation that needs to be prioritized if we stand a chance at contending with the fallout of our past, present and future.
See: POLITICS, LEFT VERSUS RIGHT
Posted: 13 Feb 2023
Statistics
A collection of numbers pretending to be facts, frequently used as evidence for a claim, that provide no insight into how anything actually works.
Statistics are currently being used to support ‘data driven’ modelling so powerful entities can pursue their own motives while sounding deferential and transparent.
An opportunity for the inexperienced to be part of important conversations. By referencing or citing a statistic, the speaker attains the status of a participant in matters they do not understand.
For the initiated, it is clear that numbers are a plaything of the motivated mind - they can be used to support or oppose virtually anything the author demands. The author decides which data is collected or omitted, which categories exist as well as their parameters, and which clarifying or obfuscating framings are present. It is due to these factors that, while presented as disinterested non-fiction, statistics are far more often accurately described as contrived fan-fiction.
Beyond the motivations of the statisticians themselves, we have to contend with the motivations of their peddlers. Statistics are the motherlode of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. They are selectively raised to support a prescribed vision while ignoring or even denouncing those that contradict the peddler’s position. This dynamic will in turn magnify certain positions over others, whether the facts are salient or not; we tend to skip the verification phase of our own opinions.
Statistics can serve as a valuable repository towards the pursuit of truth, just as they can be weaponized to prey on our shortcomings if they are engineered as such.
Similar to a scientific STUDY, while they convey information, they are not a substitute for understanding. While it may be nice to be part of a conversation, it does not mean that we have anything worthwhile to contribute.
Do we fundamentally understand the issue, or are we simply regurgitating numbers to effect change?
Posted: 13 Feb 2023
Postmodernism
(1) One of the purest forms of philosophical examination that rests upon a substrate comprised of language and thought, which is precisely the problem.
A movement that alleges skepticism of reason, but ignores the fact that both language and thought are deductive processes.
A critique of ideology formulated by astute thinkers adopted by clever ideologues pretending to be critics.
Not an ideology, but is consistently paired with ideologies in order to give the appearance of rigourous thought by using philosophical terminology.
In the academy, it serves as a compelling examination of reality. In the real world, it is most frequently used for intellectual posturing and justifying the illegitimate capture of power.
Beloved by precocious students and intellectuals who have managed to avoid examining it from a different vantage point.
Postmodernism is frequently introduced as potentially referencing many things across spheres. This is done to showcase that the speaker knows how to search things on the internet. Interestingly, this prefacing is exactly the sort of thing that postmodern thinkers would deconstruct, which is very meta.
Postmodernism is immediately compromised by examining the substrate of the mind that perceives and conveys. There are certainly processes occurring that interfere with our capacity to interpret the world in an unfiltered manner, but this does not mean that everything we perceive is inaccurate or undecipherable. It also does not mean that we cannot develop tools and methodologies to assist us in filling in the gaps; patterns will emerge over time. Reality is not irreducibly complex to the point that relativism becomes coherent – there are human universals informed by shared biological histories that are both independently discoverable and unifying. In essence, the near or complete universality of some aspects of life are antithetical to the postmodern critique, despite its validity as a broad stroke.
There is also the matter that the mind that conceives it is human, and as such is sufficiently riddled with irrationalities, fallacies, and pathogens. In one way this supports the legitimacy of relativistic considerations, in another way, it characterizes the considerations themselves as unreliable as they are formulated by the same mind. The latter is conveniently answered by the necessary postmodern precept there is no natural reality, or that it is at least unknowable, which provides itself the licence to philosophize with reckless abandon while impugning any realm concerned with objectivity. Rather than consider this be an obvious indication of the fallibility of the mind that occupies this position, it is considered simply a feature of their approach that they permit themselves to build upon.
The foundation cannot be both a void and a substrate – and this is exactly when arguments about the imprecision of rhetoric will be introduced. While not generally conveying truth, the use of rhetoric that is both deductive and resonant is conveying something accurate enough that we can understand it and how it relates to the world around us. This is where postmodernism splits from serious considerations about how the world works and what comprises it. Grappling or ignoring aspects of it will generate outcomes that we find desirable or punitive in a literal sense irrespective of social context because we know things about humans.
High quality postmodern philosophy is poetic and compelling, but it has no verifying or validating criteria by design, it merely opines.
The fundamental problem is what is produced downstream of a collective that views the world through a postmodern lens. The real world does not conform to postmodern inferences, and no amount of rhetoric will change that. The world predates language.
Curiously, postmodern thinkers seem capable of deconstructing everything except their own philosophy and positions.
(2) The most common intellectual front for sexual deviants and pedophiles. An examination of its most prominent figures would confirm this.
Beyond the maladaptive sexual proclivities of its practitioners, this is perpetually on display in their rhetoric, which is accurately described as nothing more than circular intellectual masturbation. Postmodern thinkers are not to be underestimated, as they are often clever and excellent at leveraging support from naïve students, generally so they can sleep with them.
This is not to say that it is entirely void of content. Michel Foucault was a brilliant thinker and writer, and his critiques of established structures were both warranted and worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, not only do his conclusions fail to retain much coherence beyond the realm of abstract inquiry, but he is, like so many of his counterparts, easy to dismiss as a practical source of knowledge when we discover the nature of their motivations.
It is common that our philosophies flow forth from our interests and our desire to reconcile them with the world. As a result, the incidence of pedophilia and sexual deviance among postmodern thinkers, a group dedicated to the promotion of subjectivism and moral relativism, should surprise no one. Postmodern thinkers seem fundamentally preoccupied with the destruction of categories and norms so they can promote a sexual awakening in children.
Practitioners stumble to deny things they know to be true while feigning intellectual profundity using convoluted and often gnostic rhetoric.
The desire is to have a playground materialize downstream of an abstract construction where all things are permissible, provided they are the ones holding the ball.
See: INTELLECTUALS
Posted: 13 Feb 2023
Hubris
The most prolific disease in human history; the precursor to narcissism.
The pride of the gods, which is why it tastes so good.
Most prominent trait among the well-intentioned that cause the rest of us to suffer the unintended consequences of their ill-conceived proposals.
Easily identifiable among the chosen who believe themselves capable of controlling the uncontrollable. They just need more control. Examples include enlightened censorship, benevolent tyranny, and the promise that historically malevolent authoritarianism will have magically transformed into modern benign progressivism due solely to the passage of time.
Especially common among young people, which we typically call ‘immaturity’, who believe that all knowledge and wisdom conceived prior to their birth is specious, backwards, or inconsequential. This is the height of hubris: the belief that ethics and knowledge emerged in tandem with our development in the real world. Maintaining this view into adulthood constitutes a character flaw.
While hubris is present in every era, it is not equally distributed. This leads some of us to conclude that, like most failed and failing equitable approaches, a balance should be actively sought; everyone should have their fair share of hubris. Special interest groups and proponents of mental health and personal development often celebrate so-called virtues of self-love and self-confidence, which do not qualify as virtues by any metric. The goal, generally speaking, is probably more akin to self-acceptance, but this moderate position is betrayed both by their rhetoric and their political agenda.
Virtually all projects fueled by hubristic minds inevitably fail due to structural instability. Pride does not function as an effective engine for long. We may be able to collect and coerce the sympathies and support of others, but the destruction inherent to its system shall be revealed in due time. This does not pose as a deterrent to those who believe themselves chosen for a special purpose.
Those touched by God believe that they exist as an example for us to follow. Ambition’s debt must be paid, but in our realm beyond fiction, Caesar never suffers the cost. The fact that hubristic experiments are forecast to fail never slows the fervor with which they are rallied. The bodies they accumulate are ordinary in nature, far beneath the chosen, and are therefore worthy expenditures in the pursuit of failed ambitions. The life of a mere mortal is a plaything of the gods, we exist to heed the call of the hubristic mind. If we cannot be depended upon to sacrifice ourselves for the GREATER GOOD, then we shall be compelled.
Each of us are capable of producing both good and evil, but hubris alone will colour the spectrum of our conduct varying shades of virtue.
All is righteous in the mind that reveres itself.
See: DARK TRIAD, MODEST
Posted: 13 Feb 2023
Firearm
Power made tangible, portable, and transferable. The most elegant equalizer ever conceived.
Firearms are often the first thing that authoritarians seek to restrict, regulate or remove. This is unsurprising considering their capacity to instantly transform a helpless citizen into a formidable foe.
Discussions about firearms tend to focus predominantly on the objects themselves and the victims, because it is easy to exploit sympathies through the promise of regulation. The perpetrator and reality itself are rarely examined in any serious manner, because this would compel us to acknowledge individual agency and the recognition of an unpredictable world that belies our desire to prevent harm. These terrify us.
Essentially, this would make the conversation complicated at a time when our appetites demand swiftness and simplicity. Plus, politicians and special interest groups abhor complexity because it demands they possess a mental acuity that transcends shallow leveraging and lobbyist agendas.
The lethality of a firearm is not to be underestimated - all of them are weapons, and most of them are deadly. They cannot be uninvented, and they certainly possess utility, especially if we are to remind ourselves that we are part of a species that regularly seeks to dominate one another. This is generally accepted by most of us. The issue rather, is how we determine who may reasonably or justifiably own one, and this is where most people weigh in quite readily with opposing views.
Attitudes regarding gun ownership are unique relative to other rights and freedoms, if we are to consider that personal property and ownership are correctly categorized as rights, which they seem to be. These attitudes possess a strange ebb and flow across most contexts. The ebb, when the tide drains away from the shore, is characteristic of those without guns who also tend to think others should remain unarmed as well. The flow, the incoming phase when water rises again, is characteristic of gun owners who also tend to think others should have a firearm of their own as well. In many ways, this seems like normal human behaviour, but if we examine this dynamic closely, we can identify its peculiar dissolution.
If I do not possess a firearm, and I demand the same for you, then I am attempting to reduce your capacity to inflict harm. If I possess a firearm, and I demand the same for you, then I am attempting to increase your capacity to inflict harm. The former is a position of perceived safety wherein the integrity of the safety is threatened by outside forces that ought to be neutralized. The latter is a position of perceived risk whereby others are encouraged to take on additional risk as a counterbalance. One removes our teeth; the other provides us with fangs. Standardization appears to be central to both positions, but reality does not weight them equally.
While these may present as fundamentally tribalistic in nature, neither replicate the projected advantages of such schemes with any precision. The strength and protection in numbers assumed present in tribes remain unconveyed with respect to gun ownership. If I cannot protect myself, then pursuing the conformity of a tribe that is collectively incapable of defending itself provides neither strength nor protection in a world where others possess firearms. If I can protect myself, then pursuing the conformity of a tribe consisting of those who are equally capable of defending themselves has the potential to threaten the strength and protection that my firearm provides me. Tribes are not traditionally defined by our individual capacities to protect ourselves while simultaneously representing a threat to one another. This is a curious position of individualism within a broader collective framework.
In many ways, a firearm is an analogue of the human animal, insisting upon our capacity to do great harm while encouraging it remain contained until necessary. Of course, we do not need firearms to engage in malevolence, and so often the argument is then shifted to consider the ease with which someone may access one. Healthy discussions about such things do not exist, because once an exception has been made, more shall be considered in turn. This is not to mean that reasonable limits cannot exist, because many already do, rather it is simply an acknowledgment that freedom begets freedom, and control begets control. Both need to be considered given the contexts of their environments. Evidence that proves useful in guiding through such discussions certainly exists, but it is often maligned because it does not confirm either position as wholly informed. More questions need to be asked and answered.
Beyond the dynamics of gun ownership among ordinary citizens, two additional stakeholders emerge: extrajudicial citizens and governments. Whatever limits may be prescribed by law, there are citizens who refuse to abide by any restrictions that we deem reasonable. While it would be easy to categorize these citizens as criminals, this is not a fair assessment. Some citizens are law abiding and peaceful, while their only transgression is one of deviation from regulation or procedure.
Essentially, some people possess a weapon that is prohibited by law, but it is this possession alone that impugns them, not any specific action or intention. The remaining extrajudicial citizens are criminals, violators of whatever reasonable prescriptions exist with the intention of harming others, or having done so already. Both groups need to be discussed in their own rights, but it is the criminal element that tends to provide the best justifications for personal gun ownership. They fall outside of the ebb and flow; they wield power while preferring we do not, because then we are easier to victimize. The last thing a predatory criminal wants is a target packing heat.
While public servants, representatives and bureaucrats exist as citizens among us in their personal lives, they occupy a distinct position when they are at work. There are no universally-accepted prescriptions for the role of government, but most lists tend to include a monopoly on violence. This is generally understood to mean that it alone is authorized to enforce laws, which would include the application or use of force as a mechanism to carry out its duties. It alone represents the public interest in any official capacity informed by a legal system that is both just and defensible, while vigilantism is prohibited. While there are citizens who believe that only the government should possess firearms, elevated concerns are justified when our government becomes the detractor.
What sort of entity, who already has a monopoly on violence, who possesses any weapon in any amount they desire, would pursue disarming its own citizens? Keeping in mind that criminals do not abide by the law, that humans regularly seek to dominate one another, and that saints are nowhere to be found in governments - what is the argument exactly? The dynamic of ordinary citizens holding one another’s safety in their hands is transgressed in such instances.
Violence does occur though, in our neighbourhoods, schools, and homes. The trauma that families and communities experience whenever a shooting occurs is real and worthy of consideration. After all, humans are capable of the most horrible acts, but governments alone are permitted to create their own conditions under which they may lawfully commit them.
This appears to provide communities and nations with one of two unsavoury options:
1) We can manage the violence that we inflict on one another with a variety of strategies among an armed population, or
2) We can wait for the day when a criminal or government decides to inflict violence on our unarmed population.
This may present as a false dilemma, but recognition of both our nature and history confirms their salience. Strategies are numerous, but they can never eliminate violence entirely. Addressing the mental health crisis would be a good start, and this is consistently brought up by gun advocates, which is then immediately dismissed by the same opposition that professes their concerns for the marginalized while doing nothing to help them.
This does not ease our suffering when children are killed or when an active shooter murders a large number of people. Heartbreaking events such as these compel our conscience to do something, and this is typically a demand for additional restrictions or prohibitions on firearms. Unfortunately, prohibitions on firearms have never prevented criminals from getting them, which is well-known by policy-makers who pretend prohibitions reduce crime for political purposes, and is verifiably false by examining statistical data. Beyond criminals, we have the desperate and sick to contend with, and contending with them is something we ought to do. Child-safety laws are also worthy of consideration.
With respect to an unarmed population, it will be a matter of time before the corrupting nature of power and the ambitious who benefit from wielding it decide to victimize its citizens and justify it as necessary. What else could the motivations be of a government that knows it cannot effectively protect its citizens against imminent threats in a timely fashion? It is a claim that their monopoly on violence is not only absolute, but subject to a standard of efficacy that they deem appropriate. Five minutes is plenty of time to be killed in your own home, while the officer with the firearm who arrives after the fact remains alive and well. It promises an amount of control and protection that no entity can deliver on, and so it is a lie at best.
There may be a reduction in the incidence of sporadic acts of violence between citizens due to the scarcity of firearms among them, but the number of deaths committed by the state will be orders of magnitude greater by comparison when a particularly malicious despot decides it is the right time for a cleansing. Avoiding future events such as this would only be possible if we were fundamentally different animals, and while change-obsessed INTELLECTUALS defined by baseless assumptions about humanity may cause us to consider removing our teeth, fangs remain in the mouths of the vicious.
Do we prefer our violence to occur sporadically on a small scale with some degree of influence over it, or to suffer it on a genocidal scale at some point in the future when we are helpless to withstand it?
A cure for violence does not exist among us, and believing it does is for the naïve and the desperate. The pain we cause one another, and the experience of losing a loved one are certainly adequate reasons to challenge the validity and necessity of firearms in our communities. The trade-off is the introduction of a real threat that postpones the violence to a later date, one where we imagine that maybe, if things were different, we would not have lost someone.
Would we be willing to trade one life today for many in the future? It is difficult to care about the imaginary lives of future strangers, especially when the pain we experience is current and overwhelming.
Are firearms the problem? Or is this yet another symptom of our inability to accept that bad things happen, even to children, and firearms serve as a perpetually attractive alternative to holding individuals accountable for their actions? There is no shortage of threats to the well-being of our children, but we give a pass to most of these. Is this because harm caused by firearms tends to be acute and definitive, rather than chronic and provisional?
Are our demands for bans simply grasping at straws in a world that readily reminds us of how little control we have? Is the illusion that comforting?
There are no guarantees of course, only trade-offs, and what we choose may ultimately be a matter of circumstance or preference.
Nevertheless, it is a discussion worth having.
Posted: 13 Feb 2023
Anxiety
An EXPLANATION that has attained the status of an EXCUSE.
A game of control that everyone loses. The only way to win is to avoid playing entirely.
A prevailing state that causes many to torture themselves until exhaustion hoping to avoid social errors or cause offence. Those of us who have suffered with anxiety often feel compelled to make attempts at mitigating any conceivable anxieties for others, which renders them fragile and less able to manage the inherent difficulties of life. This predictably makes them even more anxious, which highlights the flaw in the strategy.
An unavoidable and ever-present feature of human existence, suggesting that its current status as an excuse for all human thoughts, emotions and conduct guarantees that we cannot be held responsible for anything. This transition, from explaining certain realities to absolving us entirely of them, illustrates a shift from human understanding to human automation.
Anxiety is part of a broader category of maladaptive psychological patterns known as neuroticism. While these patterns can be debilitating - having dramatic effects on our lives - it is worth noting that they are fundamentally egocentric. Our anxious thoughts tend to place us at the centre of all considerations. In truth, most things are not about us, and others do not view us with anywhere near the amount of esteem we anticipate. We do not occupy the thoughts of others nearly as much as we permit them to anxiously occupy ours. We are not that powerful; we are not that important.
Due to the ubiquity of anxiety, we are presented with two opportunities at dehumanizing one another. First, we can both increase the number of opportunities to generate anxiety, as well as the incidence of especially anxiety-inducing stimuli. While the economic benefits of this are evident due to a strong correlation between anxiety and consumerism, it also permits anxiety and fear to be exploited and weaponized. We are often one press of the button away from mistrusting one another because it suits the agenda of the powerful.
Second, it encourages a worldview absent free will. Although this is not raised as commonly as it used to be, if we are to accept that the totality of human experience is excused due to our innate wiring, then there is no room for agency. If we exist as mere recipients relative to external loci of control, then we are unworthy of the dignity and respect we reserve for agents with free will. Anxiety will be experienced, which we will decide needs to be addressed on compassionate grounds, and the cycle will repeat itself at the discretion of those who have decided they occupy a liberated state worthy of dictating the lives of the lesser.
While anxiety is a perfectly reasonable explanation for plenty of human behaviour, permitting it to serve as a mechanism for absolution is to relinquish any value we may possess beyond that of a marionette.
Our anxieties can generate perpetual states of disequilibrium, but they are neither fortuitous nor flogging stick. They inform and clarify, and each of us need to manage them to the best of our ability lest we get taken for a ride.
Attempting to eliminate or reduce anxiety-causing events is a bad strategy that places the fate of our emotional states in the hands of others.
Developing competence, courage and resilience makes us formidable and powerful. Previously challenging events will be transformed into minor hurdles that we step over easily on our way to the next.
Focusing on our weaknesses is inefficient and maladaptive. Developing strengths as a response to environmental stressors is efficient and adaptive.
What is simple may not be easy, but then again, nothing worthwhile ever is.
Revised: 2 Apr 2023
Active Measures
Psychological warfare. A strategy used to invade another country without the mess of physical violence or formal proclamations.
TikTok, if the vastly different content algorithmically curated for children inside China has been accurately reported.
Originally conceived as a military strategy by the USSR, it has been adopted by many other nations and is currently trending. This does not prevent people from constantly claiming its the Russians.
A real phenomenon that is actively occurring in numerous countries, which is curious considering how little it is discussed in any official capacity by our governments in any specific terms. It is possible that they have noticed that the destabilization it generates is politically useful for their own ends in the moment. If this is true, it will not last for long once the model runs its course and their enemy moves in.
These acts of aggression are so incredibly effective at dividing populations and generating fear and mistrust, some governments have begun to favour using them on their own citizens. Corporations have mastered such manipulations, compelling us to empty our bank accounts to buy a never-ending amount of garbage that we do not really want or need, while making us mentally and physically sick in the process.
Active measures, famously expounded upon by former KGB propagandist and Russian informant-turned-defector Yuri Bezmenov, were created as an extension of wartime strategies outlined in The Art of War by Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese military general and strategist. Prior to his death, Yuri explained that the purpose of active measures is:
…to change the perception of reality for a sufficient number of people so that no matter how much information is available, no one can come to reasonable conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their interest, their family, their community, or their country.
He described it as a bureaucratic policy that seeks to replicate one of the manoeuvres employed in martial arts. Rather than fight an opponent directly – using resources and suffering potential casualties, the easiest way to win a war is to avoid fighting at all. Instead, observe when there are natural forces present in a country that may generate discord or division, and use their existing momentum while amplifying their effect. Do not strike an opponent directly, wait for them to swing their fists wildly, grab their wrist when you see an opportunity, and guide their knuckles towards an actionable position – a vulnerability in their social fabric.
Do these enough times over a period of a few decades, and you can weaken an enemy’s position to a point that an invasion will be met with little resistance. This is a lengthy process, much longer than the traditional alternatives of formal declarations and battle, but its ability to preserve the stability of the expansionist nation makes it a far more elegant strategy. No lives must be lost, families will remain intact, industries avoid interruption, national identity is spared the taint of war mongering, and the financial burdens of conflict are largely avoided.
When he began to speak publicly about his former position as a propagandist in the 1980s, he stated:
War is a continuation of state policy, so if you want to successfully implement your state policy, fighting is the most idiotic way to do it. The highest art of warfare is not to fight at all, but to subvert anything of value in the country of your enemy until such time that the perception of reality of your enemy is so screwed up that he does not perceive you as an enemy. Where your systems, your civilization, your visions appear as alternatives to your enemy, if not desirable, then at least visible.
Bezmenov outlined, in detail, the four stages that comprise an assault using active measures:
Demoralization - 10-15 years
Destabilization - 2-5 years
Crisis - A few weeks
Normalization - Indefinitely
Demoralization [has been] overfulfilled in the U.S. [No one] can assess truthful information, and facts mean nothing.
Religion [is denigrated] and substituted with something else, and you replaced real organizations with fake organizations. You distract people from learning something pragmatic, efficient, and constructive. You replace real structure with fake structure, bureaucratically-controlled structures that remove responsibility from individuals. Replace social relationships with social workers who work for the bureaucracy. Replace real power and authority with fake and unelected entities who decide for you what is right and wrong. Mediocrity is established, competition is removed.
[Over time, there will be] a slow substitution of moral values. Convince everyone that they need more, they need to consume more, never less. Destroy the value of deeds, merit, and contributions, and replace it with an absence of judgment and entitlements.”
He was then asked a question about whether they have equality in the Soviet Union by an audience member, his response: ‘Equality exists in Soviet Union; everyone is equal in dirt.’
He continues to Destabilization:
“You let them do it to themselves, they will lose faith in one another and their institutions. It has a narrower application than [demoralization]. People can no longer reach reasonable compromise without conflict. Radicalization of labour and unions, and radicalization of human relations [occurs]. Normal accepted relationships are destabilized, no more acceptance of the legitimacy of demands of workers. More conflict is encouraged, which makes us look more heroic; conflict is presented as normal.
Law and courts are involved in the smallest of cases that would have otherwise been resolved peacefully and legitimately. We cannot solve our problems anymore; society becomes more and more antagonistic. The media places himself opposite the society at large, alienated. Everything in a sense becomes about rights and politics, [and] all of this leads to the creation of a crisis.”
The third stage, Crisis:
“[Crisis has been established when] nothing functions anymore. Artificial bodies are injected into society, [these are] non-elected committees, social workers, media, groups that claim they know how to lead society - they don’t, they just know how to sell their own concocted ideology, people who want power and will take it if it is not given, university graduates seeking revolution. People are looking for a savior, and strong government is usually the answer [they seek].
This leads to one of two outcomes: civil war or invasion. Civil war like in Lebanon by PLO, or invasion like Afghanistan, and in Eastern Europe. The result is the same either way - Normalization.”
Stage four, Normalization:
“[Normalization is an] ironic term meaning that the fabricated conflict and disillusionment has been eliminated. The new leaders don’t need destabilization anymore, nor radicalization, so they will be shot. You stabilize the country by force, [killing all the] liberals, homosexuals, professors, Marxists/Leninists, and social workers. The new rulers need stability to exploit the nation, to take advantage of the victory.”
With this dismal forecast outlined, the audience anxiously awaited possible solutions to prevent such an assault from coming to fruition. He offered the following on how to stop this process and prevent normalization:
“[People need to prioritize] self-restraint, which used to be the business of the church. [We need to produce] high-quality goods, [and we need] strong, brave, and conscientious citizens. Re-introduce religion - a formalized abstraction that governs our lives, that preserves and makes society move. Keep human beings intelligent moral agents of God… Ancient civilizations collapsed and disappeared from the surface of the earth the moment they lost religion; they disintegrated.”(1)
All of these prescriptions are self-evident - they are a call to embody a high moral standard that is commensurate with our existence. Self-restraint is a feature of discipline, and testing how little we need to be comfortable and fulfilled is always a worthwhile endeavour. Owning fewer things and taking exceptional care of them ostensibly acts as a treatment for the disposable culture we find ourselves in. Our fickle tastes and loyalties permit us to discard perfectly good items, and people, because we decide they no longer prove worthy. Develop competence to be strong. When we are strong, we can more easily overcome our fears so we can bravely meet the challenges of existence. Work diligently on purposeful and meaningful endeavours to embody the conscientiousness that is valued by both markets and neighbours. Our enemies are certainly doing this, so if we do not, we are bound to be left behind.
While there may some hesitation about forcing a re-integration of faith into predominantly secular cultures, having substituted an orientation towards a distinct object with ideology and humanism has had a deranging effect on the human spirit. It is possible that a high-resolution narrative absent God is possible, but it has not yet been conceived. Even if we went with God, in the current globalized climate that contrasts our religious provincialism rather starkly, which God or gods do we choose, acknowledging that their respective narratives may be impossible to reconcile?
Whether it is Russians, our own governments and elites, or private interests, the relationship is clear: the more fearful, confused and divided a population, the easier we are to manipulate, coerce and compel. Strategic goals, power and profit are much easier to accumulate when we are kept in such a state.
It is worth noting that normalization is only necessary if our aggressor is a foreign nation. Regardless of who initiated this warfare, the powerful can piggy-back on the process, and they simply oscillate between demoralization and destabilization, with periods of crisis that act as reset buttons. This is an incredibly potent tool for authoritarians, and it should be assumed that once someone is experienced enough as a social engineer, they can see the benefits of investing in this act of war.
The question then becomes: what we you going to do about it?
(1) All excerpts are from Understanding the Political Scenario of INDIA,CANADA,JAPAN,CHINA,USA, FRANCE etc, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9TviIuXPSE, posted on Jan. 9, 2020. Could not locate original airing or source.
Posted: 12 Feb 2023
Offence
A gift that is always taken, never given.
An observation that is often strategically leveraged as a valid argument.
Not an indication of truth or coherence.
Frequently at the centre of disputes about human rights, and so it needs to mediated in a sense.
Taking offence is generally interpreted as a signal that something is wrong. This is intuitive and reasonable enough, and this is precisely when most investigations end in the face of axiomatic negative emotions. Negative emotions inform us about ourselves, not about others or the world around us. We often overlook this fact rather quickly because we are predominantly focused on eliminating the source of our perceived discomfort as quickly as possible. We are overly reactionary when we perceive a threat, regardless of whether or not it is valid or appropriate. While this is demonstrably true, we frequently suggest that our negative emotions have an external genesis. It is because someone else said or did something inherently wrong or immoral. This can be the case, but it is far less common than the alternative.
This is immediately clarified by making potentially divisive or controversial statements in the presence of others. Some will react favourably to your statement, some negatively, some will remain neutral, and some will wonder why you opened your mouth in the first place. This infers that your statement does not possess any intrinsic qualities that can be categorized in a manner that is universally acceptable. Your statement conveys INFORMATION, and how each of us responds or reacts to your statement reveals something about our character in that given moment. Even when we intend on causing offence, we do not always achieve our desired outcome. This is because we are far less powerful than we would like to believe when it comes to controlling the thoughts and emotions of others.
Actions are a conspicuously different case, and while our responses will likely have less variance, the same rule applies. Even particularly antagonistic or violent acts are welcome by some, and while it may be difficult to ascertain why anyone would welcome pain or suffering, it is nevertheless the case that humans do this on occasion. There are general rules that we tend to rely upon when it comes to actions and offence, and these serve us well, but actions are fundamentally different than speech. Those who conflate violent acts with any kind of speech have either never experienced real violence, or they are attempting to pull a fast one.
Further to simple examinations about taking offence and what causes us to react in the way we do, many believe we live in a ‘culture of offence.’ While this is a matter of debate, our compassions certainly appear to be exploited on a regular basis due to someone claiming that offence has been taken. Irrespective of whether we live in such a culture, a worthwhile question could be: what would a culture of offence produce? From a game theoretical approach, BAD ACTORS will tend to feign offence if it provides them with immediate attention and remediation. In order to stay competitive, we will be encouraged to invent new ways to become offended on a regular basis, because it will provide us with unearned benefits. While this would be considered an evolutionary win, it will have a deranging effect on the rest of us as we are manipulated into tripping over ourselves while we beg for the forgiveness of malevolent souls.
Only infants should expect to have their offence remediated immediately, the rest of us need to grow up and manage them in a mature fashion.
The universe remains unsympathetic to our plights.
Posted: 25 Jan 2023
Nuremburg Code
One of the only codified lessons in history, which means it should be violated by nations at every opportunity.
An international agreement that is formally recognized by governments because it benefits them politically, but holds no weight within individual nations because none of them have adopted it as law.
The ambitious prefer to interpret history as they see fit, which typically means in a manner that justifies their aspirations. If one of the ills of history becomes officially recognized on a global scale to the point that it becomes an international agreement, then it has the potential to interfere with irresponsible governance. As a result, nations will signal their benevolence on the world stage by committing to abide by such agreements up until the point that more lucrative priorities emerge.
At the end of the Holocaust, after recognizing the unethical medical practices of German physicians, the Western world went through the effort of establishing the absoluteness of one’s right to informed consent. It then becomes immediately clear that, if coercion is present in any form with respect to medical treatments or practices, it is by definition, a violation of the Nuremburg Code.
This is troublesome when governments want the citizenry to DO OUR PART in situations when they fail to persuade us with any legitimate arguments. In these situations, the government’s position will be that the citizenry is either irresponsible, traitorous, ignorant, or disposable, and this proves that we need to be coerced through rhetoric or forced to do the right thing. We must be made to be good citizens by unscrupulous and amoral bureaucrats. This is exactly the position that the Nazis held, but this contempt for ordinary citizens is somehow discussed in conspicuously different terms in modern times. It is now described as progress, which is coincidentally exactly what the Nazis called it. Apparently, it is only evil when observed in history; if it occurs in the present, it is a necessary step done in service of the GREATER GOOD.
When Nuremburg is being transparently violated in full view of the public, something significant is happening, and it imperative that we discover it.
For your perusal, here is the Nuremburg Code:
The Nuremburg Code (1949)
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.(1)
"Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10", Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.]
(1) https://research.wayne.edu/irb/pdf/2-2-the-nuremberg-code.pdf
Posted: 25 Jan 2023
Mental Illness
A widely celebrated analogue of reality television.
A guilty pleasure that we embarrassingly support while justifying it as harmless entertainment when we fail to convince others that our pity is virtuous.
We put people with mental illness front and centre, especially on the internet, and we either admire them or tell them how stunning and brave they are. This is not for their benefit. It is a disrespectful ploy to make us feel better about our own lives.
Having a mental illness has become so trendy that many are determined to develop one just so they can be popular.
Posted: 25 Jan 2023
Hammer
A tool designed to perform a singular purpose: to drive a nail into a surface. Some have the capacity to remove nails, but they are often bent or ruined in the process.
Regardless of the conclusion, the substrate remains damaged. The nail has pierced and imbedded itself into the substrate, distorting its immediate surroundings and refusing to come loose. If the nail is removed, a hole is left in its wake. It can be filled with a variety of products, but it can never be returned to its pristine condition. A hammer is not designed to perform any others tasks, and attempt at using it in deviant ways are not likely to produce favourable results.
Some ideas are hammers, some are nails, and some are substrates. Some people are hammers, some are nails, and some are substrates. People and ideas readily move between these categories depending on their role in any given situation, and more than one can be occupied at a given time. The occupied category may not be entirely relevant on its own; we need to examine the complexities of our position relative to the others.
When we are hammers, do we want to hit nails? Or do we just do it because it is our nature? Do we just want to drive ourselves into things? Are we happy being hammers? Do we find our singular purpose consoling? Is having a singular purpose clarifying enough to mediate our existential dread to the point of contentment? Is this a salient existence, and if so, why? Do we prefer an existence shaped by another hand? To be swung at whatever the shaper desires?
When we are nails, do we want to be driven by a purpose-built object? Do we find resonance with hammers because we seem destined to be together? Is our design as a piercing object fulfilling? Does the substrate matter? Does the hammer? We are driven by a foreign object into another foreign object for a specified purpose; how do we feel about being the catalyst? What if we are being driven for no good reason at all? What if we are just being used to damage a substrate? What if the damage is the point? Do we accept that we may become irreversibly damaged when we are ripped loose from the substrate, and if so, why?
When we are the substrate, do we enjoy having nails driven into us? Are we anxiously awaiting a nail to pierce us with enough force so can we feel it deeply in our grain? If we prefer to be left pristine, why? How do we feel about hammers and nails? Do we perceive ourselves as the primary focus in this dynamic? Do we relish this attention? Do we expect to have nails driven into us? How do we feel about this? Does it depend on the nail? Does it depend on the hammer? How do we reconcile the necessary damage we receive through the imposition of a foreign object? Do we perceive hammers and nails as foreign, or are we a package deal?
Is being a tool better than being a catalyst? Or do we prefer the simplicity of being the recipient of any amount of attention?
Which state do we prefer to occupy? And what does this say about us?
Are any of these states commensurate with our humanity?
Probably not.
Posted: 25 Jan 2023
Credentials
An efficient and economical mechanism for us to benefit from the expertise of a specified class. We do not need to know how to fix a complex electrical issue in our home, nor do we need to know how to perform a heart transplant. We have electricians and doctors.
Fundamentally an attempt at controlling quality, but somewhere along the way became about dictating quality, both publicly and privately.
Someone with the appropriate credentials should be able to offer valuable insights within their respective realm that we would be incapable of discovering on our own, otherwise their credentials are largely superfluous. If someone with credentials makes claims but prefers to avoid justifying them to their audience, it is often because they cannot be bothered, they feel it is beyond our comprehension, or because they are full of shit.
This paradigm is favoured by EXPERTS and intellectuals, many of whom believe we should just take their word for it. This is a strange sort of self-referencing appeal to authority, because we are being invited to find the speaker appealing enough based on their credentials alone that we affirm their position. This is not an argument; it is a request to temporarily suspend our mental faculties so they can obtain unearned complicity and obedience. I am the expert; you should listen to me.
It could be that explanations are lengthy because the situation is complicated, and so shortcuts may be preferred, but if something is important and has serious or significant implications, then rushing through an assessment will not tend to generate high quality results.
Adults used to combine our perspectives in an attempt to reach a nuanced understanding of the complexity of human existence, then we would make our respective decisions based on the particulars of our own circumstances. Now, we are strongly encouraged to take a back seat to technocrats and experts who will establish correct and moral conduct on our behalf, and we are expected to universally implement their edicts irrespective of our unique set of factors and priorities. Apparently, credentials bestow individuals with a genius intellect, moral purity and wisdom, and a licence to govern free citizens that neither needed nor asked for their input.
While we need to decide for ourselves whether someone’s credentials are an adequate metric for determining the value of their opinion in any given situation, numerous industries have clearly caught on to the power of such accreditations. The system of credentials has been compromised - they have been gamed. They have credentials for everything now: markets and special interests have developed courses and programs specifically tailored to bolster the status of anyone with a wallet and a will to power. Create a course, charge a fee that is high enough to represent substantive value, ensure the course is long enough that it appears rigorous relative to the subject matter, and anyone can be a certified expert!
Credentials certainly have a place in modern society, and how we choose to value certain ones over others will largely depend on how well we understand the field. Additionally, if two people have earned the same credential, it certainly does not make them equal. Some people perform far beyond the expectations of what a course or program demands, yet they receive the same credentials as the rabble beneath them. The competitors that barely succeeded do not benefit from advertising their mediocrity to potential clients, and so this is withheld from us, if they know what is good for them. Fundamentally then, credentials represent a threshold of exposure to a particular set of facts or knowledge, but we remain conspicuously unaware of its details: is the bar set high, low, in the middle? There is such a great potential for variance that we ultimately need to look at the individual making the claims in order to determine if they are worthy of our time. Their credentials alone do not cut it.
Since we are taking a far more discerning approach, why concern ourselves with credentials at all? Is the quality of a claim or an argument determined in any way by someone’s credentials? Logically, of course not, but we generally expect that an expert will produce more reliable claims by default. This is an error. The power of a persuasive argument is informed by the amount and quality of evidence produced to support it; the mind or mouth that ASSERTS it is irrelevant.
Regardless of how we feel about credentials, there is one unequivocal and unavoidable pitfall present when we are examining the value and appropriateness of credentials: they are not a measure of moral character. What is the ethos behind the claim? Regulatory bodies are frequently mandated and funded by governments, and so they are beholden to the political ambitions of the reigning party. Because the motivations behind any claim remain consistently opaque, it is imperative to assess the legitimacy of claims on their own merits. Deferring to someone’s position, credentials, or education in lieu of examining the substance and evidence for an argument is incredibly dangerous for ordinary citizens. We are the ones who suffer the outcomes of this misplaced trust, those in power do not.
Beyond any specific regulatory concerns, what are the motivations of the individual? Who benefits from any downstream effects of a claim if it were to be implemented? In which ways do they benefit? These need to be known if we are to even pretend to serious about our role as democratic citizens. Do we exist to participate in governance? Or to receive edicts from experts and carry them out without question? One is certainly easier than the other, but laziness is not a virtue, neither are ignorance or obedience. Additionally, we should be suspicious of an expert who feels that the role of the citizenry is to blindly follow their instructions. What sort of person is this? They are comfortable with ordinary citizens occupying a diminished and dehumanized state of passivity, when they should be seeking to remind us of our maturity and responsibility. Such minds are unfit to heed, and we should actively seek their dismissal.
Credentials, or lack thereof, are often invoked even when no specialized or technical knowledge would be necessary to hold a position. This is done to disqualify and discredit valid arguments made by anyone who can read and formulate a reasonable claim, historically called adults.
All of the angels and demons in history have the same credentials, it is up to us to relentlessly assess all claims according to whichever ethos we have agreed should prevail.
Credentials may serve as an invitation to be heard, but they are merely a distraction when a claim is tabled.
Posted: 25 Jan 2023
Malinformation
A term used by bureaucrats with a God complex.
An admission that an institution views transparency and truth as inconveniences. This should compel us to discover exactly what their priorities are, keeping in mind that our democratic project is entirely defined and justified by the responsible management of our personal information.
Most of the information used by government institutions belongs to its citizens by definition. This is true philosophically and often legally in many countries. It includes our dates of birth, education records, medical records, employment and tax records, property ownership, vehicle registration, legal records, and any additional information that has been captured through online and offline surveillance, legal or otherwise. They also share this information at their discretion, generally because there is a provision that permits it, and these categories and both created and mandated by them. This is likely essential for governments to perform their duties, whatever they may be, but this delicate system perpetually teeters towards systemic cannibalism.
Numerous government agencies have begun to categorize information publicly, allegedly for the benefit of concerned citizens, so that we may better distinguish between reliable and unreliable information. Ignoring the condescension intrinsic to such framings, a new category has slowly become a mainstay on agency websites: malinformation.
There are slight variations in how agencies define malinformation, but for the uninitiated, generally speaking, malinformation is: information that is factual, but is considered to combat the interests of the government due to it being taken out of context. In a bulletin issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Feb 7, 2022, spreading malinformation is considered an act of terrorism caused by domestic and foreign threat actors.(1)
Or perhaps, this is being taken out of context? I suppose that may make me a terrorist then.
Most countries have existing laws that punish the unsanctioned release of national secrets and other protected and confidential information - this is not the same thing at all. We are moving in a direction where our governments can label free citizens as terrorists – stripping us of our rights without due process – for telling the truth, because it is politically inconvenient.
Who decides, after all, which context is correct? What does out of context even mean? Is this not just a matter of perspective or disagreement? Are we going to pretend that some information cannot be considered noteworthy or significant in more than one context, or according to more than one view? Most conversations occur precisely because clarity is being sought in one or more ways, and context is one of them.
Recall that most government information belongs to us, and that which does not is supposed to be collected and used in concordance with the interests of the citizenry. Even if information pertains to espionage or sensitive strategic planning, while we may not be permitted to access it, its collection is justified because it supports the nation, which is a literal representation for the interests of individual citizens. If it does not benefit us, then it benefits someone or something else, and this means that our information, mine and yours, is being used as a means to serve the interests of another. This is anti-democratic, unethical, and would constitute fraud according to most legal definitions.
The fact that such a term exists is an indication that authoritarian personalities have become brazen enough that they do not feel they need to keep their proclivities concealed. This is refreshing in a way, because it clarifies the rules of engagement for everyone. Unfortunately, we are the powerless in this relationship. Any semblance of due process and legal rights are circumvented when someone is labeled a terrorist in most countries, and so even the basic civility we reserved for the innocent until proven guilty is quickly eroded due to the cascade of bureaucratic overreach.
This is yet another example that the policing, framing and definition of information has been prioritized above transparency, debate and democratic governance.
As time goes by, our governments appear less and less concerned with representing our interests, rather, it seems that we are expected to embody theirs. Or else.
See: INFORMATION, DISINFORMATION, MISINFORMATION, POLITICS
(1) National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin - February 07, 2022, 02:00pm, The Department of Homeland Security, Issued on February 7, 2022, https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-february-07-2022
Posted: 24 Jan 2023
Disinformation
A word that confirms psychics live among us.
How someone’s intentions are ascertained in the absence of a confession remain a mystery, but this does not seem to dissuade politicians and pundits from attaching ill intent to those with which they disagree.
Perhaps one day we too can obtain the ability to define truth on a whim while simultaneously ascribing guilt to anyone with a different view.
We are blessed to have such noble overlords and FACT CHECKERS.
See: INFORMATION, MISINFORMATION, MALINFORMATION, TRUTH
Posted: 24 Jan 2023
Greater Good
An ambiguous collectivist crutch that consistently fails to deliver on the prosperous future it promises.
Vague banners of progress are meaningless rhetorical ploys designed to compel personal sacrifice in exchange for potential stability down the road. If and when these roads are paved, they will serve to consolidate wealth and power among those who already have plenty of both. The cost of the asphalt is always funded by ordinary citizens.
Statements claiming the pursuit of a ‘greater good’ serve three important functions. One, they serve as thinly-veiled threats to dissidents – if you oppose us, my followers will eliminate you on my behalf, because they believe that they are on the right side of history. Two, they instill a sense of moral superiority in the morally bankrupt – this is my opportunity to do the right thing, I will not let you take it away from me. Three, they duplicitously convey an incoherent message of unity while ironically generating division – we are all in this together, and you better not stand in our way!
Appeals to the greater good are consistently used by messianic despots to justify their amoral conduct. They will claim that they are merely behaving in a manner consistent with the laws of nature – I am no less moral than anyone else; anyone would do the same thing in my position, I am just the one who occupies the position. They do not view their contradictory journey or detours as they are, rather, they imagine them to be necessary and instrumental actions taken to align the world with their vision. They may even believe that realizing their dream is done for the collective, and the costs were necessary for the greater good.
Chasing the greater good has been known to turn even the most well-intentioned people into vile and immoral consequentialists. In the television series Blacklist, an exchange occurs between Raymond “Red” Reddington, the notorious Concierge of Crime, and Geoff “Ace” Perl, a billionaire philanthropist and conservationist, that showcases the journey, mindset and justifications made by those who claim to pursue the greater good.
In this episode, Red is attempting to track down the Mombasa Cartel, a ruthless and elusive organization responsible for the illegal poaching of endangered wildlife. Red and Geoff have known each other for years, and Red has invested millions in Geoff’s conservation efforts because they both value the environment. Red eventually discovers that Geoff runs the Mombasa Cartel, and they have the following discussion:
Red: [looking at an old picture] There you are – Sean Salter. You went by the name “Ace” back then. You left Animal Underground two years before the Sitka Seven killings and subsequent trials. Lucky, that. But, then, you’ve always had a talent for well-timed exits. Well, it seems, Ace, there’s still some freaks up there living in the woods, skinning people and dumping them in the Bay.
Geoff: Poachers, not people, responsible for the decimation of hundreds of wild and endangered species.
Red: Yes. Horrific. And if that was your endgame, I’d be writing you another sizable contribution to keep up the good work. But that isn’t the endgame, is it, Geoff? You see, before I got involved with your Foundation, I ran a comprehensive background check. All your business interests, corporations. Among them, a rather innocuous shell called “Wendigo, LLC.” Everything looked fine. Shame on me. Turns out Wendigo holds controlling stock in a small but lucrative concern called Emerson-Concorde Imports that you recently identified to a lovely young friend of mine as a front for the Mombasa Cartel.
Geoff: Why would I kill my own people?
Red: You’re a businessman. As long as you were killing off the competition, you took the opportunity to clear out deadwood in your own operation. The evidence of your guilt is convoluted but irrefutable. I simply cannot fathom the journey, the moral detours necessary to change a man who cherished all creatures great and small into one who profits from their slaughter.
Geoff: My motives have never been about profits. I have more money than I’ll ever need. And there’s been no journey, no detours. I’m the same guy I’ve always been – I’m a conservationist. And as you pointed out, I’m a businessman. I understand the law of supply and demand. As long as the market exists – and it will always exist – there will be people willing to meet the demand. It can’t be stopped. It can be controlled.
Red: A natural monopoly.
Geoff: Exactly. These cartels are completely out of control. But through a natural monopoly, the supply curve can be managed. The short-term demand can be met without threatening the long-term survival of the species.
Red: Geoff, that was breathtaking – an operatic perversion of righteous intent. But your strategy, no matter how noble the rhetoric, is betrayed and, inevitably, defined by your actions. This isn’t about conservation. It’s about consolidation. We are what we do, Ace.(1)
The interesting thing to notice here is that Red is a career criminal and murderer, yet he is the one who takes exception to Geoff’s goal of establishing a natural monopoly for illegal poaching, justified as desirable and necessary for the world. The Concierge of Crime has a stronger moral barometer than the billionaire philanthropist who has found ways to rationalize his own murder and poaching while believing himself virtuous.
This exchange highlights ten elements of messianic figures who pursue the greater good in their own right. Let’s examine them one at a time, so we can be clear on how to identify their deceitful grandiosity:
They always manage to escape accountability
“…you’ve always had a talent for well-timed exits.”
It should come as no surprise that once these dishonourable figures have adequately enriched themselves at our expense, they will quietly see their way out of the situation. This is especially common as scandals become more difficult to bury or conceal, and they will frequently find a scapegoat to take the fall for their misconduct.
They deflect attention and responsibility by demonizing another party
“Poachers, not people…”
By strategically redefining or recharacterizing others in a dehumanizing fashion, they believe they can distract you with a more imminent threat in lieu of investigating their conduct. This also provides them with relative cover – despite what you think about me, look at what those people are doing! They’re much worse than me!
They play dumb or side-step direct accusations by inferring you are being unreasonable
“Why would I kill my own people?”
Great question – why would someone kill their own people? Simple, because they are a narcissistic messianic psychopath who feels that the ends justify the means. They have a DARK TRIAD personality.
They generate layers of complexity to obfuscate our ability to form a complete picture
“The evidence of your guilt is convoluted but irrefutable.”
Commonly employed by organized crime, this is a strategy designed to make it nearly impossible to combine evidence in a clear enough manner to prosecute or prove anything beyond circumstantial. While the criminal and their offences are clear, a significant causal relationship cannot be established, as a result, they continue to offend.
They engage in regular indulgences as a justification for their grand narrative
“I simply cannot fathom the journey, the moral detours necessary to change a man who cherished all creatures great and small into one who profits from their slaughter.”
Whether they started with the knowledge that grandiose promises can never be fulfilled, or they learned it along the way, it is clear that the disconnect between idealistic rhetoric and reality is palpable. They will excuse their own sins as measured and acceptable in the face of what can be achieved in the long-term for the greater good.
They will deny that they are interested in money or power yet somehow obtain both in large quantities
“My motives have never been about profits.”
It is curious how megalomaniacs claim to be primarily focused on a universal and noble cause while they simultaneously become wealthier and more powerful than ever before. This must surely be a coincidence.
They will engage in sophistry – the use of fallacious arguments intending to deceive
“…there’s been no journey, no detours. I’m the same guy I’ve always been – I’m a conservationist.”
This is a bait and switch. While it could be argued that their message has remained consistent, the inferences have changed dramatically. When someone claims they are a conservationist, we assume that this does not imply killing animals and destroying the environment in order to protect it. The same fallacies are used when people claim that they need to destroy free speech in order to protect it, or that they need to jeopardize the health and safety of children in order to protect them.
They will insinuate that their conduct is natural, evident and expected, and that anyone would do the same in their position because it is straight-forward and simple
“I understand the law of supply and demand. As long as the market exists – and it will always exist – there will be people willing to meet the demand. It can’t be stopped. It can be controlled.”
By reducing the complexity of an issue to a single economic dynamic, every important human issue can be solved by claiming it’s just business. Human governance is not business, if and when such arguments are put forth, they are attempting to infer that if we seek to complicate it in any manner, then we are interfering with their moralistic grand narrative. We will be accused of causing harm to our fellow citizens for daring to ask a question or demand arguments and evidence that are commensurate with the significance of the issue.
They will insist that their vision is necessary for stability and flourishing, and that we need them to be in charge for the greater good
“These cartels are completely out of control. But through a natural monopoly, the supply curve can be managed. The short-term demand can be met without threatening the long-term survival of the species.”
Monopolies are always favoured by the monopolist. They believe that through them, we shall all be saved. They will show disdain for our failure to be convinced by their messianic and noble narrative. They are not doing what they want, they are doing what needs to be done; they just happen to be the one in charge.
Their actions betray their rhetoric, and they try to convince us that words speak louder than actions
“This isn’t about conservation. It’s about consolidation. We are what we do, Ace.”
If we look past their sophistry and deceptive language, it is clear that a conservationist does not knowingly destroy the environment. Words have meanings, and if we believe that a conservationist remains a conservationist despite their poaching and deforestation, then we deserve to governed by a messianic despot.
Pacifists do not kill, the compassionate do not hate, and the virtuous do not sin. Unifiers do not divide, the peaceful do not create conflict, and the modest do not believe themselves saviours. We are human at the end of the day, with all of our shortcomings and imperfections. How we describe ourselves and our intentions is irrelevant; we are what we do.
The greater good is only saliently achieved by working together to both liberate and improve our states of existence relative to our pasts. All ships can rise together, albeit rather slowly and progressively.
A political saviour claiming that they are the catalyst through which this is achieved is not to be trusted; they are duplicitous and dangerous.
(1) “The Mombasa Cartel (No. 114).” Blacklist, Bokenkamp, J. Knauf, D. (Writers), Shuman A. K. (Executive Story Editor), Platt, D. (Director), season 2, episode 6, NBC, 2014.
Posted: 24 Jan 2023
Information
A raw product. Often of unspecified origin, unverified and unclear.
The low-resolution antecedent to knowledge, which infers that if information can be controlled or modified in some way, then knowledge can be dictated.
We are exposed to more information in the modern technological age than ever before, and this has presented many with an opportunity: to determine which ingredients are available to make a cake.
There are various types of cake, each with their own ingredients, proportions, cooking time and temperature. Historically, when we wanted to make a cake, we would take one of two approaches. We would check our pantry for which ingredients we have available, and this would dictate which cake we are making, or we would decide which cake we want to make, and we would seek out the requisite ingredients from neighbours or a local merchant. Some of us enjoy dense cakes, some prefer lots of icing, some are particular to certain flavours, and some people prefer pie. Everyone enjoys their preferred dessert, and many will venture away from their preferences and consume something less than ideal, just to mix it up.
In free societies, there have not been many serious attempts to control baking needs. This is because free societies tend to be wealthy; all sorts of ingredients are widely available for most people. The odd interference by government or industry to limit access to one or more ingredients have sprung up, but the market responds and a throughway emerges. Both of these strategies are predictable human behaviour.
What is interesting is that we never seemed interested in controlling the eating habits of our neighbours, rather, we would simply engage in attempts to convey why our preferences are superior, and examine why we may prefer them. After all, we typically share the same dessert at gatherings, and we would like to have our favourite be the selection for the evening. If we can effectively convince our neighbours that our dessert is superior, and that they should care, then we can to have our way more often. This was because we were preoccupied with our respective theories of knowledge about cake – our cake epistemologies. We did not actively seek to undermine cocoa production so we could avoid having chocolate cake at another celebration, we tried to convince our friends and family to select another dessert. The game has changed.
The cake industry has become consolidated, and corporate sponsors and governments have decided that our choice of dessert determines our value as citizens. Rather than combat various preferences with their own theories of knowledge, they recognized that simply controlling the flow of certain ingredients will dictate which cakes can be made, and which cannot. We will no longer be permitted to make or consume whichever cake we would like, we are told which cakes are available. The reason why other cakes are no longer available is because they are unacceptable products. Beyond established cakes and desserts, any new recipes containing new ingredients shall be vetted in the same way. Over time, we will come to believe that the cakes we consume are the only ones that exist, or at least that they are the only acceptable ones.
In lieu of discussion and debate about the information that is freely available to everyone, they can simply control the information and sidestep having to defend their position at all. We will be rendered incapable of conceiving certain ideas because we lack access to certain information, and when serendipity occurs, it will be incredibly difficult to defend our position.
In a consolidated environment that manages information, we will be told which ingredients are nutritious or toxic, the appropriate proportions, the appropriate temperatures, and instructed on how long our cake should cook before we consume it. The desired outcome is that we will consume only whatever they claim is nutritious and nothing they claim is toxic, we will rest at the appropriate degrees of temperament that we are told are acceptable, and we will consume our cakes as quickly as possible. Half-baked cakes will always be more desirable by governments than one that spent more time in the oven so it could reach a more cohesive and coherent state.
The interest in policing, framing, and defining information in the modern technological age has given rise to new terminology that the powerful hope we integrate into how we perceive the world. We are much easier to manage when we are perpetually at odds with one another.
Understanding and social cohesion is impossible on our current diet. We need to diversify our appetites and have dinner with our neighbours again.
See: BAD ACTORS, DISINFORMATION, MALINFORMATION, MISINFORMATION
Posted: 21 Jan 2023
Sherlock Holmes
The most celebrated conspiracy theorist in history.
Uses deductions to reach conclusions about complex situations.
A fictional character that has won the hearts and minds of generations, yet somehow, we are to assume that if he were a real person, we should denigrate and ignore him. After all, this is how we are told to treat CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.
His dictum, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true,” has no place in the modern technological age. Now, everything is obvious, everyone knows everything, and everyone who adopts the institutional narrative is right.
It is fascinating how a fictional hero would become a universally loathed tin-foil hat-wearing troll if he were to magically become a real person.
This hypothetically profound juxtaposition does not seem to inform any of us of how FOOLISH we have become.
Posted: 15 Jan 2023
Laboratory Mice
Mus musculus, also known as the house mouse, is the most common species used in scientific research. They are the subject of numerous experiments designed to glean insights, produce evidence, justify goals, and constitute worthy sacrifices in pursuit of the GREATER GOOD. This is similar to how estate elites view house humans.
Laboratory mice are considered a model species due to their anatomical, physiological, and genetic similarity to humans. There are species that more closely approximate human biology, but they are either too large, too expensive to keep, or it would be unethical to use them in research, if we are to consider that using any animal would be ethical under any circumstances. Regardless of our position, mice and rats are used in most cases, but do they adequately serve as a model species? That is a matter of debate, and our views will likely vary depending on the research, especially when it comes to safety.
It is probable that the more significant the product, the more significant our caution. For behavioural research, the insights on offer might be compelling, and we are likely to accept them as mindful or amusing. There are no specific products involved for the most part in such experiments. When consumer products are the focus, there may be some amount of caution present. Whatever is deemed safe enough to be sold to the public at their discretion or leisure will produce varied results. Each of us have our own unique combination of priorities, interests, biases, susceptibilities, risk-taking proclivities, personal limitations and strengths, and disposal income that inform our spending habits. We would prefer that we receive value that is commensurate with expenditure, but we accept that when we are purchasing something because we want it, anything can happen.
What if the stakes were significantly higher? What if we were running experiments to determine drug safety and efficacy? Our caution should be at the highest when it comes to medications that doctors are prescribing that may be used to treat or save the lives of our loved ones, especially children. We expect that only the most highly scrutinized research will be permitted to generate these allegedly safe and effective products that we give to our children. Are mice sufficient test subjects? Even if we believe them to be, what if there was something wrong with the mice that compromised the entire enterprise? What if this knowledge was publicly available to both doctors and pharmaceutical companies, but nothing was done about it? What if this hypothesis served as the impetus for winning a Nobel prize years after it was discovered, and still, no investigation or correction had occurred?
Bret Weinstein, PhD in evolutionary biology, author, and former professor of fourteen years, recants the story about how one hypothesis invertedly lead to identifying a problem with lab mice that called into question the validity of all drug safety testing:
“My awakening to the hazard of [the pharmaceutical industry]...came from something that happened to me during my graduate career.
When I was a young graduate student, I was working [as] an evolutionary biologist…[when] I became fascinated by the question of why…senescence happens. I ran into two quadrants of work. One surrounding cancer and the fact that in every cancer known, the enzyme telomerase is active. This is an enzyme that elongates a repetitive sequence at the ends of our chromosomes. At the same time, another group was working on the fact that that the erosion of our telomeres seems to cause our cells to stop reproducing, and that this was implicated in our growing decrepit with age.
I put these two things together with an evolutionary theory that already existed…called antagonistic pleiotropy…and I had a very elegant novel description of the mechanism of human aging and the reason selection tolerated it. But I ran into a problem…there was one glaring piece of evidence that did not fit my hypothesis, [and it] was that mice were known to have ultra long telomeres, but…had very short lives. Their telomeres were, in fact, ten times the length of human telomeres, which made no sense in light of my hypothesis of what the telomeres were doing, that the telomere erosion was effectively protecting us from cancers that would otherwise take us over.
I teamed up with Carol Grider…and she said that [she] thought they are ultra long, but there is something weird about the telomeres because if you order a different mouse, and you order them from Europe, then the length of the telomeres varies tremendously. She was interested enough that she started working with her graduate student and she tested my hypothesis that wild mice would not have long telomeres, and that in fact, it would be something about the breeding environment that we raised these mice in that had elongated their telomeres and confused us.
This has profound implications. The most significant of them is that these mice are presumably biased by their ultra long telomeres in a couple of different directions. One, they’re terrifically prone to tumors. In fact, one of the things Carol Grider told me in our initial phone conversation was that effectively all mice die of tumors if you give them a chance…The other thing is the reason that they would be prone to tumors according to my hypothesis was that [their] tissues have no break on their capacity for repair and so these animals are also terrifically resistant [to damage] according to this hypothesis. Any damage that doesn’t outright kill them is relatively easy for them to fix, so what that means is that they make terrible models for drug safety…If you give them a toxic drug that does not outright kill them, it may extend their lives because it functions as chemotherapy, slowing down their tumors.
I don’t think Pharma knew, if I didn’t say that already. Carol tested the hypothesis that wild mice have short telomeres and that, in fact, the long telomeres were an anomaly of the lab environment,…she and her graduate student Mike Hemann established [this]. At that point I knew that my larger hypothesis was likely right. Upon realizing that the mice that we get all come from a tiny number of sources in the U.S., it’s largely the Jax Lab in Bar Harbor, Maine, and that these mice have been distorted by their evolutionary environment, in this way that makes them terrifically prone to cancer and terrifically resistant to damage. If you use those mice in a drug safety test, what you will typically get is a clean bill of health. What that predicts is exactly what we saw in the Vioxx scandal.
…I think what may have happened is that Pharma did not know that it had mice biased in favor of its drugs, making them look safe upon discovering that we had this flaw in our drug safety system, and that, in fact, our scientific literature was polluted by this broken model. I expected there would be a scandal there, a rush to fix the problem, and that we would end up having to re-test many drugs [and that] many of them would turn out not to be safe, but that…a few years down the road we would have gotten back on track.
I tried to raise the alarm for a decade. I published my work, I attempted to call the attention of fellow scientists, doctors, journalists,...the bell wouldn’t ring. To this day I do not believe we have fixed this problem. What we done is obscure it, so the funny thing about this story and the strange punch line of it is I now see these mice re-emerge in the recent test [on COVID-19 vaccines], and that was the basis for declaring them safe for children. You know it’s odd, I find myself a whistleblower twice over in the same story, decades apart.
Watching my colleagues completely fail to take any action upon discovering that their model was broken in this very dangerous way alerted me to just how corrupt our system was. In other words, [the] careers [that] rested upon [these mice], [the] papers that would be invalidated by recognizing this hazard, [and] there were lots of knockout mice that had been built on the background of these distorted creatures. Presumably, that work would be a lot less valuable if one had to go back and re-knock out the same gene in the mouse that wasn’t distorted in this way. I don’t know if it was a conspiracy or what, but I do know that there was exactly none of the action that you would expect in light of the discovery of such a profound hazard.” (1)
The changes in lab mice that were generated by these environments might have been impossible to predict, but once it had been established and confirmed that the model species used in drug safety testing were broken, it is preposterous to continue. While taking an official position with respect to this issue would likely invite litigation to the detriment of big business and individual lives, it is the only ethical thing to do. It appears as though because it would compromise profits, careers, and the pride of the ambitious, those complicit in such a large-scale failure of due diligence are satisfied with continuing to endanger the lives of huge populations.
Public trust is earned and maintained by doing the right thing, and if some amount of trust is lost in any system due to errors such as these, then it can be earned back by correcting it as soon as possible. The fact that issues like this remain unaddressed in virtually every system is a testament to the contempt that many bureaucracies and corporations have for ordinary people. Our governments have already demonstrated they are willing to remove our ability to see our families, enter our workplaces, and attend our schools if we do not submit to taking specified treatments.
Have psychopaths have taken over our asylums?
See: DARK TRIAD
(1) DarkHorse Podcast, Bret Weinstein Speaks with Dr. Aseem Malhotra on the DarkHorse Podcast, released on Dec 31, 2022.
Posted: 15 Jan 2023
Idealism
A religious ethos turned ideological doctrine favoured by atheist socialists. The operating system of modern progressivism and authoritarian regimes.
Purports to be a modest pursuit aimed at gradual societal improvements over time, yet somehow consistently fails to have the patience for such a thing every time it is conjured.
Idealism has undergone significant transformations after generations of philosophical examination. Its current incarnation finds its origins in German Idealism of the 18th and 19th centuries. At this time, thinkers like Georg Hegel maintained that while prevailing thinking perceived the world as a reflection of the mind, each of our minds exists as a sort of crystallized fragmentation of God, temporarily occupying space in our finite body. Over time, God was gradually removed from the equation and replaced with rationalism.
Even though transcendent objects are not effectively substituted with human reason, this renovation did not fundamentally change how the system operates. German idealists were enthusiastic about reform and revolution, and they employed linguistic and conceptual ambiguity on a regular basis. Irrespective of their intentions, this encouraged sophists and despots to interpret the mind however they see fit; the mind of God, after all, had been decidedly unknowable and inaccessible. When abstractions employing a dialectical model subject to individual interpretation are integrated into reality, they invite the ambitious to justify a monopoly on authority using nothing more than linguistic persuasion and manipulation. It is a methodology for capturing and maintaining control through the dictation and definition of knowledge.
This process has become so formalized that it is reliably employed to strategically subvert whole fields of inquiry by idealistic ACTIVISTS. It is a relatively straightforward process of divide and conquer. The thinking is that, if they can control the academic epistemology of a given field, they can shape the downstream social consciousness that is traditionally informed by institutional narratives. As fields continue to be subverted, one after another, the public will become sympathetic to grievance narratives and critical theoretical approaches, which primes them to become willing recipients of socialist ideology. Once leaders and elites, who have all been educated and trained by these institutions, are ready to implement policy that supports this agenda, they will usher in the utopia.
James Lindsey has outlined this process with impressive detail during the last few years to assist us with understanding its progression.
[First, it involves] the creation or invention of a realm that doesn’t exist so you can claim to be [uncontested] experts in a field…so you will be the only one who knows how to talk about it. “We have been thinking about it a long time, we are experts, you are not.”
The desire is to usurp the mantle of credibility and authority, to take it away from the people who currently have it because they have robust methodologies, and to put it in the hands of the party apparatus that has the correct ideology. Why? [It is based on the Hegelian idea, that they possess] ‘Vernunft’ or ‘reason,’ which is superior to ‘verstand’ – ‘understanding,’ which is the low-level understanding of scientists.
The essence of this position is that the ideology is more correct and more important than whatever is gleaned from studying nature and reality in an objective sense. For Hegel, capturing knowledge production was necessary, and this was best achieved by usurping the legitimacy and credibility of existing knowledge that interfered with gnostic positions. Ideological proficiency, which Hegel called ‘science,’ is the inversion of science, a tacit example of the redefinition words necessary to sabotage the existing stability of a culture.
Hegel claimed that this is justified because those who capture this power, people like him, are more deserving than anyone else to wield such a power, because others do not understand the abstractions and complexities underpinning their revolutionary precepts. Simply put, we are not smart enough, even though we can both follow and dissect his arguments with relative ease. We would be sorely lacking the ‘Vernunft’ required to understand what is really going on in the world. We do not have the ‘gnosis,’ the special revealed wisdom, or a ‘glimpse of the divine intellect,’ which is what ideologues believe they possess.
Once the prescribed realm has been established by this anointed class, they need to find a way to infiltrate a legitimate realm and glean credibility by proximity.
[Second, they need to] blur the boundaries of a field and expand it so it can include what they would like it to. [They will] expand terms to mean more than they would mean. This makes it confusing to everyone but the initiate class, them, who are the only ones who know what is going on. It includes who gets to decipher knowledge.
Idealism is generally unwelcome in legitimate realms of inquiry because they are predominantly focused on what might be true based on reliable models, not the construction of gnostic models that fail to predict anything useful. Once the edges of a field have been rendered fuzzy enough, they will introduce their pre-packaged epistemology alongside their insistence that they alone are capable of interpreting and dictating knowledge that flows forth from this novel position.
Lastly, they need to reposition themselves and their views as equally valid in the legitimate field in order to contend with established knowledge. This is done primarily by leveraging a model of equity, and then insisting that their positions are no less part of the central field once the reorganization has occurred.
[Third, they will] wedge in a way to give preferential treatment to the selected group. Excluding the old, including the Soviet. Moving what was centered out to the margins, and moving what was marginalized to the center. [It is] ideology being used to combat legitimate epistemologies by describing them as alternative ideologies…
It will claim the field is underexamined and thus needs their contortions to be considered legitimate. It will claim that [their] arbitrary and political ideologies are robust, or that they produce robust knowledge.
Once their glaring bias and self-interest is recognized, their defenses are ready-made, just like their ideology. They will claim that bias is already present in the field, and so they must introduce their own bias to combat it. This is Hegelian synthesis, which they will justify as necessary for progress in the field. The reality is that want control of the field.
They will then make appeals to academic purity, highlighting the gnostic nature of their positions. They will not deny that bias is bad, rather, they will defend their bias as being integrated consciously, and so it is being done responsibly. The rest of the field is unaware of their bias – it has been integrated unconsciously, and is therefore irresponsible. It is the field that is doing harm and they are not even aware of it, which they will argue indicates that the scientists do not understand their own field, they only have ‘verstand.’ They have not glimpsed the divine intellect like the initiate class. The field needs them, those with ‘Vernunft.’
To take over a field, go after the sociology and anthropology around a field, seize the means of production of the sociology around a field, [and then] use this as a justification to change the field. (1)
If you notice the similarities between this approach and Soviet-style Communism, it is because Hegelian dialectical materialism was used by Karl Marx to serve as the foundation for MARXISM. This form of German idealism has undergone another transformation recently, it is known as THE SCIENCE.
Idealists believe that if they trust that something is profoundly true with a sufficiently deep amount of conviction, then it is true, or can be manifest as real, because their reason is a glimpse of the divine intellect. The proliferation of these tactics is precisely what has stirred the creation of various specializations on college campuses designed to dupe our children and empty their bank accounts. It is occurring because otherwise useless intellectuals have found a niche they can exploit in an insulated realm so they can shape culture as a downstream effect of academic enrollment. This is being done intentionally, and reading literature authored by one or more critical theorists will clarify that this is by design.
Ironically, while many academics and students claim to abhor Hitler and the Nazis, these critical approaches, especially those furthered by Herbert Marcuse, have a lot in common with their desire to create a master race – an anointed class of purists equipped with a new sensibility that would innovate human biology and establish a utopian future. It is likely that they would deny any similarities.
Despite tens of millions of dead in more than a dozen countries at the hands of idealists, utopia has yet to be seen. The magic number must be closer to one billion.
(1) All excerpts are from New Discourses podcast, What Radicalized You, James Lindsay?, released on Dec 5, 2022.
Revised: 8 Mar 2023